Lynk Labs argues that the patent application supplying part of the PTAB’s obviousness determination was improperly treated as a printed publication despite remaining unpublished until after the critical date of Lynk Labs’ challenged patent claims. § 102, including Section 102(e)(1)’s provision that U.S. patent applications are prior art if filed before another’s date of invention, the Federal Circuit found that U.S. patent applications were included within the scope of Section 102(b) prior art printed publications. Lynk Labs’ petition called the CAFC’s interpretive methodology “unprecedented,” leading to a nonsensical Catch-22. The AIA’s inclusion of public sales and uses as invalidating prior art in covered business method (CBM) reviews underscores the significance of Congress’ choice not to expand the scope of IPR prior art to include U.S. patent applications when enacting the AIA. Neither Congressional purpose nor longstanding administrative practice can justify the CAFC’s contorted approach to Section 311(b), Lynk Labs argues.