I'm reading through Bilski now, and I note that Justice Stevens rebuts part of your exposition from a while back. He does not see the change in language in the

I'm reading through Bilski now, and I note that Justice Stevens rebuts part of your exposition from a while back. He does not see the change in language in the 1952 patent act as expanding the scope of patentable subject matter, but that the change in language "merely codified the prevailing judicial interpretation of that category of subject matter."