[Patentpractice] [Designs] Continuation Broadening Reissue confirmation of my understanding

[David Boundy]

>
> Also, if the 'original patent' didn't *expressly *incorporate all parents
> by reference, then Lockwood v American Airlines 1997 (requiring 'continuity
> of disclosure') could prohibit reaching back?
>

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 "*expressly*" -- that
suggests you might be hosed, 37 CFR § 1.57(b) clearly won't work --
"inadvertent."  A priority claim is *not* an incorporation by reference.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250925/204d617f/attachment.html>