Whether a Magistrate Judge can invalidate a patent using a preponderance of the evidence standard and failing to follow the Markman test

QUESTIONS PRESENTED , 35 U.S.C. § 282(a) provides that “[a] patent shall : be presumed valid.” This Court has ruled that when a court reviews validity of a patent, the presumption can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence. Microsoft Corp., v. i4i Limited Partnership, 564 U.S. 91 (2011). Failure of a court to comply with this statute; creates a manifest injustice, obliterating an Inventor’s right to Due Process, their 7th Amendment Rights, and erodes the “Patent Bargain.” Therefore, the questions presented are: ; 1. Whether a Magistrate Judge—unappointed by _ Senate, can set aside 35 U.S.C. § 282(a) by invalid. ating a patent, utilizing a preponderance of the evidence : standard and by failing to follow the Four-Factor Markman Test; in conflict with decisions made by This Court, which has ruled said test is the force of Federal Law and correct procedure. Markman et. al., v. Westview Instruments, Inc., et. al., 517 U.S. 370 (1996). 2. Whether The Federal Circuit can affirm, by Rule . 36, invalidation of a software patent for indefiniteness pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112; when The Prosecution History of the patent, and record discloses clear and : convincing evidence to the contrary-(1) a declaration of a (POSITA), including code proving enablement, and (2) sworn statements raising a genuine issue of material fact, that the statutory requirements of 35 U'S.C. § 112, was satisfied. 3. Whether The Specification of a patent must disclose everything necessary to practice an invention, even what is well known in the art—enabling full scope . of the invention, 35 U.S.C. § 112; and whether coextensive structure in an (MPF) claim limitation overcomes the presumption of 35 U.S.C. § 112, p6. . ii