1. Whether the panel overlooked the point of law that, “[b]ecause like cases must be decided alike, where the Board reaches ‘opposite holdings,’ the Board ‘must at least provide some reasoned basis’ for its change in position. Vicor Corp. v. SynQor, Inc., 869 F.3d 1309, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2017).”
2. Whether the panel overlooked the point of law that “[t]he ‘prior art as a whole must be considered,’ and patent challengers may not ‘pick and choose’ the portions of the prior art that ‘will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation’ of how a skilled artisan would understand the art as a whole. In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986).”
