1. “[W]hen 35 U.S.C. § 103 dictates that obviousness assess whether ‘the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious,’ whether it was appropriate for the panel to ‘reverse the Board’s determination as to the obviousness of the limitation “software . . . to transmit the map with plotted locations to the first individual.”’” 2. “[I]n considering a design choice, whether it was appropriate for the panel to make a finding of fact that there were ‘only two possible methods’ when Uber’s expert stated ‘there are several design choices’ and Uber’s counsel stated ‘so there’s several ways,’ and which was contradicted by the Board’s finding that Uber’s design choice argument ‘represents impermissible hindsight’ and ‘represent[s] a proposed wholesale modification to’ the prior art.”
