Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Shellacking the Chicken Shell

Which came first, the chicken or the unscrambled egg?

The abstract idea or the adding on of the generic computer?

The irrational thought or the false logic?

Ignorance or basking in its bliss?

Those skilled in the rhetorical art of false choice menus will appreciate that many a proposition are defective even before they are hatched. For example, by proposing that the abstract egg came first and then the generic hen was added on to sit on that egg for reason of conventional and routine development ignores the possibility that the egg came from someplace, perchance a non-abstract and non-conventional laying hen. A something more of significance to those who can comprehend it.

In the case of:
VISUAL MEMORY LLC v. NVIDIA CORPORATION

the question is whether the claims are an independent shell with no connection to the specification (a black box onto itself) or whether the claims are part of an integral whole in which the specification concludes with the claims.

Appellate Judge HUGHES(dissenting) argues:
"Claim 1, for instance, claims a system comprising a main memory and a cache connected to a bus, with a "programmable operational characteristic" that "determines a type of data stored by said cache." '740 patent col. 6 11. 28-38. The claim does not provide any specific limitations on the "programmable operational characteristic," making it a purely functional component. The "programmable operational characteristic" is nothing more than a black box for performing the abstract idea of storing data based on its characteristic, and the patent lacks any details about how that is achieved. The remaining computer elements in the claims (cache, memory, bus) are nothing more than a collection of conventional computing components found in any computer."

Blindsight is of course 20/20 times * zero (0).
The subject US Patent 5953740 dates back to 1990 and
uses an archaic Computer Design descriptor Language known as CDL
The microfiche of the patent describes in detail the modules of Fig. 2 using the CDL language.

Does Judge HUGHES(dissenting, BA Harvard 1989) understand any of this?
Highly unlikely.

Thursday, July 6, 2017

One thing We Americans don't need: Inventors

Today's title of the post is a take off on this op-ed:
"One thing we don’t need is stronger patents"

That's right.
If God had meant us to invent,
He would have evolved us to have brains.
D'Oh!

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Easy it comes to us, Easy it goes to us

Whom is this "us" to which inventions come easy?
And to whom inventions go easy?

Why, it's U.S.; your trustable, reliable, honest as Abe government.

EASYWEB INNOVATIONS v. TWITTER

Yes, you sucker-born-yesterday inventors worked hard to come up with your inventions in the first place.

Yes, you gullible-believer inventors paid large moneys to your attorneys to scriven up the detailed applications.

Yes, you trusting inventors fought hard with the Patent Office to get your claims allowed (and paid the Patent Office AND your lawyers for the entire process).
It was a hard fought upward battle.

Yes, the US Government stamped your applications approved and led you to believe you had "exclusive" rights in "your" inventions.

Yes, the US Constitution says its your invention or discovery and the government is supposed to "secure" exclusive rights for you in "your" respective invention or discovery.

But as they say, ha ha, a new sucker is born every day.
Easy come, easy wipe out.

EASYWEB INNOVATIONS v. TWITTER

"In sum, all the claims are directed to the abstract idea of receiving, authenticating, and publishing data, and fail to recite any inventive concepts sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible invention."

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Trade secrecy versus the progress of science and the useful arts

(Click on image to read about "Guilds".)

Trade secrecy is not only anti-innovation, it is anti-science.

Science requires that the proponent of a new theory/hypothesis lay out all his/her cards on the table so that others can rigorously test it.

If you say that you have a new data encryption scheme that others cannot easily crack with current technology then put it out on the table and let the hackers have a go at it.

If you say that you have a new cancer treatment protocol that has higher efficacy, then put it out on the table and let the clinical trial labs actually field test it.

What Mr. Levy is proposing (in this web positing) is anti-science. It is the anathema of real science for biotech companies to forever hide their secret sauces and not let others test them.

This exactly why patents are necessary.

So that real science can take place on a transparent playing field.

So we can “promote” the progress of science and the useful arts.

Friday, April 14, 2017

Crash Landing on Planet of the Orange-Haired Apes

It already happened.
So get over it.
We ARE on the Planet of the Orange-Haired Apes.

The problem at hand is how to tell them ....
"Take your stinking paws off my science you damn simpleton primates!"

