1. Whether “[u]nder 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), the petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. Does the Board violate this statute by failing to address the sufficiency of petitioner’s evidence before finding a claim obvious?”
2. “Whether a patent owner’s argument, or lack thereof, can shift the burden of proving obviousness from the petitioner to the patent owner?”
3. “Whether the Board violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) by reaching contradictory findings in parallel proceedings regarding whether the same evidence established an obviousness theory for the same claims?”
