Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/450/175/
Timestamp: 2019-10-15 11:33:07
Document Index: 591958599

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 102', '§ 103', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 102', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§102', '§ 101', '§ 102', '§ 101', '§ 102', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101']

Diamond v. Diehr :: 450 U.S. 175 (1981) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 450 › Diamond v. Diehr
(b) While a mathematical formula, like a law of nature, cannot be the subject of a patent, cf. Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U. S. 63; Parker v.
Flook, 437 U. S. 54, respondents do not seek to patent a mathematical formula, but instead seek protection for a process of curing synthetic rubber. Although their process employs a well-known mathematical equation, they do not seek to preempt the use of that equation, except in conjunction with all of the other steps in their claimed process. A claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula, computer program, or digital computer. Respondents' claims must be considered as a whole, it being inappropriate to dissect the claims into old and new elements and then to ignore the presence of the old elements in the analysis. The questions of whether a particular invention meets the "novelty" requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 102 or the "nonobviousness" requirements of § 103 do not affect the determination of whether the invention falls into a category of subject matter that is eligible for patent protection under § 101. Pp. 450 U. S. 185-191.
REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and STEWART, WHITE, and POWELL, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined, post, p. 450 U. S. 193.
Respondents claim that their process ensures the production of molded articles which are properly cured. Achieving the perfect cure depends upon several factors, including the thickness of the article to be molded, the temperature of the molding process, and the amount of time that the article is allowed to remain in the press. It is possible, using well-known time, temperature, and cure relationships, to calculate by means of the Arrhenius equation [Footnote 2] when to open the press
and remove the cured product. Nonetheless, according to the respondents, the industry has not been able to obtain uniformly accurate cures, because the temperature of the molding press could not be precisely measured, thus making it difficult to do the necessary computations to determine cure time. [Footnote 3] Because the temperature inside the press has heretofore been viewed as an uncontrollable variable, the conventional industry practice has been to calculate the cure time as the shortest time in which all parts of the product will definitely be cured, assuming a reasonable amount of mold-opening time during loading and unloading. But the shortcoming of this practice is that operating with an uncontrollable variable inevitably led in some instances to overestimating the mold-opening time and overcuring the rubber, and in other instances to underestimating that time and undercuring the product. [Footnote 4]
The patent examiner rejected the respondents' claims on the sole ground that they were drawn to nonstatutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. [Footnote 5] He determined that those
steps in respondents' claims that are carried out by a computer under control of a stored program constituted nonstatutory subject matter under this Court's decision in Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U. S. 63 (1972). The remaining steps -- installing rubber in the press and the subsequent closing of the
"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. [Footnote 6] "
Analyzing respondents' claims according to the above statements from our cases, we think that a physical and chemical process for molding precision synthetic rubber products falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter. That respondents' claims involve the transformation of an article, in this case raw, uncured synthetic rubber, into a different state or thing cannot be disputed. The respondents' claims describe in detail a step-by-step method for accomplishing such, beginning with the loading of a mold with raw, uncured rubber and ending with the eventual opening of the press at the conclusion of the cure. Industrial processes such as this are the types which have historically been eligible to receive the protection of our patent laws. [Footnote 8]
Our recent holdings in Gottschalk v. Benson, supra, and Parker v. Flook, supra, both of which are computer-related, stand for no more than these long-established principles. In Benson, we held unpatentable claims for an algorithm used to convert binary code decimal numbers to equivalent pure binary numbers. The sole practical application of the algorithm was in connection with the programming of a
general purpose digital computer. We defined "algorithm" as a "procedure for solving a given type of mathematical problem," and we concluded that such an algorithm, or mathematical formula, is like a law of nature, which cannot be the subject of a patent. [Footnote 9]
Parker v. Flook, supra, presented a similar situation. The claims were drawn to a method for computing an "alarm limit." An "alarm limit" is simply a number, and the Court concluded that the application sought to protect a formula for computing this number. Using this formula, the updated alarm limit could be calculated if several other variables were known. The application, however, did not purport to explain how these other variables were to be determined, [Footnote 10] nor
