Claiming Super-Augmenting a Persona to Manifest a Pan-Environment Super-Cyborg

Motupalli v. Iancu (Supreme Court 2020)

This pro se petition to the Supreme Court has a number of major problems, but does ask one interesting question:

Whether 35 U.S.C. §112 [the enablement doctrine] is satisfied when the specification of a patent application is enabling to an interdisciplinary team of two or three persons, working in cooperation?

[petition].  The statute is written as directed toward a single person: “enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains.” But, a project of this size is unlikely to be understandable by any single human (See below).

The case itself is a nonstarter if only based upon the title of the invention at issue:

Necktie-imitating Persona Extender / Environment-Integrator and Method for Super-Augmenting a Persona to Manifest a Pan-Environment Super-Cyborg or Wedded Avatar of Christ with eThrone for Global Governance

See US Pub No. 20120253517.


Motupalli’s full biography can be found on

14 thoughts on “Claiming Super-Augmenting a Persona to Manifest a Pan-Environment Super-Cyborg

  1. 8

    Since PHOSITA is a legal fiction, the construction of such a person may contain the multitudes.

    OTH, I think as part of Markman, PHOSITA should be explicitly construed, as should the purported novelty of the invention, as matters of law.

    1. 8.1

      So, claims can be rejected in view a of a combination of six documents being obvious to a combination of 10 people, each one of which is only ordinarily skilled in a small fraction of the art….


      1. 8.1.1

        As it ever was, Les.

        Not sure why you want to sigh.

        Let’s not forget though that there ARE checkpoints to this type of “free for all” anything can be combined.

        103 is NOT merely any ‘ol combination of 102 references.
        And that too is as it always was (even though there be some seemingly deliberate non-understanding of what that means).

  2. 7

    I suspect that 35 U.S.C. §112 enablement rejections are still not that frequent in general at the application examination level? Especially after so many years of PTO discouragement, relatively few Fed. Cir. substantive decisions, and even some applicant, representative, or examiner confusion between enablement and obviousness?

    1. 7.1

      … maybe you should reacquaint yourself with the side of the fence in obtaining protection for innovators…

      Would you have to retake the registration exam?

      Do you think that you would pass?

      link to

  3. 6

    “[the Computer/AI] has the potential to enable humans to transcend limitations and even become godlike–benefits that can be accrued if the computer/AI is restructured to that it is subservient and co-opted.”

    I’m enjoying the idea of the pitch meeting for this invention.

    Inventor: “We’ll become godlike! People will enjoy their powers so much they won’t care about the ethical issues of mentally neutering and enslaving millions of Artificial General Intelligences!”
    Investor:”Research does show that people don’t care about AIs- that’s not a problem for us. We’re worried about another issue… does it really have to be a Necktie?”
    Inventor: “The necktie is a prophetic symbol signifying the unifying work of the Holy Spirit in restoring man to his original perfect state!”
    Investor: “Is that a ‘yes’?”
    Inventor: “Of course it’s a yes! Without a Front Spinal Column, the human body is imperfect. I want to perfect the human body and allow them to plug into nature.”
    Investor: “How does a necktie plug into nature?”
    Inventor: “Well, for example, take cattle. You simp-”
    Investor: “We’re done here.”

  4. 4

    I’m not familiar with the Biblical Theology arts (I couldn’t ever work for AU777), so I can’t evaluate this statement of issue from PTAB, but it sure made me smile.

    “Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 27-29, 31-35, 37-42, and 44-46 under § 112, second paragraph by finding the recited limitations–including those pertaining to ranking personae according to 1 Corinthians 11:3 and 12:28 in claims 33, 39, and 46– render the claims indefinite?”

    1. 4.1

      I have seen The Holy Bible cited in PTAB decisions, but only as evidence to demonstrate something is notoriously old and well known.

  5. 3

    It’s a bit wild that the Federal Circuit gave this case a proper opinion (even if non-precedential and relatively short) rather than an R.36 affirmance.

    1. 3.1

      I thought there was a patently-o post on this, but I can’t seem to find it right now. Pro Se applicants usually don’t get R36s, unless they got oral arguments.

    2. 3.2

      It’s rare to hardly ever that a patent applicant proceeding pro se at the Federal Circuit gets an oral argument, unless the applicant is also a registered patent attorney. That’s why most get at least a brief opinion (usually per curiam).

  6. 2

    The whole application is pretty awesome, but my favorite part is where it says “Copyright 1989-2012”.

Comments are closed.