It would not be an insurmountable problem if it were JUST the leader of the "free world" who was scientifically illiterate.

Or if it was also the Supreme judges who were scientifically illiterate. (Which they clearly are.)

It's the fake news aping press that's the problem.
Even these critters, the ones who are supposed to stand guard at the gates and yell about the Emperor marching with no clothes on in cases where all other checks and balances have failed, they too can't get anything right. That is a grand scale insurmountable problem.

Take this Gawker article where the author gets it 180 degrees wrong.
It wasn't Justice Scalia who was half way off his rocker. It was the rest of the Supreme bench and the reporter as well. Scalia to his credit was having a tinge of doubt where in fact the rest of the Court was in the wrong chemistry class (the fake science class). An "isolated" molecular fragment is not identical to the long chain compound from which it was selectively cleaved. (Hint: methane is not "identical" to heptane. If you think otherwise you fail organic chemistry 101.)

Or take this other article posted under the name of the American Council on Science and Health.

They got part of it right in noting: "The [Supreme Court] Justices tried to simplify the argument by making analogies to things like chocolate chip cookies, Amazonian jungle plants [plucking leaves off banana trees] and [lathing] baseball bats."

But then they go on to back up one of the Justices: "Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that if someone invented a new way to extract the ingredients of a cookie, a company still wouldn't be able to patent its ingredients. I can't imagine getting a patent simply on the basic items of salt, flour and eggs, simply because I've created a new use or a new product from those ingredients, she said."

At the end to their credit, they question the wisdom of the Myriad decision: "... preventing innovators, even (or especially) in biologicals and biotechnology from making sufficient profit on their work will have a strong chilling effect on R&D in this field."

However, consider next this Richard Dwakins Foundation article... "In one puzzling opinion, he [Justice Scalia] admitted that he wasn’t sure whether he accepted the reality of molecular biology. In another, he wrote that “creation science” (that is, creationism) was a legitimate “body of scientific knowledge” and that public schools can teach “whatever scientific evidence there may be against evolution.” And in a dissent contesting the federal government’s duty to combat climate change, he shrugged that the court’s “alarm over global warming may or may not be justified.”(to be continued)

Friday, March 24, 2017

The Hitchiker's Guide through the Judicial Hall of Patent Pending Shame

One ancient adviser said, "Forgive them for they know not what they do."

Is that the correct stance?
Do they forgive others as they willst forgiveness unto themselves?

Or maybe we should say, "Understand them for they know not what they do, but forgive them not"?

Welcome to the Judicial Hall of Patent Pending Shame.

First up on our wall of shame is Justice Stephen Breyer, philosopher king and historian extraordinaire .... According to Breyer J. Egypt's King Tut had an all powerful Abacus Man. Breyer's 'Bacus Man could do extraordinary things. Like tallying up all the chits in Egypt's entire kingdom on his tiny 4 beads per symbol bronze abacus machine. Breyer's 'Bacus Man could also telepathically connect instantaneously to all corners of the realm so that he knew in real time when "solvency" ceased to exist for any of the kingdom's numerous accounts. What a man!

We should try to "understand" the debating points made by the Honorable Breyer J. After all, he majored in "philosophy" while going for his undergraduate at Stanford and then in a combination of "philosophy" and "economics" at Magdelen College at Oxford University.

Mind you there is nothing "fundamentally" wrong with studying "philosophy" and "economics" except for one minor detail.

You see, these areas of scholastic effort are wholly divorced from physical reality.

They don't account for the friction between the shell beads and bronze rods of the Tut's 'Bacus Man abacus. Or for the amount of energy needed to make those beads whiz back and forth along the metal rods as the chit data comes flashing in by carrier pigeon at 100,000 bead bits per second. Then there is the wear and tear on these parts and time out for repair and replacement.

Of course, in Plato's cave all is merely shadow flashing as illusions on the cave wall. So Breyer is freed from concerns about physics, metallurgy, chemistry, thermodynamics, Shannon's theory of information transfer and what not. He can make up fantastical hypotheticals that include characters with omnipotent powers and tunnel visions. The Supremes themselves have tunnel vision when they don't want to admit that Le Roy v. Tatham (SCt. 1852) got "metallurgy" wrong. The strain cooled lead is different from cast lead. Strain cooled lead can have a significantly different micro-structure. But heck. What's reality got to do with it when you enter Philosopher Breyer's cave?

