<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>So, starting with Antares -- "the essential inquiry under the
\u2018original patent\u2019 clause of § 251 . . . is whether one skilled in
the art, reading the specification, would identify the subject
matter of the new claims as invented and disclosed by the
patentees.\u201d</p>
<p>I can't find any decisions addressing incorporation by
reference. </p>
<p>Also, if the 'original patent' didn't <i>expressly </i>incorporate
all parents by reference, then Lockwood v American Airlines 1997
(requiring 'continuity of disclosure') could prohibit reaching
back?</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/25/2025 9:57 AM, Rick Neifeld
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CA++DgCa8BRbQ3Uyzkd=1ei896=OOrDBSnBD6cW9ZGVUJmCKw7g@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">- -
<b><i>his is the SAME "invention <u>disclosed </u>in the
original patent"</i></b> - - </div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div>But that is not enough. "the claims must satisfy the
statutory original patent requirement." Antares Pharma, Inc.
v. Medac Pharma Inc. and Medac Gmbh, 2014-1648 (Fed. Cir.
11/17/2014). And I suspect an open legal question is whether
an incorporation by reference could, as a matter of law, be
sufficient to satisfy that requirement.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at
10:48\u202fAM Timothy Snowden via Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Just to add on, here's how I'm thinking through 35 USC
251:</p>
<p>(a) ... </p>
<ul>
<li>by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than
he had a right to claim in the patent, <i><b>- the
applicant had the right to claim design or utility
in the original patent</b></i></li>
<li>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></li>
<li>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></li>
<li>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></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></p>
<div>On 9/25/2025 9:18 AM, Timothy Snowden via Designs
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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.</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.</p>
<p><b>QUESTION: If I file 2 applications in this order:</b></p>
<ol>
<li>a proper broadening reissue application of the
design patent (claiming a patentably distinct design
that is properly supported in the original
application), and then</li>
<li>a <i>continuation</i> broadening reissue (not a
regular/Bauman type) <b><i>utility</i></b> application</li>
</ol>
<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>
<p><b><u>Does anybody have any experience (practical
with the USPTO's response) or thoughts (based on
the statutes)?</u></b></p>
<p>Just to be clear: broadening reissue application #1
would be a design. Application #2 (continuation
reissue application) would be a utility.</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. </p>
<p>However, I can also see that: </p>
<ul>
<li>there was an error in the design - applicant
claimed less design than they should have. </li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>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.</li>
</ul>
<p>Thanks in advance!</p>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
</blockquote>
</div>
-- <br>
Patentpractice mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div><br clear="all">
</div>
<br>
<span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Best regards</div>
<div>Rick Neifeld, J.D., Ph.D. <br>
</div>
<div>Neifeld IP Law PLLC<br>
</div>
<div>9112 Shearman Street, Fairfax VA 22032</div>
<div>Mobile: 7034470727<br>
</div>
<div>Email: <a href="mailto:RichardNeifeld@gmail.com" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">RichardNeifeld@gmail.com</a>; <br>
</div>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>