X.509 should have an issue date

X.509 certificates don’t have issue dates, and this is a problem.

In the wake of the Heartbleed vulnerability, it is important for users to know that a website has created a new keypair and been issued an updated certificate verifying the new public key.

For example, if I want to be sure that Wikipedia is safe to log into again, I need to know two things:

  1. Has Wikipedia upgraded to a non-vulnerable version of SSL?
  2. Has Wikipedia re-keyed and issued a new X.509 certificate?

Question 1 can be checked by visiting a site like https://filippo.io/Heartbleed/, which checks to see whether a site is still vulnerable to the Heartbleed exploit.

Question 2 is trickier. One might think you can just visit https://en.wikipedia.org, click on the little padlock in the address bar, and view the certificate information.


Issued on 2012-10-21. Okay, so Wikipedia hasn’t updated their certificate. Or have they? In fact, Wikipedia did install a new certificate on April 9, 2014. However, they say on their blog:

Our SSL certificate provider keeps the original “not valid before” date (sometimes incorrectly referred to as an “issued on” date) in any replaced certificates. This is not an uncommon practice. Aside from looking at the change to the .pem files linked above in the Timeline, the other way of verifying that the replacement took place is to compare the fingerprint of our new certificate with our previous one.

To add to the confusion, Firefox reports the “notBefore” field of an X.509 certificate as an “Issued On” date. The X.509 specification does not have an “Issued On” date.

Thus, if a website is using a certificate provider that doesn’t update the “notBefore” field when they do a certificate replacement, a user has almost no way to know when the site re-keyed aside from the testimony of the website operators.

The only way to know if a website has issued a new certificate is to compare with the previous certificate. This is not possible if you have never been to a website previously. The Certificate Revocation List is not helpful because revocations are listed by serial number, which you would also not know if you did not have the previous certificate. It is not feasible to save the certificates from websites that you regularly visit just to be able to verify a reissue in cases like this.

There is one service that does, though. zmap.io uses a repository of certificates collected starting in 2012 from over 100 million hosts during 100 separate scans. They are able to compare certificates and say on what date a site’s current certificate was first observed. However, we should not have to rely on third-party scrapes for this.

The X.509 certificates should simply include an issue date.

Cinar Corporation v. Robinson

The Supreme Court of Canada mostly rejected (in many cases) the abstraction-filtration-comparison test for substantiality in copyright infringement: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13390/index.do

Quick summary: Robinson created a children’s television show. He pitched it around but nothing materialized. Five years later, he saw a blatant copy of his show, being produced by several parties he’d pitched his work to. A main issue on appeal was whether the trial judge used the correct approach to assessing substantiality of the copying. Cinar wanted the court to use the abstraction-filtration-comparison test, which they presumed would be in their favour. The Supreme Court rejected that approach, insisting on a “qualitative and holistic approach to assessing substantiality”.

This is significant in that content creators continue to be given more protection for their selection and arrangement of non-original things than they would in the US. The court continues to look to the skill and judgement expressed in the work as a whole, rather than analyzing works piecemeal.

The court didn’t reject outright the abstraction-filtration-comparison approach, but said such a “reductive analysis” isn’t appropriate in most cases and left open the possibility of using it in certain situations, specifically mentioning computer programs as one such possibility.

I might have more to say about this after a more thorough read-through, but for now, just want to point out my favourite line:

Claude Robinson was a dreamer.

Runners Dis-Connect

This is my one negative post of the year. It’s regarding this article (“Why Running Harder Won’t Help Get You Faster”) over at RunnersConnect.net.

The article makes the following claims:

  • Patience pays off.
  • Consistent, moderate workouts will trump a few weeks of hard, gut-busting workouts every time.
  • More importantly, after 42 weeks, the high intensity runner is at a point that they can no longer make up the difference in fitness simply by training hard for a few weeks.

They say this conclusion is justified because of “recent research published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology” (Astorino et al. 2013, reference below). They say the study gives them “the scientific data to prove what good coaches have known for so many years. Patience pays off.”

The Astorino et al. study

The study involved 30 healthy, sedentary women aged 18-40 years, free of known disease or musculoskeletal problems. They were split into three groups: high (HI), low (LO), and a control group that received no treatment.

