Mayo / Alice – The Supreme Court’s

Requirement Statement as to Semiotics in

Substantive Patent Law (“SPL”) & Emerging

Technology Claimed Inventions (“ET CI”s)

Sigram Schindler

TU Berlin & TELES Patent Rights International GmbH

Berlin

Germany

s.schindler@teles.de

Abstract—The patent law community should be familiar, in

principle at least, with what is reported here, as expected and

guided to by the Supreme Court: By its Mayo/Alice decisions, it

semiotically expanded SPL by a series of new SPL terms/mean-

ings and required their use in testing ET CIs for satisfying SPL

– for adjusting SPL precedents to the needs of ET CIs, caused

by their invisibility/intangibility/fictionality, their R&D being

extremely expensive, and their exclusive/unique potential to

preserve the society’s wealth.

Former publications already partially achieved this ET CI

semiotics driven scientification of SPL: By first defining the

meanings of the established SPL terms by their absolutely

unquestionable mathematical representation (using solely

“Finite First Order Logic, “FFOL” and basics of Set Theory).

Hitherto, these established SPL terms’ meanings have never

anywhere been precisely defined, i.e. rationalized – instead, the

patent community since ever simply (and erroneously) as-

sumed to precisely and completely understand them. Thus, the

PTO, the District Courts, and even the CAFC interpreted them

inconsistently (as proven e.g. by the multiple clashes in the

CAFC). The Mayo-based FSTP-Test (see below) (FSTP = Facts

Screening/Transforming/Presenting) enabled this rationaliza-

tion, first time – and the hitherto unknown mathematical defi-

nitions of the established SPL key terms’ meanings. This

scientized the pre-Mayo/Alice SPL.

This paper additionally deals with the much more complex

new terms’ meanings semiotically introduced into SPL by

Mayo/Alice – yet still in natural language syntax/semantics.

This invites sloppiness, here excluded by providing for them

mathematical definitions, too. This hence scientizes also the

post-Mayo/Alice SPL.

Keywords-Semiotics, Mathematization, Preemptivity, Abstract

Idea, Patent-eligible, Claim construction

I. RECENT SPL RESULTS ACHIEVED BY

MATHEMATICAL SEMIOTICS AND KNOWLEDGE

REPRESENTATION

The patent law community should be familiar, in principle at least, with what is reported here, as expected and

guided to by the Supreme Court1.a)

: By its Mayo/Alice deci-sions, it semiotically

1.b) expanded SPL by a series of new

SPL terms/meanings and required their use in testing ET CIs for satisfying SPL – for adjusting SPL precedents to the needs of ET CIs, caused by their invisibility/intangibility/fic-

1 .a JUSTICE BREYER: “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 bouts’ 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 content, 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.” [69]. Justice Breyer’s last sentence clarifies the point: The term “apply it” needs an appropriate boat builder meaning – but there is no such appropriate boat builder meaning yet for this “outer shell” alias term.

.b Semiotics in SPL is here understood – other than in meetings dealing with various highly individualized aspects of law, including a somewhat esoteric understanding of semiotics in law [191] – as an exact science achievable due to its evident subject matter limitations, philosophically located on top of Analytic Philosophy anyway, outlined in US Wikipedia belonging to AIT [2], and as focused on “meaning-making” in SPL, i.e. ignoring any procedural law issue. This “semiotics in SPL” understanding is brought to the point by Justice Breyer in his just quoted “Archimedes metaphor”: Interpreted historically, it invites the scientification of the Mayo/Alice framework’s SPL semiotics – just as the then “boat building” semiotics became scientized, resulting in powerful naval architecture technologies.

.c While the principal meanings of these mathematical representations are pretty easy to grasp, too, proving that they do indeed exclude any sloppiness, i.e. are “well defined” – comprising their axiomatic foundation – requires intriguing mathematical elaborations, left to [64,74,91,199], as here superfluous [182].

tionality, their R&D being extremely expensive, and their exclusive/unique potential to preserve the society’s wealth.

[171,175,194] already partially achieved this ET CI semiotics driven scientification of SPL: By first defining the meanings of the established SPL terms by their absolutely unquestionable mathematical representation (using solely “Finite First Order Logic, “FFOL” and basics of Set Theory). Hitherto, these established SPL terms’ meanings have never anywhere been precisely defined, i.e. rationalized – instead, the patent community since ever simply (and erroneously) assumed to precisely and completely understand them. Thus, the PTO, the District Courts, and even the CAFC interpreted them inconsistently (as proven e.g. by the multiple clashes in the CAFC). The Mayo-based FSTP-Test (FSTP = Facts

Screening/Transforming/Presenting) of FIGs 1-22.a)

enabled this rationalization, first time – and the hitherto unknown mathematical definitions of the established SPL key terms’ meanings, see D.1-D.6 in FIG 0

2.a). This scientized the pre-

Mayo/Alice SPL. The Definitions D.7-D.12 in FIG 0 then deal with the

much more complex new terms’ meanings semiotically introduced into SPL by Mayo/Alice – yet still in natural lan-guage syntax/semantics. This invites sloppiness, here excluded by providing for them mathematical definitions, too – as shown by FIG 3. This hence scientizes also the post-Mayo/Alice SPL

1.c).

D.1: SR∷= {∀sRv}∷={∀<sRv1ϵTS(s1),..,sRvKϵTS(sK)>} is called “TT0-REALIZATION SET”4.a).b).

D.2 “SCOPE(TT0)”: SR is called “scope(TT0)” resp. “scope(CI)”.

D.3 “TT0’ = TT0”: A TT0’ is called to be “equal, ‘=’” to TT0 iff S’R=SR.

D.4 “TT0’ ϵ SCOPE(TT0)”: A TT0’ is called to “belong to scope(TT0)” iff S’R⊆SR.

D.5: “TT0’ VIOLATES TT0”: A TT0’∉SCOPE(TT0) is called to “violate” TT0 iff S’R∩SR≠Φ.

D.6 “TT0 IS DEFINITE”: A TT0 is called “definite” iff it passes the FSTP-Test.

D.7: Induced by Mayo let, for a TT0’s CI-element, the term “improvement-prone, ip” denote a

new “property category” for its inC(s), modeled as its(their) “ip-inC(s)”. Compared to an inC per se, its new additional

property to be an ip-inC is: “It is already ‘visible’ that it will ‘improve’ in its domain and/or its TS, no matter whether pre-

dictably in time or not”.

D.8: “PREEMPTIVITY” (Bilski): TT0 is called “preemptive” iff 2.c)

∃TT0’≠TT0 passing the FSTP-Test:

scope(TT0’)∩scope(TT0)≠Φ ˄ ∃kϵ[1,K]: (s’k>sk) ∨ (sk=ip).

