JTFM, let me answer the questions that are explicit and implicit in your message in terms of generalities rather than in terms of specifics.
The applicable statutes are 35 U.S.C. sections 111-112, 120[and sometimes 119; 365], and also 131-133. Distinguish between what is described in the specification of the application, and what appears in numbered paragraph(s) at the end of the specification. Those 2 concepts are not necessarily identical.
Also distinguish between a continuation application, and a continuation-in-part application. The PTO has published regulations and guidance explaining the similarities and differences between those 2 kinds of applications for patent, and I will not reiterate that subject matter here.
" the breast cancer risk reduction priority[date] claim will [be] the new filing date that is pending or possibly they can argue it is the day they added the claim to the parent. "
A careful reading of case law, including Chiron v. Genentech, 363 F.2d 1247(Fed. Cir. 2004), will demonstrate that you are correct in your opinion expressed in bold above, and incorrect in your opinion expressed in red above. My opinion assumes that a claim to breast cancer risk reduction was never described nor enabled in the application portion of the specification of any parent application in the manner contemplated by 35 U.S.C. 112, 120 and 132. The arguments/evidence that applicant may adduce to the contrary[implicit or inherent written description and enablement in the parent applications], if any, will be left for another day.