The HI and LO treatment groups performed 3-a-week supervised interval training on a bicycle ergometer. The HI group’s workload was kept at 80-90% of the individual’s max. The LO group’s workload was kept at 60-80% of the individual’s max. Each session involved: 4 minute warm-up at 40W, 6-10 60s bouts at the target workload with 60-75s active recovery at 40W between each bout, followed by a 2-4 minutes cool-down at 40W. Every week, two additional bouts were added to the regimen and the target workload increased 5%. Every three weeks, the number of bouts were reduced to 6 and workloads were reset based on the VO2Max test done at the end of the preceding week.


Astorino et al. discuss (emphasis mine):

Results revealed similar improvements in VO2max across training groups and a greater increase in VO2max early on in training in HI versus LO.


HI (+12.4 %) revealed a greater percent change in VO2max after 3 weeks versus LO (+5.4 %), although LO revealed an additional significant change in VO2max from weeks 3–6 that was not seen in HI. Furthermore, VO2max was higher at 12 weeks in LO compared to 6 weeks, which was not seen in the women performing HI. These data illustrate a potential advantage of more intense interval training versus moderate exercise early on in training, in that it may elicit marked changes in VO2max which would augment subject tolerance to exercise soon after initiation of physical activity. Moreover, because of its relatively low time commitment and the fact that it may be more enjoyable than aerobic exercise (Bartlett et al. 2011), interval training may be a suitable exercise modality for novice exercisers to initiate before transitioning into more traditional exercise regimens.


In conclusion, 18–30 min / week of interval cycling performed for 12 weeks led to significant improvements in VO2max in sedentary young women whether intensities were moderate or more rigorous. Consequently, more tolerable regimens of interval training seem to elicit similar alterations in cardiorespiratory fitness as more intense regimes. The magnitude of improvement in VO2max was greater early on in HI compared to LO, which suggests that more intense interval training may be desirable to induce large, rapid changes in VO2max in untrained individuals soon after initiation of exercise training.

Here’s what I want to emphasize from this study:

  • It studied two different interval training regimes, each of which is considered high intensity training (Astorino et al. describe the study: “Women completed 3 day / week of supervised HIT”). The LO group is not what would be considered low intensity. The LO group still did repeated 1-minute bouts of 60-80% of max. It is more “tolerable”, but this is not a slow and steady, “patience pays off” type of training.
  • Both types of interval training ended up at the same level of improvement after 12 weeks.
  • The HI group got to that point faster than the LO group.

The RunnersConnect article

What did RunnersConnect take from this article?

Clearly, this research shows that while you’ll see rapid improvements from running workouts as hard as you can in the first few weeks, this improvement curve will level off and running at moderate intensity levels will produce equal, if not better, long-term results.

This is a false analogy: RunnersConnect leaps from a study about interval training to a statement about running workouts in general. The study did not compare HIT against prolonged bouts of “patience pays off” levels of training. It is possible that interval training would have out-performed simply running at “patience pays off” intensity levels. Oh, guess what? That study has been done (Nybo et al. 2010). An interval training program produced almost a two-fold improvement in VO2Max compared to prolonged running.

Next, RunnersConnect says:

 Mainly, both groups performed the same workouts for twelve weeks, which means the same stimulus was being applied with each session.

This is false. The stimulus was continually increased by adding bouts and intensity every workout, and rescaling to the new maximum every three weeks.

Consistent, moderate workouts will trump a few weeks of hard, gut-busting workouts every time.

That statement is not supported by the study. There was no significant difference in the LO group’s 12 week improvement compared to the HI group.

Then, they present this gem of a graphic (I almost don’t want to repeat it):


“While the data is not factual, it represents my experience with runner progression as a coach.” Does the data represent his/her experience with runner progression? Or is the data not factual? They can’t have it both ways. Even if it did represent his/her experience with runner progression, this is at best anecdotal evidence: a casual observation — one that is not done under any scientific protocol. Anecdotes are subject to cherry-picking. People remember instances that support what they wish to believe. This leads to confirmation bias and hasty generalization. There is no way to know if anecdotal experiences are typical. Quoting Barry Beyerstein, “Anecdotal evidence leads us to conclusions that we wish to be true. Not conclusions that actually are true.”

Why trot out the study of Astorino et al. if in the end, RunnersConnect was going to support their conclusion with anecdotal evidence?

