aspects. First, when an abstract concept has no claimed practical application, it is not patentable. The Supreme Court has held that “[a]n idea of itself is not patentable.” Rubber-Tip Pencil, 87 U.S. at 507, 87 U.S. 498. In Benson, the claim was for a method of converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary numerals that was “not limited to any particular art or technology, to any particular apparatus or machinery, or to any particular end use.” 409 U.S. at 64, 93 S.Ct. 253. Since the claim would therefore “wholly preempt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself,” the claim was unpat-entable because its “practical effect” was to “patent an idea” in the abstract. Id. at 71-72 93 S.Ct. 253. See also AT & T, 172 F.3d at 1358 (<HOLDING>); State Street Bank, 149 F.3d at 1373 (same);
holding that eis must provide a useful analysis of the cumulative impacts of past present and future projects holding that the nonmoving party must produce more than a scintilla of evidence to survive summary judgment holding that defending party may establish a right to summary judgment by showing that the plaintiff after an adequate period of discovery has not been able to produce and will not be able to produce evidence sufficient to allow the trier of fact to find the existence of any one of the claimants elements recognizing the right of a defendant to comment upon the failure of the state to produce evidence holding that a mathematical algorithm must produce a useful concrete and tangible result to be patentable