Filed November 9, 2016
See also Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (same). Accordingly, an interpretation of that provision which exempts rules of procedureโthe only rules that the PTO is authorized to promulgateโfrom notice-and-comment requirements renders the statutory language โshall 9 See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. ยง 358(c) (designation of official names for drugs and devices); 2 U.S.C. ยง 1383(b) (procedural rules for Office of Compliance); 42 U.S.C. ยง 1437d(j)(2)(A)(i) (โprocedures for designating troubled public housing agenciesโ); 9 U.S.C. ยง 306(b) (โrules of procedure of the Inter-American Commercial Arbitration Commissionโ); 12 U.S.C. ยง 1735f- 17(a)(2) (procedures by which a person may ask agency to determine whether a mortgagee is in compliance with legal requirements); 39 U.S.C. ยง 504(g)(3)(A) (โa procedure for according appropriate confidentiality to information identified by the Postal Serviceโ); 42 U.S.C. ยง 421(k) (standards for โdetermining whether individuals are under disabilitiesโ and therefore eligible for benefits). Under the PTOโs interpretive approach, all of these provisions relating to agency management or benefitsโand these are just a few of the many in the U.S. Codeโcontain ineffective and superfluous references to 5 U.S.C. ยง 553. Case 2:16-cv-01490-RCJ-PAL Document 21 Filed 11/09/16 Page 24 of 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B A K E R & H O S T E T L E R L L P A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W W A S H IN G T O N 19 be made in accordance with section 553 of Title 5โ a complete nullity and must be rejected on that basis.