They finish with:

More importantly, after 42 weeks, the high intensity runner is at a point that they can no longer make up the difference in fitness simply by training hard for a few weeks.

By “high intensity runner”, they mean the hypothetical runner that may or may not exist because the data in the chart is not factual.

I agree with RunnersConnect on only one point. Certainly, if you’re training so hard or wrong that you’re getting injured, not getting injured will be a better route to success.


Astorino, Todd A., Matthew M. Schubert, Elyse Palumbo, Douglas Stirling, David W. McMillan, Christina Cooper, Jackie Godinez, Donovan Martinez, and Rachael Gallant. “Magnitude and time course of changes in maximal oxygen uptake in response to distinct regimens of chronic interval training in sedentary women.” European journal of applied physiology (2013): 1-9.

Nybo, Lars, Emil Sundstrup, Markus D. Jakobsen, Magni Mohr, Therese Hornstrup, Lene Simonsen, Jens Bulow et al. “High-intensity training versus traditional exercise interventions for promoting health.” Med Sci Sports Exerc42, no. 10 (2010): 1951-8.

Shoulder pictures

I got pictures of my shoulder.

Here’s the first picture my doctor and I saw:

Initial x-ray of my shoulder break

Initial x-ray of my shoulder break

The CT scan:

CT scan of my shoulder: anterior view

CT scan of my shoulder: anterior view


360 view of my shoulder

360 view of my shoulder

Fixed, literally:

Internal fixation

Internal fixation

I got my shoulder fixed

The CT scan showed a “comminuted mildly displaced lateral humeral head fracture, the main fracture line extending through the base of the greater tuberosity. The tuberosity fracture fragment measure[d] approximately 3 x 1 x 2 cm. Other much smaller fragments additionally noted posteriorly.”

My surgeon recommended surgery based on the amount of displacement, the presumed health of my bone, my age, and my activity level. The procedure was called open reduction and internal fixation. That means an open surgery to set the fragment into its proper location, followed by some method of fixation — in my case, a single screw. I assume the smaller fragments were just removed.

Since this was a somewhat time-sensitive surgery (if we waited too long, the bone would heal in the wrong place), somebody else’s more elective surgery had to be cancelled. My surgery was scheduled for 16 days post-injury.

I was in the hospital for about 6 hours, probably 1 of which was actual surgery. There were a lot of drugs. 4 regular Tylenol, 1 NSAID, one other thing. Something in my IV to make me feel light-headed. A brachial plexus block anesthetic to make my shoulder and arm numb. Then some gas. Them some other gas. The last thing I remember was looking over to my side and seeing the CT scan images on some screens. Then I woke up with a sling around my still anesthetized arm.

A friend was very nice and picked me up from the hospital, taking me home in a cab, and getting my pain medicine from the pharmacy. Apparently you don’t need to prove that you’re the prescription holder, even for oxycodone.

The pain ended up not being bad, so I didn’t need the medicine after the first day. I had already broken the shoulder, after all. I also have this sweet cryotherapy unit (thanks AJ!). It’s the size of a small cooler that you fill with ice and water and continuously pumps 4°C water through a shoulder wrap. It’s nicer than using an ice pack because the wrap is light-weight and fits snugly around the entire shoulder and upper arm. I don’t have a cast — just a sling, which I wear for most of each day.

The most frequent question I’m asked is “how long will it take to recover?”. That depends a lot on what you mean by recover, but here’s the plan:

  • Weeks 0-2: Allow my arm to dangle like a pendulum 3x per day.
  • Weeks 2-4: Physiotherapist can start to move my arm through ranges of motion
  • Weeks 4-6: Stretching and assisted active range of motion
  • Weeks 6-12: Increased stretching, no more sling, strength training
  • 4-6 months: Return to ultimate!

I broke my shoulder

The injury

“You BROKE your shoulder?!?’b”, said one friend over Whatsapp, so maybe I should be a bit more specific… I broke a piece off of the humerus, near or at its head.

It was during a casual game of ultimate in the VUL this Monday, about 48 hours ago. It was the first point. I jab-stepped toward the disc holder to get my defender to back off, then cut downfield expecting a throw. The throw was an O/I flick, meaning it started out to my right as I was running downfield, then it curved back towards the path I was running along. I dove to catch the disc with my left hand outstretched, but instead of coming down on my arms, I came down hard solely on my left shoulder… kind of on the armpit.

