1. “Whether the Board’s construction of claim 16 was erroneous, where it contradicts the construction the Board adopted in finding the same claim patentable during prior reexaminations.”
2. “Whether the Board’s obviousness determination was unsupported by substantial evidence.”
3. “Whether the Board’s determination that Ellsberry is prior art is erroneous, where the ’912 patent claims priority to two filings that antedate Ellsberry and provide written-description support for claim 16.”
