Prince Alexander woke at dawn with his client's application burning behind his eyes.
Not literally. But the knowledge was there—everything she'd claimed at the barrier yesterday. Process claims. Method claims. The entire continuation-in-part application for Guardian Queen examination authority, downloaded into his consciousness the moment her hand touched his fur and the bond snapped into place.
He reached for the bond without thinking—that thread connecting him to her across jurisdictional boundaries. She was still asleep. Dreaming. Safe.
Client. She's a client. This is attorney-client relationship. Professional.
The mantra wasn't working as well as it had yesterday.
Breakfast was a trial.
The council had arranged themselves around the high table with the careful precision of people preparing an intervention. Chancellor Maris at the far end, Lady Vesper to his left, High Priestess Selene—still wearing her dismissed harem silks like a pointed accusation—beside her.
Near the window, Severen stood silent. Sapphire eyes watching. Not part of the Council, but present nonetheless—as he always was when Old Law matters required witness.
"Your Highness." Maris inclined his head as Alexander took his seat. "We were concerned when you didn't join us for evening meal last night."
"I was occupied." Alexander reached for the pitcher of water—not wine, never wine again—and poured himself a glass.
"With?" Lady Vesper's smile was sharp enough to cut.
"Royal business."
Selene leaned forward, voice honey-sweet with practiced concern. "Your Highness, we only wish to ensure you're well. The harem's dismissal was... sudden. If you're experiencing difficulty with the curse—"
"I'm fine." Alexander bit into bread that tasted like dust. The bond hummed at the back of his mind—she was waking now, confused, alone in her human world with no memory of what she'd filed. No memory of him.
"You dismissed ten years of carefully curated companions in a single afternoon," Maris said quietly. "That is not 'fine,' Your Highness. That is impulsive. Dangerous."
Alexander set down his bread. Met the Chancellor's eyes. "The harem was a conflict of interest. I have a client now. Their presence would compromise my ability to provide competent representation."
Silence.
Then Vesper laughed—bright and brittle. "A client? Your Highness, you haven't practiced law in a decade. You're hardly in a position to—"
"Someone filed yesterday." Alexander stood. "Guardian Queen examination. My bloodline's jurisdiction. The assignment is valid and I will honor it. If you'll excuse me, I have work to do."
"The bond has been approved."
Everyone turned. Severen stepped away from the window, sapphire eyes glowing in the morning light.
"Approved by whom?" Maris demanded.
"By me. Pre-filing counseling confirmed the applicant's eligibility. Attorney assignment validated Saturday morning. The bond activated upon first contact—as it was meant to." Severen's gaze swept the Council. "This is Old Law patent prosecution. Not palace politics. The bond supersedes Council authority."
"You overreach, Severen," Lady Vesper said coldly.
"I perform my function. As Wolf King performs his." Severen looked at Alexander. "You have seventy-two hours from filing. Sixty-eight remain. I suggest you use them wisely."
Alexander nodded once. Left before the Council could regroup.
Behind him, Severen's voice rang clear: "The examination has begun. Interference will be noted as obstruction of patent prosecution. I trust the Council understands the consequences."
He left before they could object. Behind him, he heard Maris's sharp intake of breath, Selene's murmured concern, the scrape of chairs as the council rose to confer.
Let them worry. He had seventy-two hours. Maybe less.
The Royal Library occupied the entire western wing of the palace. Alexander had spent years here during his training—before the curse, before the fog, when he'd still believed he'd grow into his father's legacy as Royal Wolf attorney.
He moved past the public reading rooms, past the council's sanitized legal texts, past the sections he'd memorized as a boy. His feet carried him deeper into the stacks, toward the back of the library where the oldest law lived.
The Forbidden Section.
He'd been told since childhood not to enter. Those texts are not for you, young prince. Dangerous knowledge. Old law that predates modern doctrine. You'll study them when you're ready.
Except he'd never been deemed ready. And eventually he'd stopped asking.
Today, Alexander didn't care.
He expected wards. Magical barriers. Some kind of resistance. But when he reached the archway marked with ancient runes, nothing stopped him. The air shimmered—acknowledged him—and let him pass.
The Forbidden Section was smaller than he'd imagined. Three walls of shelves, floor to ceiling, filled with leather-bound volumes that radiated age and power. Some of the spines were marked in languages he shouldn't be able to read but now could—downloading had included linguistic protocols for examining applications from every era.
In the center of the room sat a single desk.
And on that desk: a journal.
Alexander's breath caught. The leather was worn but well-maintained, embossed with his family crest. He opened it with trembling fingers.
The first page bore his father's handwriting:
"To my son—
If you're reading this, you have finally awakened. A Guardian Queen has filed. You have seventy-two hours from her filing to complete your examination review and appear before her.
This deadline is absolute. Every Guardian Queen who has filed without proper attorney examination has died on the third day. The magic consumes what it cannot process.
