Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf
Page Number: 30

10 

BILSKI v. KAPPOS

STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment 

III 

I agree with the Court that the text of §101 must be the
starting point of our analysis.  As I shall explain, however,
the text must not be the end point as well. 

Pursuant  to  its  power  “[t]o  promote  the  Progress  of  . . .
useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to . . . Inventors 
the exclusive Right to their . . . Discoveries,” U. S. Const.,
Art. I,  §8,  cl. 8,  Congress  has  passed  a  series  of  patent
laws  that  grant  certain  exclusive  rights  over  certain  in-
ventions  and  discoveries  as  a  means  of  encouraging  inno-
vation.  In  the  latest  iteration,  the  Patent  Act  of  1952 
(1952 Act), Congress has provided that “[w]hoever invents
or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manu-
facture,  or  composition  of  matter,  or  any  new  and  useful
improvement  thereof,  may  obtain  a  patent  therefor,  sub-
ject  to  the  conditions  and  requirements  of  this  title,”  35 
U. S. C. §101, which include that the patent also be novel, 
§102,  and  nonobvious,  §103.    The  statute  thus  authorizes 
four  categories  of  subject  matter  that  may  be  patented:
processes,  machines,  manufactures,  and  compositions  of 
matter.  Section 101 imposes a threshold condition.  “[N]o
patent  is  available  for  a  discovery,  however  useful,  novel, 
and  nonobvious,  unless  it  falls  within  one  of  the  express 
categories of patentable subject matter.”  Kewanee Oil Co. 
v. Bicron Corp., 416 U. S. 470, 483 (1974).

Section  101  undoubtedly  defines  in  “expansive  terms”
the  subject  matter  eligible  for  patent  protection,  as  the 
statute was meant to ensure that “ ‘ingenuit[ies] receive a
liberal  encouragement.’ ”    Diamond  v.  Chakrabarty,  447 
U. S.  303,  308–309  (1980);  see  also  J. E. M. Ag  Supply, 
Inc.  v.  Pioneer  Hi-Bred  Int’l,  Inc.,  534  U. S.  124,  130 
(2001).  Nonetheless, not every new invention or discovery 
may be patented.  Certain things are “free for all to use.” 
Bonito  Boats,  Inc.  v.  Thunder  Craft  Boats,  Inc.,  489  U. S.