1. “Whether the proper standard of review for determining whether the Board improperly relied on ‘new’ arguments not raised in an [inter partes review] petition is de novo or abuse of discretion.”
2. “Whether under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)—which requires IPR petitions to ‘identif[y] . . . with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim’—the Board may hold a claimed invention obvious based upon a new theory relying on an embodiment of the prior art that was not identified in the IPR petition.”
