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

The correct answer pertains to the specific grounds on which claims in an Expanded Inter Partes Review (IPR) can be challenged. In this case, the basis for challenging claims is focused on issues related to novelty and non-obviousness, which fall under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. These sections specifically address the assessment of whether a claimed invention is new and whether it is obvious in light of the prior art, which consists of printed or published patents and other relevant public disclosures.

This focus on printed or published patents aligns with the purpose of an IPR, which is to provide a streamlined process for challenging the patentability of claims based on earlier patents or publications that may demonstrate that the claims are anticipated (under § 102) or obvious (under § 103). It's essential for the integrity of the patent system to ensure that granted patents truly represent novel and non-obvious inventions.

Other options, while relevant to broader discussions about patent validity, do not specifically align with the established legal grounds for challenging claims in an IPR. For example, the accuracy of the inventor's claim pertains to integrity and potential fraud but is not a grounds for challenge in an IPR context. Similarly, previous denials of patent