<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Thank you George -- this was my growing suspicion and is exactly
what I was looking for (in addition to the separate issue of
verifying actual continuity of disclosure).</p>
<p>I really appreciate the help from all -- it really helps to
reality check so I can look into things deeper and make sure I'm
not too far off on either side (no you can't -- too easy to give
as a cop-out and lose rights, or yes you can and just run up
expense and headache).</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/25/2025 11:16 AM, George Raynal
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:BN6PR1001MB2337222574CB075B3F1FCE42981FA@BN6PR1001MB2337.namprd10.prod.outlook.com">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style>@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:"Palatino Linotype";
panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 5 5 3 3 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Palatino Linotype",serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}</style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Palatino Linotype",serif">FWIW,
I\u2019ve seen the Board reject this line of argument and
distinguish what an application disclosure supports claiming
from what an applicant has a right to claim in a particular
issued patent type, concluding \u201cthe lack of a design claim
in a utility patent does not render that patent inoperative,
and the patentee in this case did not have the right to
claim the ornamental appearance in the utility patent.\u201d<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Palatino Linotype",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Palatino Linotype",serif">Prior
to 2012, MPEP 1457 only had section IV prohibiting
\u201cconversion to utility patent\u201d but 8<sup>th</sup> edition
Rev 9 added section V prohibiting \u201cconversion to design
patent.\u201d<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Palatino Linotype",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
Designs <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:designs-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com"><designs-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com></a>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Timothy Snowden via Designs<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 25, 2025 10:47 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:designs@oppedahl-lists.com">designs@oppedahl-lists.com</a>; Patentpractice
(Oppedahl-Lists)
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com"><patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Timothy Snowden <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tdsnowden@outlook.com"><tdsnowden@outlook.com></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Designs] Continuation Broadening
Reissue confirmation of my understanding<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div style="border:solid #9C6500 1.0pt;padding:2.0pt 2.0pt 2.0pt 2.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:12.0pt;background:#FFEB9C"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#9C6500">CAUTION:</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">
This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
not click links or open attachments unless you recognize
the sender and know the content is safe.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p>Just to add on, here's how I'm thinking through 35 USC 251:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>(a) ... <o:p></o:p></p>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1">
by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he
had a right to claim in the patent, <b><i>- the applicant
had the right to claim design or utility in the
original patent</i></b><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1">
the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and
the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent
for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in
accordance with a new and amended application, <b><i> -
this is the SAME "invention
<u>disclosed </u>in the original patent"</i></b><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1">
for the unexpired part of the term of the original
patent. <b><i>- the design patent would last longer than
the utility patent -- but let's assume a terminal
disclaimer would probably be required to the other
utility patents</i></b><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1">
No new matter shall be introduced into the application for
reissue<b><i> - no new matter is being introduced --
assume that direct quotes are being used from the
utility disclosure incorporated by reference</i></b><o:p></o:p></li>
</ul>
<p>(b) The Director may issue several reissued patents for
distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon
demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required
fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.<b><i> -
wouldn't design and utility be "distinct and separate
parts of the thing patented"? Just like in the original
priority chain where both utility and design were
continuations of an original application.</i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 9/25/2025 9:18 AM, Timothy Snowden
via Designs wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>I've encountered a fairly uncommon scenario and just want
to run this thought process by all of you to double check
myself. I'm cross-posting to designs and patent practice
because it relates to both.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Assume there's a proper continuation chain of
applications (all issued) including utilities and designs.
A design patent is the only patent issued in the last 2
years, and so the only patent eligible for broadening
reissue. Assume for the sake of discussion that subject
matter recapture and original invention are not an issue
here.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b>QUESTION: If I file 2 applications in this order:</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">
a proper broadening reissue application of the design
patent (claiming a patentably distinct design that is
properly supported in the original application), and
then<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">
a <i>continuation</i> broadening reissue (not a
regular/Bauman type) <b><i>utility</i></b> application<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>Would the USPTO reject the <i>continuation
</i>reissue as improperly trying to convert from a
design to a utility? (MPEP 1457) </u></b>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><u>Does anybody have any experience (practical with
the USPTO's response) or thoughts (based on the
statutes)?</u></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Just to be clear: broadening reissue application #1 would
be a design. Application #2 (continuation reissue
application) would be a utility.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Here's where I'm stuck: because it is a continuation <i>reissue
</i>application, does the inability to 'convert' apply? I
can see an argument that it is still a reissue application
of the design patent, so no go. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>However, I can also see that: <o:p></o:p></p>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3">
there was an error in the design - applicant claimed
less design than they should have. <o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3">
There is no new matter because the design patent
incorporated by reference (at least via the priority
chain) the entire specification of the parent utility
applications. <o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3">
Assume there is no extension of time -- the utility
patent 20 year from initial filing term would be less
than the design patent 15 year from issue term.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ul>
<p>Thanks in advance!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>