From: Robin Felix <Robin.Felix@felixpc.delfinsd.delfin.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 17:55:46 +0800
To: "'cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: RE: math patents
Message-ID: <01BB2B22.63457780@delfinsd-gw.delfinsd>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 04/14/96 1457, jim bell may have written:
>At 09:08 AM 4/14/96 -0800, Lee Tien wrote:
>>My recollection from law
>>school is that the law was friendly to math patents in the period before
>>the Supreme Court weighed in.  There were some PTO denials, which courts
>>reversed (I think the Court of Claims heard these back then).  So I think
>>the trend was toward patenting processes even if mathematical until
>>Gottschalk v. Benson

>I seem to recall reading that one of the breakthrough "algorithm" patents
>was from the 1970's, in which a rubber-curing/molding process's cure time 
>was determined by a mathematical formula based on heat, pressure, mold 
>shape, and a number of other variables.

You're referring to Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 195 (1981).  I have a half-finished article I wrote in 1994 on software algorithm patents, about 32K, available at <http://www.delfinsd.delfin.com/felix/Algorithm_Patents.htm>.  It's the good part, the background material minus footnotes.  Although it's a bit dated, the description of foundational cases is still accurate.