Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981)(Robins)

Patent upheld in USSC, voted 5-4.

Process of molding raw uncured synthetic rubber into cured precision products.

Claim industry had difficulty calculating the correct time to cure rubber.

Patent examiner rejected on the ground it wasnt USC 101. Patent appeals board agreed but court of customs and patent appeals reversed.

respondents do not seek to patent a mathematical formula, but instead seek protection for a process of curing synthetic rubber.

Just because something uses a mathematical formula, doesnt make it unpatentable.

When a claim containing a mathematical formula implements or applies the formula in a structure or process which, when considered as a whole, is performing a function which the patent laws were designed to protect ( e. g., transforming or reducing an article to a different state or thing), then the claim satisfies § 101's requirements

OPINION

Respondants hold that calcuateing the time in the mold was difficult because accurate temperatures of the mold were difficult to measure.

This lead to underestimates across the industry for cure time.

Respondants claim process is: constantly feed temperature numbers to a computer which repeatedly recalcultes cure time using Arrhenius equation.

the term “process” was not added to 35 U.S.C. § 101 until 1952, but processes were patented before that under the heading "art"

Large difference between this and Gottschalk v Benson:

• That respondents' claims involve the transformation of an article, in this case raw, uncured synthetic rubber, into a different state or thing cannot be disputed.

• Our recent holdings in Gottschalk v. Benson, supra, and Parker v. Flook, supra, both of which are computer-related, stand for no more than these long-established principles. In Benson, we held unpatentable claims for an algorithm used to convert binary code decimal numbers to equivalent pure binary numbers. The sole practical application of the algorithm was in connection with the programming of a general purpose digital computer. 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.[9]

Only up for decision is USC 101, not 102 or 103, those still are up for challenge.

Dissenting

Justice STEVENS, with whom Justice BRENNAN, Justice MARSHALL, and Justice BLACKMUN join, dissenting.

doctrine was regularly invoked to deny patents to inventions consisting primarily of mathematical formulae or methods of computation

1968, a dramatic change in the law overruled the line of cases developing and applying the “function of a machine” doctrine also overruled the mental steps doctrine.

Then new rulings in 1970