Our earlier opinions lend support to our present conclusion that a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula, computer program, or digital computer. In Gottschalk v. Benson, we noted: "It is said that the decision precludes a patent for any program servicing a computer. We do not 90 hold." 409 U.S. at 409 U. S. 71. Similarly, in Parker v. Flook, we stated that "a process is not unpatentable simply because it contains a law of nature or a mathematical algorithm." 437 U.S. at 437 U. S. 590. It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection. See, e.g., 333 U. S. Seed
Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U. S. 127 (1948); Ebel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U. S. 45 (1923); Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 780 (1877) O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62 (1854); and Le Roy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156 (1853). As Justice Stone explained four decades ago:
process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter. [Footnote 12]
It has been urged that novelty is an appropriate consideration under § 101. Presumably, this argument results from the language in § 101 referring to any "new and useful" process, machine, etc. Section 101, however, is a general statement of the type of subject matter that is eligible for patent protection "subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." Specific conditions for patentability follow, and § 102 covers in detail the conditions relating to novelty. [Footnote 13]
The question, therefore, of whether a particular invention is novel is "wholly apart from whether the invention falls into a category of statutory subject matter." In re Bergy, 596 F.2d 952, 961 (CCPA 1979) (emphasis deleted). See also Nickola v. Peterson, 580 F.2d 898 (CA6 1978). The legislative history of the 1952 Patent Act is in accord with this reasoning. The Senate Report stated:
We have before us today only the question of whether respondents' claims fall within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter. We view respondents' claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products, and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula. We recognize, of course, that, when a claim recites a mathematical formula (or scientific principle or phenomenon of nature), an inquiry must be made into whether the claim is seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract. A mathematical formula, as such, is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U. S. 63 (1972), and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment. Parker v. Flook, 437 U. S. 584 (1978). Similarly, insignificant post-solution activity will not transform
an unpatentable principle into a patentable process. Ibid. [Footnote 14] To hold otherwise would allow a competent draftsman to evade the recognized limitations on the type of subject matter eligible for patent protection. On the other hand, when a claim containing a mathematical formula implements or applies that formula in a structure or process which, when considered as a whole, is performing a function which the patent laws were designed to protect (e.g., transforming or reducing an article to a different state or thing), then the claim satisfies the requirements of § 101. Because we do not view respondents' claims as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula, but rather to be drawn to an industrial process
for the molding of rubber products, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. [Footnote 15]
Before discussing the major flaws in the Court's opinion, a word of history may be helpful. As the Court recognized in Parker v. Flook, 437 U. S. 584, 437 U. S. 595 (1978), the computer industry is relatively young. Although computer technology seems commonplace today, the first digital computer capable of utilizing stored programs was developed less than 30 years ago. [Footnote 2/1] Patent law developments in response to this new technology are of even more recent vintage. The subject of legal protection for computer programs did not begin to receive serious consideration until over a decade after completion of the first programmable digital computer. [Footnote 2/2] It was 1968 before
the federal courts squarely addressed the subject, [Footnote 2/3] and 1972 before this Court announced its first decision in the area. [Footnote 2/4]
Prior to 1968, well-established principles of patent law probably would have prevented the issuance of a valid patent on almost any conceivable computer program. Under the "mental steps" doctrine, processes involving mental operations were considered unpatentable. See, e.g., In re Heritage, 32 C.C.P.A. (Pat.) 1170, 1173-1177, 150 F.2d 554, 556-558 (1945); In re Shao Wen Yuan, 38 C.C.P.A. (Pat.) 967, 972-976, 188 F.2d 377, 380-383 (1951). The mental steps doctrine was based upon the familiar principle that a scientific concept or mere idea cannot be the subject of a valid patent. See In re Bolongaro, 20 C.C.P.A. (Pat.) 845, 846-847, 62 F.2d 1059, 1060 (1933). [Footnote 2/5] The doctrine was regularly invoked to deny patents to inventions consisting primarily of mathematical formulae or methods of computation. [Footnote 2/6] It was also applied against patent claims in which a mental operation or mathematical computation was the sole novel element or inventive contribution; it was clear that patentability
could not be predicated upon a mental step. [Footnote 2/7] Under the "function of a machine" doctrine, a process which amounted to nothing more than a description of the function of a machine was unpatentable. This doctrine had its origin in several 19th-century decisions of this Court, [Footnote 2/8] and it had been consistently followed thereafter by the lower federal courts. [Footnote 2/9]
Finally, the definition of "process" announced by this Court in Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 780, 94 U. S. 787-788 (1877), seemed to indicate that a patentable process must cause a physical transformation in the materials to which the process is applied. See ante at 450 U. S. 182-184.
