How does the Diamond v. Diehr case illustrate meaningful limitations?

This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.

The Diamond v. Diehr case provides an excellent example of meaningful limitations that transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The case involved a claim directed to using the Arrhenius equation in an automated rubber-molding process.

According to MPEP 2106.05(e):

“The Court evaluated additional elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time, and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products.”

This case demonstrates how integrating an abstract idea (the Arrhenius equation) with specific, practical steps can create meaningful limitations that render a claim patent-eligible.