|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 28 2013 @ 05:54 PM EDT |
I'm not familiar with the case on X-rays so you'll have to actually identify
that one so I can fairly review.
But with the case on curing rubber,
Diehr, there is a huge difference between what was patented in that case and
what you just claimed.
Diehr involved a greater mechanical process outside
the computer - your process does not
Diehr involved an end result of a
physical product (the cured rubber) - your process does not
As for
your claim that Bilski "was not found unpatentable because it was like math" -
I'll just point to the quote I already identified:
The concept of
hedging, described in claim 1 and reduced to a mathemati-cal formula in
claim 4, is an unpatentable abstract idea, just like the algorithms at issue in
Benson and Flook.
I don't see how you can honestly claim the
sentiment you did:
But Bilski was not found unpatentable because it
was like math. It was found abstract.
Let me highlight the quote
again, slightly differently:
The concept of hedging, described in
claim 1 and reduced to a mathemati-cal formula in claim 4, is an
unpatentable abstract idea, just like the algorithms at issue in Benson and
Flook.
The Supremes clearly outlined the fact that math is
an abstract concept. And they have been quite clear with their opinion on the
patentability of math. In Mayo, when
discussing Diehr (the rubber curing patent), they clearly
stated:
The Court pointed out that the basic mathematical equation,
like a law of nature, was not patentable.
So you can argue that
Bilski was declared unpatentable because it was an abstract concept (which I
will agree with) but not because it was math (which I will not agree with) all
you like. But the reality is that math is an abstract concept.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 28 2013 @ 08:48 PM EDT |
From Diehr:
While a mathematical formula, like a law of
nature, cannot be the subject of a patent, [snip] respondents do not seek
to patent a mathematical formula, but instead seek protection for a process of
curing synthetic rubber.
Again: the Supremes re-iterate that math
itself is not patentable subject matter.
Although their process
employs a well-known mathematical equation, they do not seek to pre-empt the use
of that equation, except in conjunction with all of the other steps in their
claimed process.
The process of which includes:
The
claimed invention is a process for molding raw, uncured synthetic rubber into
cured precision products. The process uses a mold for precisely shaping the
uncured material under heat and pressure and then curing the synthetic rubber in
the mold so that the product will retain its shape and be functionally operative
after the molding is completed.
As you can see, the process also
contains a mold (physical) and the cured rubber (also
physical).
Respondents characterize their contribution to the art to
reside in the process of constantly measuring the actual temperature inside the
mold. These temperature measurements are then automatically fed into a computer
which repeatedly recalculates the cure time by use of the Arrhenius equation.
[450 U.S. 175, 179] When the recalculated time equals the actual time that has
elapsed since the press was closed, the computer signals a device to open the
press.
As identified, the process was not "do x on a computer"
it was "do x with a computer in combination with physical y to produce physical
z". To clarify the physical nature of the whole process:
Analyzing
respondents' claims according to the above statements from our cases, we think
that a physical and chemical process for molding precision synthetic rubber
products falls within the 101 categories of possibly patentable subject
matter.
And back to pure math:
We defined "algorithm"
as a "procedure for solving a given type of mathematical problem," and we
concluded that such an algorithm, or mathematical formula, is like a law of
nature, which cannot be the subject of a patent.
And if there's any
doubt as to the patentability of the math alone in
Diehr:
Arrhenius' equation is not patentable in isolation,
but when a process for curing rubber is devised which incorporates in it a more
efficient solution of the equation, that process is at the very least not barred
at the threshold by 101.
It should be crystal clear:
Pure math
processes (with nothing else) fail 101 patent eligibility!
So... at least
one of the cases you cited in an attempt to support the patent eligibility of
your process of "a math formula to calculate wages" actually shows your process
is not patent eligible.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- To quote Diehr - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 12:59 AM EDT
|
|
|
|
