This is a great analysis, thank you for sharing. While the ruling does go out of its way to point out that this is about "...patent eligibility and not patenta

This is a great analysis, thank you for sharing. While the ruling does go out of its way to point out that this is about "...patent eligibility and not patentability" and intended to be of limited scope, I believe there is still some cause for concern. After all, this ruling itself was based heavily on the precedent set in Chakrabarty. It's hardly a stretch to imagine this ruling in turn setting precedent for other rulings on gene patent eligibility [and, perhaps patentability] down the road.