(1) The US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) judge Ms. Leonie
Brinkema, the clerks of CAFC, and the CAFC panel of judges O'Malley, Reyna and Chen, are
all corrupt. They are "covering up" the corruption among USPTO examiners and PTAB
judges. This corruption is financed by China's Communist party (CCP) through large US
companies like Google and Apple. Judge Brinkema, knowingly and willfully , wrote 6 false
statements in her OPINION favoring the defendant USPTO, thereby rejecting petitioner
Salwan 's civil case no. l:18-cv-1543. Mr. Salwan filed an appeal to CAFC (case no. 20-1061)
against judge Brinkema for her recusal. To cover-up the wrong-doings of judge Brinkema, the
CAFC - instead of judge Brinkema - assigned the Director of USPTO as the defendant in the
case.
The 1st question presented to this court is - whether this highest court in the United States has
the courage and willingness to abolish this CORRUPTION (financed by CCP) in the lower
courts, which is causing serious damages to the small inventors like Mr. Salwan, and having
adverse affect on the intellectual property and economy of our country?

(2) The CAFC has written 5 false statements in its Opinion, thereby affirming the US District
Court 's decision for civil case number l:18-cv-1543. In this civil case, judge Brinkema also
wrote 6 false statements in her Opinion, thereby affirming PTAB's judgment against Salwan for
his patent application no. 15/188,000. The PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) falsely
alleged in its Opinion that claim 1 (the representative claim of the invention) comprising a
unique, new and useful Electronic Medical Records (EMR) Computing system, is an abstract
idea, and therefore, not patentable under 35 USC § 101. This decision directly conflicts with the
U.S. Supreme court 's decision w.r.t. the abstract idea, an implicit exception of section 101:
"Because abstract ideas and laws of nature are basic tools of scientific and technological
work, monopolizing those tools might thwart the object of the patent laws by impeding
innovation; Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories , Inc. 566 U.S._ _
132S.Ct. 1289, 1293(2012).
The appellant Salwan has provided substantial evidence in his Appeal Briefs to CAFC (and to
EDVA, PTAB) that his claim 1 does not monopolize EMR computing systems.
This Court has further held repeatedly that a court must make the abstract idea determination by
evaluating the claims "as a whole ". But CAFC has ignored this rulings of the Supreme Court.
The 2nd question presented to this court is - whether this court should reverse CAFC 's final
judgment, which conflicts with the Supreme Court ruling?

Whether the lower courts' rulings are tainted by corruption financed by China's Communist party, and whether the Supreme Court should reverse the CAFC's judgment that conflicts with the Supreme Court's rulings on patent eligibility under 35 USC § 101