Second up on our wall of shame are the dumbnamic duo of Justice Anton Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
No one celebrates the recent passing of Justice Scalia.
However, that said, it can't be ignored that this "originalist" deliberately ignored the Constitutional recognition of inventors having "rights" to "their" respective discoveries per Article I, section 8, clause 8 of that sacred document.

Scalia writes: "I join the judgment of the Court, and all of its opinion except Part I—A and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology. I am unable to affirm those details on my own knowledge or even my own belief. It suffices for me to affirm, having studied the opinions below and the expert briefs presented here, that the portion of DNA isolated from its natural state sought to be patented is identical to that portion of the DNA in its natural state; and that complementary DNA (cDNA) is a synthetic creation not normally present in nature." --ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY v. MYRIAD GENETICS, INC. (SCt. 6/13/2013)

JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court and writes: "For the reasons that follow, we hold that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, ... the study of genetics can lead to valuable medical breakthroughs. ... Myriad after it made one such medical breakthrough. Myriad discovered the precise location and sequence of what are now known as the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. ... Myriad was not the only entity to offer BRCA testing after it discovered the genes. ... Judges Lourie and Moore agreed that Myriad's claims were patent eligible under §101 but disagreed on the rationale. Judge Lourie relied on the fact that the entire DNA molecule is held together by chemical bonds and that the covalent bonds at both ends of the segment must be severed in order to isolate segments of DNA. This process technically creates new molecules with unique chemical compositions. ... Myriad did not create or alter any of the genetic information encoded in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. The location and order of the nucleotides existed in nature before Myriad found them. ... Myriad did not create anything. To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention. ... Myriad found the location of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, but that discovery, by itself, does not render the BRCA genes "new . . . composition[s] of matter," §101, that are patent eligible. ... "

Sunday, March 12, 2017

Silence of the Autistic Savant Lambs

Why do inventors get taken advantage of?

And by advantage, I don't mean simply in the business world.

Calling inventors, autistic savant lambs is an extreme exaggeration of course. Most are not Rain Man. Instead some may have a slight tint of introversion, preferring to deal with things as opposed to people.

There are however, many a ruthless business people all too eager to take advantage of the lack or lessening of people skills among the inventor class. That constitutes taking advantage at level one of Dante's underworld.

Way way lower, deeper in the bowls of Dante's realm, reside those who are supposed to be acting in loco parentis, to protect the legal rights of the inventor class. These include the courts, the Patent Office and the IP centric academia.

We are talking about those who, instead of protecting, take gleeful joy in dissecting and destroying the vulnerable inventor class.

(("Nice of you to ask Clarisse. I'm having an old friend for dinner."))

Food for thought (so to speak) ... still under consideration and construction

Friday, March 10, 2017

Loath and Disdain cause inventor dared Coin a Name

The mere fact that the inventor applied coined labels to conventional structures does not make the underlying concept inventive. See, e.g., Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352 n.2, 2360 (finding the claims abstract despite the recitation of technical sounding names such as "shadow credit record[s]" and "shadow debit record[s]").

INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC V. CAPITAL ONE

The right and ability of every inventor to be his own lexicographer has been a cornerstone of the American patent system since its inception. Otherwise, what do you call the thingamajig that did not exist before, is "new and useful" and promotes the progress of science and the useful arts? "Spinning Jenny"?

Now, in a rash of inventor loathing opinions, we see the federal judiciary thrashing inventors for having the audacity to coin terms for things that the inventors believe to be new, useful and nonobvious.

That begs the question. Who fostered this rising wave of hatred among the judiciary and how did they do it?

STEP 1: Label them as trolls

STEP 2: Devise a vague troll detection test

STEP 3: Encourage the haters to devise their own, more sophisticated tests.

Monday, March 6, 2017

What do Trump and the Supreme Court have in common?

U.S. President Donald Trump tries to garner all the attention to himself through the use of "alternative facts".

