<P> A "continuation - in - part" application ("CIP" or "CIP application") is one in which the applicant adds subject matter not disclosed in the parent, but repeats substantial portion of the parent's specification, and shares at least one inventor with the parent application . The CIP application is a convenient way to claim enhancements developed after the parent application was filed . It is the successor to the earlier "additional improvement" patents mentioned above . For a continuation - in - part application, claims to subject matter that was also disclosed in the parent are entitled to the parent's priority date, while claims to the additional subject matter are only entitled to the filing date of the CIP application . </P> <P> If an issued patent is found to be defective, then the patent owner can surrender the patent and refile the original application to correct the defect . One example is when an inventor was forgotten on the application forms . Another such defect occurs when the issued patent fails to claim the full scope of the disclosed invention, potentially resulting in a rare "broadening reissue". Thus, an inventor can submit the patent application again with broader claims and attempt to get the full coverage to which he or she is entitled . The inventor is not, however, allowed to add new features to the disclosure . </P> <P> A reissue application which attempts to get broader coverage than the originally issued patent must be filed within two years from the grant date of the said originally issued patent . </P> <P> In 2007, USPTO announced new regulations under 37 CFR (published August 21, 2007) that would significantly alter procedures regarding continuation application before the USPTO . Previously, USPTO rules allowed an inventor to file as many continuations as necessary to get desired breadth of claims . The procedure was criticized for creating uncertainty as to what is covered or could be covered by a given patent application . An inventor, for example, could have sought to get claims with limited scope approved early, and then continue to file continuations over many years seeking broader coverage . For example, inventor Jerome H. Lemelson filed a series of continuations over thirty years to get a very broad patent on bar code readers . This patent was issued in 1984, long after bar code readers had become an integral part of the U.S. economy . Jerome Lemelson was then able to collect over a billion dollars in license fees from large companies using bar code readers . (Note however that the Lemelson optical recognition patents followed the old 17 - year rule . For patents filed 8 - June - 1995 or later under the TRIPS agreement, continuation patents expire 20 years from the date of filing of the parent patent application . Thus, Lemelson's "submarine patents" strategy is no longer possible .) </P>

When can a continuation patent application be filed