PS_to_PEG_test_V10-DOSC page 1 of 12

© Sigram Schindler, 2015, 2016

PATENT-ELIGIBILITY AND THE “PATENT-ELIGIBILITY GRANTED/-ING, PEG” TEST resp.

THE CAFC OBJECTIVELY COUNTERS THE SUPREME COURT’S MBA FRAMEWORK BY ITS Myriad / Cuozzo DECISIONS – EVEN COUNTERING ITS OWN DDR DECISION

Sigram Schindler,

TU Berlin & TELES Patent Rights International GmbH

I. SURVEY ABOUT THIS TUTORIAL: PATENT-ELIGIBILITY, PEG TEST, AND THE CAFC

The PEG test per se is presented by the tutorial [244], is MBA framework based1.a), and puts a definitive

end to the patent-eligibility mess by uniformly and objectively for any ETCI resolving the patent-eligibility

problem retro- and prospectively, hence named “patent-eligibility granted&granting” test (see Section II).

This tutorial exemplifies, by contrast, the correct application of the PEG alias “refined Alice” test1.b) – by

3 CAFC decisions about ETCIs, currently controversially discussed: DDR, Myriad, Cuozzo. They are

typical for also the most recent patent-eligibility cases [253,…], resulting from discussing ETCIs by much

too coarse terms/notions, contradicting the Supreme Court’s MBA framework. Pinpointing this: All these

cases suffer from the CAFC – without being aware of this4.a) [163] – using a much coarser notional

resolution, in testing an ETCI for its patent-eligibility, than the MBA framework unconditionally requires.

As the MBA framework by its SPL semiotics indeed performed a quantum leap in refining SPL notions,

this tutorial ●explains what is to be understood by the “refined notional resolution” of an ETCI represen-

tation for determining its patent-eligibility, ●exemplifies by a toy ETCI how this refinement is achievable,

and ●shows its necessity for correctly applying thereafter the “refined Alice test”1.b) = PEG test.

The PEG test is a straightforward refinement of the “two step Alice test”1.b) of the IEG [235], which still

uses only these inadequate coarse SPL notions and hence can’t achieve the resolution of the patent-eli-

gibility problem. More precisely: By not refining the terms/notions of the Supreme Court’s Alice decision

– as the Supreme Court2.c) and Einstein2.d) expect – but simply using them as coarse as they are, this

“two step Alice test” test is just direction pointing, but not striving for providing a decision about an

ETCI’s patent-eligibility. I.e.: It just repeats the Alice decision’s requirement statements how this deci-

sion by means of the MBA framework is to be determined. The PEG test, by contrast, is a procedure

meeting these Alice requirements – hence determines this decision for any ETCI, uniformly&objectively.

The other way around: For the PEG test, the IEG’s “two step Alice test” solely confirms, for an ETCI up-

front, that it “is directed to” some subject matter raising the patent-eligibility question as it is made-up by

means of a creative concept exempted from patent-eligibility1.c). I.e., the two step Alice test is a directive

of a refined claim interpretation. But, it does not clarify in detail, how this ETCI is made-up from element-

ary concepts – while a specific clarification detail, ETCI’s (refined) “inventive Alice concept”, is indisp-

ensable for MBA framework based deciding this ETCI’s patent-eligibility problem, as the PEG test does.

1 .a The [MBA] framework is a by the Supreme Court’s Mayo&[Biosig&]Alice decisions introduced or induced notion, denoting the post-MBA semiotics

of SPL pragmatics (see ftn3) in [244]) – being the reason for defining this and the following acronyms explained in detail in [244]. E.g.: PEG = ‘patent-eligibility granted/granting’. ETCI = ‘emerging technology claimed invention’. CTCI = ‘classical technology claimed invention’. IEG = ‘Interim Eligibility Guidance’. A CTCI’s/ETCI’s (SPL relevant) ‘subject matter’ is by the MBA framework, a pair of <an invention TT0, and this invention’s application A>, whereby an invention/TT0 = ‘technical teaching’ at issue of an ETCI is together with its application/A, within this pair alias subject matter, defined as shown below by the ‘FSTP-Test’s’ prologue (see FIG 1). Thus: The term “patent-eligible subject matter” is often used extremely misleadingly. .b The Supreme Court’s Alice decision (just as the USPTO’s/IEG’s identical “two step Alice test”) is no test, at all, but a declarative requirement state-ment to be met by any patent-eligibility test for uniformly and objectively applying SPL in testing ETCIs, which always raise the patent-eligibility question as being unlimited preemptive3.a)3.e). The “refined Alice test” alias PEG test is just the procedural refinement of this declarative requirement statement. .c Indeed, the “two step Alice test” 1.b) just clarifies that this subject matter is not a CTCI but indeed an ETCI [244Sect. III.2].

PS_to_PEG_test_V10-DOSC page 2 of 12

© Sigram Schindler, 2015, 2016

To this end, Section II.1 of this tutorial first elaborates on the PEG test and thereafter briefly explains, in

II.2 – by a toy ETCI and the FSTP-Test – that and how a patent-eligibility test must be started by refining

ETCI’s vague A-representation to its (elementary much more precise E-crCs based) E-representation

and what the impact is of identifying & separating therein its invention/TT0 and its application/A.

Section III then shows of 3 popular CAFC decisions, DDR/Myriad/Cuozzo, what their ●legal errors are

– contradicting the MBA framework as not refining the notional resolutions of these ETCIs’ representa-

tions – and ●results would have been, if the CAFC had tested their ETCIs exactly as required by the

Supreme Court’s Alice decision, i.e. had correctly applied the “refined Alice test” (published already

shortly after the Supreme Court’s Alice decision [36,72,140,160,…]), further developed to the PEG test.

II. THE “PEG TEST” ALIAS “REFINED ALICE TEST” – AND ITS NOTIONAL REFINEMENT

Section II.1 elaborates on the PEG test and thereafter briefly shows, by a toy ETCI in II.2, that and how

the PEG test’s application to an ETCI indeed starts by refining its representation to its E-crCs2.a).

II.1 The PEG Test – Recapitulated/Reconsidered and Better Explained

The exorbitant importance of an invention’s patent-eligibility didn’t suddenly fall from heaven – it was

looming in the background of SPL precedents since decades (see Parker vs. Flook [248]). Yet, it has be-

come broadly noticed by the patent community only by a series of more or less open controversies in

and between important US authorities. These exclusively CAFC quarrels started ●between it and the

USPTO about the Phillips decision [56] in 2005, ●within it about its KSR decision in 2006 and continue

there until today about e.g. its Cuozzo decision, and ●between it and the Supreme Court about the

latter’s Mayo decision in 2012, disappointingly2.c) unresolved until today2.d) – see the latter’s Teva decision.

The reason for this exorbitant importance of an invention’s patent-eligibility is the invisibility&intangibility

&insensibility&incomprehensibility&counter-intuitivity/… property of ETCIs and their rapid success in all

fundamental areas of life2.d), in particular all economies – by classical US SPL precedents not recogni-

zed in full extents2.e) but taken just as quarrels and in other nations not noticed at all, worldwide, in spite

of their threatening big “unlimited preemptivity problem”3.a) being always definitively non-alterable.

Similar “preemptivity” notions – limited or unlimited3.a) – of a new idea, such as an invention, are usual in

philosophy. Yet, the US patent community has the strong belief that ETCI’s preemptivity is vastly irre-

levant to SPL, as shown by the current version of the IEG. But, the contrary is true: Patenting inventions

2 .a The below summary assumes the reader knows the terms/notions of [244SEC.VI]. I.e., the following elaborations’ references (and their indices) to them

just show where these elaborations have their starting points. Any A-crC0n is a conjunction of E-crCs and E-Cs – outlined in Section V.1.b of [244] but not repeated in detail by FIG 1, as the E-Cs are irrelevant. For determining AC\COM(ΦTT0), evidently the ETCI’s E-crCs are needed – more precisely COM(ETCI), which comprises together with these E-crCs

also this ETCI’s A-crCs, as defined by the FSTP-Test (see FIG 1). .b The broad patent community’s thus caused confusion is not discussed in detail. This mess couldn’t have come up without the classical SPL prece-dents’ notional impreciseness absolutely unable to meet the needs of ETCIs, which to terminate the Supreme Court undertook by its MBA framework2.c). .c JUSTICE BREYER [69]: “Different judges can have different interpretations. All you’re getting is mine, ok? I think it’s easy to say that Archimedes can’t just go to a boat builder and say, apply my idea [of a law of boats’ water displacement]. All right. Everybody agrees with that. But now we try to take that word “apply” and give content to it. And what I suspect, in my opinion, Mayo did and Bilski and the other cases, is to sketch an outer shell of the con-tent, hoping that the experts, you and the other lawyers and the CAFC, could fill in a little better than we had done the content of that shell. So far you’re saying, well, this is close enough to Archimedes saying “apply it” that we needn’t go further.” Note the last sentence’s critique in this metaphor: The term “apply it” does need an appropriate refinement of Archimedes’ water displacement semi-otics being the “outer shell” of a new boat building technique – but hitherto there was nothing alike developed by the patent community and filled into this “outer shell”, being the set of new notions that the Supreme Court introduced by its line of unanimous decisions in KSR/Bilski/Mayo/Myriad/Biosig/Alice. .d EINSTEIN articulated this phenomenon by a metaphor similar to the preceding one already 100 years ago, by “I maintain that all the decisive insights [for the survival] of mankind are hidden more than 10 positions behind the comma” – as today Kant probably would put it, talking in his spirit anyway. .e The FSTP-Project considers ETCIs because of this property (never before that massively encountered in jurisprudence) as being “model based”, i.e. vastly fictional/intellectual – as opposed to CTCIs, vastly “materialistic”. Therefore, ETCIs always are directed to exemption from patent-eligibility1.b).

PS_to_PEG_test_V10-DOSC page 3 of 12

© Sigram Schindler, 2015, 2016

of “unlimited preemptivity”3.a) – probably unknown with CTCIs but definitively existing with ETCIs [119] –

would put any national SPL into jeopardy, as extremely politics/media/socio-savvy due to their above

identified vastly “fictional” property, hardly imaginable by “legality only” minded personal.

For understanding this assertion, the notion to be clarified, first, is an ETCI’s “preemptivity”, defined in

[244ftn10.a)] as follows: “An ETCI is called preemptive iff it is hard to exclude that its specification compri-

ses a today not thought of invention*/TT0* and for the future this exclusion is definitively impossible” 3.b).

