Primary Life structures

No. 01 - 262

In The

Supreme Court of The United States




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



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.


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.




Frank R. Bonczyk appeals from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences rejecting the claims of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 08/578,325 for failure to meet the requirements of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Ex parte Bonczyk, Appeal No 1988-2474, slip op. at 7 (Bd. of Pat. App. & Inter. July 31, 2000) (Paper No. 15) ("Bonczyk"). Because the Board's decision is correct as a matter of law, we affirm. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to Constitutionally define statutory category of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Viable and Non-viable definitions applied to primary life structure[s] (fetus) by the court are vague and place discretionary power in the hands of physicians 1 whom must enter the womb and there decide when and if constitutional law applies. For the same reason, petitioner contends that the decision of the court of appeals conflicts with this Court's ruling by law to impose conditions greater than the conditions imposed and retained by this Court. With dire consequence the Appeals Court chose to use common definitions 2 rather than those otherwise defined in the application. Such case, Roe v. Wade, 496 U.S. 72 (1990), address a situation in which there is no conflict between this


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"


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.


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.



U.S.S.C, removed 'F'etus from LIFE to create "THE GREAT LIE" now buried in the bowels of the U.S. Constitution

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 the some bodies forget somebody! Of all the experts on Banks & Banking _ The some bodies of Banking over site...overshadowed Truth plainly revealed in Comptroller of the Currency records. Instead, with feigned ignorance of the events, they cleverly contrived acts in consort with the Greatest Sinner of all. Acts that are publicly proclaimed so benevolent, a Saintly Halo now appears atop the Great Sinner's head. (Check out page 21)

International Property Owners Association ref: Bonczyk pdf

New Storyline Patent ref: Andrew F. Knight

Ingenious Illusion - SEC Naked Short Selling Anti Fraud Rule

Patent Application

Life Goes On

NOTICE to USSC: Claim of PO Realm

NOTICE to NASA: Galaxy Bubbles are named BON & ZYK Sphericals

View of WWII ENIGMA Code Breaking reveals a collaborated insult


My response to the U.S. Supreme Court is found atAMAZON. COM KINDLE BOOK - MACHIAVEL by Nitorig (k). Check it out! (click here)



Your comments are welcome:



E-mail Address:




all rights reserved copyright 1999-2007 contact us for
more information
from our mind to yours