Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf
Page Number: 71

4 

BILSKI v. KAPPOS 

BREYER, J., concurring in judgment 

“method  of  training  janitors  to  dust  and  vacuum  using 
video  displays,”  a  “system  for  toilet  reservations,”  and  a 
“method of using color-coded bracelets to designate dating
status in order to limit ‘the embarrassment of rejection’ ”); 
see  also  Brief  for  Respondent  40–41,  and  n. 20  (listing
dubious patents).  To the extent that the Federal Circuit’s 
decision  in  this  case  rejected  that  approach,  nothing  in
today’s  decision  should  be  taken  as  disapproving  of  that 
determination.  See ante, at 16; ante, at 2, n. 1 (STEVENS, 
J., concurring in judgment). 

In  sum,  it  is  my  view  that,  in  reemphasizing  that  the
“machine-or-transformation”  test  is  not  necessarily  the 
sole test of patentability, the Court intends neither to de-
emphasize  the  test’s  usefulness  nor  to  suggest  that  many 
patentable processes lie beyond its reach. 

With  these  observations,  I  concur  in  the  Court’s 

judgment. 

III