Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf
Page Number: 16

12 

BILSKI v. KAPPOS 

Opinion of the Court 
Opinion of KENNEDY, J. 

until  modern  times  revives  many  of  the  previously  dis-
cussed difficulties.  See supra, at  8–9.  At the same time, 
some  business  method  patents  raise  special  problems  in 
terms of vagueness and suspect validity.  See eBay Inc. v. 
MercExchange,  L. L. C.,  547  U. S.  388,  397 
(2006)
(KENNEDY, J.,  concurring).    The  Information  Age  empow-
ers  people  with  new  capacities  to  perform  statistical
analyses and mathematical calculations with a speed and 
sophistication that enable the design of protocols for more
efficient  performance  of  a  vast  number  of  business  tasks. 
If  a  high  enough  bar  is  not  set  when  considering  patent 
applications  of  this  sort,  patent  examiners  and  courts 
could  be  flooded  with  claims  that  would  put  a  chill  on 
creative endeavor and dynamic change. 

In searching for a limiting principle, this Court’s prece-
dents  on  the  unpatentability  of  abstract  ideas  provide
useful  tools.   See  infra,  at  12–15.  Indeed,  if  the  Court  of 
Appeals  were  to  succeed  in  defining  a  narrower  category 
or  class  of  patent  applications  that  claim  to  instruct  how 
business  should  be  conducted,  and  then  rule  that  the 
category  is  unpatentable  because,  for  instance,  it  repre-
sents an attempt to patent abstract ideas, this conclusion 
might  well  be  in  accord  with  controlling  precedent.  See 
ibid.  But beyond this or some other limitation consistent
with  the  statutory  text,  the  Patent  Act  leaves  open  the
possibility that there are at least some processes that can 
be  fairly  described  as  business  methods  that  are  within
patentable subject matter under §101.

Finally,  even  if  a  particular  business  method  fits  into 
the statutory definition of a “process,” that does not mean
that  the  application  claiming  that  method  should  be 
In  order  to  receive  patent  protection,  any
granted. 
claimed  invention  must  be  novel,  §102,  nonobvious,  §103,
and  fully  and  particularly  described,  §112.    These  limita-
tions  serve  a  critical  role  in  adjusting  the  tension,  ever