Your review is not optional. Your official appearance is not ceremonial. You are the only one who can save her.
The council will try to stop you. They have spent decades suppressing Guardian Queen filings, preventing attorney activation, maintaining control through ignorance.
Do not let them.
Use this journal. Document everything. Your work product is privileged—they cannot access it without violating sacred law.
Save her, Alexander. Save them both.
—Your father"
Alexander's hands shook. His father had known. Known the council would try to keep him sedated. Known a Guardian Queen would eventually file. Left him this—evidence, instruction, warning.
He turned to the first blank page, picked up the pen resting beside the journal, and began to write.
CLIENT APPLICATION: Guardian Queen Examination Authority
Filing Date: [Yesterday - barrier crossing]
Application Type: Continuation-in-Part (35 U.S.C. § 120)
Applicant: [Name unknown - privilege protects identity until formal meeting]
THRESHOLD QUESTION: 35 U.S.C. § 101 - Is this patentable subject matter?
Alexander's pen moved across the page with certainty he shouldn't have. But the download was complete. Every statute. Every regulation. A thousand years of Royal Wolf attorney precedent flowing through his hand.
The America Invents Act (AIA) enacted in 2011 brought about significant changes to U.S. patent law, particularly regarding first-to-file system. However, § 101 remains foundational:
"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent..."
He underlined process three times.
CLIENT'S CLAIMED INVENTION: A process for examining patent applications through Guardian Queen authority. The method includes:
1. Applicant filing continuation application at jurisdictional barrier
2. Examiner (Guardian Queen) reviewing claims for novelty, non-obviousness, utility
3. Prior art search conducted via examination protocols predating human USPTO
4. Notice of Allowance or Rejection issued based on examination findings
ANALYSIS - Does this fall within statutory categories?
Process? YES. Series of steps. Guardian Queen examination follows prescribed methodology. Meets process definition under § 101.
Machine? ARGUABLE. Guardian Queen functions as examination apparatus. But primarily process-based.
Manufacture? NO. Not producing article.
Composition of matter? NO. Not chemical compound.
Alexander paused, pen hovering. The next part was critical.
JUDICIAL EXCEPTIONS - Is this an abstract idea?
Patent law excluded three categories from protection:
• Laws of nature (E=mc²)
• Natural phenomena (newly discovered plant)
• Abstract ideas (mathematical algorithms)
Examination itself could be considered abstract. But Guardian Queen examination included physical steps—barrier crossing, claim announcement, prior art manifestation. Tangible elements integrated into process.
CONCLUSION: Application survives § 101 threshold. Patentable subject matter. Process with sufficient tangible steps to avoid abstract idea rejection.
Alexander leaned back, pen still in hand, and stared at what he'd written.
To him, the text was clear. Perfect. Legal analysis structured exactly as his father's precedent demanded—threshold questions, statutory categories, judicial exceptions, conclusion.
But the page itself...
The ink shimmered. Shifted. What he'd written appeared to rearrange itself into patterns that looked almost like—
"Binary code."
Alexander's head snapped up.
A man stood in the archway of the Forbidden Section. Ancient. That was the only word for him—not old, but ancient, like he'd been carved from stone that predated the palace itself. His eyes were dark as pitch, knowing, and fixed on Alexander's journal with an expression that might have been satisfaction.
"Lord Erikson." Alexander rose instinctively, though something in him bristled at the interruption. "I wasn't aware anyone else had access to this section."
"I've had access since before your grandfather was born." Erikson moved closer, slow and deliberate, like he had all the time in the world and knew Alexander didn't. He gestured to the journal. "May I?"
Alexander's hand tightened on the leather cover. "Attorney work product. Privileged."
"I'm not asking to read it." Erikson's smile was sharp. "Just to confirm what I already know."
He leaned over the desk, studied the pages Alexander had filled, and his smile widened into something that looked almost like pride.
"Ah. I see you have finally woken up."
Alexander's wolf stirred, hackles rising. "What do you mean?"
"The binary." Erikson straightened, meeting Alexander's eyes with the weight of centuries behind his gaze. "Your work product encodes itself. Protects itself. To anyone without proper authorization, what you've written will appear as machine code—unreadable, inaccessible. Attorney-client privilege made manifest."
Alexander looked down at the page. The text shimmered again, and for just a moment he could see what Erikson saw—strings of ones and zeros, digital encryption, impenetrable.
Then it resolved back into readable legal analysis.
"The download included security protocols," Alexander said slowly. "Automatic privilege protection."
"Your father's work." Erikson moved to one of the shelves, pulled free a volume so old the leather cracked when he opened it. "He spent decades developing the encoding system. Knew the council would try to access Royal Wolf attorney work product. This ensures they can't."
"Why are you here?" Alexander asked.
