The Subject Patent Already Has Underlining or ... - Bayhdolecentral

1504.20 MANUAL OFPATENTEXAMINING PROCEDURE
invention as the application in the United States (35 U.s.c. 119).
Inspection of the papers herein indicates that the prior foreign
application was not for the same invention as. claimed in this
application. Accordingly, the priority claim is improper, and the
papers are being returned.
Attention is also directed to the paragraphs dealing
with the requirements where an actual model was
originally filed in Germany (MPEP § 201.14(b)).
See MPEP Chapter 200 and 37 CFR 1.55 for further
discussion of the practice and procedure under
35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). .
1504.20 Benefit Under 35 U.S.C. 120
35 U.S.C. 120. Benefit ofearlierfiling date in the United
States.
An application for patent for artinvention disclosed in the manner
provided bythe first paragraph of section 112 of this title in an
application previously filed in the United States, or as provided by
section 363 of this title, which is filed by an -inventor or inventors
named in the previously filed application shall have the same
effect,' as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior
application, if filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination
of proceedings on the first application or on an application
similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the 'first
application and ifit contains or is amended to' contain a specific
reference to the earlier filed application. No application shall be
entitled to the benefit of an earlier filed application under this section
unless an amendment containing the specific reference to the
earlier filed application is submitted at such time during the pendency
of the application as required by the Director. The Director
may consider the failure to submit such an aniendinent within that
time period as a waiver of any benefit under this section. The
Director may establish procedures, including the payment of a
surcharge, to accept an unintentionally delayed submission of an
amendment under this section.
If applicant is entitled under 35 U.S.C. 120 to the
benefit of an earlier U.S. filing date, the statement
that, "This is a division [continuation] of design
Application No.- - - -, filed - - -." should
appear in the first sentence of the specification. As set
forth in 37 CPR 1.78(a)(2), the specification must
contain or be amended to contain such a reference in
the first sentence following the title unless the reference
is included in an application data sheet (37 CPR
1.76). The failure to timely submit such a reference is
considered a waiver of any benefit under 35 U.S.C.
120.
Attention is directed to the requirements for "continuing"
applications set forth in MPEP §201.07,
§ 201.08, and § 201.11. Applicants are entitled to
claim the benefit of the filing date of earlier applica-
August2001
1500-46
tions for later claimed inventions under 35 U.S.c. 120
only when the earlier application discloses that invention
in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112, first
paragraph. In all continuation and divisional applications,
a determination must be made by the examiner
as to whether the conditions for priority under 35
U.S.c. 120 have been met. The disclosure of the
claimed design in a continuation and divisional application
must be the same as that of the original application.
If this condition is not met, applicant is not
entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date and the
examinershould notify applicant accordingly by specifying
the reasons why applicant is not entitled to
claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120. Form paragraphs
2.09 and 2.10 may be used. The examiner
should also require applicant to cancel the claim for
priority in the first sentence of the specification.
In the absence of a statement in the application as
originally filed incorporating by reference the disclosure
of an earlier filed application, the disclosure in a
continuing application may not be amended to conform
to that of the earlier filed application for which
priority is claimed. A mere statement that.an application
is a continuation or division of an earlier filed
application is not an incorporation of anything into
the application containing such reference for purposes
of satisfying the disclosure requirements of 35 U.S.C.
112, first paragraph. In re de Seversky, 474 F.2d 671,
177 USPQ 144 (CCPA 1973). See also MPEP
608.01(p).
When the first application is found to be fatally
defective under 35 U.S.C. 112 because of insufficient
disclosure to support .an allowable claim and such
position has been made of record by the examiner, a
second design patent application filed as an alleged
"continuation-in-part" of the first application to supply
the deficiency is not entitled to the benefit of the
earlier filing date. See Hunt Co. v. Mallinckrodt
Chemical Works, 177 F.2d 583, 83 USPQ 277 (F2d
Cir. 1949) and cases cited therein. Also, a design
application filed as a "continuation-in-part" that
changes the shape or configuration of a design disclosed
in an earlier application is not entitled to the
benefit of the filing date of the earlier application. See
In re Salmon, 705 F.2d 1579, 217 USPQ 981 (Fed.
Cir. 1983).
Unless the filing date of an earlier application is
actually needed, for example, in the case of an inter-