Whether the USPTO abused its discretion by refusing to allow claims that passed every requirement of Title 35 by insisting on extra-statutory requirements of 'transformation' and 'invention'

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Congress set the test for patent eligibility under Title 35 U.S.C. §101 of the 1952 Patent Act as: “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” The Supreme Court’s longstanding and highly-respected decision of Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 12-13 (1966) recognized it was Congress’ intent to replace “invention” with non-obviousness as the test for patentability given the term “invention” is meaningless. The Court also held in Bi/ski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) the Federal Circuit’s “Machine or Transformation” test was flawed stating there was no definition of “process” under 35 U.S.C. ; §100(b) requiring “transformation” for a claim to be patent eligible. Given the clear statutory language of §101 and this Court’s precedent, the questions are: 1. Whether the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) abused its discretion by refusing to allow claims that passed every single requirement of Title 35 of the United States Code by insisting these perfectly patent-eligible claims must pass the extra-statutory requirements of “transformation” and “invention.” 2. Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit abused its discretion under the statutory requirements set forth by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Title 5 U.S.C. §706 by refusing to set : aside a USPTO decision that is arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with statutory law or this Court’s precedent.