Erikson closed the book with a soft thump. "To remind you of something your father's letter didn't make clear enough." His expression turned grave. "You have seventy-two hours from her filing to complete your examination review and appear before her officially. That deadline is not negotiable. It's not tradition. It's survival."
"She dies." Alexander's voice was flat. Not a question.
"Every Guardian Queen who has filed without proper attorney examination has died on the third day," Erikson confirmed. "The magic she's trying to patent—the examination authority itself—it's too powerful for a human body to contain without proper legal processing. Your review isn't optional, Your Highness. Your official appearance before her is critical to her survival."
The bond flared at the back of Alexander's mind—she was awake now, confused, going about her human life with no idea she had less than three days to live.
"She doesn't even know," Alexander said. "Doesn't remember filing. Doesn't know she has an attorney."
"No." Erikson's voice softened, just slightly. "The barrier wipes human memory as a protection mechanism. She won't remember until you appear before her officially and break the seal."
"And if I don't finish the review in time?"
"Then the magic consumes what it cannot process." Erikson met his eyes. "And you lose your mate before you ever get to meet her."
Alexander's hands clenched on the desk. "Client."
"Call it whatever helps you work faster." Erikson moved toward the archway, paused. "The council doesn't know about the seventy-two-hour deadline. They think they have time to manage you, reinstall their controls, prevent the examination from completing. Don't let them slow you down."
"Why are you helping me?"
Erikson glanced back, something ancient and tired in his expression. "Because I watched your father die trying to expose what the council had done to Guardian Queen filings. Because I've seen too many queens die waiting for attorneys the council kept sedated. And because..." He smiled, brief and sharp. "I've been waiting a very long time to see a Royal Wolf attorney actually practice law again."
He left without another word.
Alexander stared at the empty archway for a long moment. Then he looked down at his journal, at the legal analysis that would appear as binary code to anyone without authorization, and turned to the next section.
Seventy-two hours. He'd already used several. No time to waste.
Having established that the client's invention falls within statutory categories under § 101, Alexander moved to the next critical question: Does this invention constitute a judicial exception?
THE THREE JUDICIAL EXCEPTIONS:
1. LAWS OF NATURE - Naturally occurring principles or relationships. Cannot patent gravity, E=mc², or fundamental scientific truths. These exist independent of human invention.
2. NATURAL PHENOMENA - Products of nature. Newly discovered minerals, plants, animals in their natural state. Discovery ≠ Invention. Must show human intervention transforming natural product.
3. ABSTRACT IDEAS - Mental processes, mathematical algorithms, fundamental economic practices. Cannot patent basic human thought or calculation divorced from tangible application.
APPLICATION TO CLIENT'S CLAIMS:
Guardian Queen examination authority—is this abstract?
Alexander's pen moved faster now, certainty building as the downloaded precedent flowed through his analysis.
Abstract Idea Analysis: Examination of patent applications could be characterized as mental process—reviewing claims, comparing to prior art, making determination of patentability. Prima facie abstract.
BUT—Client's invention includes significant tangible elements:
• Physical barrier crossing (jurisdictional boundary manifestation)
• Barrier recognition protocols (authentication mechanism)
• Prior art manifestation (physical search results)
• Attorney download (knowledge transfer via physical touch)
• Notice generation (formal written determination)
SIGNIFICANTLY MORE ANALYSIS:
Client's process doesn't merely describe examination in abstract. Process integrates examination with physical barrier system, attorney activation protocols, and jurisdictional enforcement mechanisms that transform abstract concept into patent-eligible application.
Compare: Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2016) - Self-referential database held patent-eligible because improvements to computer functionality were not merely abstract data manipulation but tangible technical advancement.
Client's Guardian Queen system represents tangible advancement in examination methodology—not just "examination" in abstract, but specific technological/magical implementation with measurable improvements over prior art examination systems.
CONCLUSION: While examination contains abstract elements, integration with tangible barrier protocols and physical manifestation steps provides "significantly more" under Alice/Mayo framework. Survives judicial exception analysis.
Alexander paused, reached for water he'd brought from breakfast. The bond pulled at him—she was moving through her day, unaware. He pushed the sensation aside and continued.
PRACTICAL UTILITY STANDARD:
Patent law requires invention be "useful." But utility has specific meaning—not merely operational, but providing specific, substantial, and credible utility.
THREE-PART UTILITY TEST:
1. SPECIFIC UTILITY - Invention must provide particular, defined benefit. Cannot be vague or generalized. "Useful for something" insufficient. Must identify what it's useful for.
2. SUBSTANTIAL UTILITY - Benefit must be significant, not trivial. Real-world application that provides tangible advantage. Cannot patent invention whose only utility is research toward finding utility.
3. CREDIBLE UTILITY - Assertion of utility must be believable to person skilled in art. Cannot claim perpetual motion machine or other physically impossible results without extraordinary proof.
