1. Whether “the panel’s decision conflicts with binding Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent by failing to properly defer to the PTAB’s factual findings regarding claim construction and the scope of analogous art.”
2. Whether “the panel substituted its own interpretation of the term ‘dictionary routine’ and the scope of ‘normalizing’ without identifying clear error in the Board’s factual determinations.”
3. Whether it a “clear error for the Board to construe a material term that neither party contested in the first place, and to construe it for the first time at oral hearing giving neither party the opportunity to submit evidence either way.”
