1. “Whether an incomplete restriction requirement, which omits and excludes large portions of the claimed invention from further examination without any legitimate statutory basis, provides adequate notice enabling an applicant to fully respond on the merits, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 132.” 2. “Whether it is consistent with Section 154(b) and this Court’s decision in Pfizer v. Lee, that a patentee should be denied patent term adjustment for a delay in commencing prosecution entirely caused by two facially incomplete notifications by the PTO to which no substantive response was possible.”
