Whether the lower courts' rulings are tainted by corruption financed by China's Communist party, and whether the Supreme Court should reverse the CAFC's judgment that conflicts with the Supreme Court's rulings on patent eligibility under 35 USC § 101

question presented to this court is whether this highest court in the United States has the courage and willingness to abolish this CORRUPTION (financed by CCP) in the lower | courts, which is causing serious damages to the small inventors like Mr. Salwan, and having | adverse affect on the intellectual property and economy of our country? (2) The CAFC has written 5 false statements in its Opinion, thereby affirming the US District Court's decision for civil case number 1:18-cv-1543. In this civil case, judge Brinkema also ‘wrote 6 false statements in her Opinion, thereby affirming PTAB's judgment against Salwan for his patent application no. 15/188,000. The PAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) falsely alleged in its Opinion that claim 1 (the representative claim of the invention) comprising a unique, new and useful Electronic Medical Records (EMR) Computing system, is an abstract iii et re 7 idea, and therefore, not patentable under 35 USC § 101. This decision directly conflicts with the | U.S. Supreme court’s decision w.r.t. the abstract idea, an implicit exception of section 101: “Because abstract ideas and laws of nature are basic tools of scientific and technological work, monopolizing those tools might thwart the object of the patent laws by impeding | innovation; Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. 566 U.S. __, | 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012). | | The appellant Salwan has provided substantial evidence in his Appeal Briefs to CAFC (and to | EDVA, PTAB) that his claim 1 does not monopolize EMR computing systems. | This Court has further held repeatedly that a court must make the abstract idea determination by evaluating the claims “as a whole”. But CAFC has ignored this rulings of the Supreme Court. The 2nd question presented to this court is whether this court should reverse CAFC’s final judgment, which conflicts with the Supreme Court ruling?