What is the exception to rejections under 102(e), 102(f), and 102(g)?

The correct choice highlights a key concept in patent law regarding the exceptions to anticipatory rejections based on prior art, specifically under the sections 102(e), 102(f), and 102(g). These sections deal with variations of prior art based on who the inventors are and the circumstances of their disclosures or claims.

The exception related to different inventors working for the same company emphasizes that if multiple inventors from the same organization are working on related inventions, their disclosures may not serve as prior art against each other due to common ownership or assignment. As a result, one inventor's work cannot anticipate the other's patentability if they are both part of the same company, allowing for the possibility of distinct, patentable inventions that are not negatively impacted by internal disclosures.

This principle is rooted in the understanding that disclosures between the same inventors or within a common entity do not represent an effective prior art reference to defeat patent claims made by one of the inventors. This encourages collaboration and shared development within companies without the risk of having one’s inventive contributions questioned by their own work.

In contrast, the other options relate to different scenarios. Public disclosures or prior use can indeed invalidate a patent claim, and abandonment of an application also poses unique implications not fitting within