Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf
Page Number: 47

Cite as:  561 U. S. ____ (2010) 

27 

STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment 

an art”);  Guthrie v.  Curlett, 10 F. 2d 725, 726 (CA2 1926) 
(method  of  abbreviating  rail  tariff  schedules,  “if  it  be
novel, is not the kind of art protected by the patent acts”); 
In re Patton, 127 F. 2d 324, 327–328 (CCPA 1942) (holding 
that  novel  “ ‘interstate  and  national  fire-fighting  system’ ” 
was not patentable because, inter alia, “a system of trans-
acting  business,  apart  from  the  means  for  carrying  out 
such  system  is  not”  an  art  within  the  meaning  of  the 
patent law, “nor is an abstract idea or theory, regardless of
its  importance  or  . . .  ingenuity”);  Loew’s  Drive-In  Thea-
tres, Inc. v. Park-In Theatres, Inc., 174 F. 2d 547, 552 (CA1
1949)  (“[A]  system  for  the  transaction  of  business,  such,
for  example,  as  the  cafeteria  system  for  transacting  the 
restaurant business . . . however novel, useful, or commer-
cially  successful  is  not  patentable  apart  from  the  means
for  making  the  system  practically  useful,  or  carrying  it
out”);  Joseph  E.  Seagram  &  Sons,  Inc.  v.  Marzall,  180 
F. 2d  26,  28  (CADC  1950)  (method  of  focus-group  testing 
for  beverages  is  not  patentable  subject  matter);  see  also 
In re  Howard,  394  F. 2d  869,  872  (CCPA  1968)  (Kirk-
patrick, J., concurring) (explaining that a “method of doing 
business”  cannot  be  patented).    Between  1790  and  1952, 
this  Court  never  addressed  the  patentability  of  business 
methods.  But  we  consistently  focused  the  inquiry  on 
whether  an  “art”  was  connected  to  a  machine  or  physical
transformation,33  an  inquiry  that  would  have  excluded 
methods of doing business. 

By the early 20th century, it was widely understood that 
a  series  of  steps  for  conducting  business  could  not  be 
patented.  A leading treatise, for example, listed “ ‘systems’ 
of  business”  as  an  “unpatentable  subjec[t].”    1  A.  Deller, 

—————— 

33 See, e.g., Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford, 214 U. S. 366, 383, 385– 
386  (1909);  The  Telephone  Cases,  126  U. S.,  at  533–537;  Cochrane,  94 
U. S., at 787–788; Burden, 15 How., at 267–268.