[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Software Patents

From: rjack
Subject: Re: Software Patents
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:40:02 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070604)

Bruce Lewis wrote:

That's the way software patent advocates always read it. However, there isn't any indication that the court intended to overturn its precedents.

It appears that the term “software patent” is a term that has entered
the World without benefit of the federal courts or Congress. A Google
search (admittedly not exhaustive) reveals no published court opinion
that incorporates the phrase “software patent”. Especially telling is a
search of published opinions of the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit’s
official opinions.

| "Supreme Court of the United States" "software patent" |

| "United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit" "software
patent" |

This is so because there is no such thing as a computer "software
patent". Software code in isolation is not patentable. It may only be
used as a step in conjunction with other process claims.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 makes
this point quite clear:

“Our conclusion regarding respondents' claims is not altered by the fact
that in several steps of the process a mathematical equation and a
programmed digital computer are used. . .

In contrast, the respondents here do not seek to patent a mathematical
formula. Instead, they seek patent protection for a process of curing
synthetic rubber. Their process admittedly employs a well-known
mathematical equation, but they do not seek to pre-empt the use of that
equation. Rather, they seek only to foreclose from others the use of
that equation in conjunction with all of the other steps in their
claimed process. . .

Arrhenius' equation is not patentable in isolation, but when a process
for curing rubber is devised which incorporates in it a more efficient
solution of the equation, that process is at the very least not barred
at the threshold by 101. . .

In determining the eligibility of respondents' claimed process for
patent protection under 101, their claims must be considered as a whole.
It is inappropriate to dissect the claims into old and new elements and
then to ignore the presence of the old elements in the analysis. This is
particularly true in a process claim because a new combination of steps
in a process may be patentable even though all the constituents of the
combination were well known and in common use before the combination was
made.”; Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175(1981).

Again, computer code may not be patented in isolation but only claimed when incorporated as a "step" in conjunction with other claims to form a
truly patentable process.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]