The Innovation Expert System, IES,and its FSTP-Test

- A Fundamental Shake-up ofPatent Business Ahead-

The IES and its FSTP-Test support managing an invention at any of its stages. It increases theefficiency in any enterprise's innovation/patent business much more than ever before.

The FSTP-Test is induced by the Supreme Court's groundbreaking interpretation ofSubstantivePatent Law ("SPL") - by its KSRlBilski/Mayo/Myriad/Biosig/Alice decisions - in favor ofEmerging Technology Claimed Inventions ("ETCIs"), here called its "ETCI Initiative".

The IES is an Artificial IntelligenceTechnology (''AIT'') system, by its FSTP-Test using cutting­edge Eacts/.s.creening/Transforming/~resenting-Technology for Internet/PC/Laptop/...

The IES supports reasoning about an ETCI's SPL test by in REAL-TIME presenting in its• calibration mode: ALL its legal & technical documents, their SPL facts, and interrelations

- as prompted by the IES to be input by its inventoriposclR&D-managerilawyeri... , thusassessing this input's eventual total completeness, as needed for passing ETCI's SPL test;

II dialog mode: ALL such SPL information, made-up for future court room like discussions- i.e. as configurable presentations of correct legal argument chains ("LACs") in reply to anySPL test query, identified by the most recently dropped key words.

The IES thus (semi-)automatically meets any court's needs as to SPL testing of ETCIs.

For a PTO and any court, the use ofIES/FSTP-Technology would raise the quality bar for anETCI's patent (application) and enormously improve the efficiency and quality of handling it.For a patentee, the correct use ofIES/FSTP-Technology warrants for its patent (application)the total robustness in examination by the PTO and/or a court. Hitherto both was impossible.

This brochure explains the amazing power of IES/FSTP-Technology and the reasons for its uniqueness ­though much of the Supreme Court's ETCI Initiative itembodies was outlined already by Kant'", as also shown.It hence outlines in-depth understanding of the being ofinnovations/inventions.

Nothing similar to IES/FSTP-Technology exists else­where. It is absolutely cutting edge AIT.

Prof Dr.-Ing. Sigram Schindler"

" For my CV see the end of this brochure

- 1 -

FIG. 1: Some Areas of Subiect M.. or atter ofETCIs

-

New Patent/Innovation Technology ofExtreme Power

The IES and FSTP-Test take the fundament of any patent/innovation business, its SPL basedpart, from its currently still "manufacture" level of development to the "post-industrial" stage.

This implies a much higher efficiency, quality, and trustworthiness of/in patent/innovationprocesses and products - indispensable for any innovation driven enterprise for protectingby SPL its substantial HR and financial investments - than this retarded development levelenables. In particular: Dependable SPL protection of ETCIs hitherto was impossible.

The US Supreme Court fixed this problem by its ETCI Initiative - embodying much ofKant's thinking - its recent Teoa decision confirming it. In favor ofETCIs, it requires refiningthe claim interpretation&construction for classical technologies by "inventive concepts"for solving the ETCIs' patent-eligibility problem. This refinement enables making ETCIsabsolutely robust as to testing them for their meeting ALL the requirements stated by 35USC §§ 101/102/103/112 in the US (in the EU by EPC and the peer §§ 52-57, 69). AsSPL everywhere is vastly the same, this refinement would protect US ETCIs by SPL evenworldwide - in any ET area.

This ETCI Initiative of the Supreme Court proved extremely amenable to scientification, as itshowed: An ETCI's SPL test is of"Finite First Order Logic, FFOI.:', i.e. has an excellent AITfundament - thus inducing IES/FSTP-Technology based on mathematized SPL.

This SPL scientification is going to be the fundament of any Patent/Innovation Technology.No alternative exists. It enables, by the FSTP-Test, drafting a patent for any ETCI such that itis absolutely robust over SPL and has a whole series of other advantages.

Two examples show how to leverage on the legal and logical fact that an ETCI satisfies SPL ifand only if it passes the FSTP-Test:• When calibrating the IES by this ETCI's FSTP-Test, the FSTP-Test fully automatically

prompts the IES user through checking, WHETHER & HOW it meets ALL technical andlegal requirements stated by 35 USC §§ 101/102/103/112.The so calibrated IES may fully automatically anytime outputANY such EXACTinformation- in response to keywords it detects, controlled by the user - dynamically configured as stringsof graphical symbols, or LACs in natural language (in configured modi), or ...

Final decisions - about whether a given ETCI actually does pass the FSTP-Test - are evidentlyto be made by courts, by checking this ETCI's correct FSTP-Test, e.g. the correctness of theinformation about the ETCI input by the IES user during its calibration.

- 3 -

IES/FSTP-Technology is Designed for Use in Courts -

The Highest Courts' patent precedents on ETCls provided valuable hints at how to overcomeclaim interpretations' key problem: Determining exactly its "inventive concept(s)"6.a):

• The German BGH's Spannschrauben decision, 1996, stated that an invention's dependableclaim interpretation is possible only if the technical teaching of the invention is known apriori - by Linguistics and Analytic Philosophy being unquestionable anyway.

• The US Supreme Court's KSR decision, 2007, clarifies as to the person of ordinary skill thatit is also of ordinary creativity.

The BGH's Geyenstandstrdyer decision, 2008, qualifies an ETCI as nonobvious if at least 2independent thoughts are needed for creating it, thus quantifying its "creativity"6.b).

• The US Supreme Court's Bilski/Biosig decisions, 2010/2014, clarify ETCls' patent-eligibilityand definiteness, and its Mayo/Alice decisions, 2012/2014, explicitly require using - in anETCI's claim interpretation - the notion of"inventive concept" (all often disliked in the US).

---- A Spin-offofHighest Courts' Decisions on ETCls

The Supreme Court had to insist in this refinement of the classical claim interpretation forenabling SPL to unfold ETCIs' much economic and humanitarian beneficial potential. Theclassical claim interpretation&construction namely proved to be totally incapable ofestablishingat least predictable/consistent SPL precedents, and led the USPTO, District Courts, and theCAFC into total confusion - as clearly predicted by AIT [44,71,78]. If this confusion aboutETCIs were not stopped by the Supreme Court, it evidently would hamper long-term/high­risk prone investments into ET R&D, absolutely indispensable for the US society's wealth.

ETCIs indeed comprise intricacies hitherto not noticed by the patent-community: ETCIsalways are partly intangible/invisible/fictional - i.e. based on purely intellectual models1) 6)

- thus causing many booby-traps. An example is: ETCIs are often not anticipated by anyindication - but once known, they are nevertheless deemed obvious. Such ETCI intricaciesdesperately require a refined claim interpretation excluding such pitfalls.

The Supreme Court provided the patent community with guidance to this refinement by whatit called its "Mayo framework". This indeed instantly induced a powerful new AIT technologygreatly facilitating protecting ETCIs by SPL - the here presented FSTP-Technology.

FIG. 2: The TvPical District COllrt Situation.7..

I

IES/FSTP-Technology Learning Tools - For LegalPersonal

For persons with SPL knowledge, practically using the IES and FSTP-Test is easy, as thelearning processes basically require learning only 9 new notions". Additionally, for any ETCIthere are only 10 requirements stated by the 4 sections of 35 USC - known since ever - andmapped onto 10 FSTP-testo, 0=1,2, ... ,10. Only a single prefabricated configurable LAC isneeded for any testo (+ basically redundant variations), and in calibration mode the user isprompted through all of them. I.e., the use of the IES and FSTP-Test is next to trivial.

Additionally, usable anytime, there is a straightforward q/a index system - available also onwww.£"tp-expert-system.com as a coarse glossary system - permanently invokable when usingthe IES. It replies to any query for a technical or legal keyword, used by the IES or FSTP-Test,by returning indices into documents dealing with the issue queried - be it an FSTP document,or an FSTP-testo, or a (quotation from a FSTP-Project specific mark-up version of) someauthority's document.

As the FSTP-Test is tightly related to the scientification of SPL, and Court decisions just asUSPTO guidelines often are not that highly developed, yet, the FSTP-Test is for practicalreasons configurable to identify such terminological and notional differences and tolerate them- then objectively being less accurate.

This multimedia user interface ("MMUI") shall become available next year. It is in calibrationand response mode of the IES basically the same and talks the user through whatever IESprovided guidance selected by it - by means of a default dialog, as it is known from e.g. GPSnavigation systems or an IVR system, i.e. capable of prompting the user for making multiple­choices.

These kinds ofguidance are already designed to enable referring, in any point in time and basedon keywords then spotted by the IES - in calibration just as in response mode - to the FSTP­testos then potentially being meaningful, to the multiple human perceptible presentations oftheir LACs selected by the user, to the technical parameters of such presentations selected(swiftly, haltingly, ... , if also in natural language: emotionally/academically/ordinarily/... ), tothe technical and/or legal logical level of detail of these presentations, as preconfigured ordynamically controlled, .... [43,46,47]2>.

This MMUI is designed such as to enabling the IES to play, in an ETCI examination or courtsituation, the role ofthe patent lawyer. I.e., in an appropriately calibrated IES under Turing testits arbiter should be unable to figure out, whether on the IES side it or the patent lawyer - seeFIG. 2 - is arguing in answering arbitrary questions asked by the Judge or Examiner.

- 7 -

Efficiency Increase by IES/FSTP-Test: For Examiners -

Wealth creating engines are nations' enterprises dealing with expert knowledge driveninnovations. Patents are these enterprises' key resources - they hence are crucial assets.

For any PTO this truth implies not only a growing number and complexity of incominginventions claiming patents, but also its society's strong and urgent need of the PTO beingbeing open, technically fit, and speedy - for thus facilitating unfolding the nation's economicpotentials embodied by SPL protected innovations. As to this well-known dilemma todayfaced by any PTO, its use of1ES/FSTP-Technology enables it to overcome this debacle:

• Without creating any cost, the PTO may motivate an applicant - e.g. by granting it a speedyprocedure - to submit, together with its application form, a basicallyuniform PTR-DS (= "Pairof Teaching and prior art Reference set Data Structure") comprising the marked-up patentapplication, its claimed invention's refined claim interpretation & construction (potentiallyone per claim), as well as all the other marked-up documents needed for examining thispatent application - potentially identified to the applicant by the Examiner. The applicant issupposed to have generated this PTR-DS by means of an 1ES (being its own, or the PTO's,or another IES service provider's one).

The Examiner then only needs to verify, by means of the PTO's 1ES, whether the applicanthas generated this PTR-DS correctly, i.e. as allegedly implied by its documents' mark-ups­the Examiner again being automatically guided through ALL SPL-checks the FSTP-Testprovides or helshe or the PTO has selected from them.

Thus, 1ES/FSTP-Technology enables the PTO to reverse the burden of proving thenonexistence of legal or technical reasons comprised by the PTR-DS, which rendered itsclaimed inventionts) non-patent-eligiblel-able.This reversal of the burden of proofwould atleast triple or quadruple an Examiner's throughput of patent examinations - and massivelyimprove the quality of its examinations, as explained next.

