1. “Whether the Court should expand what has been an extremely limited exception to the well-established general rule of claim construction, that indefinite articles ‘a’ or ‘an’ mean ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising’ and that subsequent use of definite articles ‘the’ or ‘said’ to refer back to the same claim term reinvokes the non-singular meaning.”
2. “Whether the panel’s expansion of the exception to the general rule will result in patent claims being unjustifiably narrowed where nothing in the prosecution history, specification, or claim language evinces a clear intent or need to narrow such claims.”
