“In failing to consider the predictability of [the underlying technology], and by allowing the Board to characterize routine steps as a ‘mere wish or plan’ without performing the required Ariad analysis, the Panel opinion creates a fork in written description law that is destabilizing. As illustrated by this Court’s recent decisions in Global IP and Centrek, the written description doctrine is being applied too broadly and without the required attention to the predictability of the technology. This Court should rehear this case en banc to resolve this conflict in the caselaw. “
