Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
MPEP 200 – Types and Status of Application; Benefit and Priority (1)
When a continuation-in-part (CIP) application includes new matter not disclosed in the parent application, the following consequences apply:
- Claims solely directed to subject matter adequately disclosed in the parent application are entitled to the parent application’s filing date.
- Claims that include new matter introduced in the CIP are only entitled to the filing date of the CIP application.
- The new matter may affect the application’s ability to overcome prior art references.
As stated in MPEP 211.05:
“Any claim in a continuation-in-part application which is directed solely to subject matter adequately disclosed under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the parent nonprovisional application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the parent nonprovisional application. However, if a claim in a continuation-in-part application recites a feature which was not disclosed or adequately supported by a proper disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the parent nonprovisional application, but which was first introduced or adequately supported in the continuation-in-part application, such a claim is entitled only to the filing date of the continuation-in-part application.”
This differentiation in filing dates for different claims within the same CIP application can significantly impact the application’s ability to overcome prior art and maintain patentability.
To learn more:
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (2)
Subject matter that is disclosed in a parent application but not included in a child continuation-in-part (CIP) cannot be used as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) against the CIP. The MPEP cites a specific case law example:
“In re Lund, 376 F.2d 982, 153 USPQ 625 (CCPA 1967) (The examiner made a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection over an issued U.S. patent which was a continuation-in-part (CIP). The parent application of the U.S. patent reference contained an example II which was not carried over to the CIP. The court held that the subject matter embodied in the canceled example II could not be relied on as of either parent or child filing date. Thus, the use of example II subject matter to reject the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) was improper.).”
This means that only the content actually present in the CIP can be used as prior art under 102(e), not additional content from the parent application that wasn’t carried over.
To learn more:
Yes, a parent application can be used as prior art against claims in a Continuation-In-Part (CIP) application that are not fully supported by the parent application. This situation is addressed in MPEP 2133.01, which cites a relevant case:
“See, e.g., Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 104 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 2012)(patent issuing from parent application was relied upon as prior art against the claims in CIPs that did not find support in the parent application).”
This means that if a claim in the CIP application includes new matter not disclosed in the parent application, the parent application (or a patent issued from it) can potentially be used as prior art against that claim. This underscores the importance of carefully considering the content and timing of CIP filings.
To learn more:
MPEP 2133.01 – Rejections Of Continuation – In – Part (Cip) Applications (1)
Yes, a parent application can be used as prior art against claims in a Continuation-In-Part (CIP) application that are not fully supported by the parent application. This situation is addressed in MPEP 2133.01, which cites a relevant case:
“See, e.g., Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 104 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 2012)(patent issuing from parent application was relied upon as prior art against the claims in CIPs that did not find support in the parent application).”
This means that if a claim in the CIP application includes new matter not disclosed in the parent application, the parent application (or a patent issued from it) can potentially be used as prior art against that claim. This underscores the importance of carefully considering the content and timing of CIP filings.
To learn more:
MPEP 2136.02 – Content Of The Prior Art Available Against The Claims (1)
Subject matter that is disclosed in a parent application but not included in a child continuation-in-part (CIP) cannot be used as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) against the CIP. The MPEP cites a specific case law example:
“In re Lund, 376 F.2d 982, 153 USPQ 625 (CCPA 1967) (The examiner made a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection over an issued U.S. patent which was a continuation-in-part (CIP). The parent application of the U.S. patent reference contained an example II which was not carried over to the CIP. The court held that the subject matter embodied in the canceled example II could not be relied on as of either parent or child filing date. Thus, the use of example II subject matter to reject the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) was improper.).”
This means that only the content actually present in the CIP can be used as prior art under 102(e), not additional content from the parent application that wasn’t carried over.
To learn more:
Patent Law (3)
Subject matter that is disclosed in a parent application but not included in a child continuation-in-part (CIP) cannot be used as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) against the CIP. The MPEP cites a specific case law example:
“In re Lund, 376 F.2d 982, 153 USPQ 625 (CCPA 1967) (The examiner made a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection over an issued U.S. patent which was a continuation-in-part (CIP). The parent application of the U.S. patent reference contained an example II which was not carried over to the CIP. The court held that the subject matter embodied in the canceled example II could not be relied on as of either parent or child filing date. Thus, the use of example II subject matter to reject the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) was improper.).”
