1. “Whether the Board applied an incorrect claim construction to the product-by-process claims, where the Board implicitly construed the claims as requiring several additional process steps not recited in the claims.”
2. “Whether the Board incorrectly determined that the prior art does not inherently anticipate or render obvious the product-by-process claims where the Board found that the prior art teaches the only two steps recited in the claim as the process for producing the product.”
1. “We do not agree with Restem that the Board’s analysis constituted an implicit construction of the ‘placing’ step beyond its stated construction. Instead, the Board made factual findings that supported its anticipation analysis. The Board’s analysis of differences between Majore’s process and the claimed process provided support for its factual finding that Majore’s process steps do not necessarily produce cells with the claimed cell marker expression profile.”
2. “Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that cells produced by Majore’s process would not necessarily have the claimed cell marker expression profile and thus Majore does not inherently anticipate claim 1 of the ’176 patent. . . . Because Restem did not challenge the Board’s conclusion that claim 9 is not obvious for the same reasons as claim 1, we need not reach the Board’s alternative basis to affirm.”