• As to business/healthcare/pharmalgreen/biotech/nanotech/genetechlli fecyclel ... inventions- i.e. as to any ETC1 - this reversal of the burden of proof of PTOs is without alternative.Due to the accelerating increase of sophisticated expert or even scientific knowledge, onwhich these inventions leverage when creating patent-eligible and patentable inventions, itis absolutely unthinkable that the PTOs' human resources would be able to quantitatively orqualitatively keep up with it, if they remain tied into today's misallocation of their examiners'capacity.

- 8 -

- and for Inventors, R&D Managers, Lawyers, ... , Judges

I) Note that using an IES this way by a PTa, would automatically/permanently achievequalifying effects with its Examiners and even a uniform level in their examination decisionsdetermined by the PTa's management. The IES usually would automatically prompt anExaminer through all the peculiarities (selected by him or his management) of an ETCI'sSPL test, and wherever he encounters an uncertainty as to evaluating the answer providedby the user to the resp. IES question (when generating the PTR-DS), the Examiner couldinstantly get from the IES learning platform (see above) the precise guidance how to derivethis answer from the documents comprised by the PTR-DS and the IES, i.e. vastly exceedingthe information provided by the user.

It even is likely that the rate of non-rejectable patent applications would get very high, asapplicants also would use IES/FSTP-Technology-which evidently would be twofold utmostdesirable, as nonsense applications are eliminated and other applications are legally absolutelyrobust - thus meeting their inventors'/investors' needs.

Finally, this use of the IES by the PTa also provides transparency as to its decisions - ifneeded by the applicant, or by a later check, or by another Examiner: The IES and its FSTP­Test work for a court exactly the same way as for an Examiner or an applicant, includingshowing to them all information added to the PTR-DS, by one of them.

This change of mode of operation of a PTa were nothing else but making it behave the sameway as a building supervisory authority: The latter would not even dream of determining on itsown, whether an application for approval ofconstruing a building is solid - but it would a prioriexpect this proofto be provided by the building's owner. I.e.: The building supervisory authoritythen would just check and confirm or not this proof submitted, and accordingly grant the rightto erect/use this building or refuse it.

A PTa using an IES the way just described would also tremendously improve the coordinationof all concerns to be considered in an examination by its customers. Such as: An inventor'sfurther enhancement of its claimed invention currently checked by the Examiner, or a researchgroup's reallocation of its related research efforts, or a patent law firm's reconsideration of otherpending cases in the light of this one, or a court's recognizing legal subtleties of the PTa'sposition in the pending case as being of interest in other alike cases. This additional supportthe PTa provides to its customers may be greatly facilitated by the IES - by its conveying tothem such "structural"/"strategic" information. Such cooperation of the PTa would requireabsolutely no additional effort by it, and would greatly facilitate creating trust into it.

- 9-

NonobvloosnessNovellyUsefulnessNovelly§.ill(well-de~nednessofils

1) (a) COMBAO(TTO) =" CBAD ,,= ((XOn,BAD·crCOn) III""'"}, andCOM(TTO) ="C :: = (BE~rCOknJ1snSN: BA[).cC()n·,,-BE[).a

(b) juslo!"'«'''; C8AOn is~ and caAD exactly dncrfboslhoITO;(c) juslo("'C8ADUC: BA[).aCOn =,,''''''''''BED-aCOkn;(d) jusIO("'C'AOVC: S/osIV "l pus.d, i.e.BE~rCOkn isl!M!n1l!;