CLIENT'S CLAIMED UTILITY:
Guardian Queen examination process provides:
Specific: Examination of patent applications to determine whether claims meet novelty, non-obviousness, and utility requirements. Provides Notice of Allowance or Rejection based on prior art search and legal analysis. Highly specific function.
Substantial: Enables patent protection for inventions that would otherwise remain unexamined under modern USPTO protocols. Provides access to ancient examination standards predating human patent systems. Substantial benefit to applicants seeking protection under Old Law.
Credible: System has operated for thousands of years. Multiple documented examinations. Physical barrier exists and can be tested. Attorney activation and download are observable, reproducible phenomena. Credibility established through historical record and current manifestation.
OPERABILITY REQUIREMENT:
Invention must actually work. Client filed yesterday. Barrier recognized her. Attorney downloaded her application. System is currently operational. Operability proven by successful filing and ongoing examination.
CONCLUSION: Client's invention meets all three prongs of utility requirement. Specific, substantial, credible utility established. Operability demonstrated through successful filing. § 101 utility satisfied.
This section felt almost prophetic. Alexander's hand moved across the page as if his father were guiding him—documenting not just what the law required, but how to defend it when challenged.
IF EXAMINER ISSUES UTILITY REJECTION:
USPTO may reject claims for lack of utility under § 101. Burden initially on examiner to establish prima facie case that utility lacking. But once examiner meets burden, applicant must respond with evidence.
THREE METHODS TO OVERCOME UTILITY REJECTION:
1. EXPERIMENTAL DATA - Provide test results, measurements, documentation showing invention works as claimed. Scientific evidence demonstrating specific, substantial, credible utility. Most persuasive approach.
2. DECLARATIONS/AFFIDAVITS - 37 CFR § 1.132 allows applicant to submit sworn statements from experts establishing utility. Declaration from person skilled in art explaining why invention provides claimed benefit. Must be specific, detailed, credible.
3. ARGUMENTS - Attorney can argue examiner's rejection lacks scientific basis, relies on incorrect assumptions, or mischaracterizes claimed invention. Show examiner failed to meet burden of establishing prima facie case. Point to evidence already in record demonstrating utility.
FOR CLIENT'S APPLICATION:
If utility challenged, response would include:
Experimental Data: Client's successful barrier crossing yesterday. Attorney activation and download. Physical manifestation of prior art. Observable, measurable, reproducible phenomena demonstrating system operability.
Declarations: Attorney's own sworn statement regarding download experience, knowledge transfer, and current examination proceedings. Declaration from Malachar (barrier guardian) confirming client's filing and authentication. Historical records from previous Guardian Queen examinations.
Arguments: Thousand years of documented examination history establishes credible utility. System currently operational—client is undergoing examination right now. Rejection would require examiner to ignore physical evidence and established precedent.
CONCLUSION: Multiple avenues available to overcome utility rejection if raised. Strong evidentiary record supports claimed utility. Likelihood of successful utility challenge: low.
Alexander's hand cramped. He'd been writing for hours. The library had grown darker—afternoon fading toward evening. How much time had passed?
He reached for the bond. She was... tired. Confused. Something felt wrong to her but she couldn't identify what.
Because you're dying, his wolf supplied grimly. Keep working.
Three more sections. Then the barrier. Then her.
He turned the page.
THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT (AIA) - PARADIGM SHIFT
In 2011, the United States overhauled its patent system with the America Invents Act. Most significant change: abandonment of "first-to-invent" system in favor of "first-inventor-to-file."
NOVELTY REQUIREMENT:
35 U.S.C. § 102 establishes that invention must be new. If claimed invention exists in prior art, cannot patent it. Simple concept, complex application.
WHAT QUALIFIES AS PRIOR ART UNDER AIA:
§ 102(a)(1) - Patent, printed publication, public use, on sale, or otherwise available to public anywhere in the world before effective filing date.
§ 102(a)(2) - Application filed by another and eventually published/patented, if that application's effective filing date was before applicant's filing date.
Key phrase: "anywhere in the world." Pre-AIA limited some prior art to United States. Post-AIA: global prior art applies. Publication in any country, in any language, defeats novelty.
APPLICATION TO CLIENT'S CLAIMS:
Guardian Queen examination system—has this been disclosed in prior art?
Alexander's downloaded knowledge included centuries of Guardian Queen filings. But published prior art? That was different question.
PRIOR ART SEARCH RESULTS:
• No USPTO patents disclosing Guardian Queen examination process
• No printed publications in human patent literature describing system
• Mythological texts reference examination barriers but lack enabling disclosure
• Ancient texts known only to magical beings, not "available to public"
• Client's filing may be first public disclosure of complete system
CRITICAL DISTINCTION:
System has existed for thousands of years. But existence ≠ public disclosure. Prior art must be accessible to public. Secret processes, restricted texts, magical knowledge available only to initiated—these do not constitute prior art under § 102.