D.9: “ABSTRACT IDEA” (Bilski): TT0 is called an “abstract idea” iff

∃TT0’≠TT0 passing the FSTP-Test: scope(TT0’)∩scope(TT0)≠Φ ˄ ∃kϵ[1,K]∌k’:(s’k>sk) ˄

(sk’=ip).

D.10: “PATENT-ELIGIBLE” (Alice): An ip-TT0 is called “patent-eligible” iff ∃{k*}⊂[1,K] : ∧∀kϵ[1,K]BED-

crC0k≫∧∀kϵ[1,K]\{k*}BED-crC0k, whereby the “≫” has the meaning “{k*} transforms the latter conjunction into a user-

application”.

D.11: Induced by Alice, let for an ip-TT0 the term “transformation-prone, tp” denote another category of its ip-CI-element/s’

new properties, modeled by “tp-inC(s)”, “tying its ip-inC(s) into a user-application”, so transforming this ip-TT0 into patent-

eligibility2.d).

D.12: Let the meaning of the relation “substantially more than, ≫” between an ip/tp-CI and its ip-CI be: “The ip/tp-CI’s tp-

inC(s) eliminate the preemptivity created by its ip-inC(s) by modifying their DOMs and/or TSes such that any ip-inC is

defined only for and this tp-inC, transforming this ip-CI into a user-application tp/ip-CI of its tp/ip-inC(s)”.

Figure 0. The New SPL Informal Notions the Supreme Court Made for Semiotically Elevating ET CIs to Patent-Eligibility

Legend to FIG 0:

Mayo axiomatically introduced – by its Mayo-AD2.a) – into SPL the new meaning “inventive concept, inC”

2.b), potenti-

ally of category “ip-inC” or its subcategory “tp/ip-inC”, see FIG 3.

Yellow mark-ups show, what in FIG 3 is axiomized and mathematized – i.e. scientized – SPL.

D.1-6 are already mathematized, using “natural language glue”, as usual in Mathematics3)

.

2 .a The FIGs 0-2 are replica from [194,198], whereby some changes were made in FIG 0 by rearranging “Mathematical Definitions, MDs” into the ftn 2.b).c), for here focussing on “Axiomatic Definitions, ADs” and “Legal Definitions, LDs”, as elaborated on in FIG 3.

By the “use-hierarchy” [1942.b)] between these definitions holds: Post-Mayo/Alice-LDs use Mayo/Alice-ADs and pre-Mayo/Alice-LDs (and by them required Mayo/Alice-MDs resp. pre-Mayo/Alice-MDs, both not at issue here).

.b Its meaning is a dramatic simplification of the “concept” notion today in common use in KR, DL, … [2], in database modeling since the 70s, and in detail explained as to its “invention” dedication earlier. I.e., here its intuitive understanding vastly suffices, as used within the Mayo/Alice framework – see the point “D.0 ●” in [194].

.c Two such MDs are: ∀sϵS and an so let denote the meaning of the relation ■) “so>s” iff domain(s)=domain(so)˄TS(so)\TS(s)≠Φ, and ■) “s=ip ∨ tp/ip” iff “s is an ip-inC ∨ tp/ip-inC ”. Wordings of ADs/LDs are here also slightly changed for clarity4.a).

.d For a tp/ip-CI, let “scope(tp/ip-CI)” be, of the original CI, the modification of its SR resulting from modifying its DOMs and/or TSes, first by its ip-inCs, assessing ip-CI is preemptive, and then by its tp-inCs, potentially assessing this tp/ip-CI is a non-preemptive user-application – whereby the original CI may be preemptive or not.

.e – necessary for consistent and predictable SPL precedents on ET CIs, just as sufficient, as far as currently recognizable.

D.8-10 and D.12 are fully mathematized, once the yellow sections in D.7 and D.11 are.

Yet, the Supreme Court nowhere tells, what exactly within an ip-CI – a “downstream application comprising an ip-inC, hence per se patent-noneligible as preemptive” [194

6)] – “transforms” it into a (user) application of this ip-CI,

being patent-eligible by Alice as non-preemptive [1946)

], though not using the qualifier ‘user’3)

.

Instead, Alice explicates, what Mayo had already hinted at: This transformation is performed by “combining” CI’s ele-ments, i.e. it comprises its one/several transforming element(s). The in Alice allegedly missing item/s thus is/are this/these one/several transforming element/s, thus modeling the Mayo/Alice framework by a subcategory of ip-inCs/ elements – (potentially) warranting ip-CI’s transformation into patent-eligibility, i.e. neutralizing its preemptivity.

FIG 3 shows in detail that Mayo/Alice induced mathematical D.1/7/11 axioms, enabling scientifically defining ■) for the first time “all classic SPL notions”, ■) 3 in SPL hitherto unknown new semantics –“inventive concept, inC”/“ip-inC”/”tp-inC”

2.e) – and ■) the then unavoidable new legal notions: “preemptivity”/”abstract idea”/”user-/downstream

application”.

§ 101

(patent-eligibility of its claim)

§ 112

(well-definedness of its

inventive concepts)

Novelty Usefulness

SPL box (e.g. 35 U.S.C)

Dis-

aggregation

(test 1)

Lawful

Disclosure

(test 2)

Enablement

(test 5)

Independence

(test 3)

KSR-test

(test 4)Biosig-test

(test 8)

RS-

Definiteness

test

(test 9)

Alice-test

(test 7)Bilski-test

(test 6)

Graham-test

(test 10)

10 SPL concern boxes

(10 FSTP test boxes)

§ 102 § 103

Novelty Nonobviousness

FIG 1

FSTP-Test box

Figure 1. Bold lines show the classical claim construction’s test.i’s, dashed ones what Mayo/Biosig/Alice additionally require (refined claim construction).

show a “use hierarchy” of testi’s, expand it to total dependency.

FIG 1 provides an outline of the philosophy carrying the FSTP-Test, shown and discussed by FIG 2.

Legend to FIG 1:

The SPL_box, on top, shows the 4 Sections of 35 USC SPL, the requirements of which – they encode the society’s concerns about granting temporary monopoles on innovations immediately after their creation for providing an incentive for publishing and marketing them quickly – must be met by the ET CI under SPL test.

The FSTP-Test box, at the bottom, shows these 10 concerns of the society as to SPL: These concerns are encoded by the 4 SPL Sections as their requirement statements – which hence must be met alias satisfied by the ET CI under SPL test.

The bold lines show what is tested by the classical claim construction for an ET CI.