juslo("'C8ADUC: BE~rCOkn " BAD-crCOn areW!j!l!lIJilll;~UlIjusIO("'C8ADUC: KSR·\esl PISSed CIsjusIO!"'C8ADUC; Mavo-test passedi.e. II palenl-noneligible B ~e identified;juslo("'C'AOVC: Y9nlbllng·ltsl pmed C's ImpIementabi is lawfu llydisclosed;

~~~=:-/t--=:~::::-~t- ~jU~SI~of"C:8ADUC:~: I~nd~.~..ndenc••I••t passed C is independent;? noisnon-preemptive;jusfof'l"CBADuC: • t I,,·justO!"'C8ADUC;justo!",CBAouc:

r·Tllli uUii...__.;.;;;I__~__~,,",__"

I . i

111I I I '::

ti ti l::::·',,'::J ,:; .t • • ••••• •• • •

I t" /lb ' '::::;:1.;:;:;=====.f~'~.fI/ _

k:··~;:;~~[~IC.~...........~~._.~:lioj' "";:";~;;;I ~

i .-~------~.......... .....

FI G. 3: 6 a/the IES [(nowledge Representations as to an ETCI under FSTP-Test

- 10 -

6 Knowledge Representations ofan FSTP-Test by the IES

Below the initial controlR screen shot - showing all compound items with which the IES usermay communicate and their 6 Knowledge Representations ("KRs") of this eKnowledge ("eK")about the ETCI and the FSTP-Test - 3 screen shots graphically model any relevant documentedSPL FSTP-Test eK.The middle screen shot models two "docR-stacks" ofdocuments, the right/left stack model all creativity/legal documents - by the "crR-stack" and elleR-stack"~in the rightand left screen shot showing the internal logical structure of any peer document in the twomiddle docR-stacks Gust as in any stack between these documents' peer items). To the right ofthe initial controlR screen shot the FSTP-TestR is indicated.

The large "brainR" screen shot's lower part shows all relations between all eK items input to theIES and brought into the brainR by calibrating the IES - not only eK items from analyzing theETCI at issue by the FSTP-Test, but also eK items dynamically controlling IES output as suchas well as this IES'es dynamic output control as such, as needed for enabling instantly reactingon unexpected events, e.g. guidance by the user ([97]2».

The "brainR" screen shot's upper part indicates the 10 base units provided by the FSTP-Test ofthe User Interface Entities ("UIEs") controlling the IES output in response mode (as customizedby the user as part of its IES calibration). Any output is automatically generated as LAC and isgraphically presented on the bottom lines of the resp. response controlR screen. The control ofacoustic or other graphical output/LAC presentations is outlined in [43,46,47]2>.

The double headed arrows exemplify how the user may browse between eKs, eK relations, andboth.There are no such arrows modeling that the user may browse, also within one eKR, betweenits items. The brainR is implemented as a sophisticated "linking structure" not discussed here.

In total: These windows provide direct access to and then crossover fromALL eK items existing in any FSTP-testo of the ETCI, the IES is (being) calibrated with.ANY ONE eK item to its peer in any TTi, TTO containing the ETCI at issue - and back.

• ANY ONE eK item to ANY ONE of its relation - and back.e ANY ONE eK item relation to its peer in any TTi - and back.e ANY ONE eK item or its relation to ANY ONE spot in ANY ONE testo - and back.• ANY ONE impact of a change performed in one of the 6 windows on the other ones.All these services are provided in "dialog real-time".

The first IES prototype - which should be opened to friendly testers later this year - will notyet have any output control, as the usual software implementation problems have hit also here.

-11 -

§101. Inventions patentable

Whoever invents or discovers any newand useful process, machine, manufacture,or composition of matter, or any new anduseful improvement thereof, may obtain apatent therefor, subject to the conditionsand requirements of this title.

§102. Conditions for patentability; novelty

(a) Novelty; Prior Art. - A person shall beentitled to a patent unless-

(1) the claimed invention was patented,described in a printed publication, or inpublic use, on sale, or otherwise availableto the public before the effective filingdate of the claimed invention; or

(2) the claimed invention was described ina patent issued under section 151, or inan application for patent published ordeemed published under section 122(b),in which the patent or application, ...

§103. Conditions for patentability;non-obvious subject matter

A patent for a claimed invention may not beobtained, notwithstanding that the claimedinvention is not identically disclosed asset forth in section 102, if the differencesbetween the claimed invention and the priorart are such that the claimed invention as awhole would have been obvious before theeffective filing date of the claimed invention

to a person having ordinary skill in the artto which the claimed invention pertains.Patentability shall not be negated by themanner in which the invention was made.

§112. Specification

(a) In General. - The specification shallcontain a written description of theinvention, and ofthe manner and processofmaking and using it, in such full, clear,concise, and exact terms as to enableany person skilled in the art to whichit pertains, or with which it is mostnearly connected, to make and use thesame, and shall set forth the best modecontemplated by the inventor or jointinventor of carrying out the invention.

(b) Conclusion. - The specification shallconclude with one or more claimsparticularly pointing out and distinctlyclaiming the subject matter which theinventor or a joint inventor regards asthe invention.

(f) Element in Claim for a Combination.­An element in a claim for a combinationmay be expressed as a means or step forperforming a specified function withoutthe recital of structure, material, or actsin support thereof, and such claim shallbe construed to cover the correspondingstructure, material, or acts described inthe specification and equivalents thereof

FIG. 4: The W07'dil1gS 0/35 USC §§ 101/102/103/112

- 12 -

Refined Claim Interpretation is Indispensable for ET CIs

Protecting ETCIs by SPL failed if the classical claim interpretation is practiced. The SupremeCourt by its ETCI Initiative multiply showed that,for an ETCI, . ) classical claim interpretationmay fail to identify all of ETCI's creative properties alias "inventive concepts", and .) classicalclaim construction may fail to derive from these inventive concepts its satisfying SPL, andthus implicitly but unquestionably required a "refined claim interpretation & construction" ofETCIs for solving these two problems. By its ETCI Initiative it also hinted at this refinement.

The classical claim interpretation's fundamental deficiency is that it ignores: ETCIs are alwaysi) "model-based" with implementations often being ii) "software systems" - making dealingwith ETCIs intellectually slippery (as outlined above&helow). Overcoming this deficiencyrequires refining claim interpretation, also for the person ofordinary skill and creativity ("posc").

Feature i) causes such troubles in drafting and/or interpreting claims and their patents'specifications, as any ETCI has undefined properties, if its description/interpretation ignoresthat .) there is a "metaphysical model"1)6) underlying this ETCI, and that :) this model mostlyhas only limited areas for precisely determining the meanings of ETCI's inventive concepts.Any exact science - including Mathematics - is model based in this sensev and has over timefigured out by Analytic Philosophy, how to accordingly limit the use of its models-".

Feature ii) causes such troubles, as a patent on an "in-software-to-implement" ETCI protectsan abstract machine, which may be provided by any of many software-systems technically sodramatically differing from each other that the question arises, whether the ETCI is more thanan "abstract idea" of an invention - thus "preempting" an advantageous ETCI*, for the poscnonobvious and by ETCI's specification non-disclosed, by comprising it, so depriving ETCI*'sinventor of a patent for it. Such an SPL were socially totally unacceptable (FIG.s 8/9 and ftn 6»).

The "refined claim interpretation & construction" enables avoiding for any ETCI these twoproblems and hence granting to it dependable SPL protection.The reason is that this refinementembodies an enormous increase of the notionalv preciseness/conciseness/completeness ofinterpreting this ETCI - thus practically excluding its misinterpretation due to i)/ii).

1 Natural Language is the model underlying Mathematics (all its species, e.g. Arithmetic, Set Theory, Geometry, Algebra, ...).In Physics thereare its species' es specific models, e.g. Solid Media Physics, Thermodynamics, Elementary Particle Physics, Astrophysics, ... In SPLthesemodels are even ETCI specific, often based on subject area standards, e.g. in Communications Technology the 150/051 Reference Model.

The notion of model (of differing meanings) is needed in any area of precise thinking. It there also may have different names, e.g.in Philosophy a model is often called "paradigm", in Linguistics "interpretation basis", in Mathematics/Physics "coordinate system", ...

On top of their (rnetaphysicat") models, Mathematics determines by "axioms" the properties of its species'es theorems, Physicscalls these axioms "physical laws" determining the properties of its species'es systems, ..., SPLIFSTP-Technology renames them as"inventive concepts" determining the properties of its species'es ETCls···I. Such axioms'/physicallaws'/...Iinventive concepts' alwaysare defined in only an extremely limited natural language ("'meta language"), what enables both their semantical preciseness-e. This,in turn, enables the resp. theorems'/physical systems'/ ...IETCls' precise definitions of their mathematical/physical/...ISPLproperties.

SPLIFSTP-Technology does not comprise only crCs here addressed. ftn"·bl models leCs, too, which enable FSTP-Technology to mod­el the Supreme Court's ETCilnitiative and inventing the specific AIT modelling the latter - as required in FIG. 7.

2 9 key generic notions making-up FSTP-Technology and their interrelations, for solving these two SPL problems, ought to be kept inmind: .) ETCls' descriptions by their inCs, i.e. the ETCls' claim interpretation, .) the potentially indispensable refinement of these inCs,.) the models involved thereby, .) an ETCl's description by a COM of its inCs .) the qualification of inCs as patent-eligible or not (andwith them potentially their whole ETCI) .) the scientification of SPLfor so described ETCls, .) the thus enabled scientification of theFSTP-Test for such ETCls,.) the absolute robustness over SPLof such an ETCI that passed the FSTP-Test, and .) the LACs. They and/or theprinciples they are based on, are very briefly outlined until page 21.

- 13 -

Inventive Concepts Enable Scientification of SPL

The scientification ofSPL is a historical achievement.The groundbreaking advantages it enablesare overwhelming, first of all drafting patents for ETCIs such that these arc "SPL unassailable"- if described by their exact inventive concepts ("inCs"l»), next elaborated on (skipping itsbroad philosophical context as totally irrelevant here [236]).

Key Aspects ofpost-Mayo Inventive Concepts ("inCs'J

