Doni , Agree with your comment . My best guess the "logical link" will be construed by review board as Broadest reasonable interpretation.

Federal Circuit affirms PTAB in first review of IPR decision

By Michelle Wang (US) and James Crawford (US) on February 16, 2015-Posted in Claim construction, General, Institution decisions

In In re Cuozzo, the Federal Circuit held, in a 2-1 opinion, that decisions of the PTAB to institute an IPR are not appealable and confirmed the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard for claim construction proceedings in IPR. In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, No. 2014-1301 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015).

The Court noted its previous holding (discussed here) that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) precludes interlocutory review of decisions whether to institute IPR. The Court then found that § 314(d) excludes all review of these decisions, including after the Board issues a final decision, as § 314(d) provides that decisions whether to institute IPR are both “nonappealable” and “final.” The Court did not decide the question of whether decisions to institute IPR are reviewable by mandamus after the Board issues a final decision or whether such review is also precluded by § 314(d).

Regarding the appropriate standard for claim construction in IPR proceedings, the Court found Congress impliedly adopted the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard, for when it enacted the AIA, Congress was well aware that the BRI standard was the prevailing standard for PTO proceedings.