1. Whether “[b]y requiring any machine learning invention to claim both (1) new applications of machine learning and (2) machine learning models unknown in the prior art, the panel confuses patent eligible subject matter with the distinct requirements of novelty and nonobviousness.”
2. Whether “the panel’s holding that ‘the claims do not delineate steps through which the machine learning technology achieves an improvement’ . . . effectively converts the [35 U.S.C.] § 101 inquiry into an enablement requirement that properly belongs to [35 U.S.C.] § 112.”
