Appellants
1. “Whether the PTAB legally erred by failing to apply an objective standard for conception, and/or impermissibly awarded priority without identifying any inventive contribution by the purported inventor.”
2. “Whether the PTAB’s analysis is arbitrary and capricious.”
3. “Whether the PTAB applied an erroneous legal standard to conclude that CVC’s first and second provisional applications lacked written description.”
Cross-Appellants
1.”Whether substantial evidence supports any of the PTAB’s dispositive fact-findings on conception, including that:
a. “CVC’s inventors and their collaborators, all of at least ordinary skill, engaged in extensive research and experimentation in their failed attempts to implement CVC’s hope for a functional eukaryotic CRISPR- Cas9 system;”
b. “CVC’s course of experimentation after their purported conceptions revealed uncertainty that so undermined the specificity of the inventors’ idea that it was not a definite and permanent reflection of the complete invention; and”
c. “CVC’s inventors lacked a clear plan for addressing the multiple failures encountered during the long course of experimentation.”
2. “Whether the PTAB’s thorough, 180-page analysis satisfies the APA’s reasoned-decision making requirement.”
3. “Whether substantial evidence supports the PTAB’s findings that CVC failed to show that either P1 or P2 adequately support the invention of Count 1.”
Appellant:
1. “We hold that the Board legally erred by conflating the distinct legal standards for conception and reduction to practice.”
2. “The Board’s written description analysis satisfies the APA,” thus the Board’s decision is not arbitrary and capricious.
3. “We see no indication that the Board limited its written description analysis to using expression vectors rather than microinjection, as Regents suggests. In the absence of any such indication, we cannot say that the Board’s determinations are in fact limited to the use of expression vectors.”
Cross Appellant:
We “dismiss Broad’s cross-appeal as moot.”