Compare: Metallizing Engineering Co. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co. (2d Cir. 1946) - Secret commercial use does not constitute prior art. Invention must be publicly accessible to defeat novelty.
CONCLUSION: Despite ancient origins, Guardian Queen examination system lacks publicly accessible prior art disclosure. Client's application may constitute first enabling disclosure. Novelty requirement under § 102(a)(1) satisfied.
Two more sections.
Alexander could feel exhaustion creeping in—not physical, but mental. The downloaded knowledge was vast, but organizing it, analyzing it, applying it to her specific claims required focus he'd never sustained this long.
The bond pulsed. She was feeling worse. Headache building. Body aching.
Forty-eight hours since filing, his wolf calculated. Twenty-four left. Work faster.
ANTICIPATION - ULTIMATE NOVELTY CHALLENGE:
If single prior art reference discloses every element of claimed invention, claim is "anticipated" under § 102. Complete bar to patentability. One reference containing everything = death to patent application.
ELEMENTS REQUIRED FOR ANTICIPATION:
1. SINGLE REFERENCE - Cannot combine multiple references to show anticipation. That's obviousness (§ 103), different analysis. Anticipation requires one reference containing everything.
2. EVERY CLAIM ELEMENT - Prior art must disclose each and every limitation recited in claim. Even if 99% disclosed, missing 1% defeats anticipation.
3. ARRANGED AS CLAIMED - Elements must be related to each other in same way as claim recites. Cannot pick elements from different parts of reference and rearrange them.
4. ENABLING DISCLOSURE - Reference must enable person skilled in art to make/use invention without undue experimentation. Mere mention insufficient. Must provide enough detail for reproduction.
ANALYSIS OF CLIENT'S CLAIMS:
Does any single reference anticipate Guardian Queen examination process?
Alexander reviewed every text in the downloaded knowledge base. Hundreds of references. Thousands of years of magical patent law. Looking for the one that would destroy her application before it began.
He found nothing.
Closest prior art: Ancient Greek text describing barrier examination for "Queens of Patent Authority." But critical differences:
• Greek system required applicant to remain at barrier for full examination (client's system allows return to human world)
• Greek system had no attorney download mechanism (client's includes knowledge transfer)
• Greek system examination took years (client's operates on compressed timeline)
• Greek text lacks enabling disclosure—describes results, not methodology
Similar? Yes. Identical? No.
Anticipation requires identity. Close is not enough.
ADDITIONAL PRIOR ART REVIEWED:
• Norse texts - Describe examination by Valkyrie judges, but completely different procedural mechanism
• Celtic records - Reference "Queen's Law" but focus on trademark, not patent examination
• Puebloan petroglyphs - Show barrier symbols but lack written description enabling reproduction
• Egyptian papyrus - Mentions examination authority but describes religious, not legal process
None contain every element arranged as client claimed.
CONCLUSION: No single reference anticipates client's claimed invention. While similar systems exist in historical record, none disclose identical process with enabling detail. Client's combination of elements and specific methodology represent novel advancement over prior art. § 102 anticipation challenge: defeated.
Alexander set down his pen and stared at the completed analysis.
Six sections. Complete examination review. Every statutory requirement analyzed. Every potential rejection addressed. The work product that would save her life—if he could deliver it in time.
He checked the bond. She was lying down now. Too weak to continue her day. Her human mind couldn't understand why she felt like she was dying.
Because she was.
Alexander stood, journal clutched in his hand. Outside the Forbidden Section, evening had fallen. He'd worked through the entire day. How many hours left?
Not enough to hesitate.
He left the library at a run.
The palace corridors blurred past him. Alexander didn't stop to explain, didn't acknowledge the servants who pressed themselves against walls as their prince sprinted by. The journal burned in his hand—six sections of complete examination review, encoded in binary for anyone without authorization, readable only to him and the barrier system itself.
And her. When she woke. When he saved her.
If he saved her.
The bond was weak now. Flickering. She'd stopped moving. Lying in her bed in the human world, body shutting down as the magic consumed what it couldn't process.
Alexander burst through the palace gates. The barrier shimmered at the edge of the royal grounds—jurisdictional boundary between magical and human worlds, between Old Law and modern patent systems.
Between him and his dying client.
The barrier recognized him before he reached it. Magic rippled across its surface, ancient runes glowing as Royal Wolf attorney approached with completed work product.
Malachar materialized from the barrier itself.
He was massive—eight feet tall, built like a mountain given form and purpose. His eyes were solid black, ancient as the examination system itself. Barrier guardian. Gatekeeper. The entity that had accepted her filing forty-eight hours ago and downloaded her application into Alexander's consciousness.
"Attorney." Malachar's voice resonated like stone grinding on stone. "You come with response to Office Action?"
