Well, when this gets to the USSC, you should give yourself a really fancy sounding title and write an amicus curiae to explain your reasoning. Which, as you very rightly pointed out, is not in fact any more tortured than the reasoning they use to try to patent naturally occurring objects. This should be a no-brainer, if you ask me, because of the centuries of legal precedence that merely finding something doesn't mean you can patent it, but since there are thousands of active patents, we clearly live in a bizarre time and place.