Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf
Page Number: 70

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

3 

BREYER, J., concurring in judgment 

at 589. 

Third,  while  the  machine-or-transformation  test  has 
always  been  a  “useful  and  important  clue,”  it  has  never
been the “sole test” for determining patentability.  Ante, at 
8;  see  also  ante,  at  1  (STEVENS,  J.,  concurring  in  judg-
ment);  Benson,  supra,  at  71  (rejecting  the  argument  that
“no process patent could ever qualify” for protection under 
§101  “if  it  did  not  meet  the  [machine-or-transformation] 
requirements”).  Rather, the Court has emphasized that a
process claim meets the requirements of §101 when, “con-
sidered as a whole,” it “is performing a function which the
patent laws were designed to protect (e.g., transforming or 
reducing  an  article  to  a  different  state  or  thing).”    Diehr, 
supra, at 192.  The machine-or-transformation test is thus 
an  important  example  of  how  a  court  can  determine  pat-
entability under §101, but the Federal Circuit erred in this
case by treating it as the exclusive test. 

Fourth,  although  the  machine-or-transformation  test  is 
not  the  only  test  for  patentability,  this  by  no  means  indi-
cates  that  anything  which  produces  a  “ ‘useful,  concrete, 
and  tangible  result,’ ”  State  Street  Bank  &  Trust  Co.  v. 
Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F. 3d 1368, 1373 (CA 
Fed.  1998),  is  patentable.    “[T]his  Court  has  never  made
such  a  statement  and,  if  taken  literally,  the  statement
would cover instances where this Court has held the con-
trary.”    Laboratory  Corp.  of  America  Holdings  v.  Metabo-
lite Laboratories, Inc., 548 U. S. 124, 136 (2006) (BREYER, 
J., dissenting from dismissal of certiorari as improvidently 
granted); see also, e.g., O’Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62, 117 
(1854);  Flook,  supra,  at  590.    Indeed,  the  introduction  of 
the  “useful,  concrete,  and  tangible  result”  approach  to
patentability,  associated  with  the  Federal  Circuit’s  State 
Street  decision,  preceded  the  granting  of  patents  that 
“ranged  from  the  somewhat  ridiculous  to  the  truly  ab-
surd.”  In re  Bilski,  545  F. 3d  943,  1004  (CA  Fed.  2008)
(Mayer,  J.,  dissenting)  (citing  patents  on,  inter  alia,  a