Whether this Court must Order the Circuit Court to apply Arthrex, Virnetx, Aqua Products, consider Patent Prosecution History, and enforce Fletcher, in the Inventor's cases, so as to grant the Inventor Constitutional Redress she is entitled to, to end the oppression from the Erroneous and Fraudulent Orders by financially conflicted courts and PTAB that have left the Inventor with rights with no remedy

Questions Presented 1. Whether this Court must Order the Circuit Court to apply Arthrex, Virnetx, Aqua Products, consider Patent Prosecution History, and enforce Fletcher, in the Inventor's cases, so as to grant the Inventor Constitutional Redress she is entitled to, to end the oppression from the Erroneous and Fraudulent Orders by financially conflicted courts and PTAB that have left the Inventor with rights with no remedy. 2. Whether the Circuit Court affirming the District Courts’ or PTAB’s Unconstitutional, Erroneous and Fraudulent Orders that failed to consider Patent Prosecution History, or apply Aqua Products and to enforce Fletcher — the Law of the Case and Supreme Law of the Land — is in itself an Unconstitutional and Erroneous and Fraudulent Order and cannot serve as the Law of the Case contrary to the Mandated Prohibition of the Constitution from repudiating a patent contract grant, entitling Inventor to Constitutional Redress. 3. Whether the Circuit Court exceeded its authority, breached its oaths of office, and egregiously abused its discretion by disparately failing to grant Inventor's Motion to Vacate and Remand in light of its own rulings in Arthrex, Inc. v. | Smith & Nephew, Inc., and Virnetx Inc. v. Cisco Systems and USPTO (ntervenor) (Fed. Cir. 2020) that the PTAB administrative patent judges (APJs) were appointed unconstitutionally in violation of the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Const., art. II, §2, cl. 2. 4, Whether the Circuit Court’s failure to grant Inventor her protected rights to the benefits of its own rulings in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 2018-2140, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Oct. 31, 2019) and its 5/13/20 Virnetx Inc. v. Cisco Systems and USPTO (intervenor) (Fed. Cir. 2020) that the PTAB administrative patent judges (APJs) were appointed unconstitutionally in violation of the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Const., art. II, §2, cl. 2, that void all court and PTAB Orders from preand post-AIA 17 Reviews of Inventor’s patents is Erroneous and Fraudulent, violating the 1st, 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, and the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, entitling Inventor to Constitutional Redress. 5. Whether the Circuit Court exceeded its authority, breached its oaths of office, li and egregiously abused its discretion in its Erroneous and Fraudulent Orders by disparately failing to grant Inventor her protected rights to the benefits of its own ruling in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, Fed. Cir. Case 15-1177, 2017, that all court and PTAB Orders are reversed that failed to_consider “the entirety of the record” — Patent Prosecution History — material prima facie evidence that Inventor’s patent claim terms are neither indefinite nor not enabled nor are patent claims invalid, violating the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. 6. Whether the Circuit Court exceeded its authority, breached its oaths of office, and egregiously abused its discretion by failing to enforce the prohibition of the Constitution mandated by this Court against repudiating Government-issued contract grants of any kind — the Law of the Case and the Supreme Law of the Land — stare decisis Governing Supreme Court Precedents! as declared by Chief Justice Marshall in Fletcher v. Peck (1810), Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819); Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 213 | (1827); Grant v. Raymond, 31 U.S. 218 (1832); U.S. v. American Bell Telephone } Company, 167 U.S. 224 (1897), entitling Inventor to Constitutional Redress. 7. Whether the Circuit Court exceeded its authority, breached its oaths of office, and egregiously abused its discretion by its FALSE OFFICIAL STATEMENTS of a falsely alleged collateral estoppel from void Orders by financially conflicted District Court Judge Andrews and _ financially conflicted PTAB Judges McNamara _ and Siu, all of whom remained silent as fraud in a criminal enterprise that no court or PTAB can collaterally esto