Any inC is a pair "<a legal concept 'leC ', a creative concept IcrC '>"6.a).• Any leC is ETCI independent and defined, on top of the for all ET CIs common "SPL­

model"l)6), by this leC 's specific set of all over the SPL-model legally correct LACsrepresenting leC's meaning, i.e. leC 's "truth set, leTS" - of which any element represents anonredundant LAC. As SPL is of FFO L, the set of such ETCI independent and hence forcrCs parameterized (ETCI independent = abstract) LACs is finite.

• Any erC is ETCI dep endent and defined, on top of this "ETCI-model'T, by the mirrorpredicate of this crC's specific finite "truth set, crT S", this model comprising crT S.

By its truth sets any inC=<leTS,erTS> is mathematically defined, today always replaced by itsverbal interpretation. As any ETCI hitherto encountered is ofFFOL, too, its set ofinC basedLACs - i.e. by crCs parameterized (ETCI specific = concrete) LACs - is also finite.

Any inC of ETCI exists - as property crC alias predicate of its resp. unique ETCI-element- on the ETCI's "binary abstract disclosed, BAD" level of coarse notional resolution and onits "binary elementary disclosed, BED" level, notionally refining any BAD-inC to be a part ofETCI's "combination" ofBAD-inC's BED-inCs:TS(BAD-inC)=nthcscBED-inCsTS(BED-inCs).

A n ETCI's meaning thus is (mathematically) correctly describedv'? by (mathematical) inCs,assuming all its inCs' pairs <le'TS, crT S> - by the user/pose to be input to the ETCI's FSTP­Test, as it prompted for it - are defined by it correctly.

An informal meaning of an invention's "inventive conceptts)" - not this term - was in theUS used pre-Mayo [234]. Yet, a simpler, hence more convenient but logically/linguisticallydeficient meaning of the term "claim interpretation" prevailed, reducing it to "claim wordingbased claim interpretation". By the late 201h century the even simpler but logically/li nguisticallytotally absurd (as indefinable) notion of "Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, BRI" of a claimbecame popular and broadly practiced (as important US institutions still do today).

In par ticular the Supreme Court's Biosig decision stopped that notional BRI nonsense [79],just as its M ayo/Alice decisions by explicitly requir ing to base an ETCI's claim interpretationon its "inventive conceptfs)", It thus enforced the logically and linguistically correct claiminterpretation - sometimes practically more tedious th an the BRI, as preserving an ETCI'sconsistency to its specification, i.e. preserving the inventor's meaning of this ETCI.

- 14-

An ETCI is a "Combination"ofits Inventive Concepts ("COM" alias "C'J3)

In total, the Supreme Court clearly and explicitly criticized by its ETCI Initiative theCAFC's tendency to suggest oversimplifications: By Biosig the CAFC's 'claim interpretationoversimplification' by its BRI, after having by Bilski already criticized its 'patent-noneligibilityoversimplification' by its MoT test, after having by KSR already criticized its 'obviousnessoversimplification' by its TSM test. Note that their 3 ETCIs just as those ofMayo/Myriad/Aliceare model based, Bilski/Alice being additionally computer implementation based. The SupremeCourt rejected all these oversimplifications by the following all decisive reason:

Had the courts started for anyone ofthese 6 ETCIs testing it by its refined claim interpretation,i.e. avoiding the above oversimplifications - and had instead up-front determined its COM3)of inCs, as needed by FSTP-testl alias Biosig-test and the Mayo/Alice decisions - the courtswould immediately have encountered the fundamental question: Does this COM at all correctlydescribe this TTO's inventivity as disclosed for the posc by its specification? Answering thisquestion up-front (prior to checking this COM's other 9 SPL aspects) would have avoidedall the succeeding unfortunate dissents in and between them, due to their non-awareness ofCOM's subtletiesv'v of decisive impacts on the outcome of its SPL test.

Determining up-front by claim interpretation how to "understand"TTO (in the sense of Kant'",i.e. together with the COM3) describing it) is often error-prone, in spite ofrefining COM's inCsinvolves already much redundancies embodied by TTO's specification. Hence, there is nothingwrong with attempting to construe for a tentative COM the complete claim construction ­which means exploiting such redundancy considerably further going - and if this is impossibleto reiterate on COM. Due to the problems finiteness, this is a finite process.

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

Novelty I Usefulness Novelty Nonobviousness

s.na(well-definedness of ils §..1!!1

inventive concepts) (palenl-eligibilily of lls claim)§ 102 § 103

~...... /~ - - i\/

\~ / ~- \\I

;<;~~;;\~E~~~~~~tf}~1f.~~"t:: ,;-~"'"c,"""~ , ,,,,/ " " ,:C/4l~';':::~;:<':

1,,::.... "'" , f.;'::;"':--'- "':'::" " ~~'~"" ~' " ?" ";'~~::"~'~;~ "";!'::::(~"'~~;" '-:~"" :;:;!';;;;;;;;'~:"",>,,,.;:.-.. ...,.:", •.".".... ..\..:....... ._....... ... ,:. ...... '••r.......~~•••~ ••_••• ~ .•," ;••.• _ .":' ••.,I.. :.'..... .,~~ .....:!J' r' ,••" ..... .. . ..,. ,"', . ttlr••• ••• ••. . • :.... . . .- 'f'.......~ ............t ~'"....,•..

r - r -r - r - r -I Ois- I Lawful I I I ' I I ' I ,. . I RS- III O· I KSR-Iesl Mayo-Iesl Enablemen! IndcpornJonco Bilski-test Alice-lest Deflniteness Graham-lest

aggrega on I ISC osure I I I I(I 11) (t 12) (Ies! 3) (lesI4) (testS) (10$16) (lesI7) (lesIB) lesl (lesI10)I es es I I I I (lest 9)__ J __ J __ J __ J __ J10SPLconcern boxes(10 FSTPtest boxes)

FIG. 5: The 10 LogicallyALegally Necessm'yASuf{iciellt Tests a/an ETeI/or Satisfying SPL4)

3 For an ETCI a "COM(TTO)" or just "C" of its inCs (as of FIG. 6, l. l)(b)(c)) is necessary and sufficient for making-up a TTo of this ETCI [142].Here is assumed, for simpLicity but w.l.o.g., ETCI has onLy a singLe C, i.e. a singLe TIO [42].

4 The SPL box shows the 4 Sections of 35 USC SPL stating the 10 sociaL requirements to be met by a C for satisfying SPL.The FSTP-Testbox shows these 10 sociaL SPL requirements transLated into the 10 FSTP-test.o, rsosao, BoLd arrows show what is tested of TTo by itsclassicaL claim construction, dashed arrows what must be and is additionaLLy tested in its refined claim construction, i.e. in its SPLtest.

-15 -

The below FSTP-Test provides a feeling of its working on an ETCI - what its legend brieflyelaborates on. It not only mathematically models using the 6 Supreme Court decisions astests, but also refines them. This is indispensable for making them 1.) meaningful, e.g. bydisaggregating its BAD-inCs into independent BED-inCs, and 2.) notionally exact andmathematically precise. Both these issues address subtleties embodied by SPL and ETCIshitherto not yet detected by the patent community, but necessarily to be clarified by further 3.)SPL precedents resp. 4.) user/pose input [208] - skipped here.

The user/pose does not need to understand, if not interested, why to input these - for avoidingtroubles indispensible - subtleties: The IES/FSTP-Technology prompts it through ALLquestions it must answer correctly, often based on only multiple choices.

The FSTP-Test during execution, after being started byitsuser, stepwise prompts it forinputting the given information, being• vnO-elements XOn, 1~n~N 1\ VBAD-inCOn, 1~n~N 1\ VBED-inCOkn, 1~kn~Kn, 1~n~NJ K ::= L:1SnsNKn;• if IRSI>O: Vni-elements X'On, 1~n~N 1\ VBAD-inC'in, 1~n~N 1\ VBED-inC'ikn, 1~kn~Kn, 1~n~N V1~i~l ;

• V justifications (provided by the resp. ET pose, where necessary by a resp. ET expert) ;1) (a) COMBAD(nO) =:: CBAD ::= {(XOn,BAD-crCOn) I \f1SnSN}, and

COM(nO) =:: C ::= {BED-crCOknI1~n~N : BAD-crCOn=A1sknsKnBED-crCOkn} ;(b) justofv'1snsN: CBADn isdefinite and CBAD exactly describes theTTO;(c) justofv'lCBADUC: BAD-crCOn =AlSknSKnBED-crCOkn;(d) justofv'lCBADUC: Biosig·test passed, i.e. BED-crCOkn isdefinite;

2) justofv'CCBADUC: BED-crCOkn 1\ BAD-crCOn are lawfully disclosed;3) justofv'CCBADUC: KSR·test passed Ciswell-defined over posc;4) juslofv'ccBADuc: Mavo-test passed V patent-noneligible BED-crCOkn are identified;5) justofv'CCBADUC: C·enabling·test passed C's implementability is lawfully disclosed;6) justofv'fCBADUC: Independence·test passed Cis independent;7) justofv'(CBADUC: Bilski·testpassed no isnon-preemptive;8) justofv'(CBADUC: Alice·test passed no ispatent-eligible;9) justofv'(CBADUC: RS·Definiteness·test passed RS iswell-defined over pose 1\no;10) justofv'fCBADUC: Graham·test passed no ispatentable.

FIG. 6: The FSTP-Test - Checking a TT03J for its MeetingALL SPL Requirements ofFIG. 5

The FSTP-Test comprises 10 FSTP-testo, in total checking of an ETCI/IT031, whether it satisfies SPL. This is the case iff the ETCI meets all10 social requirements legally encoded by SPL, i.e. by 35 USC §§ 101/102/103/112. This insight is derived by leveraging on some resultsfrom other areas", The FSTP-Test hence is not an algorithm/program but a conjunction of the 10 FSTP-testo, the truth of which on a COM isnecessary f\ sufficient for its satisfying SPL- rendering the sequence of executing the testos meaningless. I.o.w.: It is the legally canonicalprocedure for acquiring all5PL relevant information about a COM (based on user/pose input). Thus, if this information is stored in a datastructure PTR-DS, any meaningful question about ITO's satisfying SPLcan instantly be answered by it (see e.g. [7,198]).

It prompts the user to input, for this HCI from docO, its ETCI-elements Xon, and their compound inventive concepts BAD-XOn, andas many elementary inventive concepts BED-crCOnk as it is able to identify in HCl's specification, lsnsN, lsl<sK", such that eventually aCOWlof ETCI is defined - whereby the user also identifies all BED-crCOlm being subject to a patent-eligibility exemption. Two hints as to3.)/4.) above may be helpful: • The J<SR-test here is only indicative and adjustable as needed by J<SR - impacting on testlO - and. theRS-Definiteness-test must for any doc.i, i>O, in principle take peer steps as for doco in testl- which practically may be relaxed.

5 achieved in: Mathematics [239] and Analytic Philosophy [238] since the second half of the 19 th century, Physics in the first half of the20 th century, AIT and especially its System Design Technique (with its disaggregation of complexity by 'separation of concerns' and'layering of requirements') [122,123] in its second half, ITin the last 30 years, and technologies these achievements enabled in Com­munications/Agriculture/Transport/Production/Medicine/Economy/Educationl ... due to annually several 100 billion US$ R&D invest­ments into all of them, encouraged by the 4 §§ of SPL.

- 16 -

Mathematizing SPL andMaking ETCls Ahsolutely Rohust over SPL

Hitherto no other legal area could be mathematized - SPL is the only one. To this end theSupreme Court's 6 decisions of its ETCI Initiative are necessary and sufficient.

FIG. 7 shows how this SPL scientification is performed by a mathematical axiomatizations'of 35 USC SPL (in its interpretation by the Supreme Court's ETCI Initiative), assumingETCIs are precisely and completely defined by their COMs - as Mayo/Alice explicitly andBiosig implicitly require.

