<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><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></blockquote><div><br></div><div>
When I first read your post, that was my first question. If each
application in the chain uses the words "incorporate by reference," 37
CFR § 1.57(c), then I think you've got a plausible argument, even if the incorporation crosses between utility and design. If any one link
in the chain is broken, you don't. (You emphasize the word "<i>expressly</i>" -- that suggests you might be hosed, 37 CFR § 1.57(b) clearly won't work -- "inadvertent." A priority claim is <i><b>not</b></i> an incorporation by reference.)<div><div><div><b><br></b></div></div></div></div></div></div>