The dashed lines show what indispensably must additionally be tested for an ET CI for its preciseness and completeness in its refined claim construction – due to an ET CI’s invisibility/intangibility/fictionality.

All tests must be executed for any “Generative Set, GS(ET CI)” of inventive concepts generating this ET CI – of which only a finite number of versions exist, as the problem is of “Finite First Order Logic, FFOL” (see FIG.2).

Here is assumed, for simplicity and w.l.o.g., that just 1 GS exists, i.e. just 1 interpretation of the ET CI under FSTP-Test. Even for a single GS alias “Technical Teaching 0, TT0” – for brevity often called just “S” – there may be several “Realization Sets, S

R” of this single TT0 for the FSTP-Test (see D.1 above) [45]. S’

R exists only if its TT0’ has passed

the FSTP-Test. If |SR|>1, no s

Rv alone may decide TT0’s passing the FSTP-Test.

If this ET CI had several S/interpretations, only one or none TT0 may satisfy SPL.

■) An ET CI passing the FSTP-Test is legally absolutely robust. ■) Its alleged infringement by or infringing an ET CI* is easily, exactly, and non-deniably determinable.

THESE ARE TWO INSIGHTS UNIMAGINABLE pre-Mayo/Alice‼ THE SEMIOTIC PROCESS AS TO SPL PRECEDENTS FOR ET CIS, LAUNCHED BY THE SUPREME COURT, WAS

SCIENTIFICALLY EXTREMELY FERTILE‼

The FSTPFFOLLIN-Test is a computer implemented method – defining also a system – for testing

under a given Finite First Order Logic Legal Invention Norm, FFOLLIN, a given Claimed Invention, CIFFOLLIN, which has a given inter-pretation TT0FFOLLIN, represented by its Generative Set of TT0FFOLLIN, SFFOLLIN,

TT0FFOLLIN – defined by SBADFFOLLIN ∷= {BAD-crC0nFFOLLIN,1≤n≤N} ˄ ˄ SFFOLLIN ∷= {BED-crC0knFFOLLIN | 1≤n≤N : BAD-crC0nFFOLLIN=∧1≤kn≤KnBED-crC0knFFOLLIN}, whether this FFOLLIN is satisfied by TT0FFOLLIN alias SFFOLLIN,

whereby FFOLLIN is defined to comprise a conjunction of 10 given FSTPFFOLLIN-test.o of TT0FFOLLIN alias SFFOLLIN, i.e.

∧1≤o≤10FSTPFFOLLIN-test.o – for brevity in the sequel the index “FFOLLIN” being omitted, any FSTP-test.o abbr. by just “o)”, 1≤o≤10, and for 6≤o≤10 the stereotypic “over model and posc” omitted –

whereby the claimed invention for any TT0 prompts the CI’s user to input to it

the given information ■) ∀TT0-elements X0n of TT0, 1≤n≤N, ˄ ∀ binary abstract and elementary disclosed creative concepts of all X0n, BAD-crC0n resp. BED-crC0n ■) for |RS|>0 also ∀TTi-(dummy-)elements Xin peer to X0n, 1≤i≤I=|RS| ˄1≤n≤N, ˄ ∀ binary abs-tract and elementary disclosed (dummy-)creative concepts, crCin, of all (dummy-)elements Xin, called BAD-crCin resp. BED-crCin, as well as ■) ∀ below justifications, by stepwise prompting,

i.e., for testing the S input to it as follows:

1) (a) SBAD∷={BAD-crC0n |∀1≤n≤N}, S::={BED-crC0kn|1≤n≤N:BAD-crC0n=∧1≤kn≤KnBED-crC0kn}; (b) justof∀1≤n≤N: BAD-crC0n is definite,

(c) justof∀1≤n≤N˄∀1≤kn≤Kn: BED-crC0kn is definite ∧ ∀ patent-noneligible BED-crC0kn* are identified;

(d) justof∀ϵSBAD∪S: BAD-crC0n = ∧1≤kn≤KnBED-crC0kn; 2) justof∀ϵSBAD∪S: sϵS ˄ BAD-crC0nϵSBAD are lawfully disclosed;

3) justof∀ϵSBAD∪S: Independence-test passed S is well-defined&independent over model;

4) justof∀ϵSBAD∪S: KSR-test passed S is well-defined over posc;

5) justof∀ϵSBAD∪S: TT0’s implementation by S is enablingly/lawfully disclosed; 6) justof∀ϵSBAD∪S: Bilski-test passed TT0 is non-preemptive;

7) justof∀ϵSBAD∪S: Alice-test passed TT0 is patent-eligible;

8) justof∀ϵSBAD∪S: Biosig-test passed TT0 is definite; 9) justof∀ϵSBAD∪S: RS-Definiteness-test passed RS is well-defined over TT0;

10) justof∀ϵSBAD∪S: Graham-test passed TT0 is patentable.

Figure 2. The FSTPFFOLLIN-Test, the passing of which is necessary and sufficient for a CI’s TT0 satisfying SPL

At a first glance, the below FSTP-Test seems tough, but at a second one it is easy to grasp.

Legend to FIG 2:

The FSTP-Test comprises the 10 FSTP-testi’s, in total checking a CI for its satisfying SPL. This is the case iff CI meets all 10 concerns legally encoded by SPL, i.e. by 35 USC §§ 101/102/103/112 – as outlined by FIG 1.

It prompts the user to input, for this CI from doc0, first its elements X0n and their modeled compound inventive concepts BAD-X0n and as many elementary inventive concepts BED-crC0nk as it is able to identify, 1≤n≤N, 1≤k≤K

n,

which defines CI’s S (see FIG 1) – whereby the user also identifies all BAD-X0n* and BED-crC0k* subject to a patent-eligibility exemption.

The FSTP-test1 is the Mayo test, though refined – as often required for being meaningful, see [6,7] – by disaggregating TT0’s BAD-inCs into equivalent logical conjunctions of BED-inCs.

Also the other FSTP-testi, i>1, not named by Supreme Court decisions are not yet noticed by SPL precedents, though indispensable for exactly analyzing ET CIs – i.e. consistent SPL precedents on them. KSR-test4 is only indicative – its definition impacts on the Graham-test10 – and both of them avoid the logical glitches tolerated by their classical versions.

RS-Definiteness-test9 must in principle take for any prior art document.i/TTi, if there is any, peer steps to those taken for doc0/TT0 in test1. Practically, this may vastly be simplified [6,7].

