1. “In a design-patent obviousness analysis, is it proper to modify a reference using a utility-patent functional theory to make the reference qualify as a primary reference?”
2. “Is it proper to vacate a fact determination of the PTAB without a determination of whether substantial evidence supported that finding?”
3. “Is it proper to vacate and remand a PTAB determination of nonobviousness of a design patent based on a ruling that a reference should have been a primary reference where the PTAB also held the patent nonobvious based on the independent factual determination that, even using the reference as a primary reference, secondary considerations of copying and substantial commercial success establish nonobviousness over that reference?”