Which is not not really fair. The Justices of the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) should sue him for stealing an idea (a truly abstract and fundamentally principled idea) that was originally all theirs.

When it comes to the "I heard it through the grapevine" meme and the converting of such allegedly expert hearsay into court admitted expert testimony or "facts", no one, no one (perhaps), outdoes the SCOTeti.

Their ear to the wall sources include the so-called "friends" of the Court filings (amicus curie briefs).

There is no fact check verification process for amicus curie briefs.

This post ... still under construction

One area in which the SCOTeti regularly convert the "I heard it" fantasies into unassailable "facts" comes in the area of patent law.

Take the Wonderland decision in Alice v. CLS (please) as an example. The court has heard, from trustworthy sources, trust worthy we tell you, that Mother Nature has "laws" that she hands down from Mount Olympus, that Mother has "phenomenon" that are "natural" and thus hers alone, not things due to human intervention. Also the court has heard, that human "minds" can have "abstract" ideas. ...

Friday, March 3, 2017

Mirror mirror on the wall, we are the fairest of them all

Patent cases expose a number of embarrassing attributes about we human creatures.

First we tend to be very vane. Ninety percent (90%) of us think we place in at least the top 50% of our population if not in the top 10% or top 1%.

Second we are incompetently blind to almost all the things we are incompetently blind to. (How many of you are picking up the IR wavelengths now coming off your screen or hearing the ultrasonic vibrations?)

Third we crave social admiration. (Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the most admired of us all?).

Supreme Court Justices are susceptible to all these vices (shallowness, vanity, narcissism, ...) and succumb to them on a regular basis.

Yes. They all have very high IQ’s and are among the top 10% smartest people in our population.

But so too are all the young among our population who pursue advanced studies in the hard sciences (e.g. physics, chemistry, electronics, …). Why does it take our young ones (those with super high IQs) so many years to “get it”? Answer: because it’s hard hard stuff and our biological brains can only do so much and not much more.

If you were a Justice sitting on the SCOTUS and all your “friends” (amici curie) complemented you on how smart and clever you are and convinced you that molecular biology is no more complicated than plucking a leaf off a tree, wouldn’t you believe them?

And if some non-“friends” tried to explain to you that molecular biology is hard and that is why our high IQ youths take so long to earn their PhDs and that is why you, one of the “Supremes” may never understand it; wouldn’t you discount everything they argue?

So sure. At the end of the day all the complex stuff reduces to “generic” computers doing no more than conventional and routine operations, ones that 2nd year coders do every weekend without breaking a sweat. All those so-called smarty pants inventors out there and their devious scriveners cannot possibly be smarter than we the Supreme SCOTeti. They are merely trying to hoodwink us with their voodoo witchcraft and obfuscating language.

Aha. We can see right past them by devising a simple framework for witchcraft detection. First we dangle an oblong magic shard at the end of a string, slowly move it over the claim and give it a twirl. If it points in almost any direction but one secret one, the claim is clearly “directed to” skullduggery.

But just to be fair (because after all, our mirror tells us we are the fairest of them all) we will apply a second test. We submerge the claim in holy witch water to see if it has that elusive “something more”. You see, witches are made of wood and thus they float. Only those that have that “something more” stay under.

So after all that, why are all those cry baby inventors complaining? We have been imminently fair. After all, “we” are Supreme and in that top 1% number. Clearly they are not. Sigh.

Saturday, February 25, 2017

Rise of the New Romantics

It is not at first obvious, this newly re-surging undercurrent of disdain for scientists, inventors and tools of modernity such as computers, social media networks and biotechnology.

For historians however, the emergence of a counter culture reaction to science and enlightenment is no surprise. Ours is not the first time that a social movement (i.e the Luddite movement) emerged to reject rational thought and instead adopt a mystic worship of things more "natural".

Back in the mid-1800's, an emergence of a similar shift to "Romanticism" is seen in the anti-inventor bent of the Supreme Court patent case of Le Roy v. Tatham (SCt. 1852). The nature adoring majority in that case saw the inventor's claim to the essence of the leaden pipe as reaching in to greedily grasp a "natural" fundamental of Mother Nature herself. They saw in Mother Nature, certain "principles", "fundamentals", "natural elements of power" and motives that they believed should be free for all and not the exclusive domain of another Frankensteinian tinkerer in the Alchemical arts.

