1. “Whether a patent claim may be invalidated for indefiniteness only if, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 2 (now subsection 112(b)) as construed by Nautilus, Inc. u. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014), the whole claim, ‘read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail[s] to inform, with reasonable certainty those skilled in the art about the scope of the claim’ and 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (previously 112 para. 6) affects only coverage of a combination claim of which an element is expressed as allowed by the subsection?”
2. “Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit panel in this case erred by invalidating a patent as indefinite without mentioning 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 2 (now subsection 112(b)) and applying the Nautilus test and by substituting, without clear and convincing evidence, its conclusion of a ‘general purpose computer’ for the district court’s finding of no ‘general computer’?”