"I come with complete examination review." Alexander held up the journal. "Six sections. Every statutory requirement analyzed. Patentable subject matter under § 101—established. Novelty under § 102—established. She survives all challenges. The application is allowable."
Malachar's black eyes fixed on the journal. "May I examine?"
"It's privileged work product." Alexander's grip tightened. "But the barrier has authorization to verify completion."
He held out the journal.
Malachar touched it—one massive finger against leather—and the pages flipped open on their own. Binary code shimmered across every surface. To anyone without proper authorization, Alexander's analysis would appear as incomprehensible streams of ones and zeros.
But Malachar could read the encoding beneath. Ancient magic recognizing Royal Wolf attorney work product, verifying completion, confirming every statutory requirement had been addressed.
The barrier guardian's expression didn't change, but something in the air shifted. Approval. Acceptance.
"Response timely filed," Malachar intoned. "Examination review complete within seventy-two-hour deadline. Work product verified. Applicant status: CRITICAL. Attorney appearance required immediately."
"Where is she?" Alexander demanded.
"Examination chamber. Human world. Held in stasis pending attorney verification." Malachar gestured, and the barrier rippled. "You have authorization to cross. Retrieve your client. Complete the examination."
"She's dying."
"She is holding," Malachar corrected. "Barely. The chamber preserves what remains. But without attorney appearance to finalize examination..." He didn't need to finish the sentence.
Without Alexander crossing over and completing the process, the magic would consume her anyway.
"Let me through."
The barrier opened.
Alexander stepped through the shimmering wall between worlds and felt reality twist around him. Magic to mundane. Old Law to modern systems. The transition was jarring—his wolf recoiled from the sudden absence of magic, the flatness of human existence.
But the bond pulled him forward.
There.
The examination chamber manifested as a space between spaces—not quite in her world, not quite in his, but suspended in the jurisdictional boundary where Old Law and modern patent systems overlapped.
She lay in the center.
Alexander's breath stopped.
She was small. That was his first thought. Human-sized, human-fragile, wrapped in magic that was slowly killing her. Her skin was too pale, lips tinged blue, breathing shallow. The Guardian Queen power she'd tried to patent was eating her alive from the inside.
But she was beautiful.
Dark hair spread across the chamber floor. Features he'd seen only in downloaded knowledge now real before him. His mate. His client. The person he'd spent forty-eight hours trying to save.
"I'm here." Alexander dropped to his knees beside her, journal still clutched in one hand. "I'm your attorney. The examination is complete. You're allowed."
Her eyes fluttered open—barely. Brown. Human. Confused.
"Who...?"
"Your attorney," he repeated. "You filed forty-eight hours ago. Guardian Queen examination. I've completed the review. The application is allowable. You just need to wake up."
He touched her hand—client contact, attorney-client privilege solidifying—and the bond roared to life.
She gasped. Color flooded back into her cheeks. The magic that had been consuming her suddenly had somewhere to go—into the bond, into him, processed through Royal Wolf attorney protocols that transformed lethal power into protected intellectual property.
Her application. Her patent. Her survival.
All contingent on him getting her home.
"Where do you live?" Alexander asked.
She stared at him with dawning awareness. "You're... real."
"Where do you live?" he repeated, more gently.
She gave him an address. Flagstaff. Twenty minutes from the barrier if he drove fast.
Alexander pulled her into his arms—careful, gentle, protective—and stood. She weighed almost nothing. Too light. Days without eating, magic consuming her resources, body shutting down system by system.
But she was alive. Breathing. Aware.
He carried her through the chamber, through the barrier, into the human world that felt wrong and flat and utterly mundane. Found her car in the parking lot where she'd left it Saturday morning before hiking to Walnut Canyon.
Drove faster than he should have through Flagstaff streets, following bond-memory of where she lived.
She drifted in and out of consciousness. Every time she woke, her eyes found him—confused, uncertain, but safe. Trusting.
"Attorney-client privilege," she mumbled at one point.
Alexander almost smiled. "Yes. Privilege."
"Can't tell anyone..."
"Can't tell anyone," he confirmed. "Your work product is protected. Your identity is protected. Everything between us is privileged."
She relaxed.
Her apartment was small. Second floor. He carried her up the stairs, used her keys to unlock the door, found her bedroom by following the bond-sense of where she felt safest.
Her bed was unmade. Sheets tangled. She'd left Saturday morning for her hike and never came back to sleep in it.
Alexander laid her down carefully, pulled the blankets over her. She was already asleep—real sleep now, not magical stasis. Her body finally able to rest without fighting the examination magic.
He should leave. She was safe. The timely response had been filed. The examination was complete pending her formal acceptance of the Notice of Allowance.
But his wolf refused to move.
Client, he reminded himself. She's a client. This is professional duty.
Alexander sank into the chair beside her bed, journal still in his hand, and watched her breathe.
