1. “Did the Board err by applying the JHU Inventors’ statutorily-required ClinicalTrials.gov posting as prior art where the posting was made as part of a bona fide effort by the inventors to test the hypothesis underlying their invention and to ascertain whether the invention would work as intended, and where there was no dispute as to the application of the experimental use factors?” 2. “Did the Board err in its construction of ‘in response to’ by adopting an analytical framework that does not require finding an express causal relationship between determining a patient’s MSI-H status and treating the patient according to the claimed method?” 3. “Did the Board err in its anticipation analysis by finding missing claim limitations, including regarding efficacy and patient characteristics, anticipated, either by explicit or inherent disclosure in the prior art?” 4. “Did the Board err in its obviousness determination where it relied on inherency to supply missing claim limitations and failed to evaluate the Graham factors?”
