The problem is the question "is the patent directed to some abstract matter?" Because every patent claim abstracts from a particular implementation to a broader

The problem is the question "is the patent directed to some abstract matter?" Because every patent claim abstracts from a particular implementation to a broader category of covered subject matter. That's literally the entire point of a claim, to capture the new idea instead of just a particular device. Then we get into questions about whether it's an "improper" type of abstractness, which is totally unworkable and hasn't been fleshed out by the courts. The Supreme Court should have just said what they appear to have meant--that business methods are ineligible subject matter.