The Supreme Court's Opinion
The court repeated its earlier holding that mathematical formulas in the abstract are not eligible for patent protection. But it also held that a physical machine or process which makes use of a mathematical algorithm is different from an invention which claims the algorithm, as such, in the abstract. Thus, if the invention as a whole meets the requirements of patentability—that is, it involves "transforming or reducing an article to a different state or thing"—it is patent-eligible, even if it includes a software component.
The reversal of the patent rejection was affirmed. But the Court carefully avoided overruling Benson or Flook. It did criticize the analytic methodology of Flook, however, by challenging its use of analytic dissection, based on Neilson v. Harford. The Diehr Court said, without citation of any supporting authority, that under section 101 the invention had to be considered as a whole.
Read more about this topic: Diamond V. Diehr
Famous quotes containing the words supreme, court and/or opinion:
“We must know, if only in order to learn not to know. The supreme lesson of human consciousness is to learn how not to know. That is, how not to interfere.”
—D.H. (David Herbert)
“In government offices which are sensitive to the vehemence and passion of mass sentiment public men have no sure tenure. They are in effect perpetual office seekers, always on trial for their political lives, always required to court their restless constituents.”
—Walter Lippmann (1889–1974)
“I have been ever of opinion that revolutions are not to be evaded.”
—Benjamin Disraeli (1804–1881)