It provides 17 mathematical definitions of their left side SPL notions, thus mathematizingSPL, i.e. all these 17 definitions' conditions & right sides are purely mathematical expressions.AD denotes an axiomatic and LD a legal definition6.b) .

AD.1: Ano's "generative compound set, C"represents: no's FSTP-Test passes onSI,C II 3ip-sk(S::= {vcrCs ofESI'C}.AD.2: Ano's "scope (TID)" isdefined tobe: CR::= {VsRv(SD} ::= {V<SRV1dS(S1), ..,SRVKdS(SK»}.

LD.1: Ano iscalled "definite" iff CR = no.LD.2: Ano' iscalled tobe"equal, '='"tono iff C'R = CR.LD.3: Ano' iscalled to"belong to scope(nO)", i.e. iff C'R !;;; CR.LD.4: AnO'(tscope(nO) iscalled "Violating" no iff c'RncR i ¢l.

AD.3: Ano has an"improvement prone SipES" means: TS(Sip) c +TS(Slp).AD.4: Ano has the "transformation prone SiPES" means: VSkE§IP: TS(Sk) = lpTS(Sk).

LD.S: Ano comprises an "abstract idea" iff 30TSSO (Sk) : TS(Sk) c oTSSO(Sk).LD.6: Ano comprises a "natural phenomenon" Iff 3nTSsO (Sk) : TS(Sk) C nTSSO(sk).

LD.7: Ano iscalled "nonpreemptive" iff ;1lip-sk.LD.S: AAlTO iscalled "(unlimited) preemptive" Iff 3ip-sk II (;1lAslp V (A§WS=¢l)) V Qpmgp(AlTO)=O.LD.9: AAlTO iscalled "(application) tiedpreemptive" iff 3ip-sk II (3Astp II (A§IP\ASi¢l)) II Qpmgp(AlTO)<!:1.

LD.10: AAlTO iscalled "patent-ellqible '·noneligible" Iff AlTO = (non v tied) preemptive / AlTO =preemptive.LD.11: AAlTO has an "inventive (Alice) concept inAC" means: 3inAC .. - nVSk'Aetp (ASk): IA~tpl <!: 1.LD.12: AAlTO iscalled "SUbstantially more than" llllTO iff IA~tpl <!: 1.

LD.13: AAlTO (being patent-eligible) iscalled "patentable" Iff RS=IllQpmgp(AlTO) <!: 1.

FIG. 7: Mathematiz ing the Semantics/Pragmatics q,fpre- a1zd./J:ost-Mayo SPL

ETs' semiotics additional SPL requirements, to be met by ETCIs for dependably beingprotectable by SPL, are vastly the same in any National Patent System ("NPS"). Nevertheless,in vastly the same way, ETCIs may also be attacked in any NPS by leveraging on these ETs'peculiarities, as the jurisdictions of these NPSes are not familiar with both - with ETCIs'peculiarities and the SPL semiotics needed for enabling consistently deciding about them.

Historically, knowledge areas' exact scientification often led to international harmonization.Here at stake are the national SPL flavors of ETCIs' needs for SPL protection. Such SPLthinking is still in its infancy at many national Highest Courts. The above SPL scientification- induced by 35 USC §§ 101/112/102/103 and its US Supreme Court interpretation (quitesimilar to its EPC peers) - definitively has the potential to internationally greatly facilitate thisharmonization, as thus contributing to the wealth of the supporting nations.

- 17-

Innovations by Epiphanyvs

Gottfried Leibniz1646-1716

Archimedes of Syracuse287 BC-212 BC

Euclid of Alexandriaca.300BC

Blaise Pascal1623-1662

Aristotle384 BC-322 BC

Johannes Kepler1571-1630

Platon428 BC-348 BC

1:.-

»;'1

~ , . :!" ..

Hippocrates ofKos460 BC-370 BC

Michelangelo Buonarroti1475-1564

Ikhnaton1384 BC-1334 BC

Nikolaus Kopernikus1473-1532

Immanuel Kant1724-1804

Abraham Lincoln1809-1865

Bernhard Riemann1826-1866

Max Planck1821-1914

Gonlob Frege1848-1925

Guiseppe Peano1858-1932

David Hilbert1862-1943

Ernst Zermelo1871-1953

Bertrand Russel1872-1970

Albert Einstein1879-1955

Alfred Tarski1901-1983

FIG. 8: Godfathers ofI1l11Ovatio11S - Since Kant the Innovations ' Rationales are Refined bv Etbics'"....- OJ J ...

Innovations by primarily Epiphany resp. EnLightenment/EpistemoLogy/interdisciplinarity/AIT differ by genesis. This distinction is often being bLurring, as anyinnovation of the Latter kind evidentLy is based on aLsoEpiphany. Kant's "Copernican revolut ion" clarifies this distinction of the genesis of new cognitions, i.e.innovations, by presenting the existence of a "transcendent" moral phenomenon in th is genesisv.In his" Critique ofPureReason"he non -empirically criticizes­inspired by the empiric Hume - the Latter's then dominating soLeLy pure logics and (ethics ignoring) empirics based "rationalist philosophy" of seeing the worLd'materiaListically'. Kant countered by his "scientific Metaphysics" enriched rationaLity/reasoning, i.e. his famous "categorical imperative" controlled theory ofpe rception. By it, earlier/later innovations are primarily "analytic"/"synthetic': whereby "synthetic" imperativeLy comprises new and use fuLby ethics moti­vated and caused features, not necessarily onLyethics ones - addressed by § 101's wording - "analy tic" potentiaLLycomprising pre-existing archaic ethics fea­tures. This refinement of basically materiaListic rationality by motivation caused by certain ethics, underLies aLsothe Supreme Court's" understanding" of ETCls.

Its Alice decision shows this by using fundamentaL notions of Kant's thought: A certain "category" of an ETCl 's "inventive concepr'w' (by Mayo aLready)is required to "transform" it into "significantly more" (together representing the 'categoricaL imperative' that ETCl 's patent-eligibility got to be 'e thicalLy'founded). I.e.: Kant's synthetic/analytic distinction spearheaded SPL's patent-eligibility/-noneLigibility distinction.

Kant's by ethics rationality - it s all overarching importance echoed aLsoin the US post Era of Enlightenment, especially by lincoln, then the first head of agovernment stressing the ethics of the USpatent system - is what a modern society needs and must practice instead of blurring as oversimpLified 'mate rialistic'reasoning. This is what the Supreme Court conveyed via its ETCI Initiative to the patent community.

- 1 8 -

by Enlightenment/Epistemology/lnterdisciplinarity/AIT

Innovations of the former kind: Ikhnaton is godfather of today's belief of many in the theninnovation ofonly one single and almightygod. The same holds for Plato and the then innovationof atomicity of matter, for Socrates and the then innovation of statements' correctness proving,for Euclid and the then innovation of independency of thoughts/axioms.

Innovations of the latter kind: Kant is the godfather of the then innovation of constructivenessof rationality and of mathematizing sciences/technologies/knowledge.6,.v, thus impacting onRiemann!.. ./Turing/... in Mathematics/Analytic Philosophy/Physics/AIT. Such innovations/inventions are induced by Epistemology and interdisciplinarily, i.e. by how Mathematics, ... ,Biology, Medicine, Business, ... , Technologies evolved and complemented each other - todayoften enabled by powerful AIT - for increasing the society's well-being. Especially ETCls'inventive concepts, tightly related to socio/economic issues, may make them socio/economicallyhighly advantageous. But they potentially also have new socio/economically untenable sideeffects, to be removed before they damage SPL.

The Supreme Court by Bilski/Mayo/Alice hence interprets § 101 as determining patent­eligibility per ETCI a priori by the impact of such inacceptable side effects on it. This impact,potentially making the ETCI patent-noneligible, is now defined precisely by LD 11/12 inFIG. 7, and if it is appropriately limited it is harmless -leaving the ETCI eligible [208].

The IES/FSTP-Technology is based on second kind ETCIs6.c>. It derives its "innovation busi­ness" power from enforcing, by innovative AIT, this Supreme Court's precedents in favor ofcreating/securing/communicating ETCIs from whatever subject areas. I.e.: This technologyfacilitates creating ETCIs and accelerating bringing them into use by enforcing their facts/screening/transforming/presenting meeting the Supreme Court requirements for dependablyprotecting them by SPL - indispensable for unfolding their beneficial potentials.

6 Kant's "understanding" of the working and bounds of thinking is fundamentaL for today's understanding of the world, i.e. of its being as practically e)(­perienced by mankind. He presented it by the Theory of Perception he basically deveLoped in his "Critique" (see legends to FIG.s 8/9) and "Groundwork"[230-233].

Summarizing it here - by the end of this LittLe brochure about IES/FSTP-TechnoLogy - provides a fundament for explaining the by it implied reLationbetween SPLand today's ETCls, especiaLLythe rationaLe it determines of the Supreme Court's ETCilnitiative, refining the semantics/pragmatics of SPL.

For this explanation to be comprehensibLe to aLL three communities invoLved - of Kantians, SPLjudicators, and Ails - this fundament. must partiallyconsoLidate their WeLtanschauungen on the basis of the target community's one, the SPLjudicators, by acquainting them with basic AIT, thereby. LimitingKant's such perception to onLythe reLation of ETCls to SPL,by this reduction of scope vastly simplifying its here presentation. The Kantian community hadnever before to suffer a so massively reduced thinldng of Kant, But the other two communities thus may grasp for the first time its fundamentaL issuesidentification and clarification genius, guiding until today soLvingintricate intellectual questions, here e.g. the SPLscientification and the (by Kant implied)patent-eLigibility probLems - enabled to unfoLd its enormous potential only today'l, in the past hence vastly underestimated and misunderstood..a Kant - using exactly this notion of "concept, "not the Leading 'inventive' as he did not focus on inventions, as SPLdoes - emphasized the Latter's ame­nability to being mathematized, though not yet that sophisticated as done here')··,I..b Kant identifies this distinction by using the notions of "analytic" and "synthetic': explaining this semiotic') distinction in "understanding" a(ninventive"')) "concept" by its "category" - exactly as the Supreme Court in Alice. The interreLations of Kant's thinking to § 101 is elaborated on below71­

for those interested in background knowledge about Kant's "understanding" of the two complementary fundamentaL aspects of practically anything, e.g.of the meaning of a notion or a sentence - thus facilitating understanding the notionaL difference between" claim interpretation"and "claim construction"as complementary features of the "understanding" of an ETCI [219,230-233]..c As toLd in the Legend to FIG. 8, IES/FSTP-Technology is based on Kant's notion of "rationality'; decisively restricting the Aristoteles/Locke/Humemeaning of this term - to comprise certain ethics - and refined by its analytic/synthetic aspects. This Leaves additionaL ftexibtlity in parsing the inteL­Lectual fundament of the Mayo/Alice SPLframework into potentially non-unique ADs,- 4 in FIG. 7 - i.e. a compLete set of exact building blocks for it, theADs being precisely defined on top of the metaphysical SPL-model representing its 10 sociaL concerns indicated by FIG. 5, i.e. on top of the by Mayo/Alice semioticaLLyexpanded SPL pragmatics needed by ETCls. I.o.w.:The Mayo/Alice frameworl< (= the semiotically expanded SPL pragmatics in favorof ETCls) is precisely defined by the 13 LDs of FIG. 7, in turn preciseLy made-up from these 4 ADs (= 4 post-Mayo semiotics' LeCs, not ETCt's crCs, being"ETCI axtoms'?'), I.e.:The post-Mayo/Alice SPL pragmatic's as a whoLe is unique - as ex- and implicitLy uniqueLy defined by I<SR/Bilski/Mayo/Biosig/Alice.

I.e.:This Mayo/Alice framework's above mathematizing is unique only moduLo potential isomorphisms - immateriaL here.

