3 ms·
But then the patent would not be on the logic but the mechanical implementation. The obviousness would need to be judged on that basis. The method can be implem
by upofadown 5y ago
But then the patent would not be on the logic but the mechanical implementation. The obviousness would need to be judged on that basis. The method can be implemented using straightforward combinational logic so the single crank/cycle is a given after you have come up with the obvious method.
Back before software patents were a thing, the "math" was not patentable. Eliminating software patents will be a return to the previous status quo.
- pclmulqdq 5y agoWe have eliminated most software patents: see Alice Corp vs CLS bank. The only thing this patent covers is the physical circuit implementation, not the math.
- rrss 5y ago> The only thing this patent covers is the physical circuit implementation The claims in that patent are not limited to a physical circuit implementation. The description includes a circuit diagram as one possible embodiment of the claimed invention, but the patent covers any implementation (and the description indicates it was intended to cover instructions running on general purpose processors).