1. “Whether the statutory language and legislative history of the patent term adjustment statute, 35 U.S.C. § 154(b), as well as this Court’s precedent, instruct that it should be interpreted consistent with the patent term extension statute, 35 U.S.C. § 156, for purposes of determining the expiration date for an obviousness-type double patenting analysis.” 2. “Whether the Panel’s decision overlooked the policy grounds underlying the judicially created obviousness-type double patenting doctrine in a manner that usurps Congress’ legislative function.”