She lived.
For now, that was enough.
— END CHAPTER FIVE —
Next: Chapter Six - The Awakening
Referenced Statutes - For Patent Bar Study
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
(a) Novelty; Prior Art.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
An application for patent for an invention disclosed in an application previously filed in the United States shall have the same effect as though filed on the date of the prior application, if filed before the patenting or abandonment of the first application and if it contains a specific reference to the earlier filed application.
(a) GENERAL RULE.—A practitioner shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, or paragraph (b) of this section permits such disclosure.
(b) PERMITTED DISCLOSURE.—A practitioner may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the practitioner reasonably believes necessary:
(1) To prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm;
(2) To prevent the client from committing a crime or fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another;
(4) To secure legal advice about the practitioner's compliance with USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct;
(6) To comply with other law or a court order.
NOTE ON WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE: While § 11.106 addresses confidentiality of client information, the attorney work product doctrine is a separate protection arising from federal common law (Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947)). Work product protects materials prepared by counsel in anticipation of litigation or prosecution. The Federal Circuit recognizes patent agent privilege in appropriate circumstances (In re Queen's University at Kingston, 820 F.3d 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Three requirements in § 112(a):
1. Written Description: Must describe what you invented with enough detail that skilled artisan can recognize you possessed the invention at filing date. Ariad Pharm. v. Eli Lilly (Fed. Cir. 2010 en banc): Spec must demonstrate possession of claimed invention.
2. Enablement: Must teach how to make and use invention without undue experimentation. Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (U.S. 2023): Must enable full scope of claims, especially for functional genus claims. See In re Wands (Fed. Cir. 1988) eight-factor test (detailed in Chapter 8).
3. Best Mode: Must disclose the best way of carrying out invention known to inventor at filing (not examined post-AIA).
(a) GENERAL.—The reply by an applicant or patent owner to a non-final Office action under § 1.104 must be made within the time period provided in § 1.134 for reply. The reply must distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner's action. The applicant or patent owner must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the Office action (except that a reply to an information requirement under § 1.105 may be deferred until an indication by the Office of its relevance to a pending rejection).
(b) ARGUMENTS.—Any arguments or authorities must be set forth under a separate heading. The arguments must be responsive to every ground of rejection and must state why the examiner erred.
(c) AMENDMENTS.—Any amendments to the specification, claims, or drawings must be made in accordance with § 1.121.
Note: Attorney in Chapter 5 completed comprehensive examination review addressing all statutory requirements—this is the timely response required by § 1.111.
When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected, the applicant or patent owner may submit an appropriate affidavit or declaration to traverse the grounds of rejection.
COMMON USES:
• Utility rejections: Declaration from inventor or expert establishing specific, substantial, credible utility
• Enablement rejections: Affidavit showing skilled artisan could make/use invention without undue experimentation
• Unexpected results: Declaration providing experimental data showing invention achieves surprising advantages over prior art
• Operability: Declaration demonstrating invention actually works as claimed
Declaration must be specific, factual, and credible. General conclusory statements insufficient. Must provide technical detail supporting patentability arguments.
Supreme Court & Federal Circuit Decisions Interpreting Patent Statutes
ISSUE: Whether patent claims directed to computer-implemented method for mitigating settlement risk constitute patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
HOLDING: Claims directed to abstract idea of intermediated settlement are not patent-eligible merely because implemented on generic computer. Abstract ideas remain unpatentable even when applied using conventional technology.
TWO-STEP TEST (Alice/Mayo Framework):
Step 1: Does claim recite judicial exception (law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea)?
Step 2: If yes, does claim include additional elements that amount to "significantly more" than the exception itself?
"Significantly more" requires integration of abstract idea with inventive concept that transforms nature of claim. Mere recitation of generic computer implementation insufficient.
Application in Chapter 5: Alexander analyzes whether Guardian Queen examination constitutes abstract idea. Survives Alice because integrated with tangible barrier protocols, physical manifestation, and jurisdictional enforcement mechanisms—providing "significantly more" than mere examination concept.
ISSUE: Whether patent claims directing physicians to measure metabolite levels and adjust drug dosage accordingly constitute patent-eligible process under § 101.
HOLDING: Claims directed to natural correlation between metabolite levels and optimal drug dosage constitute unpatentable law of nature. Adding conventional steps of "administering, determining, and adjusting" insufficient to transform law of nature into patent-eligible application.
KEY PRINCIPLE: Cannot patent natural phenomenon by simply adding instruction to "apply it." Must demonstrate inventive concept beyond recognition of naturally occurring relationship.
Claims must do more than recite law of nature and instruct skilled artisan to "use it." Integration with specific technological application required.
ISSUE: Whether patent claims directed to self-referential database structure constitute patent-eligible subject matter or abstract idea.
