>Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188-178; establishes that if the patent is for a particular application of an abstract idea, but not for the abstract idea itself, it may be patentable.
Worth pointing out is that the patent in Diehr claimed a method for curing rubber and contemplated a collection of specialized hardware. Not exactly pure software.
Do you know of any case other than Diehr where the Supreme Court has actually sanctioned a software patent?
Not personally, no. Other than Diehr and Flook, SCOTUS hasn't really dealt with software patents much at all. One of the dissenting justices in Bilski lamented the fact that they didn't deal with the wider issue of system and process patents, particularly as they applied to software.
Worth pointing out is that the patent in Diehr claimed a method for curing rubber and contemplated a collection of specialized hardware. Not exactly pure software.
Do you know of any case other than Diehr where the Supreme Court has actually sanctioned a software patent?