What is the legal basis for using admissions as prior art?

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. The use of admissions as prior art in patent law is supported by case law. Two significant cases cited in the MPEP provide the legal basis for this practice: Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co. , 324 F.3d 1346, 1354, 66 USPQ2d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc. , 848 F.2d 1560, 1570, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1063 (Fed. Cir.1988) These cases establish that admissions can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness determinations in patent examination and litigation. For more information on admissions as prior art, refer to MPEP § 2129 . Related Rules from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 10 rules Collapse Admission of Prior Art as Anticipation and Obviousness Determination MPEP 2129 Permitted Admission of Prior Art by Applicant MPEP 2152.03 Admission of Prior Art Must Be Considered for Anticipation and Obviousness MPEP 2129 Admissions Are Considered Prior Art MPEP 2152.03 Admissions by Applicant Are Prior Art MPEP 2152.03 Admitted Prior Art Anticipation Without 35 U.S.C. 102 MPEP 2129 Permitted Inventor’s Own Work Not Prior Art Without Statutory Basis MPEP 2129 Prohibited Inventor's Own Work Not Prior Art MPEP 2129 Recommended Examiner Must Determine Prior Art Ownership MPEP 2129 Required Specification Must Identify Prior Art MPEP 2129 Other Related FAQs 5 FAQs Collapse How do admissions affect anticipation and obviousness determinations? What are admissions in patent law? What is the difference between FITF and pre-AIA applications regarding admissions? How does the USPTO treat admissions under the AIA? What constitutes an admission as prior art in patent law?