1. “Whether a process invention is reduced to practice, and thus ‘ready for patenting,’ when all of its elements are ‘successfully performed,’ as this Court has held, or whether it must also be determined to work for a further ‘intended purpose’ that need not appear in the patent, as the Federal Circuit holds.”
2. “Whether, after proof that an invention was on sale or in public use more than one year before the patent application, the patentee bears the burden of proving experimental use by evidence that is ‘full, unequivocal, and convincing,’ as this Court and most regional circuits have held, or whether the patentee bears only a burden of production on experimental use and thus can prevail solely on the patentee’s own post hoc testimony, as the Federal Circuit has held.”
