or abstract concepts in claims directed to industrial processes. In that context, the Supreme Court has held that a claim reciting an algorithm or abstract idea can state statutory subject matter only if, as employed in the process, it is embodied in, operates on, transforms, or otherwise involves another class of statutory subject matter, i.e., a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. 35 U.S.C. § 101. As the PTO notes, “[t]he Supreme Court has recognized only two instances in which such a method may qualify as a section 101 process: when the process ‘either [1] was tied to a particular ss and one of the other categories of statutory subject matter (i.e., a machine, manufacture, or composition) may be patentable under § 101. See Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184, 101 S.Ct. 1048 (<HOLDING>). For example, we have found processes
holding a process that involved calculations using the arrhenius equation patentable because the claim involved the transformation of an article in this case raw uncured synthetic rubber into a different state or thing holding the predominance requirement for breach of contract claim was met in part because a certifiable antitrust claim involved the same facts holding that under the facts of that case the action primarily involved a custody dispute and therefore that the trial court erred in determining the case by applying the dependency statute recognizing that this court in prible made it clear that a convicted persons effort to secure testing to show that another person was involved in the offense involved no constitutional considerations holding section 3877160 clearly limits the amount of coverage which may be stacked from policies on vehicles not involved in the accident to an amount no greater than the coverage of the vehicle involved in that accident