If I’d been successful, it would have looked something like this (with a little less athleticism and music):

The problem was that my shoulders weren’t square to the ground when I laid out. All the force was absorbed by one joint, and it couldn’t take it. In the video, Simon keeps his shoulders square to the ground and lands with both arms:


I knew immediately that I was injured. The shoulder felt out of place, likely subluxed slightly. I called for an injury sub. As I got up, I could feel it grind back into place. I assumed this was just what a subluxation felt like, and that I’d stretched some ligaments. My teammates got me into a sling and I sat out the rest of the game. About fifteen minutes after the injury, I started to feel light-headed and nauseous, but that passed quickly. With my good arm, I threw a disc around with a friend after the game ended and then went home.

It did still hurt a lot, if I moved it in certain ways, so I called 8-1-1, BC’s non-emergency health line. I described my injury and symptoms and the nurse said I could wait until the next day to see a doctor.


The next morning, 9:20am, I saw the sports medicine doctor at UBC that I like. (They’re both good, but I just have happened to see one of them much more than the other.) He couldn’t properly evaluate my shoulder because it hurt too much to move through particular ranges, so he ordered an x-ray. We could clearly see where the piece of the humerus had broken off. However, it only showed its displacement in one plane, so he wanted to consult with the orthopedic surgeon.

This morning (about 36 hours after the injury), I met with the orthopedic surgeon. He also said the x-rays didn’t give him enough information. He referred me for a CT scan, which I had this afternoon. The CT scan gives much more information about the situation, even some info about the soft tissue. Depending on how much the bone is displaced, he will recommend either conservative treatment (immobilization in a sling), or surgery. I should know soon!

Progressing as a player

No matter the treatment, I won’t be playing ultimate for three months. I’ll be in a sling for at least 6 weeks, followed by physiotherapy and strength training. Next month, my club team, Refinery, is going to Canadian Nationals. While I won’t be playing, I’ll be supporting them every way that I can.

I’m not exactly sure what I’ll do to progress as a player during this time yet. I’ll be at every practice, where I’ll be able to throw with my good arm, and visualize myself in all the drills and scrimmages. I’ll be watching a lot of game footage. I will probably eventually be able to do leg press, back extensions, and maybe unilateral dumbbell work. I’ll eat, hydrate, and sleep as well as I can. I expect I’ll be able to run and keep working on my speed and conditioning well before the three months comes around.


The worst part of this is how awkward everything is!

  • I can barely put on a shirt. I might just switch to sleeveless shirts and zippered hoodies.
  • I can’t tie my shoes… probably going to buy some sandals.
  • I havent even tried to crack an egg, but I’ve seen people that just do it one-handed by default, so this might be fun to learn.
  • Typing takes forever. Coding is so tedious. Emacs keybindings are impossible. I will try to learn one-handed dvorak.
  • I’ll need some of these flossing things.
  • My nuzlocke run will have to wait. Playing a gameboy one-handed just doesn’t work so well.

Not everything is bad. I can shower and sleep. Lying on my back is only slightly uncomfortable, and lying in a recliner is also an option.

Follow the tag broken shoulder if you’re interested in updates!

AMP v. Myriad: DNA is information, not a molecule

The United States Supreme Court held in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. that isolated DNA sequences are not patent eligible under Section 101 of the Patent Act. The court held that cDNA is patent eligible under the circumstances of this case. While the court acknowledged that a new molecule was created by isolating the DNA, Myriad’s patent was focused on a sequence of information, not the molecular structure. In light of this, the court held that the isolated DNA implicated the “product of nature” common law exception to patent eligibility. In my opinion, this case would have been better decided via an improved pre-emption analysis that would have avoided this awkward characterization of Myriad’s claims.


This case began when the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) challenged several claims from patents belonging to Myriad Genetics, Inc. (Myriad).

