3 ms·

The novelty was using a computer to do this, which no one had done before. Prior to this invention, curing rubber was done manually. Also, from my understandin

by micks56 15y ago

The novelty was using a computer to do this, which no one had done before. Prior to this invention, curing rubber was done manually. Also, from my understanding an infinitely configurable computer and general-purpose computer aren't the same thing. Infinitely configurable means a new machine every time new software is installed, which would allow the invention to fall within the patent statutes. A general-purpose computer is not a new machine, has already been invented, and therefore trying to patent an "algorithm + GPC" would mean a patent on the algorithm, which is outside patent protection.

brlewis 15y ago
Your description of the claimed novelty differs wildly from the majority opinion in Diehr: http://brlewis.com/y/2004/diehr.htm http://brlewis.com/y/2004/diehr.htm According to the respondents, the continuous measuring of the temperature inside the mold cavity, the feeding of this information to a digital computer which constantly recalculates the cure time, and the signaling by the computer to open the press, are all new in the art.
- micks56 15y ago
  That isn't how I read the opinion. How would you describe the claimed novelty? From the first line of the opinion, "We granted certiorari to determine whether a process for curing synthetic rubber which includes in several of its steps the use of a mathematical formula and a programmed digital computer is patentable subject matter under 35 USC 101." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). Rehnquist, who wrote the majority opinion, said it right there we are talking about "formula + computer." Claim 1 of the patent itself reads, "1. A method of operating a rubber-molding press for precision molded compounds with the aid of a digital computer, comprising..." Diehr at Footnote 5. The formula is the Arrenius equation (everyone already did this), and then Diehr added a computer for continuous monitoring, calculating, and output (the novelty). Diehr themselves claimed in their arguments that their novelty to is "the continuous measuring of the temperature inside the mold cavity, the feeding of this information to a digital computer which constantly recalculates the cure time, and the signaling by the computer to open the press..." Diehr at 178-179. EDIT: You edited your previous comment to include the same line as me. It seems as though we actually agree on what was novel here.
  - brlewis 15y ago
    The continuous measuring of the temperature inside the mold cavity (without having to open the mold) distinguishes the Diehr patent from what we call a software patent. Actually, even the "using a computer to do it" part is different. Most software patents are essentially an algorithm attached to a general-purpose computer. This relationship cannot be claimed to be novel. Diehr could at least claim that their device as a whole was novel and nonobvious (though the Supreme Court case didn't examine those questions).

by micks56 15y ago

brlewis 15y ago

Your description of the claimed novelty differs wildly from the majority opinion in Diehr: http://brlewis.com/y/2004/diehr.htm http://brlewis.com/y/2004/diehr.htm According to the respondents, the continuous measuring of the temperature inside the mold cavity, the feeding of this information to a digital computer which constantly recalculates the cure time, and the signaling by the computer to open the press, are all new in the art.

micks56 15y ago
That isn't how I read the opinion. How would you describe the claimed novelty? From the first line of the opinion, "We granted certiorari to determine whether a process for curing synthetic rubber which includes in several of its steps the use of a mathematical formula and a programmed digital computer is patentable subject matter under 35 USC 101." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). Rehnquist, who wrote the majority opinion, said it right there we are talking about "formula + computer." Claim 1 of the patent itself reads, "1. A method of operating a rubber-molding press for precision molded compounds with the aid of a digital computer, comprising..." Diehr at Footnote 5. The formula is the Arrenius equation (everyone already did this), and then Diehr added a computer for continuous monitoring, calculating, and output (the novelty). Diehr themselves claimed in their arguments that their novelty to is "the continuous measuring of the temperature inside the mold cavity, the feeding of this information to a digital computer which constantly recalculates the cure time, and the signaling by the computer to open the press..." Diehr at 178-179. EDIT: You edited your previous comment to include the same line as me. It seems as though we actually agree on what was novel here.
- brlewis 15y ago
  The continuous measuring of the temperature inside the mold cavity (without having to open the mold) distinguishes the Diehr patent from what we call a software patent. Actually, even the "using a computer to do it" part is different. Most software patents are essentially an algorithm attached to a general-purpose computer. This relationship cannot be claimed to be novel. Diehr could at least claim that their device as a whole was novel and nonobvious (though the Supreme Court case didn't examine those questions).