- 19-

Kant & the Supreme Court's ETCI Initiative -

FIG. 9: The Flat World ofPure Reasoning Giv ing Birth to Ethics E nriched Perception

ChagaU's GAD models this metaphysics process: GAD doesn't strive to the sun, as Icarusdid, but to overcoming the flat world's shortcom­ings by using its birds' dimension, as Daeda lus - as Kantdid by using in percep tion its moral dimension.and the Supreme Court by launch­ing its ETCllnitiative. Tothis end the GADis forearmed against this new dimension's threats - just as Kantand the Supreme Court

Asto innovationsli nventions, all modern thinking about a Theory of Percep tion is based on this I<ant ian thinking (plus meantime cre­ated knowledge'') , NoreaLLy other than Kant's theory of ethically empowered perception has emerged.

But is it needed . at all? Why has the thinking about those of classical technologies got along without it? Indeed, human intu itionenabLed dependabLy evaLuating them under SPL the simpler, less inte Llectual materialistic way. Yet evaluating also ETCls under SPL byintuition proved inconsistent, as far too sophisticated for it - but not for Kant's intellectual refinement of perception by ethics [231-33].

Kant's categorical imperative enriched rationally multiply embossed the Supreme Court's ETC/Initiative: Notonly that it a priori mor­ally excludes e.g. plainly scientific findings from patentability and also abstract ideas as preemptivity-prone and hence socially inaccept­abLe - both measures being of ethics quaLity. It aLso requires that inventive concepts ("inCs") be used for descr ibing an ETCI under SPl tes t,i.e. notional pairs <leC,crC>')-), whereby the pre-Kant crCs - ignoring ethics - are subject to the post-KantleCs categorical imperative. I.e.:It requires, for an ETCl's SPL test, the inseparability of ETCI's pure rationaLity (modeLed by its inCs' crCs) from its ethical controL (modeLedby its inCs' LeCs). This principLe basically heLd in SPL since ever - yet dealing with ETCls enforces obeying it rigorousLy.

- 20 -

- Kant & the Patent-Eligibility Problem

The Supreme Court's ETCI Initiative implies a broad range of enormous advantages as toETCIs' testing under SPL, and the thinking underlying this Initiative (implying theseadvantages) is vastly5 ) that of Kant - as shown above7). Now is finally shown that and how thisKantian thinking provides clear guidance especially as to significantly refining the SupremeCourt's Alice decision, thus facilitating meeting the urgent and broad need for consistentlysolving the intricate problems of determining ETCIs' patent-(non)eligibility.

Kantian thinking complements also the currently best guideline to understanding this patent­eligibilityproblem:The USPTO's most recent version ofits "July 2015 Update on Subject MatterEligibility" [235]. It is a very instructive compendium ofa series ofactual and hypothetical courtcases about this issue. Yet, it does not identify the common notional denominator of patent­eligible ETCIs, i.e. the invariant over them derivable from their COMs - clearly implied bythe explicit promise of 35 USC § 101 and its patent-eligi-bility exemption by the Kantiancategorical imperative ethically indispensable [203 ,232].

IES/FSTP-Technology provides much better guidance than ever available before, by enabling/forcing to focus on those 2 categories of inCs of an ETCI's COM, which the ETCI Initiativedefined by § 101 to be crucial. If there is none, ETCI is patent-eligible, else [202] preciselydetermines, whether ETCI is nevertheless patent-eligible, as in Kant's sense "autonomous"[231,237] - being equivalent to ETCI's non- or tied-preemptivity [202,208].

Based on the SPL scientification in FIG. 7, FIG. 3 just shows this ETCI invariant. Ifit is usedfor drafting ETCI's specification appropriately, it is a philosophy P, but is a test when appliedfor screening the latter. It is executable anyway'" [237]. Thus, it is this above missing commondenominator - often the complete solution to the patent-eligibility problern'".

In both cases of applying, for an ETCI, the philosophy P when drafting - in case a) a fresh specification, and in case ~) apatented continuation - ofagiven pair ATTO ::=<TTO,A> ofthis ETCI itspatent-eligibility may be guaranteed by guaranteeingits non-/tied-preemptivity by drafting, within its specification, the sets SU and +ASD;;;;,1RASD;z!:ep such that nobody can contend,atATTO's application orpost-grant time, that ATTO ispreemptive by alleging:In case a) itwould preempt • some application BE6 as BTTO ::= <TTO,B> ~~DS , and/or

• foran application BE6 some +BTTO ::= <+TTO,B» ~+ADS .

In case B) itwould preempt • some application BE6 as BTTO" ::= <TTO" ,B> ftR~DS, and/or• foran applicationBE~ some +BTTO" ::= <+TTO" ,B» (i!:+ADS.

FIG. 10: The "T he Patent-Eligibility Gap Overcoming" Philosophy. .P, alias Test [202]

To summarize the key message of this little brochure: The US patent community in greatbreadth will soon appreciate the Supreme Court's ETCI Initiative and the amazing efficiency/quality improvements it enables - then rightfully taking pride in it, as no other society developedfor its innovativity and the latter's SPL protection anything of similar importance.

7 by summarizing. Kant's Theory of Perception (by the Legends to FIG.s 8/9 and ftn'l and. the mathematicat ion of SPL achiev ed primarily on th is bas is(see ftn' I), thereby explaining; why the latter is a st raightforward consequence of the former - in the sense of post-Kant, i.e. i.e. ethics-enriched rationality.

• The outline of this common denominator - i.e. of this invariant over all patent-eligible ETCls - is started by a discla imer. By the rigorous scientificationof SPL, in testing an ETCI by the FSTP-Tes1, all its 10 subtests ought to be straightforward executable as then having simple mathematical definitions. I.e.,the ETCl's SPLtest is in its complexity reduced to a degree, where an examiner/pose may blindly use it, if it only is familiar with the tested ETCl's subjectmatter and knows whether in a subtest the - with the resp. prompt by the IES offered - prefabricated LAC is true or false (if this subtest is not automatedalready, e.g. the determination of the ETCl's semantic height over its prior art RS). Yet,whether there are also tedious cases is unclear, what is skipped here.

- 2 1 -

Curriculum Vitae ofProf. Dr.-Ing. Sigram Schindler

• Born in Lodz (Poland) in 1936,G German nationality since 1939,• Resident of Germany since 1945,e Abitur in Bavaria in 1956.

Academic Career:• Mainly self-financed studies at the Technical University of Berlin (TUB) - applied mathematics, theoretical

physics, abstract mathematics, several arts.Diploma thesis on non-relativistic elementary particle theory (Schrodinger theory), doctoral thesis onsatellite mechanics (optimal orbit transfers), habilitation thesis on operating systems (multiprocessorscheduling).

• From 1971: Co-author of the program for establishing information sciences at the German Universities, asmember of the German Federal Government's resp. board (being the academic IT representative for Berlinto the Federal Minister for Research and Technology).Additionally from 1971: Participation in the preparation, definition, foundation and administrativeimplementa-tion of the Department ofInformation Sciences at the TUB.

• Since 1972: Professor and since 1974 full professor of operating systems (later also of communicationsystems) in the Department ofInformation Sciences at the TUB - after several calls from other universities .

• Ramping up, for many years, awareness of the upcoming telecommunication s technologies in G ermany,by running on behalf of the GI (= Gesellschaft fu er Informatik, the German nationwide academic society ofinformation and telecommunications technologies) the annual Telecomm unications conferences at the TUB.

e Chairman of many teaching and studies committees, research and development committees, andexamination boards for the various Information Sciences programs at the TUB.

• More than a dozen students made become university professors.• 1976 to 1994: Member of national, Europ ean and international bodies for development, promotion and

standardization of future IT technologies, in particular LAN/telecommunications/textlsecurity technologies.• 1996: Application for sabbatical leave from teaching responsibilities at the TUB, granted for the "hands-on

management" ofTELES AG (see below).• 2001: Emeritus ofTUB, indispensable at the retirement age.

Business Career:• 1983: Foundation ofTELES GmbH, with shareholder's equity ofDM 50 thousand, sole shareholder and

general manager.1hen focus ofTELES GmbH: development, manufacturing and distribution of advancedtelecommunications and security technologies and systems.

• 1996: Transformation ofTELES GmbH to TELES AG, at annual revenues of DM 22 million, soleshareholder and CEO.

• 1998: IPO ofTELES AG, at annual revenues ofDM 100 million, majority shareholder and CEO untiltoday.1999: Refocus ofTELES on value-added Internet systems, acquisition byTELES of the webhosting start-upSTRATO GmbH.Since 2002: Member of the National Economic Affairs Council of the CDU.

• 2005: Sale byTELES of its subsidiary STRATO AG for more than € 130 millionSince 2005: Developing a portfolio of international patents for the futurea) high-end mobile broadband Internet mass market,b) high-end mobile broadband media networking market, andc) high-end Emerging Technology patents/innovations market (to which this high-end marketing brochurebelongs), just as developing the resp. new technologies for a) and c).

- 22-

The FSTP-Project's Reference List

FSTP = Facts Screening/TransforminglPresenting (Version_of_06.09.201S-JjMost ofthe author's belowpaper's are written in preparation of{182).

[1)

[2]

[3](4)

[s J

[6)[7)

[8][9J[10)[11][12 ][13 )[1 4][15)[16)

[17)(1 8)[1 9][20)[21)[22)[23 ][24)

[25]

[26)(27)

[28][29)[30)

[31)(32)

[33][34][3S)

[3 6J

[3 7][38][39)(40)(41 )[4 2)[43J

[44][4S)[46]

(47)[4 8)

(49 )

[SO)[51 )[5 2)[S3][S4]

[SS][56)[57 )

[S8]

[59)

[60)

[61]