The FSTP-Test is the logically indispensable and most flexible procedure for acquiring and evaluating all technically and legally relevant information, based on user input, about a CI. I.e.: The FSTP-Test evidently is not an algorithm/program but an algorithm/program “scheme” – as it comprises any operational implementation of a necessary & sufficient Mayo/Alice test.

Papers in preparation will show that the FSTP-Test also can be used for improving as to an ET CI, the creativity of its inventor (as indicated by the final conclusion in the legend of FIG1 [137]), as well as in a legal way a “soft-scope (ET CI)”, potentially much larger than “scope (ET CI)” [202].

II. TWO ADVANTAGES OF SCIENTIZING ALL

SPL NOTIONS

This first advantage is to show: There is no chance to understand all the intricacies of SPL applied to ET CIs (i.e. implied by the Mayo/Alice framework) without getting fa-miliar with the scientific fundament the Supreme Court’s interpretations of SPL rests on

4.a) – otherwise uncertainties

occur. Even the excellent IEG project run by the USPTO and its dozens of exemplary interpretations of this frame-work provide just starters’ know-how about SPL applied to ET CIs: The most recent event covering this know-how transfer problem ahead [201], just as all the other qualifica-tion initiatives recently launched by the USPTO [e.g. 183-195], unintentionally but univocally confirmed this prob-lem

3.a). Though: Help is coming up [182] – even reaching

much further than just facilitating this know-how transfer [e.g. 198].

This second advantage is to complete the partial SPL scientification of FIG 0 by providing the axiomized mathe-

matical definitions3.b) of also those Mayo/Alice notions it left

3 .a The intricacies explained here are not Mathematics caused, i.e. no academic frills. For ET CIs these booby traps really exist! Only an

exact Patent Technology is capable of providing the dependable way

on which they are avoided, i.e. leading to consistent SPL precedents on ET CIs. Refusing to accept this level of refined thinking puts the whole

SPL into jeopardy.

.b Any axiom in Mathematics performs, for a part of the non-rational

context of some mathematical context, the former’s transformation into this context’s rationality, i.e. is „rationality-making“ in this

mathematical context, i.e. need not be a semiotic instrument as it may

not yet be “meaning-making” (meaning as understood in linguistics and semiotics). In Physics, its axioms gravity and time immediately

perform meaning-making – here an AD may serve both purposes, as in

Maths4.c).

Riemann discovered a today famous kind of mathematical axioms

dealing with Euclid’s parallelism problem: May two parallel straight lines cut each other? Known to exist for 2000+ years, during all that

time parallels were assumed to stretch on a plane in a 3-dimensional space as known since ever – establishing the known mathematical

context of this problem. A part of the non-rational in this context then

is: May this plane be embedded in a then totally unknown as benched space, or the space spanned by this plane internally benched in a totally

unknown way? During all these 2000+ years, both questions would

have addressed metaphysics, i.e. the irrational (Actually, in both cases parallels may cut).

In other words: Adding one/several axiom/s to a mathematical space may be rationality-making for this mathematical context (e.g. enfor-

cing the one or the other above answer), but need per se evidently not

yet enable nonpreemptive meaning-making (as a mathematical space still may be inseparable). Though, adding axiom/s to a mathematical

space may also model a user application enabling nonpreemptive

meaning-making, too (e.g., a person on earth watching the color of light coming from an object in outer space, while the sun is crossing

the way of light from this object to the earth, would observe a red-shift

in this light as this interference is arising, due the sun’s ‘gravity impact on space’ axiom, which thus evidently enables nonpreemptive

meaning-making).

Thus, while for many ET CIs the distinction between their being user-

or downstream-applications (of their invented usefulness they embody)

indeed determines whether they represent nonpreemptive semiotic meaning-making, as suggested by Alice, this distinction need not

informal and to present them by FIG 3 – i.e. ‘”preemptivity”/“abstract idea”/“substantially more than” and the 3 mathematized axioms indispensable to this end. While this rigor never has been heard before as to SPL precedents on ET CIs, this scientification is yet easily gras-ped once is understood: The Supreme Court itself

1) indeed

eventually had to put forward these new meanings. Namely, deciding by SPL on ET CIs on the basis of the established meanings only – i.e. without refining them for meeting the ET CIs’ robustness/predictability requirements – evidently got courts into serious confusions, as massively encountered by the CAFC. By contrast, using these fully scientized semiotic meanings in SPL tests of ET CIs, even induced and enabled developing totally unexpected and extremely strong results, such as:

THEOREM: “Any non-pathologic ET CI may be upgraded, by the FSTP-Test, to become legally absolutely robust. Depending on the creativity effort invested, the scope(ET CI) would thereby controllably shrink or grow”.

always lead to this end – requiring further considerations, i.e. a refined Alice interpretation.

.c The post-Mayo/Alice higher semiotic SPL level is much more than just a higher abstraction level – as in System Design defined by hiding

lower level known semantics and adding higher level a priori known semantics [156,182]. By contrast: The post-Mayo/Alice higher

semiotic SPL level ■) defines, by mathematical axioms, hitherto totally

unknown SPL semantics, and ■) mathematically derives, from them

and a priori known SPL semantics, additional hitherto totally unknown

SPL semantics. This applies to the Supreme Court’s semiotic SPL

level of notional development just as to any ET CI’s such level.

AD.1: “TT0-REALIZATION SET”: “SR∷= {∀sRv}∷={∀<sRv1ϵTS(s1),..,sRvKϵTS(sK)>}”4.a).b).c).

LD.2: “SCOPE(TT0)”: SR is called “scope(TT0)” resp. “scope(CI)”.

LD.3: “TT0’ = TT0”: A TT0’ is called to be “equal, ‘=’” to TT0 iff S’R=SR.

LD.4: “TT0’ ϵ SCOPE(TT0)”: A TT0’ is called to “belong to scope(TT0)” iff S’R⊆SR.

LD.5: “TT0’ VIOLATES TT0”: A TT0’∉SCOPE(TT0) is called to “violate” TT0 iff S’R∩SR ≠ Φ.

LD.6: “TT0 IS DEFINITE”: A TT0 is called to be “definite” iff it passes the FSTP-Test.

AD.7: “inC = ip-inC”: “An inC with its TS being too large resp. becoming larger” 4.b).

This inC category is called “improvement prone, ip-inC”.

LD.8: “PREEMPTIVITY”: A TT0 is called “preemptive” iff

∃TT0’≠TT0 passing the FSTP-Test: scope(TT0’)∩scope(TT0)≠Φ ˄ ∃kϵ[1,K]: (s’k>sk) ∨ (sk=ip).