Concern with the patent system's ability to deal with rapidly changing technology in the computer and other fields led to the formation in 1965 of the President's Commission on the Patent System. After studying the question of computer program patentability, the Commission recommended that computer programs be expressly excluded from the coverage of the patent laws; this recommendation was based primarily upon the Patent Office's inability to deal with the administrative burden of examining program applications. [Footnote 2/10] At approximately the time that the Commission issued its report, the Patent Office published notice of its intention to prescribe guidelines for the examination of applications for patents on computer programs. See 829 Off.Gaz.Pat.Off. 865 (Aug. 16, 1966). Under the proposed guidelines, a computer program, whether claimed as an apparatus or as a process, was unpatentable. [Footnote 2/11] The Patent Office indicated, however,
that a programmed computer could be a component of a patentable process if combined with unobvious elements to produce a physical result. The Patent Office formally adopted the guidelines in 1968. See 33 Fed.Reg. 15609 (1968).
In In re Tarczy-Hornoch, 55 C.C.P.A. (Pat.) 1441, 397 F.2d 856 (1968), a divided Court of Customs and Patent Appeals overruled the line of cases developing and applying the "function of a machine" doctrine. The majority acknowledged that the doctrine had originated with decisions of this Court, and that the lower federal courts, including the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, had consistently adhered to it during the preceding 70 years. Nonetheless, the court concluded that the doctrine rested on a misinterpretation of the precedents, and that it was contrary to "the basic purposes of the patent system and productive of a range of undesirable results from the harshly inequitable to the silly." Id. at 1454, 397 F.2d at 867. [Footnote 2/12] Shortly thereafter, a similar
fate befell the "mental steps" doctrine. In In re Prater, 56 C.C.P.A. (Pat.) 1360, 415 F.2d 1378 (1968), modified on rehearing, 56 C.C.A.P. (Pat.) 1381, 415 F.2d 1393 (1969), the court found that the precedents on which that doctrine was based either were poorly reasoned or had been misinterpreted over the years. 56 C.C.P.A. (Pat.) at 1366-1372, 415 F.2d at 1382-1387. The court concluded that the fact that a process may be performed mentally should not foreclose patentability if the claims reveal that the process also may be performed without mental operations. Id. at 1374-1375, 415 F.2d at 1389. [Footnote 2/13] This aspect of the original Prater opinion was substantially undisturbed by the opinion issued after rehearing. However, the second Prater opinion clearly indicated that patent claims broad enough to encompass the operation of a programmed computer would not be rejected for lack of patentable subject matter. 56 C.C.P.A. (Pat.) at 1394, n. 29, 415 F.2d at 1403, n. 29. [Footnote 2/14]
The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals turned its attention to process claims encompassing computer programs in In re Musgrave, 57 C.C.P.A. (Pat.) 1352, 431 F.2d 882 (1970). In that case, the court emphasized the fact that Prater had done away with the mental steps doctrine; in particular, the court rejected the Patent Office's continued reliance upon the "point of novelty" approach to claim analysis. Id. at 1362, 431 F.2d at 889. [Footnote 2/15] The court also announced a new standard for evaluating process claims under § 101: any sequence of operational steps was a patentable process under § 101 as long as it was within the "technological arts." Id. at 1366-1367, 431 F.2d at 893. This standard effectively disposed of any vestiges of the mental steps doctrine remaining
after Prater and Bernhart. [Footnote 2/16] The "technological arts" standard was refined in In re Benson, 58 C.C.P.A. (Pat.) 1134, 441 F.2d 682 (1971), in which the court held that computers, regardless of the uses to which they are put, are within the technological arts for purposes of § 101. Id. at 1142, 441 F.2d at 688.
In re Benson, of course, was reversed by this Court in Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U. S. 63 (1972). [Footnote 2/17] Justice Douglas' opinion for a unanimous Court made no reference to the lower court's rejection of the mental steps doctrine or to the new technological arts standard. [Footnote 2/18] Rather, the Court clearly held that new mathematical procedures that can be conducted in old computers, like mental processes and abstract intellectual concepts, see id. at 409 U. S. 67, are not patentable processes within the meaning of § 101.