What seems to remain to be added to this unquestionable definition of preemptivity is the above distinc-

tion between an ETCI’s preemptivity being “unlimited” and “limited”, as this distinction has been empha-

sized by the Supreme Court’s Mayo as well as Alice decisions. Yet, the MBA framework based distinc-

tion between ETCI’s being “patent-noneligible” and those being “patent-eligible” had to be truly Solomo-

nic and hence as simple as possible3.c) – which evidently led to drop this complicating distinction in the

core parts of the Alice decision by not mentioning it there, although these are fully determinative for its

operational criterion separating “patent-eligible” ETCIs from those being “patent-noneligible”. According-

ly, the PEG alias refined Alice test is based on the broadest interpretation of this Alice decision consis-

tent to Bilski/Mayo/Myriad/Biosig 3.d).

The uniform necessary&sufficient criterion for an ETCI alias subject matter <TT0,A> to be patent-eligible

– although its TT0, i.e. its <TT0,Φ>, is (unlimited) preemptive – thus may be represented as:

“An ETCI alias subject matter <TT0,A>, with <TT0,Φ> being patent-noneligible as preemptive, is by A transformed to patent-eligibility iff (I) ETCI passes the FSTP-test1-5 ˄ (II) TT0,AinCAlice ≠Φ” 3.e),

by (I) implying TT0,AinCAlice =Φ iff AC=COM(<TT0,Φ>) ˄ (I) holds for COM(<TT0,Φ>), meaning ∄A. In

plain English: Once the specification of the invention/TT0≡<TT0,Φ> discloses also an application/A for

TT0 – more precisely: an A-∨E-crCk ϵ COM(<TT0,A>)\COM(<TT0,Φ>) – this <TT0,A> is patent-eligible.

This uniform criterion, by the MBA framework for any ETCI being necessary&sufficient for its patent-eli-

gibility, is also objective – together reflected as two key properties of any such ETCI: to ●be separable

into its TT0 and A, and to ●have an elementary inventive Alice concept. The Supreme Court in Alice

clearly hinted at both properties of a patent-eligible ETCI additional to those of TT0 and jointly called

them “significantly more” than the latter’s properties – what trivially is true, as TT0 has neither an A nor

a TT0,AinCAlice. [244Sect.VI, α)/α’) and β)/β’)] explains this in other words, also based on the US Constitution3.c).

3 .a The term “unlimited” is to be understood broadly as “unexpected”/”unpredicted”/’undefined”/”unrestricted in use”/… preemptivity causes this big problem. “Limited” preemptivity – standing for its being “expected”/”predicted”/’defined”/”restricted in use”/… – is highly welcome, as absolutely indispens-able for incentivizing investments into R&D for ETCIs (always being preemptive2.e)) [244VI.2]. But how about an ETCI expected to be of limited preemptivity during its patent’s lifetime but going off limits during this period? The Supreme Court’s Alice decision provides the evidently best answer to this question. Namely: This answer is based on the insight that the scope of a patent for an ETCI = subject matter = <TT0,A> is disjoint to the scope of the subject matter <TT0,B> with B≠A, the notion of scope of a subject matter being defined by its ERTS [244]. This implies that TT0 is “patented as to its by A restricted use only” – i.e. if an ETCI’s preemptivity runs out of bounds (disclosed by its specification3.b)), the by its patent3.b)) potentially thus caused violation of the social fairness principle [237] is reduced to this application/A area – which may be vastly reduced at its granting time by the USPTO.

The Alice decision’s “TT0 is used in conjunction with A” limitation of an ETCI is necessary for this subject matter’s patent-eligibility, but tells nothing about separating this ETCI’s limited from unlimited preemptivities and their significance for ETCI’s patent-eligibility. Thus, while the MBA framework does not require such a “grading” of an ETCI’s potential preemptivities, it induces using it for the purpose of highest investment incentivity into ETCIs [244].

.b This definition ●implies that the notion of ‘preemptivity’ is applicable only to patents granted and moreover holds: If a not-yet-patented ETCI is (un-knowingly) obvious today and in the future, then patenting it would make it preemptive, and ●is declarative, i.e. non-procedural – which does not matter, as it will turn out to be legally equivalent to the procedural criterion of an ETCI’s patent-eligibility nevertheless derivable from it [244] and discussed next. .c – as well as fully in line with Kant’s categorical imperative [219,230-234], as by the US Constitution embodied [237]. .d [244p.16] briefly discusses, whether the patent community will consider this criterion, imposed on any ETCI’s patent-eligibility, as too tight/lax or right. Complementing [244] is here noted that this may comprise tightening this criterion – without changing its E-level description – e.g. by imposing limita-tions on the dimensionalities or other specificities of the spaces defining its E-crTSes [237,142], advantageously to use/stress anywhere anyway. .e whereby the notion of “inventive Alice concept, TT0,AinCAlice” in this criterion is defined to be the set AC\COM(<TT0,Φ>) = AC\COM(ΦTT0) and consists, by Alice, of ∀ this transformation warranting “elementary inventive Alice concept(s), TT0,AE-inCAlice”, comprised by TT0,AinCAlice. If for an ETCI its refined claim interpretation shows that its specification discloses for it several splits into a TT0 and an A, then their PEG test = refined Alice test = refined claim construction test [244] alias FSTP-test6 requires just one to meet this criterion(see the toy ETCI, DDR, and Cuozzo, in Sections II.2 & III)

PS_to_PEG_test_V10-DOSC page 4 of 12

© Sigram Schindler, 2015, 2016

II.2 A Toy ETCI, Demonstrating the Often Indispensable “Refinement of an ETCI’s Representation” – Being the PEG Test’s First Step

Within the patent community presently only few experts clearly understand what it means that there is

the absolute necessity of refining an ETCI’s representation4.a) for recognizing its patent-(non)eligibility by

the accordingly refined MBA framework. Hence, this Section II.2 clarifies this meaning by a toy ETCI

and by analyzing its TT0 and its refined claim interpretation [244] by the below FSTP-Test in FIG 1.

The FSTP-Test, after started by its user, stepwise prompts it for inputting the given subject matter information: ■ ∀ATT0-elements X0n, 1≤n≤N ˄ ∀A-inC0n9.c), 1≤n≤N ˄ ∀E-inC0kn9.c), 1≤kn≤Kn, 1≤n≤N, K ::= ∑1≤n≤NKn;

■ if |RS|>0: ∀TTi-elements X*in, 1≤n≤N ˄ ∀A-inC*in, 1≤n≤N ˄ ∀E-inC*ikn, 1≤kn≤Kn, 1≤n≤N ∀1≤i≤I;

■ ∀ justifications (provided by the resp. ET pposc, where necessary by a resp. ET expert); 1) (a) A-COMA(ATT0) =∷AAC ∷= {(X0n,A-crC0n)|∀1≤n≤N}, the N A-crC0n describing the whole subject matter and E-COM(ATT0) =∷ AC = C ∷= {E-crC0kn|1≤n≤N ˄ 1≤kn≤Kn : A-crC0n=∧1≤kn≤KnE-crC0kn} ;

(b) justof∀1≤n≤N: A-crC0n is definite over posc ˄ AC vaguely(↓)/exactly(↑) describes <TT0,A>;

(c) justof∀ϵAC∪C: A-crC0n = ∧1≤kn≤KnE-crC0kn (leaving aside the non-creative concepts);

(d) justof∀ϵAC∪C: Biosig-test passed: E-crC0kn˄A-crC0n ▼ posc; . .

2) justof∀ϵAC∪C: C-Lawful-Disclosure-test passed: ∀ ϵ C are lawfully disclosed;

3) justof∀ϵAC∪C: C-Enabling-test passed: C’s implementability is lawfully disclosed;

4) justof∀ϵAC∪C: Mayo-/Myriad-test passed: ∀ natural law E-crC0kn’s are identified; 5) justof∀ϵAC∪C: Bilski-test passed: <TT0,Φ> is unlimited preemptive (if applicable);

6) justof∀ϵAC∪C: Alice-test passed: <TT0,A> is patent-eligible (if applicable); . .

7) justof∀ϵC: C-Independence-test passed: A,NPs is independent (if applicable);

8) justof∀ϵC: KSR-test passed: E-crCikn ▼ E-crC0kn;

9) justof∀ϵC: Graham-test passed: TT0 is patentable, as Qpmgp>0 over RS.

FIG 1: The FSTP-Test – Checking a TT0 for its Meeting ALL 9 Requirements Stated by USC 35 §§ 101/102/103/112

Legend: The horizontal dashed line separates a TT0’s refined claim interpretation (above it) from its refined claim construc-tion (below it), the latter ending at the horizontal double line (terminating any iterative loop in case of |{∀COMs}|>1). This clear interplay of an ETCI’s refined claim interpretation with its refined claim construction has nowhere ever been shown before. For more information about the FSTP-Test see [241,244,237,142], especially as to its ftns referring to [244]. Here, in TT0’s patent-eligibility test, test7-9 should not be misunderstood as being superfluous: Remember that Mayo states that TT0’s patent-eligibility is undefined unless it is patentable. By MAI this necessity even holds for any of the 9 testo’s – as multiply explained in earlier FSTP papers. Hence, the respective frequent complaints – that the Supreme Court had caused by its MBA framework this intermeshing between patent-eligibility and patent-obviousness – are just nonsense.

The Toy ETCI: Let, for an ETCI ≡ <TT0,A> ≡ ATT0, the resp. patent specification disclose an

organic tissue4.b) that indicates – by some marker4.b) – whether it is likely to erode within a year4.c).

ETCI’s representation evidently must comprise the ETCI-elements (see FIG 1) ‘organic tissue’ and

‘marker’ as X01 and X023.a) – both having properties described by their A-crC01/2 modeling the

physical/chemical/biological/distributional/pricey/administering/… properties of X01/X02, in particular the

various tissue internal eroding states of X01 and the tissue external eroding state indications by X02.

I.e., the toy ETCI’s A-level representation ∷= {A-crC01, A-crC02}.

4 .a In [244] this refinement of an invention/TT0 resp. its ETCI is explained by Subsection V.1 – in particular by its Subsection V.1.b – enabled by the

Supreme Court’s Mayo and Alice decisions, requiring that it is described by its inventive concepts, thus enabling their use for its representation by the set of elementary creative (and posc-known2)) concepts making-up thisTT0/ ETCI.

.b The ‘organic tissue’ development and the ‘marker’ indication are here assumed independent of each other, unlike in the Myriad case4.c). .c This toy ETCI is intentionally chosen to be quite similar to the Myriad ETCI of Section III, though more flexible due to its broader ‘marker’ notion4.b). .d From the next page is derivable that a third ETCI-element, X03, also would have been reasonable to identify, e.g. ‘erosion state conveyor’. This

representation of this toy-ETCI would enable already on its notional A-level some higher notional resolution, resp. potentially even refining it notionally immediately to the E-level, making superfluous to repeat it as a refined layer. Otherwise the latter is left – thus achieving an as to ETCI’s patent-eligibility equivalent refinement – to the ETCI’s E-level representation, i.e. to disaggregating the then more compound A-inC0n’s.