LD.9: “ABSTRACT IDEA”: A TT0 is called an “abstract idea” iff

∃TT0’≠TT0 passing the FSTP-Test: scope(TT0’)∩scope(TT0)≠Φ˄∃kϵ[1,K]∌k’:(s’k>sk)˄(sk’=ip).

LD.10: “PATENT-ELIGIBLITY”: A TT0 is called “patent-eligible” iff it is nonpreemptive.

AD.11: “ip-inC = tp/ip-inC“4.b): “A tp/ip-inC ties its inC into disclosed user-applications of CI”.

This ip-inC subcategory is called “transformation-prone, tp”.

LD.12: “SUBSTAN. MORE, ‘≫’”: A TT0 is called “substantially more than” TT0’ iff

TT0∷=∧∀kϵ[1,K]BED-inC0k ˄ (∀kϵ[1,K] holds: BED-inC0k=ip => BED-inC0k=tp/ip) ˄

˄ ∃k’ϵ[1,K]: BED-inC0k’=ip ˄ (TT0’∷=∧∀kϵ[1,K]∌k’BED-inC0k ˄ BED-inC0k’=ip).

Figure 3. The Scientized Mayo/Alice SPL Notions Enable Objective Decisions on ET CIs’ Patent-Eligibility

Legend to FIG 3:

See2.a)3.c)

for ADs, LDs, and the semiotic use hierarchy between them, indicated by line spacing.

LD.2-6 are not independent of Mayo/Bilski, as [194] explains in detail – without the FSTP-Test, induced by Mayo, these 5 legal definitions don’t exist, as S

R cannot be defined. I.e.: The classical, non-refined claim

interpretation&construction is logically totally obscure, right from its outset4.a)

.

For the axiomatic definitions AD.1/7/11 only “atomic semiotic meanings” are used, as told by Analytic Philosophy1.b)

. This “atomicity requirement” is, just as “quantification”, universal in scientizing a whatsoever knowledge area and has been encountered within FSTP-Technology already when disaggregating compound creative concepts into elementary ones, discussed earlier.

All mathematical LDs, in FIG 3, are mathematical expressions right of their “if and only if”s.

All mathematical ADs of a TT0’s inCs4.c)

, ip-inCs, and tp/ip-inCs in AD.1/7/11 are unconditionally provided within the right side quotation marks. Thereby, AD.1 is already a mathematical expression defining its semiotic meaning, and AD.7/11 may be put as mathematical expressions, too: ■) for AD.7 by “∃ip-inC ϵS => ∃TT0’≠TT0 : t=oS’R∩SR≠Φ ∨ t>oS’R∩SR≠Φ” – making TT0 preemptive, and

■) for AD.11 by “if TT0 = user-application then ∀ ip-inC=tp else ∃ ip-inC≠tp”2.c)4.c)

.

ADs’ final sentences serve for naming, just as in LDs, not for their semiotics definitions by mathematical expressions (unlike natural language expressions evidently of unique meaning).

The semiotic SPL meanings are “ip-inCs” and “tp/ip-inCs”. The Supreme Court termed them “natural phenomen-on”/”abstract idea”/“transforming into an application”, i.e. closer to “natural language thinking” than to “mathematic semiotics thinking” here actually at issue – though in vain.

THIS COMPLETES THE SCIENTIFICATION OF SPL PRECEDENTS4.e)

4 .a TT0 assumed to have passed the FSTP-Test ˄ ∀sRv is an “sRv-embodiment, TT0sRv”disclosed by TT0’s specification. Note2.c) the importance of

this notional restriction imposed on a TT0’s SR! [202] will show in detail: It is decisive for all the mathematical definitions provided here – i.e. all pre-

/post-Mayo/Alice SPL notions – as briefly touched below4.d). This notional restriction causes a first group of subtle intricacies coming along with SPL precedents on ET CIs, hinted at at the beginning of Section II [202].

.b More precisely: “… with its mirror predicates TS …”.

.c as recognized by the “person of ordinary skill and creativity, posc”, whose technical creativity is focused on and limited to FSTP-test1/4/9 – as

required by the Supreme Court’s KSR decision.

.d The mathematical definition of the semiotic meaning of the term “inC” has been provided earlier, just as a TT0’s generative S. Here, instead, the

mathematical AD.1 of the semiotic meaning of the term “TT0-realization set, SR” derived from S is directly taken, i.e. the scope(TT0) – its prefix “t=o” or “t>o” denoting SR’s definition at the CI priority or a later point in time [202].

.e subject to change of its SPL interpretation by the Supreme Court – and trivially to fault fixing, if any should have occurred.

REFERENCES

THE FSTP-PROJECT’S REFERENCE LIST

FSTP = FACTS SCREENING/TRANSFORMING/PRESENTING

(VERSION_OF_05.05.2015*))

[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.”, denotes cutting edge IT

areas, e.g. Techs of Artificial Intelligence/ Knowledge Representation/Description Logic/Natural Language& Semantics

&Semiotics/System Design/…. [3] R. Brachmann, H. Levesque “Knowledge Re presentation & Reasoning”, Elsevier, 2004. [4] “The Description Logic Handbook”, Cam bridge 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. Sch indler, J. Schulze: “Technical Report #1 on the ‘902 PTR”, 2014

*)(soon)

[9] S. Sch indler: “Patent Business – Before Sha ke-up”, 2013*)

[10] SSBG's AB to CA FC in L BC, 2013*)

.

[11] S. Schindler, “inC” pat. appl.: “inC ENABLED SEMI-AUTO.

TESTS OF PATENTS”, 2013*). [12] C. Correa: “Handbook on Protection of IP under WTO Ru les”, EE, 2010. [13] N. Klunker: "Harmonisierungsbestr. im mat. Patentrecht”, MPI, Munich, 2010.

[14] “USPTO/MPEP: “2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reason. Interpretation;]” (See App. 132a-135a)*)

.

[15] S. Sch indler: “KR Support for SPL Precedents”, Barcelona, eKNOW-2014*)

. [16] J. Daily , S. Kieff: “Any thing under the Sun Made by Humans SPL Doctrine as Endogenous Inst itut ions for Commercial Innovation”, Stanford / GWU

*).

[17] CAFC En banc Hearing in LBC, 12.09.2013. [18] SSBG A B to the Supreme Court in CL S, 07.10.2013

*).

[19] SSBG A B to the Supreme Court in WildTangent, 23.09.2013*)

. [20] USPTO, “Intellectual Property and the US Eco nomy: INDUSTR. IN FOCU S”, 2012

*).

[21] K. O'Malley : Keynote Address, IPO, 2013*)

.

