Bilski is ambiguous. At first the patent bar thought the Fed Cir would interpret it as "business as usual" but the Fed Cir has recently been using it to push back slightly against software patents. It's a terrible outcome because everyone wants a clear line on patentability and the S Ct didn't deliver.
The line drawn in Benson, Flook and Diehr would be adequate to solve virtually all of today's software patent problems. Shouldn't that be where the line is drawn now? Here's what the Fed Circuit said, and the Supreme Court affirmed it:
Therefore, we also conclude that the "useful, concrete and
tangible result" inquiry is inadequate and reaffirm that the machine-or-transformation
test outlined by the Supreme Court is the proper test to apply. As a result, those portions of our opinions in State Street and AT&T
relying solely on a "useful, concrete and tangible result" analysis should no longer be
relied on.
