A principle, in the abstract, is a fundamental truth; an original cause; a motive; these cannot be patented, as no one can claim in either of them an exclusive right

The Supreme Court long recognized exceptions to patentability so that no one could monopolize "laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas."

A patent will be good, though the subject of the patent consists in the discovery of a great, general, and most comprehensive principle in science or law of nature, if that principle is by the specification applied to any special purpose, so as thereby to effectuate a practical result and benefit not previously attained

"A patent is not good for an effect, or the result of a certain process, as that would prohibit all other persons from making the same thing by any means whatsoever. This, by creating monopolies, would discourage arts and manufactures, against the avowed policy of the patent laws."

The elements of the power exist; the invention is not in discovering them, but in applying them to useful objects....

Although not compelled by the statutory text, the Court has held that "these exceptions have defined the reach of the statute as a matter of statutory stare decisis going back 150 years," id

The "abstract ideas" exception to § 101 embodies "the longstanding rule that `[a] n idea of itself is not patentable.'"

In other words, the subject of a patent is the device or mechanical means by which the desired result is to be secured.

Indeed, the Supreme Court's decision did not overrule existing law regarding patent-eligibility: The Supreme Court has long held that abstract ideas are unpatentable, and has interpreted § 101 and its predecessors in light of this principle for more than 150 years.