Still under construction ... re other Law of Nature cases

Friday, February 24, 2017

Origins of Alice, The Gobbledygook and Illuminatiasm of Le Roy v. Tatham

As the more geeky of patent law watchers know, the "abstract ideas" part of the Alice in Blunderland Supreme Court (SCOTUS 2014) decision finds its roots in Le Roy v. Tatham (1852).

One might assume that the Floundering Ancient SCOTeti Fathers of the 1852 version of SCOTUS were more reserved, scholarly and enlightened than our current crop of "New Romantics" like Clarence the Clown and 'Bacus Brain Breyer. But not so.

They too, at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution misunderstood science, technology and instead had mystical Illuminati beliefs in 'principles', symbolisms, confluence with Mother Nature and abstractions emanating from the shining eye on top of the pyramid of power. They write:

“A patent for leaden pipes would not be good, as it would be for an effect, and would, consequently, prohibit all other persons from using the same article, however manufactured. Leaden pipes are the same, the metal being in no respect different. Any difference in form and strength must arise from the mode of manufacturing the pipes. The new property in the metal claimed to have been discovered by the patentees, belongs to the process of manufacture, and not to the thing made.” --at 176

Clearly the SCOTeti of days yore did not, could not understand metallurgy or product by process. Nonetheless they considered themselves smarter than everyone else, even the inventor a.k.a. discoverer. How times have changed (not).

The 1852 SCOTeti go on to proclaim:

"The word principle is used by elementary writers on patent subjects, and sometimes in adjudications of courts, with such a want of precision in its application, as to mislead. It is admitted, that a principle is not patentable. A principle, in the abstract, is a fundamental truth; an original cause; a motive; these cannot be patented, as no one can claim in either of them an exclusive right. Nor can an exclusive right exist to a new power, should one be discovered in addition to those already known. Through the agency of machinery a new steam power may be said to have been generated. But no one can appropriate this power exclusively to himself, under the patent laws. The same may be said of electricity, and of any other power in nature, which is alike open to all, and may be applied to useful purposes by the use of machinery.

In all such cases, the processes used to extract, modify, and concentrate natural agencies, constitute the invention. The elements of the power exist; the invention is not in discovering them, but in applying them to useful objects. Whether the machinery used be novel, or consist of a new combination of parts known, the right of the inventor is secured against all who use the same mechanical power, or one that shall be substantially the same.

A patent is not good for an effect, or the result of a certain process, as that would prohibit all other persons from making the same thing by any means whatsoever. This, by creating monopolies, would discourage arts and manufactures, against the avowed policy of the patent laws.

A new property discovered in matter, when practically applied, in the construction of a useful article of commerce or manufacture, is patentable; but the process through which the new property is developed and applied, must be stated, with such precision as to enable an ordinary mechanic to construct and apply the necessary process. This is required by the patent laws of England and of the United States, in order that when the patent shall run out, the public may know how to profit by the invention. It is said, in the case of the Househill Company v. Neilson, Webster's Patent Cases, 683, "A patent will be good, though the subject of the patent consists in the discovery of a great, general, and most comprehensive principle in science or law of nature, if that principle is by the specification applied to any special purpose, so as thereby to effectuate a practical result and benefit not previously attained." In that case, Mr. Justice Clerk, in his charge to the jury, said, "the specification does not claim any thing as to the form, nature, shape, materials, numbers, or mathematical character of the vessel or vessels in which the air is to be heated, or as to the mode of heating such vessels," &c. The patent was for "the improved application of air to produce heat in fires, forges and furnaces, where bellows or other blowing apparatus are required."

