What can claims in an Expanded Inter Partes Review be challenged based on?

In an Expanded Inter Partes Review (EIPR), the claims can be challenged based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, specifically addressing issues related to novelty and non-obviousness as demonstrated by prior art, which includes printed or published patents. This process allows parties to seek a review of the patentability of one or more claims in a patent and can be initiated based on the argument that the claims in question are not new (under § 102) or would have been obvious (under § 103) at the time of the invention, referencing existing patents and published documents.

The focus on printed or published patents as a basis for challenge emphasizes the importance of prior art in determining the validity of patent claims. Claims can be proved unpatentable if it can be shown that they are anticipated by or obvious in light of this prior art, aligning with the established standards for patentability under U.S. patent law.

This framework is fundamental in the EIPR process, ensuring a thorough examination of claims against existing knowledge and contributing to the integrity of the patent system. As such, the correct choice highlights a key aspect of patent law where prior art plays a pivotal role in challenges regarding claims during an EIP