Why Mach 10? Would Mach 3 or 4 not be enough? See here and here for the complications which arise at higher speeds.
The linked article is full of misrepresentations - of course will the Busemann biplane create lift at sub-supersonic speed (what is that, anyway? I read it as subsonic speed). Give it a proper subsonic airfoil and it will do so just like any other biplane, and even with the trapezoidal airfoil it will do so, albeit with more drag. It will also create lift and drag if operated at a proper angle of attack below its design speed (maybe that is meant by sub-supersonic speed, but the author never clarifies that).
Busemann biplane as shown in the linked article (source)
Did you note that the shock lines in the graph only occur between the two wings? That means that on the outer surfaces you will only see ambient pressure. The pressures internally cancel each other, and the result is that the Busemann biplane will not create any lift at its supersonic design speed in order to do its magic. As soon as it starts to create lift, it needs to create shock waves on the outside which will invariably be audible. That the researchers at Tohoku claim them to be 85% weaker is easy if they omit to mention to what they compare it.
Now look at the bulky passenger compartment on the top wing. This is clearly not optimised for supersonic travel (please compare it to the fuselages of the Concorde or the Tu-144 to get an idea what works).
No, this article is just utter nonsense.