At issue before the Supreme Court were nine of Myriad’s composition claims: claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 of U.S. Patent 5,747,282, claim 1 of U.S. Patent 5,693,473, and claims 1, 6, and 7 of U.S. Patent 5,837,492.1

Representative of Myriad’s claims are claims 1 and 2 of the ’282 patent. Claim 1 claims “[a]n isolated DNA coding for a BRCA1 polypeptide, said polypeptide having the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:2”.2 Claim 2 claims “[t]he isolated DNA of claim 1, wherein said DNA has the nucleotide sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:1.”3

Claim 2 differs from claim 1 in that the DNA code in claim 2 at SEQ ID NO:1 gives only the cDNA exons.4 Claim 1 is a claim on an isolated DNA sequence. Claim 2 claims a cDNA sequence.

Decisions below

The district court found that all the challenged claims were drawn to subject matter ineligible for patent under §101.5 This included several method claims. This case was then argued at the Federal Circuit in 2011, which largely reversed that decision, with the exception that the Federal Circuit affirmed the ineligibility of some of the method claims relating to “analyzing” and “comparing”.6 The Supreme Court vacated that judgement and remanded the case for review in light of Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.7(Mayo invalidated a method of administering a drug to a patient, monitoring the response, and adjusting the dosage on the grounds that it fell under the “law of nature” exception to subject matter eligibility.8) On remand, the Federal Circuit again held that both the isolated DNA and cDNA were patent eligible under §101. However, the court was split as to the rationale.

Judge Lourie found the isolated DNA to be eligible because the act of separating the sequence of nucleotides from the chromosome creates a nonnaturally occurring molecule.

Judge Moore found the isolated DNA to be eligible, not because of the molecular difference between the non-isolated and isolated forms of the sequence, but because of deference to decades of practice by the United States Patent Office.9

Judge Bryson found the isolated DNA to be ineligible, because the “naturally occurring genetic material thus has not been altered in a way that would matter under the standard set forth inChakrabarty”.10

All of the judges found cDNA to be patent eligible.

The decision

The question before the Supreme Court was whether or not each of these forms of isolated human DNA are patent eligible under Section 101 of the Patent Act.

Justice Thomas began by quoting the broad language of Section 101 of the Patent Act:

“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful…composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”11

The opinion then provides a brief history of the three common law exceptions to this expansive subject matter eligibility: laws of nature, natural phenomena (or products of nature), and abstract ideas.

Thus, the §101 analysis turns whether or not isolated DNA and cDNA are products of nature.

We are reminded that “The rule against patents on naturally occurring things is not without limits, however, for “all inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas,” and “too broad an interpretation of this exclusionary principle could eviscerate patent law.”12

The court looked to Chakrabarty13 for guidance on this issue. In Chakrabarty the court held that human-modified bacterium was patentable. The bacterium was found to have “markedly different characteristics from any found in nature”.14

The court acknowledges the effort and novelty of the discovery of the location of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, but says, “but extensive effort alone is insufficient to satisfy the demands of 101.”15

The court also acknowledges that “isolating DNA from the human genome severs chemical bonds and thereby creates a nonnaturally occurring molecule”.16 However, Myraid’s “claims are simply not expressed in terms of chemical composition” and instead, “the claims understandably focus on the genetic information encoded [in the genes]”.17

The court held that isolated DNA did not meet the test set out by Chakrabarty and is not eligible for patent. cDNA (at least the cDNA claimed by Myriad in this case) was found to result in “an exons-only molecule that is not naturally occurring”18 and is eligible for patent.


Information or Molecule?

The court acknowledges that Myriad created a non-naturally occurring molecule. Without further reasoning, that would be sufficient to render isolated DNA sequences patent-eligible. They are new compositions of matter that don’t fall under any of the common law exceptions. The court relied on the form of the claim to establish §101 invalidity. Justice Thomas wrote:

Myriad’s claims are simply not expressed in terms of chemical composition, nor do they rely in any way on the chemical changes that result from the isolation of a particular section of DNA. Instead, the claims understandably focus on the genetic information encoded in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.19

I find this a perplexing interpretation of the claim. What did the court believe was being claimed if not for the chemical composition? Did the court interpret this as a claim on the genetic information? If so, the subject matter does not even fall under the broad categories listed in §101. Information is not a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter”.20 If the court believed what was being claimed was an information sequence, it could have rejected the claim for falling outside of §101.

