Which statement correctly describes the pre-AIA "deadline" for prior art?

The statement that prior art must predate the claimed invention date accurately reflects the principles established by the pre-AIA (American Inventors Act) patent law. Under the pre-AIA provisions, an invention must be novel and non-obvious at the time of filing for a patent. This means that any prior art—whether it be publications, patents, or public disclosures—must have existed before the claimed invention date to be considered relevant and potentially detrimental to patentability.

This requirement ensures the protection of the inventors' rights and maintains the integrity of the patent system by preventing the granting of patents for inventions that are not truly new. If prior art exists that predates the invention date, it can be cited against the patent application, leading to a rejection based on lack of novelty or obviousness.

In contrast, other statements do not accurately capture the nuances of patent law regarding prior art. For instance, stating that prior art must be after the invention date misunderstands the timing relationship needed for prior art to be relevant. Saying that prior art is valid if it exists before the filing date does not fully encapsulate the requirement that it must predate the invention itself, which is a more precise benchmark. Declaring prior art as irrelevant to patent filing misrep