1. Whether “the panel impermissibly engaged in appellate factfinding to read the primary obviousness reference . . . in such a way as to affirm unpatentability under a new claim construction that the Board had never applied.” 2. Whether “[t]he panel erred not only by engaging in the impermissible factfinding, but also by invoking the ‘harmless error’ doctrine.” 3. Whether “Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. [] undermines the prior holding of this Court that the Director has authority to delegate institution to APJs under 35 U.S.C. § 314.”
