Nonetheless, I feel that the Bilski decision is wrong. The court shouldn't have created a new reason to kill patents when the old reasons were better.

If someone ever came up with a nonobvious and useful business method patent, I would have supported its patentability.

The patent office is doing the right thing. Bilski gives a reason to kill the patent. But the courts should have killed it based on obviousness.

The problem with re: Bilksi is that all the patents that are being rejected this way should have been rejected because they are "obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art". Bilksi is a copout by the courts that couldn't be bothered to do the right thing by invalidating for obviousness.

The boundary between hardware, software, and processes is not clean cut, and makes a poor basis for rejecting patents.