"Worth noting, however, is that Bilski did not claim a computer implementation of the recited method or a software claim. Thus, the "machine" prong of the machine-or-transformation test remains untested by the Federal Circuit as a result of the Bilski decision. However, the Court noted that in order to pass muster under the machine prong, the use of such a machine must "impose meaningful limits on the claim's scope." Field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity will not suffice. Moreover, the process claim in issue in Bilski was found to "not … be a software claim." It therefore also remains open as to how or if a software clam can be written to satisfy the transformation prong of the test."