Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 
Opinion of KENNEDY, J. 

contemplated  by  Congress  .  .  .  would  frustrate  the  pur-
poses of the patent law.”  Chakrabarty, 447 U. S., at 315. 

The  machine-or-transformation  test  may  well  provide  a 
sufficient basis for evaluating processes similar to those in
the Industrial Age—for example, inventions grounded in a
physical or other tangible form.  But there are reasons to 
doubt  whether  the  test  should  be  the  sole  criterion  for 
determining  the  patentability  of  inventions  in  the  Infor-
mation  Age.  As  numerous  amicus  briefs  argue,  the  ma-
chine-or-transformation  test  would  create  uncertainty  as
to the patentability of software, advanced diagnostic medi-
cine  techniques,  and  inventions  based  on  linear  program-
ming,  data  compression,  and  the  manipulation  of  digital 
signals.  See, e.g., Brief for Business Software Alliance 24– 
25;  Brief  for  Biotechnology  Industry  Organization  et al. 
14–27;  Brief  for  Boston  Patent  Law  Association  8–15; 
Brief  for  Houston  Intellectual  Property  Law  Association 
17–22; Brief for Dolby Labs., Inc., et al. 9–10.

In the course of applying the machine-or-transformation
test  to  emerging  technologies,  courts  may  pose  questions
of  such  intricacy  and  refinement  that  they  risk  obscuring
the  larger  object  of  securing  patents  for  valuable  inven-
tions  without  transgressing  the  public  domain.    The  dis-
sent  by  Judge  Rader  refers  to  some  of  these  difficulties. 
545 F. 3d, at 1015.  As a result, in deciding whether previ-
ously  unforeseen  inventions  qualify  as  patentable  “proc-
ess[es],” it may not make sense to require courts to confine 
themselves to asking the questions posed by the machine-
or-transformation  test.    Section  101’s  terms  suggest  that
new technologies may call for new inquiries.  See Benson, 
supra, at 71 (to “freeze process patents to old technologies,
leaving no room for the revelations of the new, onrushing
technology[,] . . . is not our purpose”). 

It is important to emphasize that the Court today is not
commenting  on  the  patentability  of  any  particular  inven-