PS_to_PEG_test_V10-DOSC page 5 of 12

© Sigram Schindler, 2015, 2016

The notionally non-refined representation of this ETCI, i.e. its notional A-level representation (with N=2,

see FIG1) is very coarse as the A-crC01 of its organic tissue X01 is a compound of different notions, i.e.

of different E-crC0k’s (see below). By this coarse representation, this toy ETCI is patent-noneligible –

yet by Alice this reasoning is a legal wrong.

Namely: Its A-crC01 indeed embodies unlimited preemptivity3.b). But, the above interpretation of the

Supreme Court’s Alice decision – that it were talking about the A-level (of notional resolution) represen-

tation of an ETCI at issue – quite evidently contradicts the MBA framework: It namely does not achieve

the SPL semiotics in favor of ETCIs, which Mayo/Alice clearly stated as their requirements to be met by

SPL precedents about ETCIs. I.e.: Applying the Alice decision – even if refined to a patent-eligibility

test1.b) – to this coarse A-level representation of an ETCI is legally insufficient2.c)2.d), i.e. is a legal error.

That the CAFC in spite of that does it, is due to that it simply is not aware of this notional refinement

requirement that the Supreme Court stated by the MBA framework (in fulfilling its constitutional respon-

sibility, as it unmistakably emphasized in particular by its Mayo decision).

By contrast, the PEG test = FSTP-test6 excludes this inadmissible application by unconditionally

starting – as part of its initial refined claim interpretation – with refining ETCI’s representation to its E-

crCs5.a). What this refinement comprises in detail is not evident and hence explained next5.b).

For the toy ETCI is assumed that its PEG test needs no notional refinement of its marker’s property5.c),

A-crC02, in its refined claim interpretation&construction, implying A-crC02=E-crC02(k2=1), i.e. K2=1,

and disaggregating the A-crC01 into its conjunction of E-crC01k1, 1≤k1≤K1=2, K=3 (see Fig 1) yields:

E-crC01(k1=1) models a first elementary property of X01 that it develops on its own knowledge

about its erosion within a year, i.e. models a natural phenomenon of unlimited preemptivity, namely

its eroding within a year in a whatever way of an unknown set of such ways, and

E-crC01(k1=2) models a second elementary property of X01 that it enables its marker X02 to

expose this knowledge to the human as indication of this erosion5.b).

I.e., AC∷={E-crC01(k1=1),E-crC01(k1=2),E-crC02(k2=1)}, for the toy ETCI’s E-level representation.

For ETCI’s E-level representation, the invention/TT0={E-crC01(k1=1),E-crC01(k1=2)} per se (= ETCI’s

organic tissue) is patent-noneligible as unlimited preemptive. Yet, in this E-level representation, the toy

ETCI’s invention/TT0 is properly separated from its application/A, as disclosed by its specification.

Hence applying the refined Alice alias PEG test to this E-level representation of the toy ETCI is correct,

and it is also patent-eligible, as follows from the implication of the above patent-eligibility criterion.

Just for completion, for the toy ETCI’s inventive Alice concept holds, evidently:

TT0,AcrCAlice ∷= AC\COM(ΦTT0) = AC\{E-crC01(k1=1),E-crC01(k1=2)} = {E-crC02(k2=1)} ≠ Φ.

5 .a The following assumes, hitherto none of the following combinations is known, why all three following E-Cs are (in the refined claim interpretation

initially tentatively) taken as E-crCs – even if the marker were assumed to have been known a priori and then per se would have been modeled by an E-C (which, if also applying in its combination with the tissue at issue, would evidently render the toy ETCI as patent-noneligible by the PEG test).

.b Note that the disaggregation of A-crCs into conjunctions of E-crCs, here required by refining the non-operational Alice decision into the refined Alice test = PEG test = FSTP-test6, also is required by several other FSTP-testo’s, e.g. FSTP-test9, not elaborated on in this tutorial about the PEG test.

.c assumedly disclosed by the toy ETCI’s specification as implemented independent of this tissue’s properties, just activated by them, no matter whether its working is creative or known by the pposc [244, ftn5.b)] and whether it embodies another natural phenomenon or not.

PS_to_PEG_test_V10-DOSC page 6 of 12

© Sigram Schindler, 2015, 2016

III. 2 OF THE 3 ABOVE DECISIONS COUNTER THE MBA FRAMEWORK – AND THE IEG?

None of the CAFC’s DDR, Myriad, Cuozzo decisions up-front clarified what their COM(ETCI) is/means

– in spite of the Alice decision’s explicit hint at it. Thus, none of them sought firm legal ground first, i.e.

started with elaborating in detail on the Supreme Court’s above criterion for uniformly and objectively

deciding these ETCIs’ patent-(non)eligibility. This tutorial therefore next provides these 3 detailed

elaborations, which show: These 3 ETCIs all would have been found patent-eligible – in spite of their

TT0s being patent-noneligible – if the uniform and objective MBA framework had been correctly applied

to them6.a). Namely: By meticulously interpreting, for any ETCI6.b), its specification for deriving thereof its

refined claim interpretation and construing its refined claim construction (the latter implying refining this

ETCI’s representation to its COM(ETCI)) and then identifying thereof ETCI’s invention/TT0 and the

latter’s application/A, and finally applying the above uniform and objective Alice criterion – as the MBA

framework clearly requires, if thoroughly interpreted.

● DDR: For the earlier FSTP comments in [138] on 23.12.2014 see6.c). They told that the

CAFC’s DDR decision is vastly in line with the MBA framework. But then, they could not yet tell what

MAI recognized since then: That also this CAFC decision’s findings do not meet the MBA frame-

work’s representational requirements – as restated by the end of the preceding paragraph.

Indeed, the DDR decision nowhere indicates that it has recognized and accordingly elaborated on

this part of the requirements of the Supreme Court’s Alice decision. Nevertheless, as said already,

this CAFC board intuitively found the basically correct way to meeting these MBA framework

requirements. Yet, this intuitive approach to the Alice decision is highly risky, as the other 2 CAFC

decisions prove. For being sure to proceed on legally firm ground, when testing an ETCI for its

patent-eligibility, the MBA framework must be interpreted formally more rigorous – as shown next.

These missing elaborations would have had to clarify, first, what at all is this ETCI’s/subject matter’s

invention/TT0 and its application/A, by identifying its A- and/or E-crCs, as by Alice required6.e) – clari-

fied by the FSTP-test1, as shown by the toy ETCI of Section II.2. This simple clarification yields6.f):

DDR’s ETCI is made-up by N∷=3 ETCI-elements (by FIG 1 named X1/X2/X3, dropping TT0’s “0”, as ∄TTiϵRS in patent-

eligibility tests), representing: X1∷= product, X2∷= Internet serverP, X3∷= Internet serverS,

their 3 abstract potentially6.d) creative properties completely describing it, by the DDR specification disclosed, are for:

X1 modeled by A-crC1∷= its “product information, X1’s PI” 6.g), and for

X2 modeled by A-crC2∷= (X1’s PI ˄ X2’s URL ˄ X2’s look&feel ˄ X3’s URL) for all X1 comprised by X26.h), and for

X3 modeled by A-crC3∷= (X1’s PI ˄ X2’s URL ˄ X2’s look&feel ˄ X3’s URL ˄ non-transferring X2’s URL) for all X1ϵX3.

6 .a There is a famous metaphor, characterizing the in scientific knowledge evolvement frequently encountered resistance by the resp. scientists to

accept new such insights, originating from Mathematical Physics. When Bohr’s coarse atom model – in spite of its tremendous merits (e.g. in Pauling’s molecular bonding forces research) – notionally had to be refined to Schrödinger’s atom model for enabling computing atoms’ energy levels, as indicated by their “Eigen values”. The former model then was ironically seen as having “wooden electrons”, thus pinpointing this notional quantum jump.

An analogous notional quantum leap encountering resistance has been caused in SPL by the Supreme Court’s MBA framework – between the classical notionally coarse resolution as to SPL precedents hitherto practiced by the whole patent community when discussing CTCIs and the MBA framework’s notionally significantly refined resolution as to SPL precedents often absolutely necessary for unquestionably grasping an ETCI’s semiotically refined properties (by MAI fully approved, qualifying the pre-Mayo SPL pragmatics as anyway insufficient for avoiding inconsistencies in SPL precedents).

.b The DDR’s ETCI is discussed more broadly than the other 3 ones – trusting that these would be complemented accordingly by the reader. .c These comments on the 3 CAFC decisions – not yet presenting the today’s Alice understanding reflected by [244] and this tutorial – are not repeated

here, for thus focusing the main text on the resp. start of the PEG test (i.e. on FSTP-test1, and for brevity omitting FSTP-test2-5, see FIG 1, this omission being inadmissible in a court case) and on evaluating its patent-eligibility criterion quoted in Section II.1, i.e. on the FSTP-test6 alias PEG test.

.d During the refined claim interpretation – of which this is the first step (by FIG 1) – it is not yet clear, which of its concepts are crCs or just Cs. .e The DDR ETCI specification does not tell clearly that X2 must not sell X1 over the Internet – otherwise all said here evidently holds the more. .f This clarification even delivers this ‘minimal’ A-level representation of DDR’s ETCI – which already tells that there also are redundant A-level repre-

sentations for it7.c). Nothing is wrong with these, if they don’t lead to confusing, what its invention/TT0 is and what the latter’s application/A (see below). .g any A-crCn is (the mirror concept of) a simple predicate defined by its truth set, just as any E-crCk below – for their modelling details see [237]. .h Note that A-crC2 and A-crC3 actually are sets – as they have properties defined by formal parameters, representing the use of the X1 and X2 pro-

perties – as occurs in a simplified form also in the Myriad ETCI A- and E-representations. This notational subtlety is skipped in this tutorial [237,142]8.g).

PS_to_PEG_test_V10-DOSC page 7 of 12

© Sigram Schindler, 2015, 2016

The DDR’s ETCI comprises no further inventive property – i.e. it is completely described by

A-crC1 ˄ A-crC2 ˄ A-crC3 of its 3 elements. Yet, this subject matter’s A-level representation is hard

to model precisely, especially for facilitating the separation of its invention/TT0 from its application/A.

Thus, this A-level representation still disables applying the Alice decision to the DDR ETCI.

This problem always is overcome by disintegrating the A-crCs into conjunctions of E-crCk6.g) as the

toy ETCI shows in Section II.2 – unless the ETCI is pathological7.a), if this property exists at all [6,7].

