Whether the Federal Circuit erred in substituting its own findings of fact for those of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instead of remanding as required by the Supreme Court's 'ordinary remand rule'

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In the case below, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Final Written Decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board because the Board’s “finding . . . rests on legal errors.” After correcting the legal errors, instead of remanding to the Board as required by this Court’s “ordinary remand rule,” the Federal Circuit re-evaluated what the Board described as “incredible” “compelling” and “strong” secondary considerations evidence, entered its own findings of fact, and reversed the Board on that basis to invalidate the patent, which involved WeatherTech®’s industry revolutionizing vehicle floor tray. The questions presented are: 1. Isit legal error for the Federal Circuit to substitute its own findings of fact for those of an agency and reverse on that basis instead of remanding as required by this Court’s “ordinary remand rule” as set forth in L.N.S. v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 18, 123 S. Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002)? 2. Does the Federal Circuit’s expanding practice of reversing agency decisions in lieu of remand now conflict with the binding precedent of this Court?