MK1023: Perhaps there is on-point case law of which I am (embarrassingly) not aware or have forgotten. I agree 102(e) and 102(b) are out. But I see nothing on the face of 102(a) that precludes an inventor’s (or inventive entity’s) own prior published and not formally related application as being prior art against the later application for 103. IMO the “by another" language in 102(e) evinces an intent that an inventor’s own prior published application should be available as PA. “Swearing behind”, if possible, appears to me to be the answer.
Of course, this reasoning produces IMO a facially curious result. If the inventor of NPA1 and PPA2 were NOT the same, but simply under an obligation to assign to the same entity, 103(c) would disqualify NPA1 for 103 rejections. Because PPA2/NPA2 are not “by another”, the "savings clause" of 103(c) is not available. Curious to me. But 103(c) was, if I recall, enacted i.a. to address the “Odds On Products” decision, not implicated here.
Question: Does “by another” in the first clause of 102(a) really slide all the way down to the second clause, i.e., … or patented or described in a printed publication [authored by another])?