Digest 7:DIAMOND v. DIEHR, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) 450 U.S. 175 DIAMOND, COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS v. DIEHR ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS

U.S. Supreme Court

DIAMOND v. DIEHR, 450 U.S. 175 (1981)

450 U.S. 175

DIAMOND, COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS v. DIEHR ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS.

No. 79-1112. 

Facts: The herein private respondent Diehr, applied before the US patent office for the registration of his new processor of molding raw synthetic rubber to cured precision products. But such application was not acceded by the office on the ground that such has failed to observe the qualifications as provided by the patents office such as it is not a new invention making such a patentable product.

Issue: whether or not Diehr managed to comply with the requirements for the proper registration of his process?

Held: Yes, the Supreme Court mentioned the following:

A "process" is "an act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject-matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing. If new and useful, it is just as patentable as is a piece of machinery. . . . The machinery pointed out as suitable to perform the process may or may not be new or patentable.

Indeed the high court was persuaded that the process being asked by the private respondent to be patented complies with the requirement of the US law such as the one being applied for was not the law of nature, but the new process of treating the mold into cured precision products.

The high court ruled in favour of the respondent.