Thinboy00's Journal: Examining previous case law w.r.t. In re Bilski

I was bouncing around on Wikipedia and I found this judgement from 1980. I'm a little concerned that the article says the decision meant that proper patentability guidelines "include anything under the sun that is made by man." I hope I'm misinterpreting this, but if not, that language is very worrying for the Bilski decision. Note that the language appears to come from TFA itself rather than the judgement, so please RTFA. If possible it would be nice to get a response from NYCL, but I understand if he's busy (and I'm probably wasting everyone's time with this anyway since the case is old, but it would be nice to know in advance what sort of argument Bilski will put up and how that argument will fare).