Can a prior art disclosure be used in an obviousness rejection if it doesn’t meet the anticipation requirements?

Yes, a prior art disclosure can be used in an obviousness rejection even if it doesn’t meet the anticipation requirements. The MPEP clarifies: “The description requirement of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) does not preclude an examiner from applying a disclosure in an obviousness rejection under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 simply because the disclosure is not adequate to anticipate the claimed invention.” This means that a prior art document can still be valuable for establishing obviousness even if it doesn’t fully describe or enable the claimed invention for anticipation purposes.

To learn more:

Topics: MPEP 2100 - Patentability, MPEP 2152.02(B) - Described In A Printed Publication, Patent Law, Patent Procedure
Tags: Aia 35 U.S.C. 102, Aia 35 U.S.C. 103, Anticipation, Obviousness