Semiotic impacts of the supreme court's Mayo/Biosig/Alice decisions on legally analyzing emerging technology claimed inventions (ET CIs)

Semiotics, as "meaning-making" science, is currently the key issue in any Emerging Technology business, in particular in adjusting Substantive Patent Law ("SPL") precedents about ET CIs such as to meet the needs of the community of ET inventors/R&D/investors/judges/managers/lawyers/licen-sees/licensors/examiners, .... It namely turned out that trying to protect ET CIs by classical SPL precedents - the since long established semantics of which simply is lacking notions capable of consistently cooperating with the new definitorial phenomenology of ET CIs - led to an overall legal development felt by the ET economy to be that unpredictable/inconsistent/unreliable that investing into ET R&D is threatened to lose its business model. Due to the increasing dependency of the society's wealth on the ET economy, the Supreme Court - constitutionally responsible and empowered to stop this disastrous trend - interfered, into the clash existing within the CAFC for many years about ET CIs, by its groundbreaking decision in favor of ET CIs in Mayo, which was preceded by its alike but first only indicative decisions in KSR/Bilski, but then succeeded and explicitly confirmed and elaborated on in its Myriad/Biosig/Alice decisions. In total, it thereby clearly outlined the way how to notionally refine SPL precedents such that the CAFC and District Courts would be enabled to consistently cooperate with this phenomenology of ET CIs in their SPL precedents on them. The Supreme Court thereby required - from these courts and the patent community as a whole - to take SPL precedents on ET CIs to a higher level of development than the current one, which is notionally sufficiently powerful for deciding about CT CIs ("Classical Technology CIs"), but notionally by far too coarse for enabling consistently deciding on ET CIs.