DRAFT_PUB_V.143 `THE CAFC’s REBELLION IS OVER – THE SUPREME COURT, BY Mayo/Biosig/Alice, PROVIDES CLEAR GUIDANCE AS TO PATENTING EMERGING TECHNOLOGY INVENTIONS

5 As to the fundamental question shaking the National Patent System (NPS) since several years, the heat is not over yet. But clarity has increased looming largely at a series of national high level conferences addressing this issue – e.g. the FCBA conference, Ashville, 17.20.06.2014; the PTO’s respective hearing, Alexandria, 22.07.2014; the CASRIP, Seattle, 23.-24.07.2014. This groundbreaking question being: “Does the UC Constitution, for a legal decision based on 35 USC §§ 101/102/ 103/112 (abbr. by ‘SPL, Substantive Patent Law’), • require using the uniform refined claim construction framework set forth by the KSR, Bilski, Mayo, Myriad, Biosig and Alice decisions of the 10 Supreme Court, which overcomes the shortcomings of the classical claim construction as to emerging technology inventions, or does it • entitle the PTO, a district court, and the CAFC to continue using the classical claim construction and its “broadest reasonable interpretation, BRI” of a claim, thereby refining them for meeting emerging technology inventions’ needs on its own as suitable for its business – just ‘in the light’ of the above Supreme Court decisions”. This SSBG Report provides an analysis ●) of the implications of these Supreme Court decisions on SPL precedents as seen by 15 Advanced IT (AIT), ●) of the now dominating comments on this line of unanimous decisions – fully in line with this AIT view – notwithstanding that these decisions still encounter ●) fierce critics by several national ‘heavy weight’ opinion leaders, e.g. the two most recent CAFC chief judges, based on the irrational assumption, the classical claim construction and its claim interpretation(s) were capable of providing robust protection by 35 USC SPL to emerging technology inventions, too, without refining the latter’s interpretation as just done by the Supreme Court. This over many decades dominating irrational assumption had since Phillips in 2005 even created a “BRI” schism between USPTO and 20 CAFC and since Mayo in 2012 also a “ClaimConstruction” schism between CAFC and the Supreme Court. This Report shows that in particular 3 of the above decisions, Mayo/Biosig/Alice, now ended all these irrationalities – and provided the hitherto missing resilient constitutional fundament absolutely indispensable for robustly protecting emerging technology inventions as required by the principles of the US Constitution. The SSBG Report hence conveys a really dramatic scientific message about the current development in the US NPS due to these 3 Supreme Court decisions. This message is embedded into a proand an epilog – like in an ancient Greek drama, of which kind this development 25 somewhat has – for separating ●) the author’s individual interpretations of .) public substantial arguments about them made during the above conferences (see the prolog) and of :) PTO’s reluctance to already acknowledge them totally/wholistically (see the epilog) from ●) the Advanced IT’s scientific/unquestionable interpretation of these 3 decisions. Nevertheless, the proand epilog’s individual interpretation will be tightly tied to the elaborations in this Report’s scientific body, thus exposing the former’s trustworthiness to verification/falsification. 30 The Report’s author and its SSBG (“Sigram Schindler Beteiligungs-GmbH”) have a twofold interest in this groundbreaking development in the US NPS. Firstly, they are investing into developing an Advanced IT and fully SPL precedents based “Innovation Expert System (IES)” – evidently the first one of this kind – which, equally evidently, requires a scientifically ‘well-defined’ terminological/notional fundament of the thus emerging ‘patent technology’. Secondly, they are badly hit, in two legal cases, by the above addressed anomalies in the US NPS system and hence are about preparing a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, based on this Report. For avoiding legal conflicts, this Report comprises absolutely 35 nothing specific as to these cases. The actual ‘Petition for Cert’, coming before its deadline on 24.08.2014, will comprise these cases, too. For convenience of the reader, the content and the format of the bodies of the Petition for Cert and of this Report should be identical, except the cases and simplifications/completions/improvements (as a few days are left for them). *) Tech. Uni. of Berlin & TELES Patent Rights International GmbH. (TELES-PRI), owned by Sigram Schindler Beteiligungs-GmbH (SSBG). The 40 author thanks H. Shipley, Foley, for valuable legal help. For the author’s CV see the final page, or its blog www.fstp-expert-system.com.