Does this leave room for the draftman’s art to save such claims in the future? If Myriad had instead explicitly claimed the molecular form of the isolated DNA instead of just the information sequence, would it have been patentable? I doubt this is the case. The court didn’t only look to the form of the claim, but also the lack of reliance on the molecular difference. Further, as I explain below, I believe a pre-emption analysis would have also resulted in isolated DNA being found ineligible for patent, regardless of the form of the claim.


Also interesting was the complete lack of discussion of Mayo as part of this decision. Perhaps the court wanted to step back from its conflation of inventiveness with §101 analysis.

The court didn’t completely avoid this issue, however: “To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention”.21 §101 uses the language “[w]hoever invents or discovers…”.22 A §101 analysis does not depend upon the manner in which an individual happens upon their new and useful thing. This decision could have simply applied the natural phenomenon exception, without reference to inventiveness, a question covered by §102 and §103.23

An improved pre-emption analysis

If the court was making a pre-emption argument, it didn’t make it clearly. The pre-emption doctrine has been established in a line of cases involving §101 subject matter eligibility: Gottschalk v. Benson,24 Diamond v. Diehr,25 and Bilski v. Kappos.26

Benson considered a patent on a process for converting binary coded decimal into pure binary numbers.27 The concern was that “the patent would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself.28

Diehr considered the use of a well-known mathematical equation as part of a process for curing synthetic rubber. This patent was held to be valid, because while “[t]heir process admittedly employs a well-known mathematical equation, [...] they do not seek to preempt the use of that equation.”.29 Because the abstract idea (the mathematical equation) was not preempted, the patent was found to be drawn to eligible subject matter.

Bilski considered a business method for hedging risk.30 The concept of hedging was held to be an abstract idea, and “[a]llowing petitioners to patent risk hedging would pre-empt use of this approach in all fields, and would effectively grant a monopoly over an abstract idea.”31

The court doesn’t draw a clear line from the isolated DNA sequence to a product of nature that is being pre-empted. The isolated piece of DNA itself is not a product of nature (“isolating DNA from the human genome severs chemical bonds and thereby creates a nonnaturally occurring molecule”32). It must be the information sequence in the isolated DNA that the court interprets as being a product of nature. That, however, relies on a awkward claim construction.

In my opinion, this case would have been better decided using the following pre-emption analysis instead of focusing on the similarity between the information content of the isolated and non-isolated DNA sequences. This allows a more intuitive construction of Myriad’s claims, while preserving the result that isolated DNA sequences are not patent eligible. A non-isolated DNA sequence is clearly a product of nature that is not patent eligible. However, “[i]solation is necessary to conduct genetic testing.”33 Thus, any claim on an isolated DNA sequence is “coextensive” with a product of nature, no matter if the isolated DNA itself is a product of nature. Allowing Myriad to patent an isolated DNA sequence would pre-empt use the non-isolated sequence, and would effectively grant a monopoly over a product of nature.

1Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. 569 U.S.    (slip op.) 2013, at footnote 2.

2Myraid Genetics, Inc. “17Q-linked breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene”. U.S. Patent 5747282.


4Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. Supra note 1, at 5.

5Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office. Fed. Cir. Docket 2010-1406. 2012.

6Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office. 653 F.3d 1329. 2011.

7Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. 566 U.S.    (slip op.) 2012.


9Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, supra note 5, at 14-20, Judge Moore’s opinion.

10Ibid., at 14, Judge Bryson’s opinion.

1135 U.S.C. §101.

12Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. Supra note 1, at 11, quoting Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. Supra note 7

13Diamond v. Chakrabarty. 447 U.S. 303. 1980.

14Ibid., at 310.

15Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. Supra note 1, at 14.

16Ibid., at 14.

17Ibid., at 14.

18Ibid., at 16.

19Ibid., at 14-15.

20Supra note 11.

21Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. Supra note 1, at 12.

22Supra note 11.

2335 U.S.C. §102; 35 U.S.C. §103.

24Gottschalk v. Benson. 409 U.S. 63. 1972.

25Diamond v. Diehr. 1981.

26Bilski v. Kappos. 561 U.S.    (slip op.) 2010.

27Gottschalk v. Benson, supra note 24.

28Ibid., at 72.

29Diamond v. Diehr, supra note 25, at 586.

30Bilski v. Kappos, supra note 26.

31Ibid., at 15.

32Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. Supra note 1, at 14.

33Ibid., at 7.