The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, in subsequent cases, began to narrow its interpretation of Benson. In In re Johnston, 502 F.2d 765 (1974), the court held that a recordkeeping machine system which comprised a programmed digital computer was patentable subject matter under § 101. Id. at 771. The majority dismissed Benson with the observation that Benson involved only process, not apparatus, claims. 502 F.2d at 771. Judge Rich dissented, arguing that to limit Benson only to process claims would make patentability turn upon the form in which a program invention was claimed. 502 F.2d at 773-774. [Footnote 2/19] The court again construed Benson as limited only to process claims in In re Noll, 545 F.2d 141 (1976), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 875 (1977); apparatus claims were governed by the court's pre-Benson conclusion that a programmed computer was structurally different from the same computer without that particular program. 545 F.2d at 148. In dissent, Judge Lane, joined by Judge Rich, argued that Benson should be read as a general proscription of the patenting of computer programs regardless of the form of the claims. 545 F.2d at 151-152. Judge Lane's interpretation of Benson was rejected by the majority
in In re Chatfield, 545 F.2d 152 (1976), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 875 (1977), decided on the same day as Noll. In that case, the court construed Benson to preclude the patenting of program inventions claimed as processes only where the claims would preempt all uses of an algorithm or mathematical formula. 545 F.2d at 156, 158-159. [Footnote 2/20] The dissenting judges argued, as they had in Noll, that Benson held that programs for general purpose digital computers are not patentable subject matter. 545 F.2d at 161.
Following Noll and Chatfield, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals consistently interpreted Benson to preclude the patenting of a program-related process invention only when the claims, if allowed, would wholly preempt the algorithm itself. One of the cases adopting this view was In re Flook, 559 F.2d 21 (1977), [Footnote 2/21] which was reversed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U. S. 584 (1978). Before this Court decided Flook, however, the lower court developed a two-step procedure for analyzing program-related inventions in light of Benson. In In re Freeman, 573 F.2d 1237 (1978), the court held that such inventions must first be examined to determine whether a mathematical algorithm is directly or indirectly claimed; if an algorithm is recited, the court must then determine whether the claim would wholly preempt that algorithm. Only if a claim satisfied both inquiries was Benson considered applicable. 573 F.2d at 1245. See also In re Toma, 575 F.2d 872, 877 (CCPA 1978).
Although the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in several post-Flook decisions held that program-related inventions were not patentable subject matter under § 101, see, e.g., In re Sarkar, 588 F.2d 1330 (1978); In re Gelnovatch, 595 F.2d 32 (1979), in general Flook was not enthusiastically received by that court. In In re Bergy, 596 F.2d 952 (1979), the majority engaged in an extensive critique of Flook, concluding that this Court had erroneously commingled "distinct statutory provisions which are conceptually unrelated." 596 F.2d at 959. [Footnote 2/23] In subsequent cases, the court construed
Flook as resting on nothing more than the way in which the patent claims had been drafted, and it expressly declined to use the method of claim analysis spelled out in that decision. The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals has taken the position that, if an application is drafted in a way that discloses an entire process as novel, it defines patentable subject matter even if the only novel element that the inventor claims to have discovered is a new computer program. [Footnote 2/24] The court interpreted Flook in this manner in its opinion in this case. See In re Diehr, 602 F.2d 982, 986-989 (1979). In my judgment, this reading of Flook -- although entirely consistent with the lower court's expansive approach to § 101 during the past 12 years -- trivializes the holding in Flook, the principle that underlies Benson, and the settled line of authority reviewed in those opinions.
In the first sentence of its opinion, the Court states the question presented as "whether a process for curing synthetic rubber . . . is patentable subject matter." Ante at 450 U. S. 177. Of course, that question was effectively answered many years ago when Charles Goodyear obtained his patent on the vulcanization process. [Footnote 2/25] The patent application filed by Diehr
As the Court reads the claims in the Diehr and Lutton patent application, the inventors' discovery is a method of constantly measuring the actual temperature inside a rubber molding press. [Footnote 2/26] As I read the claims, their discovery is an
improved method of calculating the time that the mold should remain closed during the curing process. [Footnote 2/27] If the Court's reading of the claims were correct, I would agree that they disclose patentable subject matter. On the other hand, if the Court accepted my reading, I feel confident that the case would be decided differently.
