en>ChrisGualtieri: /* Choosing encryption */General Fixes using AWB

2013-10-22T01:11:05Z

Choosing encryption: General Fixes using AWB

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:11, 22 October 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~Marvella is what you can contact her~~ but it's ~~not~~ the ~~most feminine title out~~ there. ~~Years~~ in the ~~past we moved~~ to ~~Puerto Rico~~ and ~~my family loves it~~. ~~One~~ of the ~~issues she loves most is~~ to ~~read comics~~ and ~~she~~'~~ll be starting some~~ thing ~~else alongside with~~ it. ~~For many years I~~'~~ve been working~~ as a ~~payroll clerk~~.<br><br>~~Feel free~~ to ~~surf to my web~~-~~site~~ ... [http://~~nuvem~~.tk/~~altergalactica~~/~~MarissaepDonnt~~ http://~~nuvem~~.tk]		{{Infobox SCOTUS case
			\|Litigants=Diamond v. Diehr
			\|ArgueDate=October 14
			\|ArgueYear=1980
			\|DecideDate=March 3
			\|DecideYear=1981
			\|FullName=Diamond, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks v. Diehr, et al.
			\|USVol=450
			\|USPage=175
			\|Citation=101 S. Ct. 1048; 67 L. Ed. 2d 155; 1981 U.S. LEXIS 73; 49 U.S.L.W. 4194; 209 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1
			\|Prior=Certiorari granted [445 U.S. 926]
			\|Subsequent=
			\|Holding=A machine controlled by a computer program was patentable.
			\|SCOTUS=1975-1981
			\|Majority=Rehnquist
			\|JoinMajority=Burger, Stewart, White, Powell
			\|Dissent=Stevens
			\|JoinDissent=Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun
			\|LawsApplied={{UnitedStatesCode\|35\|101}}
			}}

			'''''Diamond v. Diehr''''', {{scite\|450\|175\|1981}}, was a [[Supreme Court of the United States\|United States Supreme Court]] decision which held that controlling the execution of a physical process, by running a [[computer program]] did not preclude [[patentability]] of the invention as a whole. The high court reiterated its earlier holdings that mathematical formulas in the abstract could not be patented, but it held that the mere presence of a software element did not make an otherwise patent-eligible machine or process un-patentable. ''Diehr'' was the third member of a trilogy of Supreme Court decisions on the patent-eligibility of computer software related inventions.<ref>The other two cases were ''[[Gottschalk v. Benson]]'', 409 U.S. 63 (1972), and ''[[Parker v. Flook]]'', 437 U.S. 584 (1978). The Supreme Court's most recent decision on patent-eligibility is ''[[Bilski v. Kappos]]'', a case concerning business methods.</ref>

			== Background ==
			===The problem and its solution===
			The [[inventor]]s, [[respondent]]s, filed a [[patent application]] for a "[process] for molding raw, uncured [[synthetic rubber]] into cured precision products." The process of curing synthetic rubber depends on a number of factors including [[time]], [[temperature]] and thickness of the [[mold]]. Using the [[Arrhenius equation]] —

			<blockquote>
			<math>k = A e^{{-E_a}/{RT}}</math>
			, which may be restated as ''ln''(''v'') = ''CZ'' + ''x'' —
			</blockquote>

			it is possible to calculate when to open the press and to remove the cured, molded rubber. The problem was that there was, at the time the invention was made, no disclosed way to obtain an accurate measure of the temperature without opening the press.

			The invention solved this problem by using embedded thermocouples to constantly check the temperature, and then feeding the measured values into a computer. The computer then used the Arrhenius equation to calculate when sufficient energy had been absorbed so that the molding machine should open the press.

			===The claims===

			Independent claim 1 of the allowed patent is representative. It provides:

			1. A method of operating a rubber-molding press for precision molded compounds with the aid of a digital computer, comprising:
			*providing said computer with a data base for said press including at least, natural logarithm conversion data (ln), the activation energy constant (C) unique to each batch of said compound being molded, and a constant (x) dependent upon the geometry of the particular mold of the press,
			*initiating an interval timer in said computer upon the closure of the press for monitoring the elapsed time of said closure,
			*constantly determining the temperature (Z) of the mold at a location closely adjacent to the mold cavity in the press during molding,
			*constantly providing the computer with the temperature (Z),
			*repetitively performing in the computer, at frequent intervals during each cure, integrations to calculate from the series of temperature determinations the Arrhenius equation for reaction time during the cure, which is
			:::ln(v)=CZ+x
			:::where v is the total required cure time,
			*repetitively comparing in the computer at frequent intervals during the cure each said calculation of the total required cure time calculated with the Arrhenius equation and said elapsed time, and
			*opening the press automatically when a said comparison indicates completion of curing.''

			===Proceedings before Office and CCPA===
			The [[patent examiner]] rejected this invention as unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. He argued that the steps performed by the computer were unpatentable as a computer program under ''[[Gottschalk v. Benson]]'', 409 U.S. 63 (1972). The [[Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences]] of the [[United States Patent and Trademark Office\|USPTO]] affirmed the rejection. The [[United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals\|Court of Customs and Patent Appeals]] (CCPA), the predecessor to the current [[United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\|Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit]], reversed, noting that an otherwise patentable invention did not become unpatentable simply because a [[computer]] was involved.

			The U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for [[certiorari]] by the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks to resolve this question.

			== 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.<ref>Section 103, which concerns obviousness, states that the obviousness or non-obviousness of what is claimed to be an invention must be determined by considering whether "the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made." No comparable language is found in section 101, which has retained substantially the same form since the first patent act in 1790.</ref>

			==The patent==

			The patent that issued after the decision was {{cite patent\|US\|4344142}}, "Direct digital control of rubber molding presses." The patent includes 11 method claims, three of which are independent. All method claims relate to molding of physical articles.

			==References==
			{{Reflist}}

			==See also==
			* ''[[Gottschalk v. Benson]]'', 409 U.S. 63 (1972).

			* ''[[Parker v. Flook]]'', 437 U.S. 584 (1978).

			* ''[[Bilski v. Kappos]]'', 561 U.S. ___ (2010).

			* Research Corp. Technologies v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2010-1037 (Fed. Cir., Dec. 8, 2010).

			== External links ==
			*[http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_79_1112/argument Audio recording] of the [[oral argument]]
			*[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=450&invol=175 Opinion of the Court]


			[[Category:Software patent case law]]
			[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
			[[Category:United States patent case law]]
			[[Category:1981 in United States case law]]

90.131.236.131: /* External links */

2012-08-09T07:06:06Z

External links

New page

Marvella is what you can contact her but it's not the most feminine title out there. Years in the past we moved to Puerto Rico and my family loves it. One of the issues she loves most is to read comics and she'll be starting some thing else alongside with it. For many years I've been working as a payroll clerk.<br><br>Feel free to surf to my web-site ... [http://nuvem.tk/altergalactica/MarissaepDonnt http://nuvem.tk]

Encryption software - Revision history

en>ChrisGualtieri: /* Choosing encryption */General Fixes using AWB

90.131.236.131: /* External links */