Whether the court erred in not being consistent with prior Supreme Court decisions regarding the requirement of 35 U.S.C. §145 claims to address new evidence

Questions for review Rule 14.I(a) Has The Court Erred by not being consistent with , Decisions of this court Regarding The Requirement of 35 U.S.C. §145 Claims (Count 1) to Address the New Evidence? . ; Has The Court Erred’ by Ignoring New Evidence of . Probative Declarants Supporting Plaintiff's 35 U.S.C. §145 Claim (Count 1)? Has The Court Erred by Ignoring: -after misdescribingNEW Evidence Supporting Plaintiff's 85 U.S.C. §145 Claim (Count 1)? Has’ The Court Erred by Ignoring past attempted Exculpatory Behavior by the Defendants including Systematic Sequestration of Evidence Including DIA and DTRA Reports? Has the Court Erred by Ignoring that under U.S.C. §146, Pat. Appl. 12/932,058 and 09/1750,765 Were Purposely Misdescribed by Respondents While Evidence was Systematically not Logged? Has The Court Erred by Failing to Act Sui Sponsis Consistent with Law and Justice (including Claims 5-7 912, and 14)? How is the denial with Prejudice in this case anything other than planned perpetual evisceration of allegedly rights? ii (b)