1. “Did the Board err by disregarding the plain meaning of the claims in light of the claim language and specification that require the claimed ‘time select switch . . . for selectively varying integration periods’ to include the circuitry that performs the function of varying integration periods (which is what makes the switch a ‘time select switch . . . for selectively varying integration periods’)?”
2. “Did the Board err by applying its flawed construction of the ‘time select switch’ term to its obviousness analysis, which resulted the Board rejecting the Asserted Claims based on a reference that does not include a ‘time select switch . . . for selectively varying integration periods’ that also is remote from a first circuit board as required by the Asserted Claims?”