While A-crC1 (defined model X1’s PI) may be taken as ●E-crC1 – again all E-crCs are predicates –

let ●E-crC2 be defined to model X2’s URL, let ●E-crC3∷= model X2’s look&feel, ●E-crC4∷= model

X3’s URL, and ●E-crC5∷= model the X3 confidentiality of X2’s URL6.c).

These 5 E-crCk, 1≤k≤5=K, enable modeling the 3 A-crCn, 1≤n≤3=N, of the DDR ETCI (see FIG 1):

A-crC1∷= E-crC1 ˄

A-crC2∷= E-crC1˄E-crC2˄E-crC3 ˄E-crC4 ˄

A-crC3∷= E-crC1˄E-crC2˄E-crC3˄E-crC4˄E-crC5,

which evidently is DDR ETCI’s “E-level representation”, defined by its {E-crCk, 1≤k≤K=5}7.b).

ETCI’s “(sales) service outsourcing” invention/TT0 is by its specification defined by {E-crCk, 1≤k≤4}

=∷COM(<TT0,Φ>) and obvious/patent-noneligible – but creatively applied, as disclosed by the ETCI

specification. This application/A of TT0 is defined by the predicate: “X3 has in conjunction with the

former the property E-crC5”. ETCI’s specification discloses no materially alternative split.

Thereby holds: For its invention/TT0, its application/A (defined by this just provided predicate)

embodies an “inventive Alice concept, TT0,AinCAlice” (defined by the same predicate, necessarily due

to the extreme simplicity of this case), such that TT0 is by A transformed – according to the Supreme

Court’s Alice decision, in the formulation of the above equivalent patent-eligibility criterion – into a

patent-eligible subject matter7.c).

Finally: The preceding elaborations as to the DDR ETCI’s patent-eligibility and their resp. criterion

(due to the Supreme Court’s MBA framework7.d)) are pretty formal and therefore much less error-

prone than free-hand reasoning about patent-eligibility ever can get7.e).

7 .a This ETCI property basically tells that some of its E-crCs cannot be defined independently of each other, not applying to the 3 above quoted ETCIs.

.b Quite evidently, it’s A-level presentation already indicates also its E-level presentation, i.e. both levels’ representations “are in sync”. Normally, this is achieved only by reiterating many attempts to achieve this transparency – which also normally should lead to a minimal6.e) A- and E-level representation.

The truth is: Starting these iterations and bringing them to both these ends, has proven in many FSTP groups to be a difficult objective. .c This transformation into patent-eligibility does not work if the alleged inventive Alice concept contributed by the application/A to the ETCI comprises

no E-crC (patent-eligible or not) but just Cs (patent-eligible or not): Then the resulting ETCI, embodying an obvious/preemptive invention/TT0 remains obvious/preemptive and hence patent-noneligible – which does not apply to the DDR case, as E-crC5 is not disclosed by the specification and/or the pposc to be preemptive or obvious.

Also note: Alice does not care, as to a particular ETCI = subject matter = <TT0,A>, for the amount of inventivity its inventive Alice concept embodies. Alice states that it requires “significantly more” from its inventive Alice concept. Namely, if it is embodied by an ETCI, that it achieves by its definition “significantly more” than just transforming this particular ETCI to patent-eligibility. I.e., already by the definition of this inventive Alice concept – not provi-ded in detail by the Alice decision, just hinted at (yet meanwhile developed by MAI and delivered by [244] and repeated above in Section II.1) – to asses uniformly and objectively that then the respective whatsoever ETCI is patent-eligible, as being of application/A controlled unlimited preemptivity, only.

And as a matter of fact: The patent on the DDR ETCI at issue, here – in spite of its TT0 being obvious and hence unlimited preemptive3.a) – is by Alice patent-eligible, as all its unlimited preemptivity is tied to this just determined application/A of this invention/TT0, i.e. encapsulated into this by A defined scope(DDR ETCI) – being a subset of scope(TT0) [237].

.d Nevertheless, the criterion to be met by an E-level inventive Alice concept may be tightened, as outlined above by ftn3.d). .e – as known since Aristoteles, having recognized the importance of the pertinent ‘formalism’ of predicates, since long time called Logic. But, these patent-eligibility elaborations/criteria are not yet rigorously mathematical. Their translation into mathematically rigorous reasoning – opening far reaching further advantages as to running any patent business [9,237], as indicated here already7.e) – will be provided by [142,182] and follow the same lines of thinking just presented.

PS_to_PEG_test_V10-DOSC page 8 of 12

© Sigram Schindler, 2015, 2016

● Myriad: For earlier FSTP comments on this CAFC decision about the Myriad ETCI see [138,163]

as of 23.12.2013 and 07.01.20148.a). It probably is the economically most influential and nevertheless

legally erroneous decision about ETCIs. By it, the CAFC namely quite openly shows – by its alleged

reasoning, not by its politically correct lip service – that one of its boards feels to have the power to

directly counter ●the Supreme Court’s constitutional SPL interpretation, shown by the latter’s SPL

semiotics in favor of ETCIs8.b), as well as ●its own DDR decision, due to its (by its rationale) totally

conforming to the MBA framework. Detailed explaining this, next, is tedious but absolutely resilient.

I.e., the CAFC by this Myriad decision strictly refuses – visible to everybody – to proceed as

unmistakably required by the Supreme Court’s MBA framework. Namely: To perform the notional

refinement of the Myriad ETCI representation and separate its patent-noneligible invention/TT0 from

the latter’s application/A embodied by this ETCI for determining whether it comprises an ‘inventive

[Alice] concept’ (both just explained by the DDR ETCI and before by the toy ETCI in Section II.2).

Instead, this CAFC decision trivializes the Supreme Court’s Alice decision (criticized already in [163])

by overinterpreting it8.c), so causing the USPTO to generate a flood of patent-noneligible ETCIs –

(allegedly legally) trivialized by their consequentially also notionally non-refined claim interpretations

(by [241] shown to anyway contradict the MBA framework, see also the below “Cuozzo bullet point”).

There and in [244] has been shown that, for an ETCI – when performing this notional refinement in

its claim interpretation – the latter’s result of its so refined claim construction [241] as to this ETCI’s

patent-eligibility is deterministically predictable and definitive (as shown below also for the Myriad

ETCI), while this result without the refinement in claim interpretation is neither predictable nor

definitive (as shown by the past series of court surprises), even if obeying the IEG8.d).

In commenting on the Myriad ETCI8.e) as announced by6.c) – and by correctly applying the MBA

framework to it alias the refined Alice test alias the PEG test – the next lines are self-explaining8.f),

while without the preceding examples they would be garbled8.j) as in the CAFC decision (see below).

Myriad’s ETCI has N∷=3 elements, X1/X2/X3: X1∷= SO testee8.f), X2∷= SO wild-type, X3∷= BRCA1 indicator8.g),

their 3 abstract potentially creative6.d) properties completely describing it, by Myriad’s specification disclosed, are for:

X1 modeled by A-crC1∷= {SO 1BRCA1 gene} ∨ {SO 1BRCA1 RNA} ∨ {SO 1BRCA1 cDNA} 8.g, and for

X2 modeled by A-crC2∷= {SO 2BRCA1 gene : H(SO 2BRCA1 gene) = 2BRCA1 gene allele}8.h) ∨

{SO 2BRCA1 RNA : H(SO 2BRCA1 RNA) = 2BRCA1 RNA allele} ∨

{SO 2BRCA1 cDNA : H(SO 2BRCA1 cDNA) = 2BRCA1 cDNA allele}, and for

X3 modeled by A-crC3∷= T if {H(SO 1BRCA1 gene, 2BRCA1 gene)} ∨ {H(SO 1BRCA1 RNA, 2BRCA1 RNA)}8.h) ∨

{H(SO 1BRCA1 cDNA, SO 2BRCA1 cDNA)} contains a resp. allele9.b).

8 .a see ftn6.c) – yet reading [163] will greatly facilitate the following analysis of the CAFC’s recent Myriad decision.

.b which the Supreme Court called the “Mayo framework” and on which it elaborated in Biosig and Alice, why the more complete prefix “MBA” is used. .c , as just excluded by6.c), once more. .d This comment on a Myriad ETCI hence partially anticipates the below comment on the CAFC decision about the Cuozzo ETCI – indeed the

subtleties of a (refined) claim interpretation for an ETCI are result determinative for this ETCI’s MBA conforming test for its patent-eligibility. .e i.e. on ‘441 Claim 7. The other Myriad ETCI this CAFC decision is based on, ‘282 Claim 16, is skipped here, as it would be commented on identically. .f and also show the stereotypic formal and hence robust proceeding in testing an ETCI for its patent-eligibility, enabled by the MBA framework7.e). .g “SO” is just an abbreviation of “(germline/genetic) sequence of”, {…} denotes a truth set of properties identified by an A-crCn for its Xn,1≤n≤36.g), and

the “∨” is defined as a kind of exclusive “or” (as additionally indicating that the same one of the 3 options identified by X1 must be taken ∀1≤n≤3). This effect has been encountered already with the A-/E-level representations of the DDR ETCI6.h) – here in a simpler form as the predicate sets

comprise only 3 options, separated by the “∨”. .h The mono-hybridization, H, of X2 properties in X2 has 1 H argument. The di-hybridization, H, of X1 and X2 properties in X3 has 2 H arguments. Both

such hybridizations are known in DNA Chemistry. .j – at least embodying much less ambiguities and hence much easier to understand than the linguistically extremely unusual wording of Claim 7.

PS_to_PEG_test_V10-DOSC page 9 of 12

© Sigram Schindler, 2015, 2016

This Myriad ETCI8.e) comprises no further inventive property9.a) – i.e. it is somehow completely

described by A-crC1 ˄ A-crC2 ˄ A-crC3 of its 3 elements, yet neither precisely nor exactly9.b). That

this subject matter’s A-level representation is hard to model precisely would have to be skipped here,

if it not aggravated the separation of its invention/TT0 from its application/A, i.e. if it were exact9.b).

Thus, this “minimal A-level representation”6.c) representation of the Myriad ETCI – in spite of its being

already extraordinarily clearly structured as just copying the preceding samples of ETCIs’ A-level

presentations based on the MBA framework – still does not show how to apply the Alice decision to

the Myriad ETCI by separating its TT0 from the latter’s A, due to the coarse description of its A-crC3.

But if the unquestionably unlimited preemptive Myriad ETCI were not split this way as required by the

Alice decision – i.e. is viewed as a free standing TT0* comprising the total application/A as part of its

TT0* (then consequently ignoring the need of the “Alice separation” explained above by the toy ETCI

and the DDR ETCI, as there is no application/A) – then the Myriad ETCI indeed would be patent-

noneligible, as in this case (an application/A being absent) for the Myriad ETCI would hold for TT0*’s

“inventive Alice concept”: TT0*,ΦinCAlice =Φ, i.e. TT0* would not embody an “inventive Alice concept”.

