
    CLASSEN IMMUNOTHERAPIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BIOGEN IDEC, Defendant-Appellee, and GlaxoSmithKline, Defendant-Appellee, and Merck & Co., Inc., Defendant-Cross Appellant, and Chiron Corporation, Kaiser-Permanente, Inc., Kaiser Permanente Ventures, Kaiser Permanente International, Kaiser Permanente Insurance Company, The Permanente Federation, LLC, The Permanente Company, LLC, The Permanente Foundation, The Permanente Medical Group, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Kaiser Foundation Added Choice Health Plan, Inc., And Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., Defendants.
    Nos. 2006-1634, 2006-1649.
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    Dec. 19, 2008.
    Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Feb. 9, 2009.
    
    
      Joseph J. Zito, Zito tip, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant.
    Joshua M. Hiller, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, of Boston, MA, for defendant-appellee, Biogen IDEC. On the brief were David B. Bassett, of New York, NY, and David A. Wilson, of Washington, DC.
    George F. Pappas, Covington & Burling LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee, GlaxoSmithKline. With him on the brief were Jeffrey B. Elikan and Kevin B. Collins. Of counsel was Scott C. Weidenfeller.
    Mary B. Graham, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, LLP, of Wilmington, DE, argued for defendant-cross appellant. With her on the brief was James W. Parrett, Jr. Of counsel on the brief were Robert L. Baechtold, Fitzpatrick, Celia, Harper & Scinto, of New York, NY; and Edward W. Murray and Mary J. Morry, Merck & Co., Inc., of Rahway, NJ.
    Before NEWMAN and MOORE, Circuit Judges, and FARNAN, District Judge. MOORE, Circuit Judge.
    
      
       Chief Judge Michel and Circuit Judge Schall did not participate in the vote.
    
    
      
       Hon. Joseph J. Faman, Jr., United States District Court for the District of Delaware, sitting by designation.
    
   MOORE, Circuit Judge.

In light of our decision in In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed.Cir.2008) (en banc), we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment that these claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dr. Classen’s claims are neither “tied to a particular machine or apparatus” nor do they “transforme ] a particular article into a different state or thing.” Bilski, 545 F.3d at 954. Therefore we affirm.  