registered patent practitioners. As such, they are ethically
obligated to provide any unprivileged information regarding a
disciplinary rules violation to the Director of Enrollment and
Discipline. 37 C.F.R. § 10.24(a). Their failure to do so in the
present case is a disturbing fact. Indeed, the ease with which
counsel bandy about accusations of inequitable conduct against
registered practitioners versus their inaction in reporting such
conduct to the Director may well deserve weight in evaluating
such accusations. As explained above, we need not reach the
question. Nevertheless, the conduct of Sever and Sever's counsel
is at best irresponsible.
Pejorative language
Sever states that "Glickman's patent is a virtual Chinese
copy of Sever's application" (Paper No. 26 at 4). It is not
clear precisely what Sever means by the phrase "virtual Chinese
copy", but in context it is clear that it is intended
pejoratively. While it is not the responsibility of the board to
police political correctness, the use of such phrases falls well
below the required standard of decorum and courtesy expected of
all practitioners. The Office is an equal opportunity employer
and the possibility of having a Chinese-American administrative
patent judge hear any given interference motion is pretty high.
The comment was unnecessary, irrelevant, and (to the extent it
means anything) literally untrue and, hence, all the more
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007