This means that only the content actually present in the CIP can be used as prior art under 102(e), not additional content from the parent application that wasn’t carried over.
To learn more:
Yes, a parent application can be used as prior art against claims in a Continuation-In-Part (CIP) application that are not fully supported by the parent application. This situation is addressed in MPEP 2133.01, which cites a relevant case:
“See, e.g., Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 104 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 2012)(patent issuing from parent application was relied upon as prior art against the claims in CIPs that did not find support in the parent application).”
This means that if a claim in the CIP application includes new matter not disclosed in the parent application, the parent application (or a patent issued from it) can potentially be used as prior art against that claim. This underscores the importance of carefully considering the content and timing of CIP filings.
To learn more:
When a continuation-in-part (CIP) application includes new matter not disclosed in the parent application, the following consequences apply:
- Claims solely directed to subject matter adequately disclosed in the parent application are entitled to the parent application’s filing date.
- Claims that include new matter introduced in the CIP are only entitled to the filing date of the CIP application.
- The new matter may affect the application’s ability to overcome prior art references.
As stated in MPEP 211.05:
“Any claim in a continuation-in-part application which is directed solely to subject matter adequately disclosed under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the parent nonprovisional application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the parent nonprovisional application. However, if a claim in a continuation-in-part application recites a feature which was not disclosed or adequately supported by a proper disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the parent nonprovisional application, but which was first introduced or adequately supported in the continuation-in-part application, such a claim is entitled only to the filing date of the continuation-in-part application.”
This differentiation in filing dates for different claims within the same CIP application can significantly impact the application’s ability to overcome prior art and maintain patentability.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (3)
Subject matter that is disclosed in a parent application but not included in a child continuation-in-part (CIP) cannot be used as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) against the CIP. The MPEP cites a specific case law example:
“In re Lund, 376 F.2d 982, 153 USPQ 625 (CCPA 1967) (The examiner made a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection over an issued U.S. patent which was a continuation-in-part (CIP). The parent application of the U.S. patent reference contained an example II which was not carried over to the CIP. The court held that the subject matter embodied in the canceled example II could not be relied on as of either parent or child filing date. Thus, the use of example II subject matter to reject the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) was improper.).”
This means that only the content actually present in the CIP can be used as prior art under 102(e), not additional content from the parent application that wasn’t carried over.
To learn more:
Yes, a parent application can be used as prior art against claims in a Continuation-In-Part (CIP) application that are not fully supported by the parent application. This situation is addressed in MPEP 2133.01, which cites a relevant case:
“See, e.g., Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 104 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 2012)(patent issuing from parent application was relied upon as prior art against the claims in CIPs that did not find support in the parent application).”
This means that if a claim in the CIP application includes new matter not disclosed in the parent application, the parent application (or a patent issued from it) can potentially be used as prior art against that claim. This underscores the importance of carefully considering the content and timing of CIP filings.
To learn more:
When a continuation-in-part (CIP) application includes new matter not disclosed in the parent application, the following consequences apply:
- Claims solely directed to subject matter adequately disclosed in the parent application are entitled to the parent application’s filing date.
- Claims that include new matter introduced in the CIP are only entitled to the filing date of the CIP application.
- The new matter may affect the application’s ability to overcome prior art references.
As stated in MPEP 211.05:
“Any claim in a continuation-in-part application which is directed solely to subject matter adequately disclosed under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the parent nonprovisional application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the parent nonprovisional application. However, if a claim in a continuation-in-part application recites a feature which was not disclosed or adequately supported by a proper disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the parent nonprovisional application, but which was first introduced or adequately supported in the continuation-in-part application, such a claim is entitled only to the filing date of the continuation-in-part application.”
This differentiation in filing dates for different claims within the same CIP application can significantly impact the application’s ability to overcome prior art and maintain patentability.
To learn more: