are you now saying that tying an abstract idea (claim 6 math) to
an old machine (tomograph) makes a patentable method?
Nope, I am
not. And recently the Supremes have clarified that point. In Mayo they
voiced their opinion on that aspect quite clearly:
Finally, in
Benson the Court considered the patentability of a mathematical process for
converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary numbers on a
general purpose digital computer.
But it held that
simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine,
namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that
principle.
Additionally, earlier in the thread I stated the
concept:
Adding a computer to a pre-existing machine so it forms a new whole
is patent eligible under 101
That is doing more then just adding an
algorithm to a calculation device. That is adding two physical devices that
haven't been previously attached.
Adding software to a computer is
nothing more then keying in an algorithm on a calculator. Neither should ever
be considered patent eligible under 101.
The Supremes do appear to grasp
that very concept. That "software to a computer" is no different from "formula
to a calculator" and neither is patent eligible under 101. It would be an
absolute pleasure if they would explicitly state it at some point.
In
Diehr - the computer was added to the other physical components which included
the mold.
In Abele - the computer was added to the other physical
components which included the original CAT Scan device. Something had to emit
the radiation after all. So your claim that the "Board imagined" is a tad
mistaken.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
