The Supreme Court identifies "abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature" as ineligible for patent protection, even when previously unknown or discovered. However, the Court has been clear that an invention that incorporates those elements can be patentable.

One question going forward is whether those non-textual exclusions should be treated as "prior art" in the obviousness analysis.

Question: Which non-textual exclusion should count as prior art when considering obviousness? (Check all that apply.)