1. “Where the Panel is presented with inconsistent claim constructions from the Board and the District Court, is it permissible for the Panel to issue a Rule 36 affirmance without indicating which claim constructions were held correct, thereby making it impossible for Patent Owner and the public to know how the claims were construed, and making it impossible for Patent Owner to seek review of the claim constructions?” 2. “Assuming, arguendo (and with no way of knowing), that the Panel found that the District Court’s constructions of the claim terms were correct (and either rejected the Board’s claim constructions or somehow reconciled the two sets of claim constructions), was it erroneous for the Panel to invalidate claims as anticipated where there was no express or inherent disclosure that the prior art reference contained each of the claim limitations in the invalidated patent claims?”