HOLDING: Claims directed to specific improvement in computer functionality are not abstract. Self-referential table design providing faster search, smaller memory footprint, and more flexible data structure constitutes patent-eligible technological advancement.
DISTINCTION FROM ALICE: Claims focused on improving computer technology itself (not just using computer as tool to perform abstract process). Improvements to computer functionality can survive § 101 even when implemented in software.
This case provides path through Alice/Mayo framework: show claimed invention improves underlying technology rather than merely applying conventional technology to abstract idea.
ISSUE: Whether chemical process patent meets utility requirement when applicant shows only that process produces compound, without demonstrating use for that compound.
HOLDING: Patent applicant must demonstrate specific and substantial utility—not merely that invention is capable of use, but that it provides concrete benefit sufficient to justify patent grant. Process producing compound with no known use lacks utility under § 101.
PRACTICAL UTILITY STANDARD: "Unless and until a process is refined and developed to this point—where specific benefit exists in currently available form—there is insufficient justification for permitting an applicant to engross what may prove to be broad sweep of patent protection."
Utility must be specific (identified particular use), substantial (real-world significant benefit), and credible (believable to skilled artisan).
ISSUE: What level of evidence required to establish utility for pharmaceutical compounds when examiner challenges credibility of asserted utility.
HOLDING: Examiner bears initial burden of establishing reasonable doubt about utility assertion. Once examiner provides sound scientific reasoning questioning credibility, applicant must respond with evidence (test data, expert declarations, scientific publications) demonstrating utility.
BURDEN SHIFTING:
1. Applicant asserts utility in specification
2. Examiner must provide sound scientific reasoning to question utility
3. If examiner meets burden, applicant must provide factual evidence establishing utility
Examiner cannot rely on speculation or general skepticism. Must show specific technical reasons why asserted utility lacks credibility.
ISSUE: What standard applies for anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must prior art reference identically disclose every claim element?
HOLDING: Anticipation is question of fact requiring strict identity between claim and prior art reference. Every element must be present in single reference, arranged as claimed. Substantial similarity insufficient—anticipation requires identity.
ANTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS:
• Single reference: Cannot combine multiple references (that's obviousness, not anticipation)
• Every element: All claim limitations must be disclosed
• Arranged as claimed: Elements related to each other as claim specifies
• Enabling disclosure: Reference must enable skilled artisan to make/use invention
If even one claim element missing or arranged differently, anticipation fails. Applicant can amend claims to distinguish from prior art.
ISSUE: Whether secret commercial use of invention by the inventor constitutes "public use" that bars patentability under § 102.
HOLDING: (Judge Learned Hand) Secret commercial exploitation BY THE INVENTOR more than one year before filing DOES bar patentability as a forfeiture, even if the use was not publicly accessible. An inventor cannot commercially exploit an invention in secret and then seek patent protection. This is distinct from secret use by third parties, which generally doesn't constitute prior art. Post-AIA note: Courts continue to treat non-public commercial exploitation problematically (see Helsinn v. Teva, 2019 - "on sale" includes non-public sales).
PUBLIC ACCESSIBILITY TEST: Prior art must be accessible to public. Could person interested in subject matter locate reference through reasonable diligence? If restricted to select group or kept secret, not publicly accessible.
POLICY: Patent system encourages disclosure. Secret uses don't provide public benefit that justifies denying patent. But once invention becomes publicly accessible (publication, public demonstration, unrestricted sale), statutory bar may apply.
Application in Chapter 5: Guardian Queen system existed for millennia but remained secret—accessible only to magical beings. Secret existence doesn't constitute publicly accessible prior art. Alexander's analysis correctly distinguishes between existence and public disclosure.
35 U.S.C. § 101 - Patentable subject matter, utility
35 U.S.C. § 102 - Novelty, anticipation, All Elements rule
35 U.S.C. § 112(a) - Written description, enablement, best mode
37 CFR § 1.111 - Reply to Office Action requirements
37 CFR § 1.132 - Affidavits/declarations to overcome rejections
37 CFR § 11.106 - Confidentiality of information
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014) - Abstract idea test (two-step)
Mayo v. Prometheus (2012) - Laws of nature, natural phenomena
Enfish v. Microsoft (2016) - Computer improvements pass Alice
Brenner v. Manson (1966) - Specific/substantial/credible utility
In re Brana (1995) - Burden shifting for utility rejections
In re Bond (1990) - All Elements rule for anticipation
Metallizing Engineering (1946) - Secret commercial use by inventor bars patent
Ariad Pharm. v. Eli Lilly (2010) - Written description possession test
Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (2023) - Enablement of full claim scope
In re Wands (1988) - Eight-factor enablement test
Hickman v. Taylor (1947) - Work product doctrine (federal common law)
In re Queen's University (2016) - Patent agent privilege
END CHAPTER 5 - SURGICAL FIXES APPLIED