S. Sch indler: "US Highes t Courts' Patent Preceden ts in Mayo/Myrla d/ CLS/ Ultra­merclaVLBC: 'Inventive Conce p ts ' Accepted - 'Abm act Idea s' Next? Pat entingEmerging Tec h. Invent ion s Now without Inlric acles"O'.AlT. "Adva nce d Infonmallon Te ch ," alias "Art ificia l Inle lllgence Technology" de­no te s cutting edge IT areas. e.g. Knowledge Re pre senta tion/D es crip tion Logle/Natur.l l Language/Semantlcs/Semlotlcs/Syslem Deslgn/ ....R, 8ra chmann, H. Levesque: "Knowledge Represent. & Reasoning". Elsevier. 2004.F. Baad e r. D. Calvanese. O. McGuiness. D. Nar di. P. Pate l-Schneider : "The Desc rip­tion Loglc Handbook". Cambridge UP.2010.S. Sch indler: "Math . Model. Substan t. Pat ent Law (SPL)Top -Down vs. Bott om-Up".Yokohama. JURISIN20 13".S. Schi ndler. "FSTP" pal. appl.: "THE FSTPE)(PERTSYSTEM". 201 2" .S. Sch indl er. "OS" pal. appl.: "AN INNOVATION E)(PERTSYSTEM.IE5. & ITS PTR-DS".2013" .S. Schind ler. J. Schu lze: "Te chnical Re port #1 on '9 0 2 PTR". 2014.S. Schindler : "Patent Business - Before Shake-up". 201S"SSBG's AB to CAFCin LBC. 2013".S. Schindler. "inC" pat. appl.: "inC ENABLED SEMI-AUTO. TESTSOF PATENTS", 2013" .e.Corre a: "Handbook on Prot. of IP und er WTO Rules ". EE,20 10 .N. Klunker: "Harmonlslerungsbes t. im ma t. Patentrecht ", MPI. 2010."USPTO/MPEP: "2111 Claim Interp ret ation; 8roadest Rea so n. Interpre ta tion ;)").S. Sch indler : "KR Support for SPL Prec edents". Barcelon a. e KNOW-2014°'.1. Daily. S. Kieff: "Anything unde r t he Sun Made by Humans SPL Doc trine as Endog .Ins lit . fo r Comm.lnnovatlon". Stanfo rd/GWU·'.CAFCEn banc He ar ing in LBC. 12.09.2013.SSBGAB to the Supreme Cour t in CLS. 07 .10.2013" .SSBGABto the Sup rem e Court in WildTange n!. 23 .09.2013'1.USPTO, "In te lle ctua l Property and the US Economy: INDUSTR.IN FOCUS". 2012".Ie O'Mall ey: Keynote Address. IPO, 2013".S. Sch indler. ''An Inventor View at the Grace Period ", Kiev. 2013".S. Schindler. "The IESand inC Enab led SPLTests". Munich. 2013" .S. Schind ler. "Two Fun da me nta l Theorems of 'Math. Innova tion Science'", Hon gKon g, ECM-2013°' .s.Sch ind ler. A. Pasch ke. S. Ramakrishna. "Form. Leg. Reas. tha t a n Inve n. Salis . SPL".Bologna. JURI)(-2013°'.SSBGAB to the Supre me Court in Bilski. 06.08.20090'.T. Bench-Capon. F. Coen en : "Isomorphism. and Legal Know le dge Based Systems".AI&Law.1992° '.N. Fuchs, R. Schwitter. "Atte mpt to Controlled Engl ish" . 1996.A. Paschke: "Rules/Logic Progra mming in the Web". 7.155 . Galway, 2011.K.Ashley. V. Walke r. "From Informa. Re trieval to Arg. Retrieval for Legal Cases: .:,',Bologn a, JURI)(-20130'.CAFC. H. in Oracl e/G oogle. "As to Copyrightability of the Java Platf.', 06 .12 .2013.S. Schindler. "A KR Based Innovat ion Expe rt Syste m (IES) fo r US SPL Prec ed ents".Phuke t.ICIIM-2014°'.S. Schind ler. "Sta tus Report about the FSTPPrototype". Hyderabad , GIPC-2 0 14.s.Schind ler. "Sta tus of the FSTP Prototype" . Moscow. LESI, 20 14.S. Sch indler. IPR-MEMO: "STL. SCL, and SPL - STL Tests seen as SCL Tests see n asSPLTests". in prep.S. Schindler. " Boon and Bane of Inventive Conc epts and Refined Claim Constr uc­tion in the Supreme Cour t's New Patent Precedents". Be rkeley. IPSC. 08 .08.20140'.D. 8ey. e.Cotropia, "The Unreasonableness of the BRIStandard". AIPLA. 2009".CAFC, Tran script of the Hearing in TELES vs . CISCO/U5PTO. 08 .01.2014".CAFC. Transcript of the e n banc Hea ring in CLSvs, ALICE. 08.02.2013 " .SSBG's Brief to th e CAFC in case '453" .SSBG's Brief to th e CAFCin case '90201.SSBG's Amicu s Brief to t he CAFCin case CLS. 06 .12.2012" .S. Schindler. "LAC" pat. appL: ..Semi-Automatic Generatlon/Customizalion of (All)Co nfirmative Legal Argument Chai ns (LACs) in a CI's SPL Test . Enabled by Itsl nven ­tive Conce pts". 20 14" .R. Rade r. S. Schindl e r: Pan e l d isc. ..Pet e nts on Life Scie nces" . Be rli n. LESI.2012.SSBG's ABto the USSCas to the CII Ques tion, 28 .01. 2014" .S. Schind ler: "Autom. Deriv. of Leg. Arg. Chains (LACs) from Argu able Subte s ts(ASTs)of a Claimed Invention's Test for Satisfying. SPL". U Warsaw. 24.05.2014".S. Sch indler: "Auto. Gen er ation of All ASTsfor an Invention's SPL Test ".• I.USPTO/MPEP."2012 ... Proc. for 5ubj. Mat te r Eligibi lity ... o f Proc e ss Claims Involv­ing Laws of Nature". 2012" .USPTO/MPEP, Supp. Exami nation Guidelin es fo r De termining Compliance With 3Su.s.c,11 2; MPEP 2171. " .NAUTILUS v. BIOSIG,PFC.2013" .810SIG. Respondent. 20 13 "Pub lic Knowle dge e t al., AB. 20 13 0'.Ama zon e t al., AB.2013*'.White House. FACT SHEET- ... the Presid/s Call to Str ength. Our Pat ent System andFoster Innovation. 201 4".USPTO:se e home page.IPO: see home page.M. Adel man . R. Rad er. 1. Thom as: "Case s and Materials on Patent Law". West AP.2009.SS8G's Amicus Brief to th e Supreme Cour t as to its (In)Definiteness Ouest' s, 03 .03.2014".S. Sch indl er. " UI" pat. appl.: "An IES Cap able of Semi-Auto . Generat. /ln voking AllLegal Argument Chains (LACs) in the SPL Test of a CI. as Enabled by Its Inven tiveConcepts (inCs) ". 2014'1.S. Sch indler: "Automatic Der ivation of All Arg. Cha ins Legally Defe nding Paten­ting/Paten ted Invention s".ISPIM. Montreal. 6.10.2014, update".H. Wegn er : "Indefiniteness. the Sleeping Giant in Pat. Law". www.la ipla.netlhal­wegners-top-ten-patent-cases/.

[62) .a) CAFCdecision on reexami nati on of U.S. Pa t No. 7.145. 902. 21 .02.2014".(63) .b) CAFCdecision o n re exeminatton of U.S. Pat. No 6. 9S4. 4 S3. 04 .04.2014" .[64J B. Wegner. S. Sch ind le r: "A Ma the mati cal St ruc tur e Modeling Inventions". Coirnbra,

CICM-2014·'.[65] 55BG's Petition to the CAFCfor Rehearing En Banc in the '902 case, 18 .04 .20 14" .[66] CAFC:VEDERI vs. GOOGLEdecision. 14.03.2014(67) CAFC: THERA5EN5Evs . 8ECTON& BAYERdec ision , 25 .05 .2011[6 8) 8. Fiacco: Amicus 8 rie f to the CAFCin VER5ATAv. SAP&U5PTO. 24 .0 3.14" .[69 ] USSC.Tran sc ript of the oral argu ment in Alice Cor p. v. CLS Bank, 3 1.03.2014".(70) R. Rad e r. Keynote Spe ech: " Paten t Law and Litigation Abuse ". EDTell Ben ch and Bar

Conf .. 01.11 .2013".[7l) s.Sch indler. Keynote Speech: "e Know le dge of Substa ntive Patent Law (SPL)- Trail

Blaz e r in to the Inno va tion Age". Barce lon a. e KNOW-2014·'.(72) .a] S. Schind ler : "The Su pre me Court's 'SPL Init iative': Scientizing Its SPL Interpre ­

tati on Removes 3 Evergree n SPLObs curities ", Pre ss Release. 08.04.2014"..b) S. Schindler: "The Supreme Court 's 'SPL Initiat ive' : Scientizing Its SPL Interpre ­ta tion Removes 3 Evergreen SPL Obscurities - and Enables Automation in a CI'sSPLTests and Argu ment Chains", Honolulu. IAM2014S. 18.07.140'.

[73) .a) USPTO/MPEP: "2014 Proce dure For Subject Matte r Eligibility Analysis Of Cla imsRecit ing Or Involving Laws Of Nature/Natural Principles. Natur a l Pheno-mena.And/ Or Natural Products ". (48. 49 L20140'..b) MEMORANDUM: "Pre lim. Examin . Instruc tions in view of Alice v. CLS"·'.

[74 ] B. Wegner : "The Mathe mat ical Background of Proving a n Inventive Concepts BasedClaimed Inve ntion Sa tisfie s SPL". 7. GIPC. Mumba i.16.0 1.201S.0,

(75) CAFC Ord er as to denial (65),27.05.2014(76) D. Crouch: "En 8an c Fed e ral Circuit Pan e l Changes the Law of Claim Con st ruc-

tion ". 13.07.200So,.[77J Video of the USPTOHearing, 09 .0S.2014·'.[78] R. Rad er. Keynote Speech at GTIF. Geneva. 2014 and LESI.Moscow. 2014[79 ] s. Schindler: "On the BRI-Schism in the US National Patent Syst em .:", publ,

22 .0S .2014.·'[80] SS8G' s Pe t. for Writ of Cert. to the Supr. Cou rt in the '90 2 cas e. Draf LV.133_oL

[121).14.07.2014" .[81 ] S. Sch indle r: "To Whom is In te reste d in t he Su preme Court's Biosig Decision"o,[82 ] R. DeBer ard ine : "Innovati on from the Corporate Perspec tive", FCBA. DC" .[83) SSBG's Pe tition to the CAFCfor Reh e aring En Banc in t he '4S3 case. 09 .06.20140'.(84) CAFC's Ord er as to denia l (83 ).14.07 .20 14" .(85) CAFC: "AtThree Decades". DC. 2012.[86) s.Schindle r Founda tion : "Transa tlan ti c Coop. for Growth and Security ". DC. 20 11.[871 DPMA:" Re ce nt Oe velopments and Trend s in US Patent Law", Munich, 2012.[88] FCBA: "Innovation, Trade and Fiscal Reality". Colorado Springs. 2013 .[89 ] LESI: GTIF. Geneva. 201 4.[90 ] FCBA: "Shar pe ning Case Manage me nt". Asheville. North Carolina. 20 14(91) B.We gn er. S. Schindle r: "A Mathe mali ca l KRMod e l for Refined Claim Construction

II". su bm. for publication.[92) SSBG's Peti tion for Writ of Cert iora ri to the Supreme Court in the '453 cas e.

06.10.2014" .[93 ) E. Mo rris : "What is ·Te chno logy·?". IU I.N.o,(94) E.Morris: "Alice. Artifice . a nd Action - and Ult rame rclal".IU I.N.•08 .07 .20 140'.[95] S. Schindler. ArAcPEP-MEMO: "Artifice. Action. and th e Patent-Eligibility Problem ".

in prep.. 2014.[96) A. Chopra: "Deer in the Headlights. Response of Incumbent Firms to ... ", School of

Management, Fribourg. 2014" .[97) S. Sch indler. DislnTec h-MEMO: "R&Don Pat . Tech.: Efficiency and Safe ty Boosting ".

in prep.. 2014.[981 G. Bool os, 1. Burgess. R. Jeffrey: "Computa bili ty a nd Logic". Ca mb ridge UP. 2007.[99 ] A.Hirs hfeld, Alenandrie, PTO.22 .07.2014".(100) e.Chun: "PTO's Scrutiny on Soft ware Patents Paying Off", Law360. N.Y." .[101) P. Miche l. Key no te. Alexandria. PTO. 22 .07.2014.(102) D. Jon es. Alexand ria. PTO. 22.07.2014.(103) R. Go mulkiewicz . Seattle . CASRIP. 25.07. 14.[104] M. Le mley. Seattle. CASRIP. 25 .07 .2014.[lOS] D.Jones, Seattle. CASRIP.25 .07.2014.[106) B. LaMarc a. Seattle. CASRIP. 25.07.2014.[10 7) 1. Duffy. Seattle. CASRIP. 25 .07.2014 .[lOB) 1. Pagenberg. Seattle. CASRIP. 25 .07 .2014.(109) M. Ad el ma n. Seattle. CASRIP.25 .07 .2014 .[110) B.Sto ll. Seattle . CASRIP.2S .07.20 14.[111] R. Rader, Seattle. CASRIP. 25.07.2014.[112] E. Bowen . e.Yates: "Justi ce s Shou ld Bac k Off Pat en t Eligibility . ....., L360 ·'.[113) S. Schindler: "The CAFC's Rebe llion Is Over - The Supr em e Court. by Mayo/ Biosig/

Alice.Provides Clear Guidance as to Patenting Emerging Tec hnology Invention s".published 07 .08.201 4" .

[114J S. Elliott: "The USPTOPatent Subj . Matte r Eligl. Guidance TRIPSs", 30 .07.20140'.[l1SJ W. Zheng: "Exhausting Patents". Berkeley. IPSC, OB.08 .2014·'.[116] R. Merges: "Independent Invention: A Limited Defe nse of Absolute Infringement

Liability In Patent Law". Berkeley, IPSC, 08.08.2014" .[11 7] J. Sarnoff. Berkeley.IPSC . 08 .08.2014.[118] H. Surden: "Princip le s of Prob le mat ic Patents". Berkeley.IPSC. 0 8.08.2011." .(1 19) www .zeit. de /20 13 /33/mul ti ple-sklero se -me dikament-t e cfidera/selte·2 · '.[120) ). Merkley , M. Warne r. M. Begic h, M. Heinrich. T. Uda~ "Letter to Han. Penny Prit z­

ker", DC. 06.08.2014" .[121J SSBG's Peti tion for Writ of Cert iorar i to the Suprem e Court in the '90 2 cas e .

2S.08.2014°'.[122] D. Pernas, see Wikipedia.[123] E.Dijkstra, see Wildp edia.[124) S. Sch indler: "Computer Organization III". 3. Sem ester Class in Camp. sc., TUB.

1974-1984.

- 23-

[183] S. Schindler: "The Mayo/Allee SPLTermslNo tion s in FSTP-Techn ology EtPTOInitia­t ives", USPlO, 16 .03.2015" .

[184J S. Schind ler : "PTOs Efficiency Increase by the FSTP-Tesl e.g. EPOan d U5PTO". LESI.Brussels . 10.0 4.2015" .

[18S] R. Chen : TalkIng polllely of "te nsions" in stating a CI's Indefinite ness by the BRI,PlOII PO· EFDay. 10.03.2015.

[18 6J A. Hlrshfeld: Reporting ab out the PTO's view at the progres s of the lEGwork, PTO/IPO-H Day, 10.03.20 15.

[187 ] P. Miche l: Moderating a panel abou t the SPL paradigm refin em ent by Mayo/Alic e.PlOII PO·EF Day. 10.03.2015.

[188] P. ~lIchel: Asklng thi s pa nel as to dissemination of Mayo/Alice understanding , PTO/IPO-EF Day. 10.03 .201S.

[189 ] M.Lee: Luncheo n Keynote Speech. PTOIIPO·EF Day. 10.03.2015· '.[190] A. Hlrshfeld: Remark on EPQl's refinem en t of pa ten t appli cat ion examination, PTO/

IPO·EFDay. 10.03.20 1S.[191] E.g. : 16"'lnl. Roundtable on SemIotics of Law. Hila, 29.04 .201 5.[192] M. Schecter, D. Crouch, P. Michel: Panel Discussion, Pat ent Qua lity Summ it, USPlO,

2S.03 .2015.[19 3] Finnegan: 3 fund amental curren t uncertainties about SPL precedents, Patent

Quality Summit, USPlO. 2S.03 .201 S.[19 4] S. Schindle r, B. Wegner, J. Schulze, D. Schoen berg: " post-Mayo/Blos'e /Allce -The