[22] S. Sch indler, “The View of an Inventor at the Grace Period”, Kiev, 2013*)

. [23] S. Sch indler, “The IES and its In- C Enabled SPL Tests”, Munich, 2013

*).

[24] S. Sch indler, “Two Fundamental Theo rems of ‘Math. Innovation Science’”, Hong Kong, ECM-2013*)

. [25] S. Sch indler, A. Paschke, S. Ramakrish na, “Form. Leg. Reas. that an Inven. Sat is. SPL”, Bologna, JURIX-2013

*).

[26] SSBG A B to the Supreme Court in Bilski, 06.08.2009*)

.

[27] T. Bench-Capon, F. Coenen: “Isomorphism. and Legal Know ledge Based Systems”, AI&Law, 1992*)

. [28] N. Fuchs, R. Schwitter. "Attempt to Con trolled English", 1996.

[29] A. Paschke: “Ru les / Log ic Programming in the Web”. 7. ISS, Ga lway , 2011. [30] K. Ashley , V. Walker, “From Informa. Retrieval to Arg. Retrieval for Legal Cases: . .…”, Bo logna, JU RIX-2013

*).

[31] Hearing in Oracle vs. Google, “As to Copy rightabili ty of the Java Platform”, CAFC, 06.12.2013. [32] S. Sch indler, “A KR Based Innovation Expert System (IES) for US SPL Precedents”, Phuket, I CIIM-2014

*).

[33] S. Sch indler, “Status Report about the FSTP Prototype”, Hyderabad, GIPC-2014.

[34] S. Sch indler, “Status Report about the FSTP Prototype”, Moscow, LE SI, 2014. [35] S. Sch indler, IPR-ME MO: “STL , SCL, and SPL – STL Tests seen as SCL Tests seen as SPL Tests”, in prep.

[36] S. Sch indler, “Boon and Bane of Inventive Concepts and Refined Claim Construct ion in the Supreme Court's New Patent Precedents", Ber keley , IPSC, 08.08 .2014*)

. [37] D.-M. Bey , C. Co tropia, "The Unreasonableness of the BRI Standard", AIPLA, 2009

*).

[38] Transcript of the Hearing in TELE S vs. CI SCO /USPTO, CAFC, 08 .01.2014*)

.

[39] Transcript of the en banc Hearing in CLS vs. ALICE, CA FC, 08.02.2013*)

. [40] SSBG's Brief to the CA FC in case '453

*).

[41] SSBG's Brief to the CA FC in case '902*)

. [42] SSBG's Amicus Brief to the CA FC in case CL S, 06.12.2012

*).

[43] S. Schindler, “LAC” pat. appl.: „Semi-Automatic

Generation/Customization of (All) Confirmative Legal Argument Chains (LACs) in a Claimed Invention`s SPL Test, as Enabled by

Its Inventive Concepts”, 2014*). [44] R. Rader: "Patent on Life Sciences", Berlin, LESI, 2012.

[45] SSBG's AB to the Supreme Court as to the CII Quest ion, 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. Sch indler: "Auto. Generation of All A STs for an Invention's SPL Tes t", subm. for publ.

*).

[48] USPTO/MPEP, “2012 ... Proc. for Subj . Matter Elig ibil ity ... of Process Claims Invo lving Laws of Nature”, 2012*)

.

[49] USPTO/MPEP, Supp. Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112, Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 27; MPEP 2171, *)

. [50] NAUTILUS v. BIOSIG, PFC, 2013

*).

[51] BIOSIG, Respondent, 2013*)

[52] Public Knowledge et al., A B, 2013*)

. [53] Amazon et al., AB, 2013

*).

[54] White House, FACT SHEET - ... the Presid.’s Call to Strength. Our Patent Sys tem and Foster Innovation , 2014*)

. [55] USPTO: see home page.

[56] IPO: see home page. [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 Capable of Semi-Auto.

Generat./Invoking All Legal Argument Chains (LACs) in the SPL

Test of a Claimed Invention (CI), as Enabled by Its Inventive Concepts (inCs)”, 2014*).

[60] S. Schindler: "Automatic Derivation of All Argument Chains

Legally Defending Patenting/Patented Inventions", ISPIM, Montreal, 6.10.2014, updated version*).

[61] H. Wegner: "Indefiniteness, the Sleeping Giant in Pat. Law", 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 Mathematical Structure Modeling Inventions", Coimbra, CICM-2014*).

[65] SSBG ’s Petit ion to the CA FC for Rehearing En Banc in the ‘902 case, 18.04.2014*)

.

[66] CAFC: VEDE RI vs. GOOG LE decision , 14.03.2014 [67] CAFC: THE RA SENSE vs. BECTON & BAYER decision, 25.05.2011

[68] B. Fiacco: Amicus Brief to the CA FC in VERSATA v . SAP&USPTO, 24.03.14*)

.

[69] Transcript of the oral argument in Supreme Court, Alice Corp. v.

CLS Bank, 31.03.2014*). [70] R. Rader, Keynote Speech: “Patent Law and Litigat ion Abuse”, ED Tex Bench and Bar Conf., 01.11.2013

*).

[71] S. Sch indler, Keynote Speech: “eKnowledge of Substantive Patent Law (SPL) – Trail Blazer in to the Innovation Age”, Barcelona, eKNOW-2014*)

.

[72] .a) S. Schindler: “The Supreme Court’s ‘SPL Initiat ive’: Scien tizing Its SPL Interpre tation Removes 3 Evergreen SPL Obscurities”, Press Release, 08.04.2014*)

. .b) S. Schindler: “The Supreme Court’s ‘SPL Ini tiative ’: Scientizing Its SPL Interpre tation Removes 3 Evergreen SPL Obscurities – and Enables Au tomation in a CI’s SPL Tes ts and Argument Chains”, Hono lulu , IAM2014S, 18.07.14

*).

[73] .a) USPTO/MPEP: “2014 Procedure For Subject Matter Eligib ili ty Analysis Of Claims Reciting Or Involving Laws Of Nature/Natu ral Principles, Natural Pheno mena, And/Or Natural Products”, [48,49], 2014*)

.

.b) MEMO RANDUM: “Prelim. Exa min. Instructions in view of Alice v. CLS”, 25.06.2014*)

. [74] B. Wegner: "The Mathematical Background of Proving an Inventive Concepts Based Claimed Invention Satisfies SPL”, 7. GIPC, Mumbai, 16.01.2015.

*)

[75] CAFC Order as to denial [65], 27.05.2014 [76] D. Crouch: “En Banc Federal Circuit 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. Sch indler: “On the BRI- Schism in the US National Patent System …”, publ. 22.05 .2014.

