the meaning of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution by the reexamination and subsequent cancellation of certain of the claims of its patent. Joy asserts that when its patent issued no mechanism existed by which the PTO could reexamine claims and find them to be unpatentable. Accordingly, under the laws then existing, patent validity was determined by an Article III court where the issue could be submitted to a jury. Joy says that had it known of the reexamination statute it could have refused the patent grant, thereby maintaining the secrecy of its invention. To this point Joy concedes that its position does not differ from that of the pat-entee in Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594, 225 USPQ 243, modified on rehearing, 771 F.2d 480, 226 USPQ 985 (Fed.Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Joy contends that “[t]he Seventh Amendment
holding that the constitutional rights in a termination proceeding  are derived from the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment of the united states constitution and not the sixth amendment holding that entitlement to benefits is a property interest protected by the due process clause of the fifth amendment to the united states constitution holding that directed verdict does not violate seventh amendment holding that even when applied retroactively the reexamination statute does not violate the due process clause of the fifth amendment the jury trial guarantee of the seventh amendment or article iii of the constitution holding that neither the equal protection and due process clauses of the fourteenth amendment nor article i  2 of the constitution guarantee against errors in the administration of an election