Diamond v. Diehr (1981)
Quick Summary
The Supreme Court said: a claim is not invalid just because it uses math or software. Look at the whole process. Here, a computer-controlled method for molding rubber, using the Arrhenius equation to time the press, was patent-eligible under Section 101.
Issues
- Do patentable claims become invalid because they include mathematical formulas?
- Does using software to control a physical process bar patent protection?
Rules
- Abstract ideas or math formulas alone are not patentable.
- Software use does not, by itself, make a claim ineligible.
- Assess the process as a whole; if it transforms an article, it may be eligible.
Facts — Timeline
Image available
Arguments
Appellants (Diehr & Lutton)
- Claim covers an industrial process that cures rubber.
- Software + sensor data control the press in real time.
- When seen as a whole, the method transforms raw material.
Respondent (PTO Commissioner)
- Math formula + program = unpatentable abstract idea.
- Adding a computer should not convert it into a patentable claim.
- Protecting the claim risks monopolizing the formula.
Judgment
The Supreme Court affirmed eligibility. Claims do not become invalid just because they include a formula or software. The method, taken as a whole, applies a law of nature to transform rubber and is within Section 101.
The Court stressed not to dissect claims into old and new parts when assessing eligibility.
Ratio Decidendi
Abstract math is not patentable, but a practical process that uses math to control a physical operation can be. Eligibility is judged on the claim as a whole and its real-world transformation.
Why It Matters
- Guides courts and examiners on software-related process claims.
- Protects genuine industrial improvements that use computation.
- Sets the “process as a whole” lens for Section 101 analysis.
Key Takeaways
Math + software can be part of an eligible process.
Focus on whole-claim transformation and function.
Industrial control that cures material fits Section 101.
| Question | Court’s Answer |
|---|---|
| Are formulas patentable by themselves? | No, abstract idea. |
| Process using formula to cure rubber? | Yes, eligible. |
| Dissect claim into parts? | No, view as a whole. |
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: DIEHR = Do It Entirely, Holistic Review
- Entire Process: Look at the claim as a whole.
- Industrial Change: Rubber transforms from raw to cured.
- Math Assists: Formula helps control; it does not kill eligibility.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Whether claims using a math formula and software remain patent-eligible when they control a physical process.
Rule
Abstract ideas are not patentable, but a process that applies them to transform matter may be, viewed as a whole.
Application
The claimed method uses sensors + Arrhenius equation to time press operations and cure rubber correctly.
Conclusion
Claims are patent-eligible under Section 101.
Glossary
- Arrhenius Equation
- A formula that relates reaction rate to temperature; here, used to calculate rubber cure time.
- Section 101
- The U.S. patent law provision defining categories of patent-eligible subject matter.
- Transformative Process
- A process that changes an article to a different state or thing.
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now