584 Appendix to opinion of the Court "(1) Determining the present value of said process variable, said present value being defined as PVL; "(2) Determining a new alarm base B1, using the following equation: "where F is a predetermined number greater than zero and less than 1.0; "(3) Determining an updated alarm limit which is defined as B1+K; and thereafter "(4) Adjusting said alarm limit to said updated alarm limit value." App. 63A. In order to use respondent's method for computing a new limit, the operator must make four decisions. Based on his knowledge of normal operating conditions, he first selects the original "alarm base" (Bo); if a temperature of 400 degrees is normal, that may be the alarm base. He next decides on an appropriate margin of safety, perhaps 50 degrees; that is his "alarm offset" (K). The sum of the alarm base and the alarm offset equals the alarm limit. Then he decides on the time interval that will elapse between each updating; that interval has no effect on the computation although it may, of course, be of great practical importance. Finally, he selects a weighting factor (F), which may be any number between 99% and 1%,* and which is used in the updating calculation. If the operator has decided in advance to use an original alarm base (Bo) of 400 degrees, a constant alarm offset (K) of 50 degrees, and a weighting factor (F) of 80%, the only additional information he needs in order to compute an updated alarm limit (UAV), is the present value of the process variable (PVL). The computation of the updated alarm limit according to respondent's method involves these three steps: First, at the predetermined interval, the process variable *More precisely, it is defined as a number greater than 0, but less than 1. STEWART, J., dissenting 437 U.S. is measured; if we assume the temperature is then 425 degrees, PVL will then equal 425. Second, the solution of respondent's novel formula will produce a new alarm base (B1) that will be a weighted average of the preceding alarm base (Bo) of 400 degrees and the current temperature (PVL) of 425. It will be closer to one or the other depending on the value of the weighting factor (F) selected by the operator. If F is 80%, that percentage of 425 (340) plus 20% (1—F) of 400 (80) will produce a new alarm base of 420 degrees. Third, the alarm offset (K) of 50 degrees is then added to the new alarm base (B1) of 420 to produce the updated alarm limit (UAV) of 470. The process is repeated at the selected time intervals. In each updating computation, the most recently calculated alarm base and the current measurement of the process variable will be substituted for the corresponding numbers in the original calculation, but the alarm offset and the weighting factor will remain constant. MR. JUSTICE STEWART, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST join, dissenting. It is a commonplace that laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter.1 A patent could not issue, in other words, on the law of gravity, or the multiplication tables, or the phenomena of magnetism, or the fact that water at sea level boils at 100 degrees centigrade and freezes at zero-even though newly discovered. Le Roy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156, 175; O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62, 112-121; Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 20 Wall. 1 Title 35 U. S. C. § 101 provides: "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." 584 STEWART, J., dissenting 498, 507; Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U. S. 707; Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U. S. 86, 94; Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Co., 333 U. S. 127, 130. The recent case of Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U. S. 63, stands for no more than this long-established principle, which the Court there stated in the following words: "Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work." Id., at 67. In Benson the Court held unpatentable claims for an algorithm that "were not limited to any particular art or technology, to any particular apparatus or machinery, or to any particular end use." Id., at 64. A patent on such claims, the Court said, "would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself." Id., at 72. 2 The present case is a far different one. The issue here is whether a claimed process loses its status of subject-matter patentability simply because one step in the process would not be patentable subject matter if considered in isolation. The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals held that the process is patentable subject matter, Benson being inapplicable since "[t]he present claims do not preempt the formula or algorithm contained therein, because solution of the algorithm, per se, would not infringe the claims." In re Flook, 559 F. 2d 21, 23. That decision seems to me wholly in conformity with basic principles of patent law. Indeed, I suppose that thousands of processes and combinations have been patented that contained one or more steps or elements that themselves would have been 2 Title 35 U. S. C. § 100 (b) provides: "The term 'process' means process, art or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material." STEWART, J., dissenting 437 U.S. unpatentable subject matter. Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U. S. 45, is a case in point. There the Court upheld the validity of an improvement patent that made use of the law of gravity, which by itself was clearly unpatentable. See also, e. g., Tilghman v. Proctor, supra. The Court today says it does not turn its back on these well-settled precedents, ante, at 594, but it strikes what seems to me an equally damaging blow at basic principles of patent law by importing into its inquiry under 35 U. S. C. § 101 the criteria of novelty and inventiveness. Section 101 is concerned only with subject-matter patentability. Whether a patent will actually issue depends upon the criteria of §§ 102 and 103, which include novelty and inventiveness, among many others. It may well be that under the criteria of §§ 102 and 103 no patent should issue on the process claimed in this case, because of anticipation, abandonment, obviousness, or for some other reason. But in my view the claimed process clearly meets the standards of subject-matter patentability of § 101. In short, I agree with the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in this case, and with the carefully considered opinions of that court in other cases presenting the same basic issue. See In re Freeman, 573 F. 2d 1237; In re Richman, 563 F. 2d 1026; In re De Castelet, 562 F. 2d 1236; In re Deutsch, 553 F. 2d 689; In re Chatfield, 545 F. 2d 152. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment before us. 3 In Gottschalk v. Benson, the Court equated process and product patents for the purpose of its inquiry: "We dealt there with a 'product' claim, while the present case deals with a 'process' claim. But we think the same principle applies." 409 U. S., at 67-68. Per Curiam CALIFORNIA v. TEXAS ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A BILL OF COMPLAINT No. 76, Orig. Argued March 29, 1978-Decided June 22, 1978 Jerome B. Falk, Jr., argued the cause for plaintiff. With him on the briefs were Myron Siedorf, James R. Birnberg, and Steven L. Mayer. John L. Hill, Attorney General of Texas, argued the cause for defendant. With him on the brief were David M. Kendall, First Assistant Attorney General, Lee C. Clyburn, Administrative Assistant Attorney General, Rick Harrison, Special Assistant Attorney General, and David Deaderick and Rick Arnett, Assistant Attorneys General. PER CURIAM. The motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied. MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, concurring. I agree with MR. JUSTICE STEWART and MR. JUSTICE POWELL that "in light of Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651 (1974), this Court's decision in Worcester County Trust Co. v. Riley, 302 U. S. 292 (1937), no longer can be regarded as a bar against the use of federal interpleader by estates threatened with double death taxation because of possible inconsistent adjudications of domicile." Post, at 615. I am not so sure as they that Texas v. Florida, 306 U. S. 398 (1939), was wrongly decided. But, whatever the case, I would still deny California's motion to file a bill of complaint at this time. If we have jurisdiction at all, that jurisdiction certainly does not attach until it can be shown that two States may possibly be able to obtain conflicting adjudications of domicile. That showing has not been made at this time in this case, since it may well be possible for the Hughes estate to |