“Whether the Board acted contrary to law or arbitrarily and capriciously in denying SIPCO’s motion seeking leave to request a certificate of correction from the Director of the Patent Office, where the Board had no ultimate authority in deciding whether to grant the correction request.”
“Whether the Certificate of Correction that issued after the Board’s decision moots its finding that claims 1-15 of the ’780 patent are rendered obvious by its grandparent—the ’732 patent—where the Board expressly stated that it would “defer” to the Petitions Branch’s decision on the Certificate of Correction.”
“Whether the Board erred in basing its obviousness decision on allegedly uncontested issues that, in fact, were vigorously disputed.”
“Whether the Board erred in holding certain claims of the ’780 patent unpatentable based on new evidence not presented until the Petitioner’s Reply and using the inventor’s recognition of problems in the art as evidence of a motivation to combine.”
