View source for EB: DIAMOND v. DIEHR, 450 U.S. 175 (1981)

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki

← EB: DIAMOND v. DIEHR, 450 U.S. 175 (1981)

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

---

You can view and copy the source of this page.

==The Situation== *Diehr files a patent for a process of constantly measuring the temperature inside a mold for curing synthetic rubber, and transfers the temperature measurements into a computer that "repeatedly recalculates" the cure time using a mathematical equation which then signals a device to open the mold at the proper time. *Patent originally rejected, examiner cites prior case (Gottchalk) in regards to the unpatentable nature of computer programs *The decision was appealed, one Appeal agreed to reject the patent, the next reversed the opinion - Supreme Court steps in to make a decision ==The Decision== *Diehr's patent is valid; the subject matter is patentable. **However, it was a very slit decision (5 to 4) ==Reasoning== *The subject matter, when taken as a whole, constitutes the "transform and reduce into a different state or thing" criteria of a "process" - the subject matter clearly transforms raw rubber into cured precision products. *The patentee's do not seek to "pre-empt" the formula (Arrhenius equation), but only to get rights to its use in conjunction with all of the other steps in the claimed process. **The decision regarding the claims cannot be "altered by the fact that in several steps of the process a mathemetical equation and a programmed digital computer are used" *While a scientific truth (the Arrhenius equation) cannot be patented, "a neovel and usefulstructure created with the aid of knowledge of scientific truth may be" ==Dissenting== *The others misinterpret the claims of the patent *The others confuse patentable subject matter with novelty - see last bullet point of previous section **Diehr does not claim to have discovered anything new about the process for curing synthetic rubber **The curing process is previously known, as is the general method of continuously measuring temperature *The invention makes no contribution to the art that is not "entirely dependent upon the utilization of a computer in a familiar process" - thus, it should not be patentable

Return to EB: DIAMOND v. DIEHR, 450 U.S. 175 (1981).