What is the difference between “described in a printed publication” under AIA and pre-AIA law?

The interpretation of “described in a printed publication” remains largely the same under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as it was under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102. The key requirements for anticipation by a printed publication are:

• The reference must disclose all elements of the claimed invention
• The elements must be arranged as in the claim
• The disclosure must enable a person of ordinary skill to make the invention without undue experimentation

The MPEP states:

“The Office does not view the AIA as changing the extent to which a claimed invention must be described for a prior art document to anticipate the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102.”

However, there are some important distinctions:

• Under AIA, there is no geographic limitation on where the publication occurs
• The AIA eliminated the “by others” requirement, so an inventor’s own publications can be prior art
• The AIA introduced exceptions under 102(b) for certain disclosures made 1 year or less before the effective filing date

Understanding these nuances is crucial for both patent applicants and examiners when considering printed publications as prior art.

To learn more:

• AIA
• prior art
• printed publication
• 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)