Mr. Stewart shows how minimalist an interpretation of the CAFC ruling he’s seeking when he says that the Bilski method would be patentable if there was an “interactive website in which people — parties and counterparties could essentially find each other by the computer and could agree to terms“.

To this, Roberts replies: “No, no. That’s just saying instead of looking at the — in the Yellow Pages, you look on the computer; and that makes all the difference to you? […] that involves the most tangential and insignificant use of a machine. And yet you say that might be enough to take something from patentability to not patentable. […] If you develop a process that says look to the historical averages of oil consumption over a certain period and divide it by 2, that process would not be patentable. But if you say use a calculator, then it — then it is?”

Keeping my fingers crossed that the decision winds up on the side to which the Court seems to be leaning.