The claimed invention as a whole must be useful and accomplish a practical application. That is, it must produce a „useful, concrete and tangible result“.¹⁾

The basis for this language in State Street and Alappat was that the Supreme Court has explained that „certain types of mathematical subject matter, standing alone, represent nothing more than abstract ideas until reduced to some type of practical application.“.²⁾

To be sure, a process tied to a particular machine, or transforming or reducing a particular article into a different state or thing, will generally produce a „concrete“ and „tangible“ result as those terms were used in our prior decisions. But while looking for „a useful, concrete and tangible result“ may in many instances provide useful indications of whether a claim is drawn to a fundamental principle or a practical application of such a principle, that inquiry is insufficient to determine whether a claim is patent-eligible under § 101. And it was certainly never intended to supplant the Supreme Court's test. Therefore, we also conclude that the „useful, concrete and tangible result“ inquiry is inadequate and reaffirm that the machine-or-transformation test outlined by the Supreme Court is the proper test to apply.³⁾

Par. 101 U.S.C. → Inventions Patentable