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, 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.