I hear you, but I’m not sure I would characterize this as a “minor technical error.”. Amgen made the deliberate choice to designate the two key applications (’178 and ’179) as “continuations.” What I still can’t figure out is why Amgen choose to designate these applications as “continuations.” The benefit of doing so (versus designating these applications as “divisionals”) escapes me.

In defense of the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Amgen, 35 USC 121, including the title of it, only refers to “original” and “divisional” applications. Accordingly, their view that designating the application as a “divisional” that is being filed in response a restriction requirement (also necessary under 35 USC 121 to get the “safe harbor”) is reasonable to make clear that the benefit of the “safe harbor” applies.. For example, a “continuation” application could be to present claims different from or even broader than those presented in the “original” (parent) application, i.e., is not in response to a restriction requirement. Again, Amgen made the designation of “continuation,” not the Federal Circuit.

Thanks for your comment and thoughts.