Here are my initial thoughts on a first read of the Supreme Court's decision in Bilski v. Kappos (Supreme Court 2010).

The majority opinion states that the machine/transformation test is not exclusive and that there is no per se bar to business method patents.  Thus, it broadens the holding if the Federal Circuit by clarifying that the machine/transformation test is not an exclusive test to patentability.  A claim may be patentable even if it fails the machine/transformation test.  It also rejects calls for a bar to business method patents.

It then goes on to hold that the Bilski application attempted to patent an abstract idea and thus, did not present patentable subject matter.

On those points, the majority opinion does write for a majority of the court.  The majority opinion is only a "plurality" with respect to Parts IIB2 and IIC2.  These portions of the opinion are not necessary to any result reached by the Court.  They do not include any new proposed test.  Rather, Parts IIB2 and IIC2 merely state that prior tests on patentability must be viewed in the context of today's information-based economy, rather than just on the industry-based economy that existed when Section 101 was last revised.

The plurality decision by Justice Stevens which would have banned business method patents is well-written and includes some sound analysis -- but it is not the law.  It is just another dissenting opinion.

The concurring opinion by Justice Breyer and Justice Scalia, adds little.  Nothing in the concurring opinion changes any of the key holdings of the majority opinion.  Moreover, it is not certain that it comports with the views of any justices besides Justices Breyer and Scalia.  There is no indication that Justice Stevens and the other dissenters would join in Justice Breyer's opinion.  Indeed, they were free to do so, but did not.  It is equally unclear whether any of the justices in the majority would agree with Justice Breyer's concurrence.  Justice Breyer, incidentally, joined in the dissent of Justice Stevens, but Justice Scalia joined in all but Parts IIB2 and IIC2 of the majority opinion.  So my initial reading is that this concurrence is not the law.  It is not the deciding vote on anything of consequence.  The main addition it would have made to the majority opinion is to specifically reject the Federal Circuit's prior decisions in State Street and AT&T.  But since this concurrence is not the law, the fate of those decisions is uncertain.  The Federal Circuit could resurrect them if it wanted to.

So what will the USPTO do?  I predict that it will continue to apply the Machine-or-Transformation Test to business method patents. And where a business method claim passes that test, it will say that the Machine-or-Transformation Test is not determinative and will then apply the "abstract idea" test.  In short, it will attempt to curtail business method patents based on a failure to satisfy either of the two tests.  But, that would probably be incorrect.  The only test that a method claim apparently must pass is the "abstract idea" test  developed by prior US Supreme Court opinions.  The USPTO risks reversal if it relies solely on the Machine-or-Transformation test in rejecting a patent claim.  

The Federal Circuit now has to go back to the drawing board.  The Bilski decision offers little guidance to the Federal Circuit in developing new tests or approaches to deciding when business method or other method claims are patentable.