*)

[80] SSBG ’s Pet. for Writ of Cert. to the Supr. Court in the ‘902 case, Draft_V.133_of_[121], 14.07.2014*)

. [81] S. Sch indler: “To Whom is Interested in the Sup reme Court’s Bios ig Decision”, 04.06.2014

*)

[82] R. DeBerardine: “Innovation from the Corpo rate Perspective”, FCBA, DC, 23.05.2014*)

. [83] SSBG ’s Petit ion to the CA FC 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 T hree Decades”, DC, 2012. [86] Sigram Schind ler Foundation: “Transatlantic Coop. for Growth and Security”, DC, 2011.

[87] DPMA: “Recent Developments and Trends in US Patent Law“, Munich, 2012. [88] FCBA: “Innovation, Trade and Fiscal Reali ty”, Colorado Springs, 2013.

[89] LESI: GTI F, Geneva, 2014.

[90] FCBA: “ Sharpening Case Management”, Asheville, North Carolina, 2014

[91] B. Wegner, S. Schindler: "A Mathematical KR Model for Refined

Claim Construction II", subm. for publication. [92] SSBG ’s Petit ion 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. Sch indler, ArAcPEP-MEMO: “Artifice, Action, and the Patent-Elig ibi lity Problem”, in prep., 2014.

[96] A. Chopra: “Deer in the Headligh ts. Response of Incumbent Firms to … ”, Schoo l of Management, Fribourg, 2014*)

. [97] S. Sch indler, DisInTech-MEMO: “R&D on Pat. Tech.: Efficiency and Safety Boosting”, 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 Scrut iny on Software Patents Pay ing Off”, Law360, N.Y., 22.07.2014*)

.

[101] P. Michel, Keynote, Alexandria, PTO, 22.07.2014. [102] D. Jones, Alexandria, PTO, 22.07.2014 .

[103] R. Gomulkiewic z, Seattle, CA SRIP, 25.07.14. [104] M. Lemley , Seattle, CASRIP, 25.07.2014.

[105] D. Jones, Seattle, CA SRIP, 25.07.2014.

[106] B. LaMarca, Seattle, CA SRIP, 25.07.2014. [107] J. Duffy , Seattle, CA SRIP, 25.07 .2014.

[108] J. Pagenberg, Seattle, CA SRIP, 25.07.2014 . [109] M. Adelman, Seattle, CASRIP, 25.07.2014.

[110] B. Stoll , Seatt le, CA SRIP, 25.07.2014. [111] R. Rader, Seatt le, CA SRIP, 25.07.2014 .

[112] E. Bowen, C. Yates: “Jus tices Should Bac k Off Patent Elig ibil ity , …”, L360, 25.07.2014*)

.

[113] S. Sch indler: “The CA FC’s Rebellion is Over – The Supreme Court, by Mayo/Bios ig/A lice, Provides Clear Guidance as to Patenting Emerging Technology Inventions”, pub lished 07.08.2014*)

. [114] S. Elliot t: “The USPTO Patent Subj . Matter Eligi. Gu idance TRIPSs”, 30 .07.2014

*).

[115] W. Zheng: “Exhaust ing Patents”, Berkeley , IPSC, 08. 08.2014*)

. [116] R. Merges: “Independent Invention: A Limited Defense of Absolu te Infringement Liabili ty in Patent Law”, Berkeley , IPSC, 08 .08.2014

*).

[117] J. Sarnoff, Ber keley , IPSC, 08.08.2014.

[118] H. Surden: “Principles of Problematic Patents”, Ber keley , IPSC, 08.08. 2014*)

.

[119] www.zeit.de/2013/33/multiple-sklerose-medikament-

tecfidera/seite-2*). [120] J. Merkley , M. Warner, M. Begich, M. Hein rich, T. Udal: “Letter to Hon. Penny Pritzker”, DC, 06.08.2014

*).

[121] SSBG ’s Petit ion for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court in the ‘902 case, 25.08.2014*)

.

[122] D. Parnas, see Wikipedia. [123] E. Dijks tra, see Wikipedia.

[124] S. Sch indler: “Computer Organization III”, 3. Semester Class in Comp. Sc., TU B, 1974-1984. [125] S. Sch indler: “Nonsequen tial Algorithms”, 4. Semester Class in Comp. Sc., TUB, 1978-1984.

[126] S. Sch indler: “Optimal Satell ite Orbit Trans fers”, PhD Thesis, TUB, 1971.

[127] ]………… [128] R. Feldman: “Coming of Age for the Federal Circuit”, The Green Bag 2014, UC Hastings.

[129] G. Quinn: “Judge Michel says Alice Decision ‘w ill create total chaos’”, IPWatchdog, 06.08.2014*)

. [130] G. Frege: “Function und Begriff“, 1891.

[131] L. Wittgens tein: “Tractatus logico-philosophicus”, 1918. [132] B. Wegner, MEMO : “About relations (V.7-final)”, 25.04 .2013

*).

[133] B. Wegner, MEMO : “About conjunctions of predicates/concepts, scope and solu tion of problems”, 20.08.2013.

[134] B. Wegner, MEMO : “A refined relation between domains in BADset and BEDset”, 18.09.2014. [135] H. Goddard, S. Schind ler, S. Steinbrener, J. Strauss : FSTP Meeting, Berlin, 29.09 .2014.

[136] S. Sch indler: “Tutorial on Commonalities Between System Design and SPL Testing”, sub. for pub.*)

.

[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 –Iits Semiotics Inspiring the

Inventivity to/in CI’s Further Development”, in prep. [138] S. Sch indler: “The Supreme Court’s Guidance to Robust ET CI Patents”, ICLPT, Bangkok, 22 .01.2015

*).

[139] Supreme Court’s Order as to denial [121], 14.10.2014*)

.

[140] S. Sch indler: “§ 101 Bash ing or § 101 Clarification”, pub lished 27.10.2014*)

. [141] BGH, “Demonstrationsschrank” decision

*).

[142] …………………………………..

[143] … Press, …… to go in to [137]………… [144] “Turmoil …..”, see program of AIPLA meeting, DC, 23.10.2014

[145] “Dark side of Innovation”, …… to go into [137]………… [146] D. Kappos: About his recent west coast meetings, AIPLA, DC, 23.10.2014.

[147] Transcript of the CA FC 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 cons ider also hypothetical CIs in to i ts resp. gu ideline, AIPLA meeting, DC, 24.10.2014.

[150] S. Schindler: “Alice-Tests Enable “Quantifying” Their Inventive Concepts and thus Vastly Increase the Robustness” of ET Patents

– A Tutorial about this Key to Increasing a Patent’s Robustness –

“, USPTO&GWU, 06.02.2015*), also ABSTRACT, 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 –“*).

