Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-1150.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

Cite as:  566 U. S. ____ (2012) 

15 

Opinion of the Court 

invented a mode of applying it by a mechanical appa­
ratus  to  furnaces;  and  his  invention  then  consists  in 
this—by  interposing  a  receptacle  for  heated  air  be­
tween the blowing apparatus and the furnace.  In this 
receptacle he directs the air to be heated by the appli­
cation of heat externally to the receptacle, and thus he
accomplishes  the  object  of  applying  the  blast,  which
was  before  of  cold  air,  in  a  heated  state  to  the  fur­
nace.”  Neilson v. Harford, Webster’s Patent Cases, at 
371. 

Thus,  the  claimed  process  included  not  only  a  law  of
nature  but  also  several  unconventional  steps  (such  as
inserting  the  receptacle,  applying  heat  to  the  receptacle
externally,  and  blowing  the  air  into  the  furnace)  that 
confined the claims to a particular, useful application of the 
principle.

In Bilski the Court considered claims covering a process
for  hedging  risks  of  price  changes  by,  for  example,  con­
tracting  to  purchase  commodities  from  sellers  at  a  fixed
price,  reflecting  the  desire  of  sellers  to  hedge  against  a
drop in prices, while selling commodities to consumers at a 
fixed  price,  reflecting  the  desire  of  consumers  to  hedge
against a price increase.  One claim described the process;
another  reduced  the  process  to  a  mathematical  formula.
561  U. S.,  at  ___–___  (slip  op.,  at  2–3).    The  Court  held 
that the described “concept of hedging” was “an unpatent­
able  abstract  idea.”    Id.,  at  ___  (slip  op.,  at  15).    The  fact 
that some of the claims limited hedging to use in commod­
ities  and  energy  markets  and  specified  that  “well-known 
random analysis techniques [could be used] to help estab­
lish  some  of  the  inputs  into  the  equation”  did  not  under­
mine  this  conclusion,  for  “Flook  established  that  limiting
an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postso­
lution  components  did  not  make  the  concept  patentable.” 
Id., at ___, ___ (slip op., at 16, 15).