Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-1150.pdf
Page Number: 23.0

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

19 

Opinion of the Court 

to depart from case law precedent. 

III 
We  have  considered  several  further  arguments  in  sup­
port  of  Prometheus’  position.    But  they  do  not  lead  us  to 
adopt a different conclusion.  First, the Federal Circuit, in 
upholding  the  patent  eligibility  of  the  claims  before  us, 
relied on this Court’s determination that “[t]ransformation 
and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is 
the  clue  to  the  patentability  of  a  process  claim  that  does
not include particular machines.”  Benson, supra, at 70–71 
(emphasis added); see also Bilski, supra, at ___ (slip op., at
6–7);  Diehr,  450  U. S.,  at  184;  Flook,  supra,  at  588,  n. 9; 
Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 780, 788 (1877).  It reasoned 
that  the  claimed  processes  are  therefore  patent  eligible, 
since  they  involve  transforming  the  human  body  by  ad­
ministering a thiopurine drug and transforming the blood 
by analyzing it to determine metabolite levels.  628 F. 3d, 
at 1356–1357. 

The  first  of  these  transformations,  however,  is  irrele­
vant.  As  we  have  pointed  out,  the  “administering”  step
simply helps to pick out the group of individuals who are 
likely interested in applying the law of nature.  See supra,
at 9.  And the second step could be satisfied without trans­
forming  the  blood,  should  science  develop  a  totally  differ­
ent  system  for  determining  metabolite  levels that  did  not 
involve such a transformation.  See supra, at 18.  Regard­
less,  in  stating  that  the  “machine-or-transformation”  test 
is an “important and useful clue” to patentability, we have 
neither  said  nor  implied  that  the  test  trumps  the  “law  of 
nature”  exclusion.  Bilski,  supra,  at  ___  (slip  op.,  at  6–7) 
(emphasis added).  That being so, the test fails here. 

Second, Prometheus argues that, because the particular 
laws  of  nature  that  its  patent  claims  embody  are  narrow
and  specific,  the  patents  should  be  upheld.    Thus,  it  en­
courages  us  to  draw  distinctions  among  laws  of  nature