No. 01 - 262
In The
Supreme Court of The United States
__________
IN RE FRANK R. BONCZYK
v.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
Before LOURIE,
BRYSON, and Linn, Circuit JudgeS
LOURIE, Circuit Judge
__________
On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari
To The U.S.
Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit
__________
PETITION FOR
WRIT OF CERTIORARI
__________
Frank R. Bonczyk
Introduction: By consent or assault certain act[s] are performed between persons of opposite nature (donor and recipient) whereby, inherent properties of their being combine to create a structure[s] with certain inalienable function[s] and ability. The created structure[s] assembles toward an inevitable, time honored, predisposed conclusion-in this case human.
The invention "Fabricated Energy" claims and specification evoke property rights of, but not limited to elements structure[s] and matter created and given up by a constitutionally protected right of privacy. Hence, matter given up that does not serve the ends nature originally provides is available to serve, source and host human-made elements of the invention.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED:
Whether human-made elements of primary life structures that define the essence of this Court's vaguely defined non-viable (fetus) patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
(i)
BOARDS
DECISION
_____________________________
1
Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (1979). A judiciary trend expands, whereby
the court recognizes and relies on physicians to decide jurisdiction of constitutional
matters with one hand and practice medicine with the other as if they held sacrosanct
power that goes beyond the court.
2 Court reliance (appendix
P5) on the definition, "McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms
680 (5th ed. 1994). "Energy per se is the capacity to do work…" is wrong. Wrongs
to ignore the petitioner's application that define in full detail the principles
and functions of energy used to construct the invention. Perrin v. United States,
444 U.S. 37, 42 (1979) "unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as
taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning"
-1-
courts imposition of greater conditions and Constitutional law sans adequate definition of human life. 3 Here, there is a conflict, because the federal scheme did not simply permit the claim[s] their intended expression in specified circumstances but limited the claims to other circumstances. 4 There is no conflict among the court of appeal and the Board on the questions presented by petitioner, as Board admits, "…we simply do not understand the nature of the invention." 5 (Opinion 3, 4). Petitioner nonetheless urges this
__________________________
3
The U.S. Supreme Court does not define and claim life in its jurisdiction except
for those instances where Constitutional law applies to viable human life. However,
under provision of the 10th Amendment Bill of Rights, the petitioner does not
preempt this court to define patent claim limits outside the court's constitutionally
defined jurisdiction of non-viable structures (fetus); the evident qualified §101
statutory subject matter and property of those claim[s].
4 Opinion's reliance (Opinion. 5-6) on Diamond v.
Dier, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981), O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62, 113 (1853),
In re Perrigo. 48 F.2d 965, 966, 9 USPO 152, 152 (CCPA 1931), is also misplaced.
Those decisions concern the issue whether a court should rely on subject matter
that does not qualify as §101 statutory subject matter rather than fashion federal
common law rule when the court must fill in the interstices of a patent claim
constitutionally defined. They do not concern the question presented here-under
what circumstances federal law preempts conflicting constitutional law.
5
Energy is the source of all life. To know life one must understand the basic principles
and function of energy. The petitioner's patent application claim "energy rootstock"
of primary life structures in whole or of their individual parts and named the
original elements M + E in Description of Preferred Embodiment, BON and ZYK ,
which has precise meaning, respectfully referred to simply as, Sphericals. The
petitioner assumes the obvious nature of the invention. If misunderstood by the
PTO, great hazard looms. The PTO bound by such innocence now compromise to provide
patent protection to applicants whom simply cannibalize the essence of petitioner's
claim, e.g., patent No. 5,851,832 among others.
-2-
Court to grant review on the basis of "the decision emerging from the court of appeals conflict with this Court's ruling by law, thereby deprive substantive due process and protection of property rights. This Court's review is warranted based on petitioner's assertion that the appeals court applied different and vague rationales 6 in reaching their uniform results.
__________________________
6 The court/PTO language excludes the PTO's admitted mistake in its opinion, (See Examiner's Ans. P30), defers PTO's conflict of reason, (See Pet. Inf. Br. P13-14) as irrelevant. On the contrary, the flux of conflict posed by the PTO misguided the petitioner. Effort to satisfy the patent requirements went amiss and continued throughout the patent process until finally the PTO admitted it was mistaken -- dropped the 'already exist in nature' and held to the 'theoretical abstract concept' -- time run out.
-3-
(more)
ME O! MY! O! HOW I CRY for they are all "ME" whom DIE! What ingenious illusion now remains to keep the fatuous coin alive? Does the value of paper coin also, die in the u.s.s.c.'s "The Great Lie?" For only the soul pays the way on the road to FREEDOOM.
A penny for your thoughts, but not your soul_it remains free. That's the LAW! AO
OOps! Did some bodies forget somebody? Of all the experts on Banks & Banking it appears some bodies of Banking over site ...overshadowed truth plainly revealed in Comptroller of the Currency records. The some bodies of over site chose to feign ignorance of the Comptrollers record of Banking events, and instead cleverly contrived lucrative acts in consort with the Greatest of all Bank Sinners . Acts publicly proclaimed so benevolent, a Saintly Halo now appears atop the Great Sinner's head. (Check out page 21 see who heads the list in leverage, 90 to 1) Also, tribute paid to these Pirates(BS,WM,etc.) amount to a 30% increase in their assets, give or take.The over all Tribute (Bail out Money) met the Band of Pirates demands for the time being. Else, they "The Club" threaten that they would have to stand aside and a complete financial collapse of the (low tier) economy would occur. Least we forget, faith and trust creates the illusion of value that allows printed paper to work. True value exists in ownership of property. When the illusion of paper value act and mix as an equal to ownership of property in the markets it results in bogus Trades and outright manipulation on a grand scale. The paper pushers have everything to gain, nothing to lose but the illusion of value, while the owners of property suffer loss of value. to the paper pushers illusion. Ironically to restore faith and trust in the illusion of the value of the realms coin the dumb some bodies of over site again act to bailout the paper pushers, by printing more paper to further devalue the true owners of property whom must pay for the printed paper of illusion.
International Property Owners Association ref: Bonczyk pdf
New Storyline Patent ref: Andrew F. Knight
Ingenious Illusion - SEC Naked Short Selling Anti Fraud Rule
NOTICE to USSC: Claim of PO Realm
Your comments are welcome:
| all rights reserved copyright 1999-2007 | contact us for more information | from our mind to yours | |
 | |||