Yet, since the Supreme Court’s Alice decision, this view at an ETCI is clearly a legal error – i.e. the

Alice view at ETCIs is absolutely mandatory (not implying that all ETCIs are patent-eligible [244]).

This naturally occurring “too coarse representation problem” always is overcome by disintegrating

the A-crCs into conjunctions of E-crCk6.g) as the toy ETCI shows in Section II.2 – unless the ETCI is

pathological7.a), if this property exists at all [6,7] – and as just has been applied to the DDR ETCI

under the preceding bullet point.

Thus, let ●E-crC1∷=9.c) SO 1BRCA1 gene, ●E-crC2∷= SO 1BRCA1 RNA, ●E-crC3∷= SO 1BRCA1

cDNA, ●E-crC4∷= SO 2BRCA1 gene : H(SO 2BRCA1 gene) = 2BRCA1 gene allele, ●E-crC5∷=

SO 2BRCA1 RNA : H(SO 2BRCA1 RNA) = 2BRCA1 RNA allele, ●E-crC6∷= SO 2BRCA1 cDNA

: H(SO 2BRCA1 cDNA) = 2BRCA1 cDNA allele, ●E-crC7∷= H(SO 1BRCA1 gene, 2BRCA1 gene),

●E-crC8∷= H(SO 1BRCA1 RNA, 2BRCA1 RNA), ●E-crC9∷= H(SO 1BRCA1 cDNA, 2BRCA1 cDNA),

●E-crC10∷= a procedure that decides, whether the resp. set contains an allele.

These 10 Myriad ETCI’s E-crCk – as consequence of their evident precisely&exactly9.b) modeling –

enable precisely&exactly9.b) modeling also the 3 Myriad ETCI’s A-crCn and their conjunction of:

A-crC1∷= {E-crC1} ∨ {E-crC2} ∨ {E-crC3} 8.f) ˄

A-crC2∷= {E-crC4} ∨ {E-crC5} ∨ {E-crC6}˄

A-crC3∷= ({E-crC7} ∨ {E-crC8} ∨ {E-crC9}) ˄ E-crC10,

which evidently is Myriad ETCI’s “E-level representation”, defined by its {E-crCk, 1≤k≤K=10}7.b)9.d).

9 .a The rest of Myriad’s explanations is basically a copy of the DDR explanation – confirming the stereotype of applying the PEG alias refined Alice test.

.b see [24413.a)], here meaning: A complete but not precise or exact criterion may evidently still disguise what its necessary&sufficient requirements are.

.c “∷=” as ever abbreviates the string “… be defined to model …” – the author apologizes for the verbosity of this Myriad explanation (hopefully helpful). .d This refined representation of this Myriad ETCI also shows that an E-level representation of an ETCI may focus much more concisely on the relevant

information defining it, i.e. is able to get rid of much intellectually dead freight often inevitably to be tolerated on its A-level representation. This brings up the question, whether the just performed transformation of the Myriad ETCI’s representation from a Myriad A-level to a Myriad E-level

is indeed a notional refinement or just a (notionally nothing refining) transformation from one Myriad representation system to another one. What immediately here comes up in one’s mind is the well known coordinate system transformation of the movements of the solar system’s planets from the Cartesian coordinate system springing off the sun (with the complicated epicycloids describing their movements therein) to the spherical equally located coordinate system (with simple conic cuts describing their movements therein). While indeed an analogous coordinate system transformation of the Myriad ETCI occurs here. Yet, the simplifications achieved by it enable in both cases – this holds for probably most such simplifications by isomorphisms – significant additional insights into the problem transformed and/or its solution, originally much harder to achieve, if possible at all.

PS_to_PEG_test_V10-DOSC page 10 of 12

© Sigram Schindler, 2015, 2016

The complete invention/TT0, to which the Myriad ETCI is coupled for launching its BRCA1 test X3 –

by its first step, its second step being X3’s indication, this whole test being the application/A of TT0,

by the Supreme Court’s Alice decision – is the di-hybridization8.h) that TT0 achieves, whereby all 3

options of TT0 are precisely&exactly9.b) described by its {E-crCk, 1≤k≤9} =∷COM(<TT0,Φ>).

Any of TT0’s 3 options comprises 1 E-crCk being a natural “hybridization” phenomenon, hence is

patent-noneligible as (unlimited) preemptive – holding even if TT0 were not known already8.g).

But, TT0 is even creatively applied within the Myriad ETCI to enable specifically a BRCA1 test, as

disclosed by its specification. This application/A of TT0 – alias BRCA1 test – is defined by “X3 has

the property E-crC10”, i.e. has the property to be a procedure that decides, whether the resp.

outcome set of germlines resulting from this specific di-hybridization contains a resp. allele. This

property has never been heard before in this BRCA1 combination, hence is creative10.a).

Thus, this application/A/E-crC10, exposed by X3’s E-level representation – but blurring in its A-level

representation and hence there hardly noticeable – transforms the Myriad ETCI into patent-eligibility.

The specification of the Myriad ETCI enables no alternative meaningful split between its TT0 and A.

Not at all mentioning this split by the CAFC’s decision, is – given the Supreme Court’s Alice decision

– an important legal error, as it enforces this legal error into any court decision about an ETCI of

which its A-level presentation disables applying the Supreme Courts MBA framework (while its Alice

test requires this split). I.e.: The CAFC Myriad decision’s mentioning this evidently pertinent Alice

decision, but not the split it requires, is nothing but lip service.

The result – of this explanation of correctly applying the Supreme Court’s Alice decision to the

Myriad ETCI – is: For Myriad ETCI’s invention/TT0, its application/A (defined by this just quoted

predicate) comprises (defined by the same predicate) the “inventive Alice concept, TT0,AinCAlice” ≠Φ,

i.e. TT0,AinCAlice={E-crC10}, which by Alice transforms this ETCI to patent-eligibility.

Notwithstanding this at a first glance notional tightness, it nevertheless is crystal clear and not mista-

kable, according to the Supreme Court’s Alice decision in the representation of the above equivalent

patent-eligibility criterion: The Myriad ETCI couples a patent-noneligible invention/TT0 (i.e. a possibly

known di-hybridization) to a creative application/A of it (i.e. a BRCA1 indication). It thus transforms

this couple into a patent-eligible subject matter7.c), i.e. into unquestionable patent-eligibility.

10 .a – why E-crC10 was determined to be creative, during the indispensable up-front refined claim interpretation of the Myriad ETCI, what the CAFC

decision about the Myriad ETCI ignored. The most likely reason for this incredible legal error – X3’s cancer indication is explicitly referred to by its claim’s wording – is that the CAFC board, due to its notionally too coarse basis for its decision, assumed the meaning of X3’s cancer indication were an unavoidable part coming along with some notions: e.g. with a drug its administration under certain medical conditions, or with a weapon its use under certain threatening conditions, or with a game its playing under certain social conditions, or … The Supreme Court’s metaphor for this kind of tautologies is broadly accepted, namely the meaningless alleged limitation “apply it” – as by the notion drug/weapon/game/… inevitably implied [237].

By contrast, this assumption about the Myriad ETCI’s BRCA1 indication (to be its hybridization product’s non-additional but unavoidable property, its “apply it” equivalent) is grossly wrong. Namely: Its hybridization product’s processing for determining its comprising a BRCA1 allele is in no way implied by this product. The latter’s processing may comprise screening this product’s set of germlines microscopically & automatically (not being natural phenome-non based) or by means of another biological marker (then being natural phenomenon based). In any case this analysis of this product is not part of the meaning of genes’ hybridization, but a totally independent activity thereof – one of potentially quite differently directed activities, and anyway creative.

.b There is an inevitable simplicity, as to this patent-eligibility question, of this and many other cases, e.g. in the cases of the toy ETCI and the DDR

ETCI. This simplicity is not at all incidental or undesirable, due to two reasons: ●Firstly, by reason of their enabling disclosures requirements they quite

generally tend to be a priori simple. But, ●secondly, there is an evergreen hearsay among patent professionals, at least in Germany [207], that the safest way to get a patent application granted by a PTO is to represent its invention/TT0 as being useful in a specific application of it – which automatically/ subcortically implies that this application is only moderately honored. By its Alice decision the Supreme Court expands and confirms this since ever existing vague feeling of many patent professionals: Now a whatsoever application/A of a whatsoever invention/TT0 is to be considered as a patent-eligible ETCI if this coupling is creative – thus inspiring creativity also as to reusing earlier inventions/TT0s in hitherto not considered applications, which socially evidently is extremely reasonable.

PS_to_PEG_test_V10-DOSC page 11 of 12

© Sigram Schindler, 2015, 2016

● Cuozzo: The FSTP comment in [241] as of 05.11.2015 – on Cuozzo’s Petition for Writ of

Certiorari to the Supreme Court – is very briefly summarized by11.a), showing that there is an impor-

tant common denominator between the Cuozzo and the DDR/Myriad CAFC decisions just discussed:

The Supreme Court’s MBA framework. As focused on the latter’s impact on claim interpretation&con-

struction problem – namely: requiring considering it as a whole, i.e. to complete it to a refined claim

interpretation and (separated from it) to a refined claim construction – and due to the word count

limitation for an AB to the CAFC, that FSTP comment could not address the patent-eligibility issue.

While it were meaningless to repeat here from [241] the detailed elaborations explaining this impact,

it is worthwhile summarizing – of this MBA framework and its impact on the understanding of SPL –

how it has developed and in particular how far it is accepted by the patent community.

●The pre-Mayo almost common understanding of SPL was that claim interpretation&construction for

an ETCI is an issue separable from other SPL key issues, such as obviousness (where with the

Supreme Court’s KSR decision the “modern SPL understanding” alias MBA framework started to

emerge, i.e. the consciousness of the need of refined thinking about SPL precedents about ETCIs),

definitiveness – and in particular from patent-eligibility. ●At the latest since Mayo, AIT/MAI/… [2]

asserted that this common understanding is wrong as all these issues are intimately interwoven with

each other – and in particular to the refined claim interpretation&construction [44,86,1,5]. ●Since

then several broadly supported criticisms as to the USPTO based claim interpretation&construction,

the “BRI”, arose from the patent community [68,228] – none of them showing any awareness that

ETCIs force to understand that the issues of claim interpretation&construction and of patent-eligibility

are just two views of the same problem. ●The USPTO started trying to reduce its problem with the

Supreme Court’s MBA framework, but without changing its own position, also where it clearly contra-

dicts the Supreme Court’s one (see the next bullet paragraph). ●And the CAFC ignores all that.

