Karen: Tks. Just got around to it. The “miracle” of the CIP is perhaps just slightly less misunderstood than the “miracle” of the PPA. Article did rekindle – in my mind at least – a long-ago thread on “embodiment”; a concept I personally have no problem with (i.e the “same invention”, just a different un-claimed “embodiment”, the Kennecot case cited). Personally, I wouldn’t use the neutral “continuing application” for a true DIV filed in the face of a RR. I would want to expressly lay claim to the statutory prohibition. I urge pro ses and neophytes read it.