"A person may have 'invented' a machine or a manufacture, which may include anything under the sun that is made by man, but it is not necessarily patentable under section 101 unless the conditions of [this] title are fulfilled."
"A business method is not a "process." And to the extent that there is ambiguity, we should be mindful of our judicial role. '[W]e must proceed cautiously when we are asked to extend patent rights" into an area that the Patent Act likely was not "enacted to protect' (Flook, at 596, 593), lest we create a legal regime that Congress never would have endorsed, and that can be repaired only by disturbing settled property rights."
"Patents on business methods are patents on business itself. Therefore, unlike virtually every other category of patents, they are by their very nature likely to depress the dynamism of the marketplace."
"The Constitution grants to Congress an important power to promote innovation. In its exercise of that power Congress has established an intricate system of intellectual property. The scope of patentable subject matter under that system is broad. But it is not endless. In the absence of nay clear guidance from Congress, we have only limited textual, historical, and functional clues on which to rely. Those clues all point toward the same conclusion: that petitioners' claim is not a "process" within the meaning of Section 101 because methods of doing business are not, in themselves, covered by the staute. In my view, acknowledging as much would be a far more sensible and restrained way to resolve this case. Accordingly, while I concur in the judgment, I strongly disagree with the Court's disposition of this case."
- Section 101 is broad but it is not without its limits. Therefore the Court must be careful to only protect what is within the confines to do so.
- There are a series of decisions of the Court that identifies that the machine-or-transformation test is the clue that business method are not patentable.
- Although the machine-or-transformation test is a useful clue it is not the sole test.
- Although the machine-or-transformation test is not the only test for patentability,it does not mean that anything which produces a "useful, concrete, and tangible result" is patentable.