This and the tutorials [241,244] explain to everybody in the patent community: Accepting the refined

notional resolution in SPL provided by the Supreme Court’s MBA framework doesn’t hamper under-

standing SPL precedents about ETCIs but greatly improves it and without this refinement achieving

consistency and with it predictability in this socioeconomic crucial legal area is absolutely impossible.

● USPTO’s July 2015 IEG Update: Principally there is no barrier for complementing the current

USPTO’s IEG Update by the PEG test – for assessing that an application of the IEG’s alleged “two

step Alice test”1.b) to an ETCI is precise&exact [24413.a)], i.e. applies the MBA framework correctly.

This tutorial provides, by its exemplary analysis of 1 toy ETCI and 3 topical CAFC decisions, a

resilient basis for this extension of the IEG. [244] additionally provides the information about the mid-

term changes that the IEG has to absorb for getting it notionally totally in line with the Supreme

Court’s MBA framework, and hence also with AIT/MAI/… [2]. The evident march of time towards

much more rationality in SPL precedents about ETCIs in particular and in “Innovation Technology” in

general than hitherto available – with which the IEG and broader the MPEP [14] must stay in sync

with it for protecting the wealth of the US society – has to this end recently been accelerated, once

more, by the US Supreme Court’s pace making Teva decision [217].

11 .a Cuozzo’s Petition focuses on the urgency of deciding both questions [11.b], …. But, it totally refrains from using the guidelines provided by this MBA

framework for answering question 1) as to the “BRIPTO”. Hence, this brief[…] totally focuses on showing: By its MBA framework, this Court has clearly banned this BRIPTO from court rooms – just as AIT[…] sees it, due to BRIPTO‘s evident irrationality. .b ‘Whether the CAFC erred in holding

1) that in IPR proceedings, the Board may construe claims in an issued patent according to their BRI rather than their plain and ordinary meaning, and 2) that even if the Board exceeds its statutory authority in instituting an IPR proceeding, the Board’s decision whether ….’

PS_to_PEG_test_V10-DOSC page 12 of 12

© Sigram Schindler, 2015, 2016

The FSTP-Project’s Reference List

FSTP = Facts Screening/Transforming/Presenting (Version_of_05.01.2016*))

Most of the author’s below papers are written in preparation of [182] – i.e. are not intended to be self-explaining independently of their predecessors.[1] S. Schindler: “US Highest Courts’ Patent Precedents in Mayo/Myriad/CLS/Ultramercial/LBC: ‘Inventive Concepts’ Accepted –

‘Abstract Ideas’ Next? Patenting Emerging Tech. Inventions Now without Intricacies”*). [2] AIT: “Advanced Information Tech.” alias “Artificial Intelligence Technology” denotes cutting edge IT areas, e.g. Knowledge

Representation/Description Logic/Natural Language (NL)/Semantics/Semiotics/System Design. MAI: “Mathematical Artificial Intelligence”, the resilient fundament of AIT. [3] R. Brachmann, H. Levesque: “Knowledge Represent. & Reasoning”, Elsevier, 2004. [4] F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. McGuiness, D. Nardi, P. Patel-Schneider: “The Description Logic Handbook”, Camb. UP, 2010. [5] S. Schindler: “Math. Model. Substant. Patent Law (SPL) Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up”, Yokohama, JURISIN 2013*). [6] S. Schindler, “FSTP” pat. appl.: “THE FSTP EXPERT SYSTEM”, 2012*). [7] S. Schindler, “DS” pat. appl.: “AN INNOVATION EXPERT SYSTEM, IES, & ITS PTR-DS”, 2013*). [8] S. Schindler, J. Schulze: “Technical Report #1 on ‘902 PTR”, 2014. [9] S. Schindler: “Patent Business – Before Shake-up”, 2015*). [10] SSBG's AB to CAFC in LBC, 2013*). [11] S. Schindler, “inC” pat. appl.: “inC ENABLED SEMI-AUTO. TESTS OF PATENTS”, 2013*). [12] C. Correa: “Handbook on Prot. of IP under WTO Rules”, EE, 2010. [13] N. Klunker: "Harmonisierungsbest. im mat. Patentrecht”, MPI, 2010. [14] “USPTO/MPEP: “2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reason. Interpretation”). [15] S. Schindler: “KR Support for SPL Precedents”, Barcelona, eKNOW-2014*). [16] J. Daily, S. Kieff: “Anything under the Sun Made by Humans SPL Doctrine as End. Instit. for Comm. Innovation”,

Stanford/GWU*). [17] CAFC En banc Hearing in LBC, 12.09.2013. [18] USSC: SSBG’s AB in CLS, 07.10.2013*). [19] USSC: SSBG’s AB in WildTangt, 23.09.2013*). [20] USPTO, “Intellectual Property and the US Economy: INDUSTR. IN FOCUS”, 2012*). [21] K. O'Malley: Keynote Address, IPO, 2013*). [22] S. Schindler, “An Inventor View at the Grace Period”, Kiev, 2013*). [23] S. Schindler, “The IES and inC Enabled SPL Tests”, Munich, 2013*). [24] S. Schindler, “Two Fund. Theorems of ‘Math. Innovation Science’”, Hong Kong, ECM-2013*). [25] S. Schindler, A. Paschke, S. Ramakrishna, “Form. Leg. Reas. that an Inven. Satis. SPL”, Bologna, JURIX-2013*). [26] USSC: SSBG’s AB in Bilski, 06.08.2009*). [27] T. Bench-Capon, F. Coenen: “Isomo. and Legal Knowledge Based Systems”, AI&Law, 1992*). [28] N. Fuchs, R. Schwitter. "Att. to Con. E.", 1996. [29] A. Paschke: “Rules / Logic Programming in the Web”. 7. ISS, Galway, 2011. [30] K. Ashley, V. Walker, “From Info. to Arg. Retr. for Legal Cases”, Bologna, JURIX-2013*). [31] CAFC, H. in Oracle / Google, “As to Copyrightability of the Java Platf.”, 06.12.2013. [32] S. Schindler, “A KR Based Inno. E. Sys. (IES) for US SPL Preceds”, Phuket, ICIIM-2014*). [33] S. Schindler, “Status Report about the FSTP Prototype”, Hyderabad, GIPC-2014. [34] S. Schindler, “Status of the FSTP Prototype”, Moscow, LESI, 2014. [35] S. Schindler, IPR-MEMO: “STL, SCL, and SPL – STL Tests seen as SCL Tests seen as SPL Tests”, in prep. [36] S. Schindler, “Boon and Bane of Inventive Concepts and Refined Claim Construction in the Supreme Court's New Patent

Precedents", Berkeley, IPSC, 08.08.2014*). [37] D. Bey, C. Cotropia, "The Unreasonableness of the BRI Standard", AIPLA, 2009*). [38] CAFC, Transcript of the Hearing in TELES vs. CISCO/USPTO, 08.01.2014*). [39] CAFC, Transcript of the en banc Hearing in CLS vs. ALICE, 08.02.2013*). [40] SSBG's Brief to the CAFC in case '453*). [41] SSBG's Brief to the CAFC in case '902*). [42] SSBG's Amicus Brief to the CAFC in case CLS, 06.12.2012*). [43] S. Schindler, “LAC” pat. appl.: „Semi-Auto. Gen./Custom. of (All) Confirmative Legal Arg. Chains (LACs) in a CI`s SPL Test,

Enabled by Its Inventive Concepts”, 2014*). [44] R. Rader, S. Schindler: Panel disc. "Patents on Life Sciences", Berlin, LESI, 2012. [45] USSC: SSBG’s AB as to CIIs, 28.01. 2014*). [46] S. Schindler: "Autom. Deriv. of Leg. Arg. Chains (LACs) from Arguable Subtests (ASTs) of a Claimed Invention's Test for

Satisfying. SPL", U Warsaw, 24.05.2014*). [47] S. Schindler: "Auto. Generation of All ASTs for an Invention's SPL Test".*). [48] USPTO/MPEP, “2012 Proc. for Subj. Mat. Eli. ... of Pro. Claims Inv. Laws of Nature”, 2012*). [49] USPTO/MPEP, Supp. Ex. Guideli. for Determ. Compli. with 35 U.S.C. 112; MPEP 2171*). [50] NAUTILUS v. BIOSIG, PFC, 2013*). [51] BIOSIG, Respondent, 2013*) [52] Public Knowledge et al., AB, 2013*). [53] Amazon et al., AB, 2013*). [54] White House, FACT SHEET - ... the Presid.’s Call to Str. Our PS and Foster Inno., 2014*). [55] USPTO: see home page. [56] CAFC Decision Phillips v. AWH Corp., 12.07.2005 [57] M. Adelman, R. Rader, J. Thomas: "Cases and Materials on Patent Law", West AP, 2009. [58] SSBG's Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court as to its (In)Definiteness Quest’s, 03.03, 2014*). [59] S. Schindler, “UI” pat. appl.: “An IES Cap. of S-Auto. Gen./Invoking All LACs in the SPL Test of a CI, Ean. by InCs”, 2014*). [60] S. Schindler: "Auto. Der. of All Arg. Chains Leg. Def. Patenting/Patented Inventions", ISPIM, Montreal, 6.10.2014, update*). [61] H. Wegner: "Indf., the Sl. Giant in SPL", www. laipla.net/hal-wegners-top-ten-patent-cases/. [62] .a) CAFC decision on reexamination of U.S. Pat. No. 7,145,902, 21.02.2014*). [63] .b) CAFC decision on reexamination of U.S. Pat. No 6,954,453, 04.04.2014*). [64] B. Wegner, S. Schindler: "A Mathe. Structure Modeling Inventions", Coimbra, CICM-2014*). [65] SSBG’s Petition to the CAFC for Rehearing En Banc in the ‘902 case, 18.04.2014*). [66] CAFC: VEDERI vs. GOOGLE, 14.03.2014 [67] CAFC: THERASENSE decision, 25.05.2011 [68] B. Fiacco: Amicus Brief to the CAFC in VERSATA v. SAP&USPTO, 24.03.14*). [69] USSC, Transcript of the oral argument in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 31.03.2014*). [70] R. Rader, Keyn. Sp: “Pat. Law and Liti. Ab.”, ED Tex Bench and Bar Conf., 01.11.2013*). [71] S. Schindler, Keynote Speech: “eKnowledge of SPL – Trail Blazer into the Innovation Age”, Barcelona, eKNOW-2014*). [72] .a) S. Schindler: “The Sup. Court’s ‘SPL Init.’: Sci. Its SPL Interpreta. Removes 3 Everg. SPL Obscurities”, PR, 08.04.2014*). .b) S. Schindler: “The Supreme Court’s ‘SPL Initiative’: Sci. Its SPL Int. Rem. 3 Everg. SPL Obsc. and En. Auto. in a CI’s SPL

