"[1] That would be tantamount to allowing a patent on an abstract idea, contrary to precedent dating back to the middle of the 19th century.

Finally, Commissioner of Patents Robert Gottschalk filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court.

An older precedent held, that "a process was patentable if it brought about a useful, concrete, and tangible result."

The Court held that because the claim was not limited to any particular type of programmable digital computer and neither involved special purpose implementing machinery nor a transformation of substances, as in all prior cases holding processes patentable, the claim would effectively preclude use of the method for any currently known or future invention in any field.

")[5] It also remains a contested issue whether process patent claims must be directed to a transformation of substances or else embody a nontrivial, novel implementing machine or device.