For a reexamination request, what constitutes a "substantial new question" of patentability?

A "substantial new question" of patentability in the context of a reexamination request refers to evidence or arguments that present a genuine, non-frivolous challenge to the validity of a patent based on the prior art or other evidence. When option C is selected, it reflects the understanding that for a reexamination to be initiated, there must be some form of new evidence or a reinterpretation of existing evidence that suggests a material divergence from earlier conclusions reached during the original patent examination.

This divergence means that the presented evidence or prior art introduces elements that require reevaluation of the patent's validity. It could be that the prior art is significantly more pertinent than anything previously considered, or it could introduce entirely new aspects of the invention that were not contemplated by the original examiner.

In contrast, the other options do not adequately frame situations that would raise substantial new questions on their own. For example, a new use for an old invention, although potentially significant, may not challenge the patentability of the original claims unless it can be shown that the new use affects patentability criteria such as novelty or non-obviousness. Similarly, a new claim in an existing patent does not automatically lead to a substantial new question without supporting evidence that bolsters