Diamond v. Diehr case brief summary
450 U.S. 175 (1980)
CASE FACTS
Respondents submitted a patent claim for a process for molding raw, uncured synthetic rubber into cured precision products. Included in the claim was the use of a mathematical formula and a programmed digital computer. The patent examiner rejected respondents' claim, concluding that respondents' claim sought protection of a computer program for operating a rubber-molding process.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
![](http://ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?_encoding=UTF8&ASIN=0314147519&Format=_SL160_&ID=AsinImage&MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&WS=1&tag=httpwwwlawsch-20)
![](http://ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?_encoding=UTF8&ASIN=0314279997&Format=_SL160_&ID=AsinImage&MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&WS=1&tag=httpwwwlawsch-20)
![](http://ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?_encoding=UTF8&ASIN=0735598061&Format=_SL160_&ID=AsinImage&MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&WS=1&tag=httpwwwlawsch-20)
450 U.S. 175 (1980)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Certiorari was granted to the United
States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, which reversed a decision
of the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals and found that
respondents' patent claim for a process for curing synthetic rubber,
which included in several steps the use a mathematical formula and a
programmed digital computer, was patentable subject matter under 35
U.S.C.S. § 101.CASE FACTS
Respondents submitted a patent claim for a process for molding raw, uncured synthetic rubber into cured precision products. Included in the claim was the use of a mathematical formula and a programmed digital computer. The patent examiner rejected respondents' claim, concluding that respondents' claim sought protection of a computer program for operating a rubber-molding process.
DISCUSSION
- The court noted that respondents' claim for a physical and chemical process for molding precision synthetic rubber products fell within the 35 U.S.C.S. § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.
- The fact that respondents used a mathematical formula and programmed digital computer did not change that result.
- The only question before the court was whether respondents' claim fell within the 35 U.S.C.S. § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.
- Respondents' claim was nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and was not an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.
CONCLUSION
The Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment