of novelty and obviousness that routinely arise under §§ 102 and 103.” 437 U.S. at 588, 98 S.Ct. 2522. The Court has since reiterated that those separate inquiries do not bear on the question of subject-matter eligibility under § 101. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188-89, 101 S.Ct. 1048 (“The ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.”); id. at 191, 101 S.Ct. 1048 (“A rejection on either of these [anticipation or obviousness] grounds does not affect the determination that respondents’ claims recited subject matter which was eligible for patent protection under § 101.”); see also Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1298-1300, 1302 (<HOLDING>). An “inventive concept” in the § 101 context
recognizing that the courts own prior decisions shielding the guidelines from vagueness challenges were no longer consistent with supreme court precedent holding that a condition was precedent to performance because the contract language did not explicitly state that it was precedent to formation holding that a threejudge panel may depart from circuit precedent that has not been expressly overruled when an intervening en banc or supreme court decision has undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable holding was consistent with diehr and flook and did not depart from case law precedent holding a prior case was not precedent on an issue when the issue was not contested