1. Whether the Panel acted contrary to the standard for substantial evidence when it “upheld the Board’s decision that dependent claims 3 and 12 of U.S. Patent No 7,023,034 were obvious with nothing more [than ‘conclusory assertions and unspecific expert testimony’]–not even a scintilla of evidence.” 2. Whether, “[s]ince the Board had fair notice of the issue, and actually addressed the construction of ‘reflecting walls’ in its decision, the panel should have reviewed it on appeal.”
