【筆記】102(a)及102(b)的競合

(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country（沒有“another”，makes no reference to "another" in the context of authorship of a publication）, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.

試想若某發明人在刊物上公開''a"，於日後將其改良而發明“A”再拿“A”來申請專利，在102(a)沒有限定“another”的情況下，"a"的公開會造成"A"的阻卻事由嗎？

參見“In re Davia Harvey Katz”：
It may not be readily apparent from the statutory language that a printed publication cannot stand as a reference under § 102(a) unless it is describing the work of another. A literal reading might appear to make a prior patent or printed publication "prior art" even though the disclosure is that of the applicant's own work. However, such an interpretation of this section of the statute would negate the one year period afforded under § 102(b) n1 during which an inventor is allowed to perfect, develop and apply for a patent on his invention and publish descriptions of it if he wishes.

As stated by this court in In re Facius, 56 CCPA 1348, 1358 , 408 F.2d 1396, 1406, 161 USPQ 294, 302 (1969), "But certainly one's own invention, whatever the form of disclosure to the public, may not be prior art against oneself, absent a statutory bar."

102(a)並沒有特別限定刊物的作者，因此可以解譯成“自己”或“別人”的作品都可作為prior art，但是若解譯成“自己”的也可以作為prior art的話，申請人就無法享受到102(b)的立法意旨。因此"But certainly one's own invention, whatever the form of disclosure to the public, may not be prior art against oneself, absent a statutory bar."。也就是說，發明人自己的作品若是在102(b)所提供之12個月的優惠期內，不應被當作prior art。

=================================
MPEP內的相關資訊
III. “BY OTHERS”
“Others” Means Any Combination of Authors or Inventors Different Than the Inventive Entity

The term “others” in 35 U.S.C. 102(a) refers to any entity which is different from the inventive entity. The entity need only differ by one person to be “by others.”
This holds true for all types of references eligible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) including publications as well as public knowledge and use. Any other interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a) “would negate the one year [grace] period afforded under § 102(b).” In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982).