In that case, although the machinery was not claimed as a part of the invention, the jury were instructed to inquire, "whether the specification was not such as to enable workmen of ordinary skill to make machinery or apparatus capable of producing the effect set forth in said letters-patent and specification." And, that in order to ascertain whether the defendants had infringed the patent, the jury should inquire whether they, "did by themselves or others, and in contravention of the privileges conferred by the said letters-patent, use machinery or apparatus substantially the same with the machinery or apparatus described in the plaintiffs' specification, and to the effect set forth in said letters-patent and specification." So it would seem that where a patent is obtained, without a claim to the invention of the machinery, through which a valuable result is produced, a precise specification is required; and the test of infringement is, whether the defendants have used substantially the same process to produce the same result.

Monday, February 20, 2017

Vanity be not Proud

Is it "maths" or processing of real physical electric signals (i.e. electrons) with real electronic circuits?
Some believe the battle line for debate is drawn at that intersection.

Perhaps though, the battle line plays out at the intersection of judicial vanity and judicial ignorance.

Most judges consider themselves to be very smart (High IQ). And they are.

But High IQ alone is not enough. No matter how smart one is, no matter how credentialed, the human brain (a biological organ) is of finite size, of finite speed and of finite (as well as age diminishing) ability to rewire itself (a thing referred to as plasticity).

No matter how hard they try, many an elder judge (or other arbiter) will never comprehend "computers," will never grasp modern biogenetics, will never fully appreciate modern physics and science.

There is a reason why almost all of our best and brightest (same high IQ) young PhD earners take so many years to finish their studies and finally get into the work world.

It’s because this is hard hard, brain straining stuff. The biological human brain organ is not a silicon based digital electronic computer and vice versa the computer is not a replica of the human brain. The notion of abstraction, of “mind” and of being able to do stuff with pencil and paper are delusions. These delusions appeal to the judge’s vanity by making them “feel” smart. (Gee now I get it, molecular biology is just like plucking a leaf from a tree.)

But they are not anywhere near that smart and all knowing. They are simply parading proudly in arrogant, asinine and vain ignorance. They just don’t know it. We see it. They don’t. Will they ever see it? (Ask the Bruce Willis character in the movie, “The Sixth Sense”. Spoiler alert, he is one of those ignorant lost ghosts.)

Saturday, February 11, 2017

The Post Modern Inquisition

The purpose of an Inquisition is to create general hysteria, ferret out those who might pose a threat to The Inquisitive Powers That Already Be (TIPTAB) and establish a permanent bureaucracy for sustaining the Inquisition.

Inquisition panels often use the pretext of law and regulations. However, their true purpose and effect is to create a climate of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) while consolidating the power of final judgment exclusively to themselves. (Only we can know it when we see it, that elusive something significantly more that is needed for you to prove your innocence, that you are not a member of a very very (believe us) short list of suspect categories comprised of: (1) witches, (2) warlocks, (3) radicalized islamo-facists, (4) sexual deviants, (5) fake news reporters, (6) fake inventors, (7) devil worshipers, (8) terrorists, (9) heretics, (10) trolls, (11) apostates and (12) ....)

Sounds just like what PTAB death squads do, right?

Well D'oh. Yeah. Is that a surprise?

Monday, January 30, 2017

Confluence of Fibs and Fabulations

Before we start our leisurely white waters rafting trip down that roaring river of level four lies and level five false fabrications, please remember to put on your sanity safety helmet lest you fall, flail and lose sight of that which you should have known in the first place before we started tripping down into Alice's Falls. It's a bottomless pit of fibs, fabs, lies and deceptions.

We shouldn't, after all, trust them who are supposed to be here to protect us when they tell us they are from the government and they arehere to protect us. Beware these deceivious scriveners of new false law. Beware their jabberwhack skulduggery.

Take for example what Clarence the Clownish rafting guide tells us upon embarking down through Alice Falls about us always having had for over 150 years these newly frameworked exception rules that never existed beforehand. (Hold your breath.)

"[*1] We have long held [oh really? that long?] that this provision [§101] contains an [*2] important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and [*3] abstract ideas are not patentable." Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U. S. , (2013) (slip op., at 11) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). We have interpreted §101 [*4] and its predecessors in light of this exception for more than 150 years. Bilski, supra, at 601-602; see also O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62, 112-120 (1854); Le Roy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156, 174-175 (1853).

... in applying the §101 exception [*5], we must
[most assuredly indefatigably must] .....
(click below "Read More" for more)