Tests and Arg. Chains”, Honolulu, IAM2014S, 18.07.14*). [73] .a) USPTO/MPEP: “2014 Procedure For Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Of Claims Reciting Or Involving Laws Of

Nature/Natural Principles, Natural Phenomena, And/Or Natural Products”, [48,49], 2014*). .b) MEMORANDUM: “Prelim. Examin. Instructions in view of Alice v. CLS”*). [74] B. Wegner: "The Mathematical Background of Proving an InCs Based Claimed Inv. Satisfies SPL”, 7. GIPC, Mumbai,

16.01.2015.*) [75] CAFC Order as to denial [65], 27.05.2014 [76] D. Crouch: “En Banc Fed. Cir. Panel Changes the Law of Claim Construction”, 13.07.2005*). [77] Video of the USPTO Hearing, 09.05.2014*). [78] R. Rader, Keynote Speech at GTIF, Geneva, 2014 and LESI, Moscow, 2014 [79] S. Schindler: “On the BRI-Schism in the US NPS …”, publ. 22.05.2014.*) [80] USSC: SSBG’s PfC in the ‘902 case, Draft_V.133_of_ [121], publ. 14.07.2014*). [81] S. Schindler: “To Whom is Interested in the Supreme Court’s Biosig Decision”*) [82] R. DeBerardine: “Inno.Corp.Per.”, FCBA*). [83] SSBG’s Petition to the CAFC for Rehearing En Banc in the ‘453 case, 09.06.2014*). [84] CAFC’s Order as to denial [83], 14.07.2014*). [85] CAFC: “At Three Decades”, DC, 2012. [86] S. Schindler Foundation: “Transatlantic Coop. for Growth and Security”, DC, 2011. [87] DPMA: “Recent Developments and Trends in US Patent Law“, Munich, 2012. [88] FCBA: “Inno., Trade, Fis. Real.”, Col. S., 2013. [89] LESI: GTIF, Geneva, 2014. [90] FCBA: “Sharp. C. Man.”, Asheville, N.C., 2014 [91] B. Wegner, S. Schindler: "A Math. KR Model for Ref. Cl. Cons. II", subm. for publication. [92] SSBG’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court in the ‘453 case, 06.10.2014*). [93] E. Morris: “What is ‘Technology’?”, IU I.N.*) [94] E. Morris: “Alice, Artifice, and Action – and Ultramercial”, IU I.N., 08.07.2014*). [95] S. Schindler, ArAcPEP-MEMO: “Artifice, Action, and the Pat.-Eli. Prob.”, in prep., 2014. [96] A. Chopra: “Deer in the Headlights. Response of Incumbent Firms to … ”, School of Management, Fribourg, 2014*). [97] S. Schindler, DisInTech-MEMO: “R&D on Pat. Tech.: Eff. and Safety Boost.”, in prep., 2014. [98] G. Boolos, J. Burgess, R. Jeffrey: “Computability and Logic”, Cambridge UP, 2007. [99] A. Hirshfeld, Alexandria, PTO, 22.07.2014*). [100] C. Chun: “PTO’s Scrutiny on Software Patents Paying Off”, Law360, N.Y.*). [101] P. Michel, Keynote, PTO, 22.07.2014. [102] D. Jones, Alexandria, PTO, 22.07.2014. [103] R. Gomulkiewicz, Seattle, CASRIP, 25.07.14. [104] M. Lemley, Seattle, CASRIP, 25.07.2014. [105] D. Jones, Seattle, CASRIP, 25.07.2014. [106] B. LaMarca, Seattle, CASRIP, 25.07.2014. [107] J. Duffy, Seattle, CASRIP, 25.07.2014. [108] J. Pagenberg, Seattle, CASRIP, 25.07.2014. [109] M. Adelman, Seattle, CASRIP, 25.07.2014. [110] B. Stoll, Seattle, CASRIP, 25.07.2014. [111] R. Rader, Seattle, CASRIP, 25.07.2014. [112] E. Bowen, C. Yates: “Justices Should Back Off Patent Eligibility, …”, L360*). [113] S. Schindler: “The CAFC’s Rebellion is Over – The Supreme Court, by Mayo/Biosig/Alice, Provides Clear Guidance as to Pat.

ETCIs”, published 07.08.2014*). [114] S. Elliott: “The USPTO Patent Subj. Matter Eligi. Guidance TRIPSs”, 30.07.2014*). [115] W. Zheng: “Exhausting Patents”, Berkeley, IPSC, 08.08.2014*). [116] R. Merges: “Independent Invention: A Limited Defense of Absolute Infringement Liability in Patent Law”, Berkeley, IPSC,

08.08.2014*). [117] J. Sarnoff, Berkeley, IPSC, 08.08.2014. [118] H. Surden: “Principles of Problematic Pats”, Berkeley, IPSC, 08.08.2014*). [119] www.zeit.de/2013/33/multiple-sklerose-medikament-tecfidera/seite-2*). [120] J. Merkley, M. Warner, M. Begich, M. Heinrich, T. Udal: “Letter to Hon. Penny Pritzker”, DC, 06.08.2014*). [121] USSC: SSBG’s PfC in ‘902 case, 25.08.2014*). [122] D. Parnas, see Wikipedia. [123] E. Dijkstra, see Wikipedia. [124] S. Schindler: “Computer Organization III”, 3. Semester Class in Comp. Sc., TUB, 1974-1984. [125] S. Schindler: “Nonsequential Algorithms”, 4. Semester Class in Comp. Sc., TUB, 1978-1984. [126] S. Schindler: “Optimal Satellite Orbit Transfers”, PhD Thesis, TUB, 1971. [127] USSC Decision in KSR ….. USSC Decision in Bilski ….. USSC Decision in Mayo ….. USSC Decision in Myriad ….. USSC Decision in Biosig ….. USSC Decision in Alice …. [128] R. Feldman: “Coming of Age for the Federal Circuit”, The Green Bag 2014, UC Hastings. [129] G. Quinn: “Judge Michel says Alice Decision ‘will create total chaos’”, IPWatch,*). [130] G. Frege: “Function und Begriff“, 1891.

[131] L. Wittgenstein: “Tract. logico-philoso.”, 1918. [132] B. Wegner, MEMO: “About relations (V.7-final)”, 25.04.2013*). [133] B. Wegner, MEMO: “About con. of pre. /con., scope and solution of problems”, 20.08.2013. [134] B. Wegner, MEMO: “A refined relat. between domains in BADset and BEDset”, 18.09.2014. [135] H. Goddard, S. Schindler, S. Steinbrener, J. Strauss: FSTP Meeting, Berlin, 29.09.2014. [136] S. Schindler: “Tutorial on Commonalities Between System Design and SPL Testing”.*). [137] S. Schindler: “The Rationality of a Claimed Invention’s (CI’s) post-Mayo SPL Test – It Increases CI’s Legal Quality and

Professional Efficiency in CI’s Use”, in prep. [138] S. Schindler: “The USSC Guid. to Robust ET CI Patents”, ICLPT, Bangkok, 22.01.2015*). [139] USSC: Order as to denial [121], 14.10.2014*). [140] S. Schindler: “§ 101 Bashing or § 101 Clarification”, published 27.10.2014*). [141] BGH, “Demonstrationsschrank” decision*). [142] B. Wegner, S. Schindler: “A Mathematical KR Model for Ref. Cl. Int. & Constr. II”, in prep... [143] … Press, …… to go into [137]………… [144] “Turmoil …..”, see program of AIPLA meeting, DC, 23.10.2014 [145] “Dark side of Innovation”, …… see [137] [146] D. Kappos: About his recent west coast meetings, AIPLA, DC, 23.10.2014. [147] CAFC, Transcript of the Hearing in Biosig case, 29.10.2014*). [148] R. Rader: Confirming that socially inacceptable CIs as extremely preemptive, such as for example [119]2), should be patent-

eligible, AIPLA meeting, DC, 24.10.2014. [149] A. Hirshfeld: Announcing the PTO’s readiness to consider also hypothetical CIs into its resp. guideline, AIPLA meeting, DC,

24.10.2014. [150] S. Schindler: “Alice-Tests Enable ‘Quantifying’ Their Inventive Concepts … – A Tut. about this Key to Increasing a Patent’s

Robustness“, USPTO&GWU, 06.02.2015*), see also [175]*). [151] S. Schindler: “Biosig, Refined by Alice, Vastly Increases the Robustness of Patents – A Tutorial about this Key to Increasing a

Patent’s Robustness”, in prep.“*). [152] S. Schindler: ”Auto. Deriv./Reprod. of Legal Argument Chains, Protecting Patens Against SPL Attacks”, Singapore, ISPIM,

09.12.2014*). [153] S. Schindler: “Practical Impacts of the Mayo/Alice/Biosig-Test – A Tutorial about … Patent`s Robustness”, 2015 IP Scholars

Roundt., Drake Uni. Law School, 27.03.2015*) [154] CAFC Decision in Interval, 10.09. 2014*). [155] S. Schindler: “A Tutorial into (Operating) Sys. Design and AIT Terms/Notions on Rigorous ETCIs' Analysis by the Patent

Com. “, in prep. [156] CAFC Decision in DDR, 05.12. 2014*). [157] USPTO: “2014 Int. Guidance on Pat. Subj. M. Eli. & Examples: Abs. Ideas”, 16.12.2014*). [158] USSC’s Order as to denial [92], 08.12.2014*). [159] CAFC Decision in Myriad, 17.12.2014*). [160] S. Schindler: “The USSC Mayo/Myriad/Alice Decisions, The PTO’s Implementation by Its IEG, The CAFC’s DDR & Myriad

Recent Decisions – Clarifications&Challenges”*), publ. 14.01.2015*), its short version*), and its PP presentation at USPTO, 21.01.2015*)..

