Question not identified.

Applying this Court’s rulings in Alice and Mayo , the U.S. Court of Federal Claims invalidated plaintiff’s patents —not for a business method or computer program —but for a new and useful machine applicable in the telemedicine industry . The Court of Federal Claims invalidated all of Audio Evolution Diagnostics, Inc. (“AED”) ’s patent claims as abstract ideas by conflating novelty and obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 with patent eligibility under § 101. The government —plaintiff’s opponent here —has urged this Court at least twice to revisit Alice and Mayo to prevent such overreach. On appeal , the Federal Circuit affirmed the same way that it has resolve d over one -third of all patent appeals that came before it in the last two decades — with one word : “affirm ed” and a cite to Federal Circuit Rule 36 . The question s presented are: 1. Whether this Court should clarify its Alice and Mayo rulings at steps one and two by focusing on the language of 35 U.S.C. § 101 itself and differentiate patent-eligibility determinations under § 101 from factbased well-understood, routine, and conventional questions of novelty , obviousness , and enablement under §§ 102, 103, and 112 . ii 2. Whether this Court should find that the Federal Circuit is abandoning i ts role of articulating patent law precedent and bringing uniformity to patent law with its overuse of Federal Circuit Rule 36 to summarily affirm decision s of lower tribunals involving unsettled and complex issues of patent law .