Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

8 

BILSKI v. KAPPOS 

Opinion of the Court 
Opinion of KENNEDY, J. 

entability of a process claim that does not include particu-
lar  machines.”  At  the  same  time,  it  explicitly  declined  to
“hold that no process patent could ever qualify if it did not
meet  [machine  or  transformation]  requirements.”    Id.,  at 
71.  Flook  took  a  similar  approach,  “assum[ing]  that  a
valid  process  patent  may  issue  even  if  it  does  not  meet 
[the  machine-or-transformation  test].”  437  U. S.,  at  588, 
n. 9. 

This  Court’s  precedents  establish  that  the  machine-or-
transformation  test  is  a  useful  and  important  clue,  an
investigative  tool,  for  determining  whether  some  claimed 
inventions  are  processes  under  §101.  The  machine-or-
transformation  test  is  not  the  sole  test  for  deciding
whether an invention is a patent-eligible “process.” 

2 
It is true that patents for inventions that did not satisfy
the machine-or-transformation test were rarely granted in 
earlier eras, especially in the Industrial Age, as explained 
by  Judge  Dyk’s  thoughtful  historical  review.    See  545 
F. 3d, at 966–976 (concurring opinion).  But times change.
Technology  and  other  innovations  progress  in  unexpected 
ways.  For  example,  it  was  once  forcefully  argued  that 
until  recent  times,  “well-established  principles  of  patent
law probably would have prevented the issuance of a valid 
patent  on  almost  any  conceivable  computer  program.” 
Diehr,  450  U. S.,  at  195  (STEVENS,  J.,  dissenting).  But 
this  fact  does  not  mean  that  unforeseen  innovations  such 
as  computer  programs  are  always  unpatentable.    See  id., 
at  192–193  (majority  opinion)  (holding  a  procedure  for 
molding  rubber  that  included  a  computer  program  is
within  patentable  subject  matter).    Section  101  is  a  “dy-
namic  provision  designed  to  encompass  new  and  unfore-
seen  inventions.”  J. E. M. Ag  Supply,  Inc.  v.  Pioneer  Hi-
Bred  Int’l,  Inc.,  534  U. S.  124,  135  (2001).    A  categorical
rule denying patent protection for “inventions in areas not