|
Authored by: dio gratia on Tuesday, January 08 2013 @ 06:59 PM EST |
But you aren't equating the language used in describing it with the physical
embodiment other than for implementation verification purposes. The sign isn't
the referent.
Software source code as in the Hardware Description Language used as input to a
simulator or for synthesizing the CPU design to the transistor and wire level is
not the CPU itself or programmed cell and interconnects for your Field
Programmable Gate Array implementation. The HDL source code doesn't contain an
FPGA. It describes the FPGA's behavior at a programmed physical level.
The 'invention' is a configured FPGA, assuming that the 'design' is novel and
useful. Limiting usefulness is any required I/O enabling the CPU to transform
or reduce to another state any subject matter of the patent. There is likewise
a lack of novelty in programming (configuring) and FPGA.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 08 2013 @ 08:15 PM EST |
There is no disputing the physical cpu is physical.
The fact you can
create an abstract situation to test the logic that the CPU would be expected to
perform does not alter the fact such a test is still abstract!
You have
basically said:
CPU is physical
I can do what the CPU does in the
concept of software
Therefore software must be physical
If that's
all it took to change the abstract into the physical then the Supremes would not
have invalidated the patent in Mayo vs Prometheus.
If that was your
effort to prove the physical existence of software: Fail!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|