[161] S. Schindler: ”The IES: Phil. & Func. &, Ma. F. – A Proto.”, 7. GIPC, Mumbai, 16.01.2015*). [162] CAFC Decision in CET, 23.12.2014*). [163] S. Schindler: “The USSC’s Mayo/Myriad/Alice Decisions: Their Overinterpret. vs. Oversimplification of ET CIs – Scientific. of

SPL Prec. as to ET CIs in Action: The CAFC’s Myriad & CET Decisions”, USPTO, 07.01.2015*). [164] J. Schulze, D. Schoenberg, L. Hunger, S. Schindler: “Intro. to the IES UI of the FSTP-Test“, 7. GIPC, Mumbai, 16.01.2015*). [165] “ALICE AND PATENT DOOMSDAY IN THE NEW YEAR”, IPO, 06.01.2015*). [166] S. Schindler: “Today’s SPL Precedents and Its Perspectives, Driven by ET CIs”, 7. GIPC, Mumbai, 15.01.2015*). [167] R. Sachs: “A Survey of Pat. Inv. since Alice”. F&W LLP, Law360, New York, 13.01.2015*). [168] S. Schindler: “PTO’s IEG Forum – Some Aftermath”, publ. 10.02.2015*). [169] Agenda of this Forum on [157], Alexandria, USPTO, 21.01.2015*). [170] G. Quinn: “Patent Eli. For. Discuss. Ex. Appli. of Mayo/Myriad/Alice”, IPWatchd, 21.01.2015*) [171] S. Schindler: “Semiotic Impacts of the Supreme Court’s Mayo/Biosig/Alice Decisions on Legally Analyzing ETCIs”*). [172] USSC Decision in Teva, 20.01.2015*). [173] USSC Dec. in Pullman-Standard, 27.04.1982*). [174] USSC Decision in Markman, 23.04.1996*). [175] S. Schindler: “A Patent’s Robustn. & ‘Double Quantifying’ Its InCs as of Mayo/Alice”, WIPIP. USPTO&GWU, 06.02.2015*). [176] R. Rader: Questions as to the FSTP-Test, WIPIP, USPTO&GWU, 06.02.2015. [177] D. Karshtedt: “The Completeness Requ. in Pat Law”, WIPIP, USPTO&GWU, 06.02.2015*). [178] O. Livak: “The Unresol. Ambiguity of Patent Claims”, WIPIP, USPTO&GWU, 06.02.2015*). [179] J. Miller: “Reasonable Certain Notice”, WIPIP, USPTO&GWU, 06.02.2015*) [180] S. Ghosh: “Demarcating Nature After Myriad”, WIPIP, USPTO&GWU, 06.02.2015*) [181] CAFC Decision in Cuozzo, 04.02.2015*). [182] S. Schindler: “Patent/Innovation Technology and Science”, Textbook, in prep. [183] S. Schindler: “The Mayo/Alice SPL Ts/Ns in FSTP-T&PTO Init.”, USPTO, 16.03.2015*). [184] S. Schindler: “PTOs Efficiency Increase by the FSTP-Test, e.g. EPO and USPTO”, LESI, Brussels, 10.04.2015*). [185] R. Chen: Commenting politely on “tensions” about the BRI, PTO/IPO-EF Day, 10.03.2015. [186] A. Hirshfeld: Rep. about the PTO’s progress of the IEG work, PTO/IPO-EF Day, 10.03.2015. [187] P. Michel: Moderating the SPL paradigm ref. by Mayo/Alice, PTO/IPO-EF Day, 10.03.2015. [188] P. Michel: Asking this panel as to diss. of Mayo/Alice, PTO/IPO-EF Day, 10.03.2015. [189] M. Lee: Luncheon Keynote Speech, PTO/IPO-EF Day, 10.03.2015*). [190] A. Hirshfeld: Remark on EPQI’s ref. of pat. ap. examination, PTO/IPO-EF Day, 10.03.2015. [191] 16th Int. Roundt. on Sem., Hilo, 29.04.2015*). [192] M. Schecter, D. Crouch, P. Michel: Panel Disc., Patent Quality Summit, USPTO, 25.03.2015. [193] Finnegan: 3 fund. current uncert. on SPL prec, Patent Quality Summit, USPTO, 25.03.2015. [194] S. Schindler, B. Wegner, J. Schulze, D. Schoenberg: “post-Mayo/Biosig/Alice – The Precise Meanings of Their New SPL

Terms”, publ. 08.04.15*). [195] R. Stoll: “Fed. Cir. Cases to Watch on Softw. Pat. – Planet Blue”, Patently-O, 06.04.2015*). [196] See the panel at the IPBCGlobal’2015, San Francisco, 14-16.06.2015*).. [197] S. Schindler: “Mayo/Alice – The USSC’s Requirement Statement as to Semiotics in SPL & ETCIs, USPTO, 06.05.2015r*). [198] S. Schindler: “Pats’ Abs. Robust. & the FSTP-Test”, LESI 2015, Brussels 18.04.2015*), DBKDA 2015 Rome 27.05.2015. [199] B. Wegner: “The FSTP Test – Its Mathe. Assess. of an ET CI’s Practical and SPL Quality”, LESI 2015, Brussels, 18.04.2015*).

and DBKDA 2015, Rome, 27.05.2015. [200] D. Schoenberg: “The FSTP Test: A SW Sys. for Ass. an ET CI’s Pract. and SPL Quality”, LESI 2015 Brussels 18.04.2015 and

DBKDA 2015 Rome 27.05.2015*). [201] Panel: “Patent Prosecution Session”, AIPLA, LA, 31.04.2015. [202] S. Schindler:; “The Notion of “InC”, Fully Scientized SPL, and “Controlled Preemptive” ETCIs”, published by 11.06.2015*). [203] I. Kant, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/. [204] J. Lefstin: “The Three Faces of Prometheus: A Post-Alice Jurisprudence of Abstraction”, N.C.J.L.&TECH, July 2015*). [205] CAFC Decision in Biosig, 27.04.2015*). [206] USSC Petition for Cert in ULTRAMERCIAL vs, WILDTANGENT, May 2015. . [207] K.-J. Melullis, report about a thus caused problem with a granted patent at the X. Senate of the German BGH. [208] S. Schindler: “Reach of SPL Prot. for ETCIs of Tied Preemptivity”, published by 25.06.2015*). [209] CAFC Decision in Ariosa, 12.06.2015*) [210] S. Braswell: “All Rise for Chief Justice Robot”, Sean Braswell, 07.06.2015*) [211] S. Schindler: “The Cons. of Ideas Mo. USSC’s MBA-Semiotics and its Hi-Level”, in prep. [212] R. Merges: “Uncertainty, and the Standard of Patentability”, 1992*). [213] CAFC Decision in Teva, 18.06.2015*) [214] K. O’Malley, B. Lynn, A. Weiss, M. Cooper: “Pat. Lit. Case Man.: Reforming the Pat. Lit. Proc. …”, FCBA, 25.06.2015. [215] R. Chen, A. Bencivengo, N. Kelley, J. Reisman: “Claim Construct.”, FCBA, 26.06.2015. [216] P. Naik, C. Laporte, C, Kinzig, T. Chappel, K. Gupta: “Chan. IP Norms and their Effect on Inno. in Bio-/Pharmaceut.-/High-

Tech Sectors of the Corporate World”, FCBA, 27.06.2015. [217] S. Schindler: “The US NPS: The MBA Framework a Rough Diamond – but Rough for Ever? Teva will Cut this Diamond and

thus Create a Mega-Trend in SPL, Internat.”, publ. 21.07.2015*). [218] B. Russel: “Principles of Mathematics”, see Wikipedia. [219] I. Kant: “The Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science “, Wikipedia. [220] CAFC Decision in LBC, 23.06.2015*).. [221] CAFC Decision in Cuozzo, 08.07.2015*).. [222] CAFC Decision in Versata, 09.07.2015*).. [223] CAFC Decision in Int. Ventures, 06.07.2015*).. [224] J. Duffy, J. Dabney: PfC, 13.08.2009*). [225] S. Schindler: “A PS to an Appraisal to the USSC’s Teva Decision: CAFC Teaming-up with PTO for Barring Teva – and this

entire ‘ET Spirit’ Framework?”, pub 27.07.2015*). [226] R. Stoll, B. LaMarca, S. Ono, H. Goddard, N. Hoelder: “Challenging Software-Business Method Pat. Eli. in Civil Actions and

Post Grant Review”, CASRIP, Seattle, 24.07.2015. [227] A. Serafini, D. Kettelberger, J. Haley, J. Krauss: „Biotech and Pharma Patents Eligi.:“, CASRIP, Seattle, 24.07.2015. [228] D. Kettelberger, see [227] [229] Justice Breyer: “Archimedes Metaphor”, [69]*). [230] I. Kant: https://en.wikipedia. com/wiki/Immanuel_Kant. & I. Kant: *Critique of Pure Reason”,

https://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/I_Kant. [231] I. Kant: *Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwork_of _the Metaphysics_of Morals. [232] I. Kant: *Categorical Imperative”, https:/en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_Imperative [233] I. Kant: *Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Prolegomena_to_Any_Future_Metaphysics. [234] J. Dabney: “The Return of the Inventive Concept?”, 06.12.2012*). [235] USPTO: "July 2015 Update on Subj. Matter Eligibility", 30.07.2015*) [236] Concepts, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts/. [237] S. Schindler: “The Sol. of the Patent-Eligibility/Preemptivity Prob. – Rooted in Kant”, in prep. [238] R. Hanna: “Kant and the Foundations of Analytic Philosophy”, OUP, 2001. [239] S. Koerner: “The Philosophy of Mathematics”, DOVER, 2009 [240] USSC: PfC by Cuozzo*). [241] S. Schindler: “Draft of an Amicus Brief to the USSC in Cuozzo supporting“, publ. 05.11.2015*). [242] Panel: “The Evolving Landscape at PTAB Proceedings”, AIPLA, DC, 22.10.2015 [243] M. Lee: Publ. Interview at Opening Plenary Session, AIPLA, DC, 21.10.2015. [244] S. Schindler: “From the IEG’s July 2015 Update to the ‘Patent-Eligibility Granted/Granting’-Test”, publ. 18.12.2015 *) [245] M. Lee: USPTO Director's Forum, „Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative: Moving Forward”, 06.11.2015*). [246] ISO/OSI Reference Model of Open Systems Interconnection, see Wikipedia. [247] S. Graham (LAW.COM): Q&A With AIPLA President Denise DeFranco, 13.11.2015*). [248] USSC Decision in Parker vs. Flook, 22.06.1978*). [249] CAFC Denial of En Banc Petition in Ariosa v. Sequenom, 02.12.2015*). [250] D. Crouch (Patently-O): Federal Circuit Reluctantly Affirms Ariosa v. Sequenom and Denies En Banc Rehearing, 03.12.2015*) [251] S. Schindler: “Patent-Eligibility and the “Patent-Eligibility Granted/-ing , PEG” Test, resp. the CAFC Objectively Counters the

Supreme Court’s MBA Framework, by its DDR vs. Myriad/ Cuozzo Decisions]”, this paper, publ. 05.01.2016*). [252] E. Coe: “Michelle Lee Steers USPTO Through Choppy Waters”, Law360 , 09.12.2015*)..*) available at [253] USSC Cert Petitions in Halo v. Pulse and Stryker v. Zimmer, 22.06.2015 [254] CAFC Oral Argument in McRo v. Bandai, 11.12.2015 [255] CAFC Oral Argument in Lexmark v. Impression, 02.10.2015 [256] CAFC Decision in Carnegie v. Marvell, 04.08.2015 *)www.fstp-expert-system.com