1. “Whether by summarily affirming the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (‘USPTO’) under Fed. R. App. P. 36, this Court violated the Supreme Court’s mandate in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244, 2273 (2024) by failing to independently decide whether the USPTO properly applied the law requiring prior art to be enabled for it to anticipate a claim or render a claim obvious under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based on the record evidence below.”
2. “Whether proof that the claimed invention was considered by skilled artisans ‘impossible’ to achieve before the priority date overcomes the presumption of enablement afforded to any prior art and combinations thereof such that the proponent of that prior art must prove that skilled artisans could have actually made the claimed invention using the teachings of one or more of the prior art combinations before the priority date.”
