Can previously considered art raise a substantial new question of patentability?

Question

Accepted Answer

Source: FAQ (MPEP-Based) BlueIron Update: 2024-09-30 10 Rules 5 Related FAQs This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice. Yes, previously considered art can raise a substantial new question of patentability under certain circumstances. The MPEP 2216 clarifies: “The substantial new question of patentability may be based on art previously considered by the Office if the reference is presented in a new light or a different way that escaped review during earlier examination.” This provision was introduced by the Patent and Trademark Office Authorization Act of 2002, which allows for a substantial new question to be raised based on “old art” if it is presented in a new context or with a new interpretation. However, simply asking the Office to reconsider old art based on changes in legal standards (such as the KSR decision on obviousness) without presenting the art in a new light is not sufficient to raise a substantial new question of patentability. Related Rules from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 10 rules Collapse Substantial New Question of Patentability Based on Old Art in a New Light MPEP 2216 Permitted Requirement for Substantial New Question of Patentability MPEP 2216 Requirement for Substantial New Question of Patentability in Ex Parte Reexamination Request MPEP 2216 Required Requirement for Substantial New Question of Patentability in Reexamination MPEP 2216 Previously Considered Art Presented Differently Raises Substantial New Question of Patentability MPEP 2216 Permitted Substantial New Question Based on Old Art MPEP 2216 Permitted Substantial New Question of Patentability Can Be Re-Presented MPEP 2242 Permitted Request Must Include Substantial New Question of Patentability MPEP 2216 Substantial New Question Based on Old Art MPEP 2216 Substantial New Question of Patentability Requires Ex Parte R...