[3] The Court rejected the Federal Circuit's statutory interpretation regarding the word "process", finding the definition in § 100(b) to be sufficient without turning to the canon of noscitur a sociis.

[8] Regarding Bilski's claimed subject matter, the Court found that his method of optimizing a fixed bill system for energy markets was an unpatentable abstract idea.

§ 273(b), saying that the statute, originally known as the First Inventors Defense Act of 1999, was only passed by Congress in response to the confusion created by State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group.

The Court's opinion in this case is seen as moderating the machine-or-transformation test requirement instated by the Federal Circuit in In re Bilski, while also leaving little guidance as to what should be considered patentable under § 101.

"[18] In light of the decision in Bilski v. Kappos, the Supreme Court granted judicial review, vacated the decisions of the Federal Circuit, and remanded to the Federal Circuit for reconsideration the cases of Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.[19] and Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec.

[22] Patent examiners and practitioners were given interim instructions on the interpretation of Bilski v. Kappos both during the appeal process (on August 29, 2009) and shortly after the decision (on July 27, 2010) in documents issued by the USPTO.