What is the appropriate standard for determining patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED American Axle invented a new process for making a new, useful, and tangible thing — a quieter automobile driveshaft. It is the type of invention that has long been eligible for patenting. A split Federal Circuit panel found that the invention was not eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because it was allegedly directed to a natural law. The Federal Circuit was “bitterly divided” (6-6 split) on whether to rehear this case en banc. To the six active judges that voted to rehear this case, the panel’s decision represents a dangerous expansion of Section 101 jurisprudence that, despite this Court’s admonitions, has “swallowed all of patent law.” Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Intl, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014). There is no end in sight for the division at the Federal Circuit. Our nation’s lone patent court is “at a loss as to how to uniformly apply § 101.” The questions presented are: 1. What is the appropriate standard for determining whether a patent claim is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept under step 1 of the Court’s two-step framework for determining whether an invention is eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101? 2. Is patent eligibility (at each step of the Court’s two-step framework) a question of law for the court based on the scope of the claims or a question of fact for the jury based on the state of art at the time of the patent?