In the "en banc" opinion the court later issued, it jettisoned the "useful-concrete-tangible result" (UCTR) test stated in "State Street", but it did not explicitly overrule "State Street" in its entirety. The court said that the UCTR test "is insufficient to determine whether a claim is patent-eligible under § 101," and "is inadequate," and it reaffirmed that "the machine-or-transformation test outlined by the Supreme Court is "the" proper test to apply" instead. As to "State Street", the court said, "those portions of our opinions in "State Street", relying on a ‘useful, concrete and tangible result’ analysis should not longer be relied on."