[152] S. Schindler: ”Automatic Derivation/Reproduction of Legal

Argument Chains (LACs), Protecting Patens Against SPL Attacks”, Singapore, ISPIM, 09.12.2014*).

[153] S. Sch indler: “Practical Impacts of the Mayo/Alice/Bios ig-Test – A T utorial abou t th is Key to Increasing a Patent s̀ Robus tness”, 2015 IP Scholars Roundtab le, Drake University Law School, 27.03.2015*) [154] CAFC Decision in Interva l, 10.09 . 2014

*).

[155] S. Sch indler: “A Tu torial in to (Operating) System Design and AIT Terms/Notions on Rigorous ET CIs' Analy sis by the Patent Com munity“, in prep.

[156] CAFC Decision in DDR, 05.12. 2014*)

. [157] USPTO: “2014 In terim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Elig ibi lity & Examples: Abstract Ideas”, 16.12.2014

*).

[158] Supreme Court’s Order as to denial [92], 08.12.2014*)

.

[159] CAFC Decision in Myriad, 17.12.2014*)

.

[160] S. Sch indler: “The Supreme Court’s Mayo/Myriad/Alice Decisions, The PTO ’s Implementation by Its Interim Elig ibil ity Guidance (IEG), The CAFC’s DDR & Myriad Recent Decisions – Clarifications&Challenges”*)

, publ. 14.01.2015*)

, i ts shor t version*)

, and its PP presentation at USPTO, 21.01.2015*)

..

[161] S. Sch indler: ”The Innovation Expert System, IES: Philosophy & Functionality &, Mathematical Foundation – A Prototype Outl.”, 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: “Introduction

to the IES User Interface of the FSTP-Test “, 7. GIPC, Mumbai,

16.01.2015, PPP*). [165] “ALICE AND PATENT DOOMSDAY IN THE NEW YEA R”, IPO, 06.01.2015

*).

[166] S. Sch indler: “Today ’s Subs tantive Patent Law (SPL) Precedents and Its Perspectives, Driven by ET CIs” , 7. GIPC, Mumbai, 15.01.2015*)

.

[167] R. Sachs: “A Survey of Patent Invalidations since Alice”. Fenwick & West LLP, Law360, New Yor k, 13.01.2015*)

.

[168] S. Schindler: “PTO’s IEG Forum – Some Aftermath”, publ.

10.02.2015*). [169] Agenda of this Forum on [157], Alexandria, U SPTO, 21.01.2015

*).

[170] G. Quinn: “Patent eligib. forum discuss. examiners application of Mayo /Myriad/Alice”, IPWatchdog, 21.01.2015*)

[171] S. Schindler: “Semiotic Impacts of the Supreme Court’s Mayo/Biosig/Alice Decisions on Legally Analyzing Emerging

Technology Claimed Inventions (ET CIs)”,, sub. f. pub.*).. [172] USSC Decision in Teva, 20.01.2015

*).

[173] USSC Decision in Pullman-S tandard, 27.04.1982*)

.

[174] USSC Decision in Markman, 23.04.1996*)

.

[175] S. Schindler: “Increasing a Patent’s Robustness by ‘Double

Quantifying’ Its Inventive Concept as Implied by Mayo/Alice”,

WIPIP. USPTO&GWU, 06.02.2015*). [176] R. Rader: Quest ions as to the FSTP-Test, WIPIP, USPTO&GWU, 06.02.2015.

[177] D. Karshtedt: “The Completeness Requirement in Patent Law”, WIPIP, USPTO&GWU, 06.02.2015*)

. [178] O. Liva k: “The Unresolved Ambiguity of Patent Claims”, WIPIP, USPTO&GWU, 06.02.2015

*).

[179] J. Mil ler: “Reasonable Certain N otice”, 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 preparation.

[183] S. Schindler: “The Mayo/Alice SPL Terms/Notions in FSTP-

Technology & PTO Initiatives”, USPTO, 16.03.2015*). [184] S. Sch indler: “PTOs Efficiency Increase by the FSTP-Test, e.g. EPO and USPTO”, LE SI, Brussels, 10.04.2015

*).

[185] R. Chen : Talking politely of “tensions” in stat ing a CI ’s indefiniteness by the BRI, PTO/IPO-EF Day , 10.03.2015.

[186] A. Hirshfeld: Reporting about the PTO’s v iew at the progress of the IEG wor k, PTO/IPO-EF Day , 10.03.2015. [187] P. Michel: Moderating a panel about the SPL paradigm refinement by Mayo/Alice, PTO/IPO-EF Day , 10.03.2015.

[188] P. Michel: Asking th is panel as to dissemination of Mayo /Alice understand ing, 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 refinement of patent application examination, PTO/IPO-EF Day , 10.03.2015.

[191] E.g. : 16th Int. Roundtable on Semiotics of Law, Hilo, 29.04.2015. [192] M. Schecter, D. Crouch, P. Michel: Panel Discussion, Patent Q uality Summit, U SPTO, 25.03.2015.

[193] Finnegan: 3 fundamental current uncertainties about SPL precedents, Patent Quality Summit, U SPTO, 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 : “Federal Circuit Cases to Watch on Software Patentability – Planet Blue”, Patently -O, 06.04.2015

*).

[196] See the resp. prominent panel at the IPBCGlobal’2015, San

Francisco, 14-16.06.2015*).. [197] S. Schindler: “Mayo / Alice – The Supreme Court’s

Requirement Statement as to Semiotics in Substantive Patent

Law (“SPL”) & Emerging Technology Claimed Inventions (“ET CI”s)”, this paper*).

[198] S. Schindler: “Patents’ Absolute Robustness and the FSTP-Test –

Semi-Automated by the Innovation Expert System, IES”, LESI 2015, Brussels, 18.04.2015*).

[199] B. Wegner: “The FSTP Test – Its Mathematical Assessment of an ET CI’s Practical and SPL Quality”, LESI 2015, Brussels,

18.04.2015*)..

[200] D. Schoenberg: “The FSTP Test: A Software System for Assessing an ET CI’s Practical and SPL Quality”, LESI 2015,

Brussels, 18.04.2015*).

[201] Conclusions from the discussions during the “Patent Prosecution Session” at the AIPLA 2015 Meeting, LA,, 31..04.2015.

[202] S. Schindler:; “Scientized SPL Enables Non Only Absolute

Robust Patents on ET CI”s – but even Their Legal “Soft-Preemptivity”,, in prep.)...

*) available at www.fstp-expert-system.com