There are three reasons why I cannot accept the Court's conclusion that Diehr and Lutton claim to have discovered a new method of constantly measuring the temperature inside a mold. First, there is not a word in the patent application that suggests that there is anything unusual about the temperature reading devices used in this process -- or indeed that any particular species of temperature reading device should be used in it. [Footnote 2/28] Second, since devices for constantly
A fair reading of the entire patent application, as well as the specific claims, makes it perfectly clear that what Diehr and Lutton claim to have discovered is a method of using a digital computer to determine the amount of time that a rubber molding press should remain closed during the synthetic rubber curing process. There is no suggestion that there is anything novel in the instrumentation of the mold, in actuating a timer when the press is closed, or in automatically opening the press when the computed time expires. [Footnote 2/30] Nor does the
The essence of the claimed discovery in both cases was an algorithm that could be programmed on a digital computer. [Footnote 2/31]
In Flook, the algorithm made use of multiple process variables; in this case, it makes use of only one. In Flook, the algorithm was expressed in a newly developed mathematical formula; in this case, the algorithm makes use of a well known mathematical formula. Manifestly, neither of these differences can explain today's holding. [Footnote 2/32] What I believe
does explain today's holding is a misunderstanding of the applicants' claimed invention and a failure to recognize the critical difference between the "discovery" requirement in § 101 and the "novelty" requirement in §102. [Footnote 2/33]
The Court misapplies Parker v. Flook because, like the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, it fails to understand or completely disregards the distinction between the subject matter of what the inventor claims to have discovered -- the § 101 issue -- and the question whether that claimed discovery is in fact novel -- the § 102 issue. [Footnote 2/34] If there is not even a
claim that anything constituting patentable subject matter has been discovered, there is no occasion to address the novelty issue. [Footnote 2/35] Or, as was true in Flook, if the only concept that the inventor claims to have discovered is not patentable subject matter, § 101 requires that the application be rejected without reaching any issue under § 102; for it is irrelevant that unpatentable subject matter -- in that case, a formula for updating alarm limits -- may in fact be novel.
Proper analysis, therefore, must start with an understanding of what the inventor claims to have discovered -- or, phrased somewhat differently -- what he considers his inventive concept to be. [Footnote 2/36] It seems clear to me that Diehr and
Lutton claim to have developed a new method of programming a digital computer in order to calculate -- promptly and repeatedly -- the correct curing time in a familiar process. [Footnote 2/37] In the § 101 analysis, we must assume that the sequence of steps in this programming method is novel, unobvious, and useful. The threshold question of whether such a method is patentable subject matter remains.
If that method is regarded as an "algorithm" as that term was used in Glottschalk v. Benson, 409 U. S. 63 (1972), and in
Parker v. Flook, 437 U. S. 584 (1978), [Footnote 2/38] and if no other inventive concept is disclosed in the patent application, the question must be answered in the negative. In both Benson and Flook, the parties apparently agreed that the inventor's discovery was properly regarded as an algorithm; the holding that an algorithm was a "law of nature" that could not be
In Gottschalk v. Benson, we held that a program for the
solution by a digital computer of a mathematical problem was not a patentable process within the meaning of § 101. In Parker v. Flook, we further held that such a computer program could not be transformed into a patentable process by the addition of post-solution activity that was not claimed to be novel. That holding plainly requires the rejection of Claims 1 and 2 of the Diehr and Lutton application quoted in the Court's opinion. Ante at 450 U. S. 179-180, n. 5. In my opinion, it equally requires rejection of Claim 11, because the pre-solution activity described in that claim is admittedly a familiar part of the prior art. [Footnote 2/40]
this Court is not authorized to address. See Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. at 409 U. S. 72-73; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. at 437 U. S. 595-596. As the numerous briefs amicus curiae filed in Gottschalk v. Benson, supra, Dann v. Johnston, 425 U. S. 219 (1976), Parker v. Flook, supra, and this case demonstrate, that question is not only difficult and important, but apparently also one that may be affected by institutional bias. In each of those cases, the spokesmen for the organized patent bar have uniformly favored patentability and industry representatives have taken positions properly motivated by their economic self-interest. Notwithstanding fervent argument that patent protection is essential for the growth of the software industry, [Footnote 2/42] commentators have noted that "this industry is growing by leaps and bounds without it." [Footnote 2/43] In addition, even
some commentators who believe that legal protection for computer programs is desirable have expressed doubts that the present patent system can provide the needed protection. [Footnote 2/44]
Within the Federal Government, pattern of decision have also emerged. Gottschalk, Dann, Parker, and Diamond were not ordinary litigants -- each was serving as Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks when he opposed the availability of patent protection for a program-related invention. No doubt each may have been motivated by a concern about the ability of the Patent Office to process effectively the flood of applications that would inevitably flow from a decision that computer programs are patentable. [Footnote 2/45] The consistent concern evidenced by the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks and by the Board of Appeals of the Patent and Trademark Office has not been shared by the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, which reversed the Board in Benson, Johnston, and Flook, and was, in turn, reversed by this Court in each of those cases. [Footnote 2/46]
In my judgment, today's decision will aggravate the first concern and will not adequately allay the second. I believe both concerns would be better addressed by (1) an unequivocal holding that no program-related invention is a patentable process under § 101 unless it makes a contribution to the art that is not dependent entirely on the utilization of a computer, and (2) an unequivocal explanation that the term "algorithm" as used in this case, as in Benson and Flook, is synonymous with the term "computer program." [Footnote 2/47] Because