Does the Alice exception to patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 improperly cover inventions that improve another technology or technical field?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1) Has this Court’s Alice exception to patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 been improperly expanded to cover inventions that, while not necessarily improving the functioning of a computer, do “effect an improvement in [another] technology or technical field”? 2) Should courts acts as fact finders in determining material factual issues underlying patent-eligibility under § 101? 3) Should the abstract-idea exception to § 101 require considering pre-emption? 1