Whether the PTO's varied standards, buttressed by the decisional law of the lower reviewing courts, for determining operability under § 101 are biased towards conventional inventions but against groundbreaking inventions or discoveries, thus hindering the promotion of the "Progress of Science and Useful Arts" emanating from the Intellectual Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Whether the Federal Circuit erred by applying a "heightened standard" of operability under § 101, "typically measured by reproducibility of results", when claimed inventions or discoveries are considered to contain concepts straining scientific principles, thus effectively raising the standard of proof on operability from "more likely than not true" to "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "as a matter of statistical certainty".

Whether the decisional law of the reviewing courts, creating judicial exceptions to patent eligibility under § 101, has no statuary basis and thus inapplicable in light of this Court's recent decision in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. 139 S. Ct. 524 (2019).

Whether the PTO personnel and the Federal Circuit can substitute their common sense and knowledge for the specialized common knowledge and expertise of a person having ordinary skill in the art ("PHOSITA") in determining operability under § 101.

Whether the PTO's standards for determining operability under § 101 are biased against groundbreaking inventions