Precise Meanings of their New SPLTerms", pub L08.0/0.1S· '.[195 ] R. Stol~ "Federal Circuit Cases to Watch o n Softw are Patentablllty- Planet Blue",

Patently-0.06.04.20 15·'.[196 J See the resp , prominent pan el at the IPBCGlobal'201S. San Francisco, 14­

16.06.201S·I.[197] S. Schindler: " MayoIAllce- The Supre me Court 's Requirement Slate ment as to se­

miotics In SPLe ETCls, USPTO, 06.05.20 15" '.[198 J s.Schi nd ler: "Patents' Abs . Robus t. ft the FSTP·Test-Seml ·Auto m. by the IES", LESI

2015, Brussels 18.04 .20 15" .• DBKOA2015 Rome 27.0S.201S.[199 ) B. Wegner: "The FSTP Test - Its Mathe. Assess . of an ET Cl's Pract ical and SPLQual·

Ity", LESI 20 15, Brus sels. 18. 04 .2015" . and DBKDA 201 S, Rome, 27 .0S .201S .[200J D. Schoe nberg: "The fSTP Test: ASWSys. for Ass. an ET Cl's Prac t. and SPLQuality",

LESl201S Brusse ls 18.0/••201S and D8KDA201S Rome 27.0S.201S" .[20 1J Conclu sions from the discussions durIng the "Patent Prosecution Session" at the

AIPLA 201S Meet Ing. LA. 31 .04.2 01S.[202] S. Sch lnd le r~ "The NotIon of "Inventive Concept", Fully Sclen tlzed SPl, and "Con­

tro lled Preempt ive" ET Cis", published by 11.06.2015·'.[203] Immanue l Kanl htt p://pla to.sta nford.e du /entrles/kantl,[204J J. Le fst ln: "The Three Face s of Prometh eus: A Post·AlIce JurIsp rudence of Abs trac-

tlo n", N.C.J.L&TECH. July 20 15" .[20S J CAFC De cision In Blosle.27.04.201S·'.[206 ] USSC Petition for Ce rt in ULTRAMERCIAL vs, WILDTANGENT, May 2015. .[207 ] K.-J. Melullis . report a bou t a thus caused problem with a gran ted pat ent at the X.

Sen at e of the German BGH.[208] S. Schin dle r: "The Reach of Substantive Patent Law Protection for ET Cis of Tied

Preempt lvity", published by 25.06.20 15" .[209J CAFC Dec ision In Arlosa, 12.06.20 15"[210] S. Braswel~ "All Rise for Chief Justice Robo t", Sean Braswell. 07 .06 .20 15"[211] S. Schindle r: "The Cons truct of Ideas Modell ing the Supreme Court's MBA·Sem lot·

Ics and Its Hi-Level", In pre para lion.{212] R. Merges: · Uncertal nty, and the Standa rd of Pat entab ility", 1992· •.[213] CAFC Decision In Teva,18.06 .20 1S·'[214] 1<' O'Mall ey, B. Lynn, A. Weiss, M. Coop er : "Patent Litiga tion Case Management:

Refor ming The Pate nt Ut lgatlon Process Through The Coo perat ive Efforts Of TheBench And Bar". FCBA, 25.06.2015 .

[2 1S] R. Chen , A. Ben civenga, N. Kelley, J. Reisman: "Claim Construction", FCBA.26.06.2015.

[216] P. Nalk. C.Laporte, C. Kinzlg, T. Chappel K. Gupta : "Changing IP Norms and theirEffec t on Innovat ion in Blo-/P harmaceutical- / High-Tech Sectors of the CorporateWo rld", f C8A.27.06 .2015.

[217 ] S. Schind le r: "The US National Patent System ("NPS"): Due to the Mayo/B losle/Alice ( "MBA1 Framework a Rough Diamond - but Rough for Ever? Tcva wUl Cutthis Diamond and thus Create a Histor ic Mega·Trend In SPl, Internationally", th ispaper's parent paper, published by 21.07 .2015'1.

{218] B. Russel; · Princlple s of Mathem atics", sec Wlklped ia.[219] I. Kant: "The ~lelaphysl cal Foundations of Natural Science", Wlklped la.(220] CAFC Deci sion In LBC, 23 .06 .20 15" .[22 1) CAFC Decision In Cuozzo, 08 .07.201S" .(22 2) CAFCDe cision In Versa ta, 09 .07 .20 1S·'.{223] CAFC De cision In Intellectua l Venture s, 06 .07.20 15" .(224J J. Duffy, J. Dabne y: Pet . Fo r Writ of Certiorar i, 13.08 .2009' •.[22S] S. Sch ind ler: "A PS to an Appraisal to the Sup reme cou rt's Teva Decision:

CAFCTeaming-up with USPlO for Barring Teva - an d th is en tire "ETSpirit" Frame ·work ?" publis hed 27 .07 .2015·'.

[226] R, Stoll.B , laMarca. S. Ono, H. Goddard, N. Hoeld er: "Challenging Softwa re· 8usl ·ness ~'e thod Pate nt Eligibility In Civil Actions and Post Grant Review", CASRIp,Seattle, 24 .07 .2015.

[22 7] A. Serafi ni, D. Kett e lberger. J. Haley, J. Krauss: "Biotech and Pharma Patents Eligi·bil ity: Challenges fo r Harmoni zation", CASRIp,Sean le, 24.07 .20 15.

[228] O. Kettelberger, see (227)[229] Jus tice Breyer: "Archime des Metaphor", sec (69)" .[230] Imman uel Kant: htt ps:/le n.wlklped la.com /w1klllmmanu eL Kant .

I. Kant: ' Critlque of Pure Reason ", http s:llen.wlklpedla.com/wlkl/lmmanueLKant.[23 1] I. Kant: 'Groundwork of the ~lelaphysics of Marais", https:J/en.w1klpe dla.o rg/

wikl/Gro undwork..of _the MetaphysicLof Morals.[23 2] I. Kant: · Catego rlcal Impera tive", hll ps:/en.w1kipedla.org/wikl/CategorlcaL

Impera tive[233] I. l(ant : · Prolegome na to Any Future Metaphysics", https:/len.wll<lpedia.org/wiki/

Prolego men a_to,.Any..:Fut ureJ.le tap hyslcs.[23/,] J. Dabney: "The Return of the Inventive Concept?", 06.12 .2012'1.[23S) USPTO: "July 201S Update on Subject Maller Eligibility ", 30.07 ,201S·'[236) Concepts, hnp:/lpla to.stanford.edu/entrles/concepts/.[23 7) S, Schindler:"Kanl Analytic Philosophy and the Patent-Eligibility Questi on", ln prep.[238] R.Hanna: "Kant and th e Founda tions of Analytic Philosop hy", a up, 2001.[239] S. Koerner. "The Philoso phy of Mathe ma tics", OOVER, 2009

. , avaUable at www.ts tp-enper t-system.com- 24-

5. 5chind ler: "Nonsequentia l Algorithm s", 4. 5emester Class in Camp. 5c.. TUB,197 8-1984.5. 5chindler: "Optimal Sate llite Orbit Transfers" , PhD Thesis, TUB, 1971 .USSCDecision in KSR ..USSCDecision in Bilski .USSCDecision in Mayo .USSCDecisio n in Myriad ..USSCDecision in Bios lg .USSCDecision in Alice ..R. Feldma n: "Co ming of Age for the Federal Circuit", The Green Bag 20 14, UCHast­ings.G. Quinn: "Judge Michel says Alice Decision 'will create total chaos' '', IPWatch,·I.G. Frege : "Function und Begriff", 1B91.L Wittg en.te ln: "Tracta tus log lco' phllosophlcus", 1918.B.Wegner, MEMO: "About rela tions (V.7·final)", 25 .04.2013 . 1.B.Wegner. ~IEMO: "About conjunctions of predicates/con ce pts, scop e and so lutionof problems", 20.08.2013 .B. Wegner. MEMO, "A refined rela tion between domains in BADset and BEDset",18 .09.2014.H. Goddard, 5. Schindler, S. 5t elnb rener, J. 5trauss: FSTP Meeting. Berlin,29 .09.2014.S. Schindl er: "Tutorial on Common alities Bet ween System Design and SPL Test­ing...• I.5. Schindle r: "The Rationa lity of a Claimed Inventlon's (crs) post-May05PL Te.t - ItIncreases cr. Legal Quality and Professional Efficiency In Cl's Use - nrs SemioticsInspi ring the Inven tlvlty to/In Cl's Further Devel op ment", In p rep.S. Schind ler: "The Supreme Court's Guidance to Robust ET CI Pat e nt s· ,I CLPT, Bang·kok, 22.01 .20 1S· I.Supreme Court's Order as to denial [121 ). 14.10 .2014·'.S. Schind le r: " § 101 Bashing or § 101 Clarificat ion ", pub lished 27 .10.20 14' 1.BGH, "Demo nstra tlonsschrank" decision" .B. Wegner. S. Schind ler: "A Mathematical KR Model for Refined Claim Interp re ta-t ion EtConstruction II", in prep ..... Press , to go into [137] .."Turmoil see program of AIPLA meeti ng. DC, 23 .10.2014"Dark side of Innovation ", to go into [137] ..D, Kappas: About his recent we st coast meetings , AlPLA. DC, 23 .10 .2014.CAFC, Transcript of the Hearing In Blosle case, 29.10.201 4" .R. Rade r: Confirming that sociall y Inacceptable Cis as eMlremely pre emptive, suchas for example [1 19)2), sho uld be petunr-etlglble, AIPLA meeti ng. DC.24.10.2011•.A. Hlrshfel d: Announcing the PlO 's rea diness to consider also hypothet ical CisInto Its resp, gu ideline,AIPLAme eting. DC, 24.10.2014.S. Schindler: "AlIce·Tests Enable "Quantifying" Their Inventive ConceptSand thusVastiy Increase the Robustness" of ET Patents - A Tutorial ab out this Key to tn­cre asing a Pat e nt' s Robustness - ", USPlO EtGWU, 06.0 2.20 15'1, also ABSTRACT,see also [17 S]· '.S. Schind le r: " Biosle. Refine d by Allee, Vastly Increases the Rob ustness of Patents- ATutoria l abo ut this Key to Increasing a Patent's Robus tness", In prep."" .S. Schind ler: "Automatic Deriv.tReprod.of Legal Argument Chains , Protecting Pat ·ens Against SPLAttacks", Slngapore, lSPIM,09 .12 .201 4" .S. Schindler: "Practical Impacts of the Mayo/Alice/Bloslg ·Test - A Tutorial aboutthis Key to Increasing a Pate nt 's Robu stness", 2015 IP Scholar s Roundtable. DrakeUniversity Law School. 27 .03 .2015·'CAFC DecisIo n In Interval,10.09. 2014" .S. Schindler: "ATutorial into (Opera ting) System Design and AIT Terms/ Notions onRigorous ET Cis' Analysis by the Patent Comm unity", in prep.CAFCDecisio n in DOR. 05.12. 2014·'.U5PTO: "2014 Inte rim Guida nce on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility EtExamples:Abstr act Ideas", 16.12.20 14.1.USSC'sOrder as to denial [9 2]. 08.12.201 /,·' .CAfC Decision In Myriad. 17.12 .20 14.1•S. Schindler: "The Supreme Court's MaYO/Myriad/Alice Decisi ons, The PlO' s lrn­ptementat lon by Its Interim Eligibility Guidan ce [lEG), The CAFC's DDR ft MyriadRecent Decisions - Clarifica tlon sftChalienges"" , pub L 14.01.2015" , its shor t Ver­sion", and Its PP presentation at USPlO, 21 .01 .20 15" .S. Schind ler: "The Innovatio n EMpert System, IES: Philosophy Et Functionality Et,Mathematical Foundation - A Proto type Outl.", 7. GIPC, Mumbai, 16 .01. 20 15" .CAFC Decision In CET. 23.12.2014" .S. Schindler: "The USSC's Mayo/Myriad/Alice Decis ions: Their Overinterpret, vs .Oversimp lificat ion of ET Cis - Scie ntific. of SPL Prec, as to ET Cis In Action: TheCAFC's Myriad e CETDecisions", USPTD. 07 .01 .2 01S ·'.J. Schulze, D. Schoenb erg. L Hunge r, S. Schindler: "Introd uction to the IES UserInte rface of the FSTP·Test ", 7. GIPC, Mumba l. 16.01 .20 15' 1."ALICE ANDPATENT DOOMSDAY INTHE NEW YEAR", IPO,06.0 1.20 15.

'.

S. Schindle r: "Today's Substa ntive Patent Law (SPL) Preced ent s and lis Persp ec­nves, Drive n by ETCis", 7. GIPC, Mumba i, 15 .0 1.2015.

'•

R. Sachs : "A Survey of Pat ent Invalidations since Alice". Fenw ick ft West LLp,Law360, New York,n.01.2 01S "' .S. Schind ler : "PTO's lEGForum - Some Aftermath", publ. 10 .02 .2 015·'.Agenda of th is Forum on [1571 Alexand ria, USPlO. 2 1.01.2 015· '.G. Quinn: "Patent ellgib. foru m discuss. examiners applica t ion of Mayo/Myriad/Alice", IPWatc hdog. 21.0 1.2015·'S. Schindle r: "Semiotic Impacts of the Supr eme Court' s Mayo/Bi osig/Alice Deci-sion s on Legally Analyzing ETCis",," . .USSCDecision In Teva.20.01.201S"'.USSC Decision In Pullman-Standard. 27.04 .19 B2·'.USSCDeclsio n In Markman, 23.04.1996'1.S. Schind ler: "A Patent's Robustn ess ft 'Double Quant ifying' Its Inventive Conce ptas Implie d by /ofayo/A llce", WIPIP, USPTO&GWU, 06.0 2.20 15·'.R. Rade r: Ques tions as to the FSTP·Tesl WIPIP, USPTO&GWU, 06.0 2.20 15.D. Karshtedt: "The Comple ten ess Requirement In Patent Law", WIPIP, USPTOEtGWU,06.02.2015.1.O. Livak: "The Unresolved Ambiguity of Patent Claims", WIPIp, USPTOEtGWU,06.02 .201 5" .J. Miller : "Re asona ble Certa in Notice", WIPIP, USPTOEtGWU,0 6.0 2.2015.1S. Ghosh : "Demarcating Nature After Myriad" , WIPIp,USPTOftGWU.06.02 .2015·'CAFC Decis ion in Cuozzo, 04 .02 .2015.1.S. Schindler: "Patentllnnovatlo n Technology an d Scien ce", Textb ook.In prep ar.

[125]

[126J[127]

[154][155]

[156][157]

[158][159][160]

[164]

[165][166]

[167]

[16B][169][1701

[171]

(172][173)[174)[17S)

[176)(1771

[178]

[179][180][181][182J

[161]

[162][163]

[138]

[139][140][141J[142]

[143][144][145][146][147J[148]

[149]

[150]

[12 8]

[129][13 0][13 1][132][133]

[134]

[135]

[136]

[137]

[151]

[15 2]

{153]