I - D\\} Co^^resCT\Mc^c\ vn extern of th Feotval (^(X^s-VeMes of w~Ht
^\o T\^V O'tAe^S Oft cotv^e^Oj?

2. For ^o^oStS of ^6^W a0\\^ lojys \ av\\cVC Of tw. (Xmf-MvAw
\>covic\<^ /\u\toov\lij (Vf "W \'D tkeW^Mc F^otml ^atjipli/aK
^<W\ OKICC. u Vi-U ?TO AW Dio
-fo ^

2. Fof "Wt^ p>U$$rj£'s of TVt fcaxflJl aOi^W C^<4prfrJ
^C aScH^ DtfwatA ' dt\fi>ir+iv/€ or ^on-D'spoiiFi^ ?

^1. U>'NiA v'o'-.'laij*s com 'O
°'f t^ov-evo aits prt'Trfa / -b £jommmI bihconcloc^ of e^ehcc
intend wa//^ ^uppre^cj^o musket A^pl (jbuer i/p cb^vnod fot-b mfo ^ Federal
! '(OLeccUno TV W;F\f OF cvhTcl/) ConSPinf ~fo ^lacJollu Confine
, - I J ^
ImA tv<> ^Vi W\ aoi al pt-to pnjviice ma>.Uiolah'dh i n

Whether the Federal Circuit correctly interpreted the scope of patent-related claims and standards of review for administrative patent determinations