uspto.gov
Skip over navigation

David M. Ronyak

Page 1 of 2

Moatz, Harry
From: david.ronyak@...
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 1:52 PM
To: ethicsrules comments
Subject: Comment on Proposed Rules

January 26, 2004

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY

ethicsrules.comments@uspto.gov


Harry I. Moatz

Director of Enrollment and Discipline

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Mail Stop OED-ETHICS RULES

P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

RE: Comment on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Rule Sections 11.12 and 11.13

Continuing Legal Education and Post-Admission Examinations

Dear Mr. Moatz:

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Rule Sections 11.12 and 11.13 that was published in the December 12, 2003 edition of the Federal Register prompts me to write. That Notice states that proposed Section 11.12 would introduce mandatory continuing legal education (CLE) for practitioners who are licensed to practice in patent cases before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Although it is unclear from the Notice and specifically proposed Rules 11.12 and 11.13, appears that a PTO-approved continuing CLE program may entail an examination.

I do not oppose a requirement for CLE for patent practitioners that is similar to the current requirements of most state bars for legal practitioners, including those of Ohio. The goal of requiring patent practitioners to obtain CLE credit that is accepted by most state bar organizations, as stated in the Notice, is commendable, to help maintain the quality of patent practice in the United States of America.
1 /27/04


Page 2 of 2


However, requiring an examination as a part of any continuing education activities would be an unnecessary and onerous burden on any practitioner. An active practitioner already must devote a significant amount of time to attend continuing legal education (CLE) programs and to keep apprised of the current state of federal law, state law and PTO procedures. These activities, together with engaging in daily practice, keep conscientious practitioners, up-to-date on current patent laws in order to competently represent our clients. Any additional requirement mandating an examination, would require time beyond what is already devoted to maintaining current knowledge of the law to prepare for and take the examination. This is time that would be removed from our practices, impairing the time devoted to my clients and increasing the cost of my representation. As a result, an examination as part of any continuing education requirement would be a significant burden upon all active practitioners and their clients.

Furthermore, the Notice states that the continuing education requirement is modeled after the state systems for attorneys. To my knowledge, no state requires an examination as part of its continuing education requirement once an attorney is admitted to practice. And no bar examination requires a candidate to obtain a perfect score to pass; indeed there have been occasions following a bar examination when those administering the examination first became aware that some of the questions were defective in that multiple answers could be equally correct or that none of the offered answers were correct. Thus, any examination requirement lacks a basis in the systems after which the PTO CLE proposal is modeled. Such an unprecedented requirement could/would effectively revoke a practitioner's duly-obtained license to practice without appropriate cause.

It is therefore my view that any examination requirement is unnecessary and unduly burdensome, and any such requirement should be deleted from the proposed rules.


Yours truly,


David M. Ronyak

Reg. No. 29,106

Dave Ronyak

Reg No. 29,106 Law Dept. Goodrich Corporation 9921 Brecksville Road Brecksville, OH 44141-3289

Telephone: 440-262-1423 Fax: 440-262-1421 email: david.ronyak@

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission (and/or the attachments accompanying it) may contain confidential information belonging to the sender, which is protected by the attorneyclient privilege. The information is only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or agent or employee responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Any unauthorized interception of this transmission is illegal under the law. If you have received this transmission in error, please promptly notify the sender by reply-4nail, and then destroy all copies of the transmission.

1 /27/04



i

January 26, 2004
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY ethicsrules.commentsna,uspto.gov

Harry I. Moatz Director of Enrollment and Discipline United States Patent and Trademark Office Mail Stop OED-ETHICS RULES P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

RE: Comment on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Rule Sections 11.12 and 11.13
Continuing Legal Education and Post-Admission Examinations
i Dear Mr. Moatz:

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Rule Sections 11.12 and 11.13 that was published in the December 12, 2003 edition of the Federal Register prompts me to write. That Notice states that proposed Section 11.12 would introduce mandatory continuing legal education (CLE) for practitioners who are licensed to practice in patent cases before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Although it is unclear from the Notice and specifically proposed Rules 11.12 and 11.13, appears that a PTO-approved continuing CLE program may entail an examination.
i
I do not oppose a requirement for CLE for patent practitioners that is similar to the current requirements of most state bars for legal practitioners, including those of Ohio. The goal of requiring patent practitioners to obtain CLE credit that is accepted by most state bar organizations, as stated in the Notice, is commendable, to help maintain the quality of patent practice in the United States of America.

However, requiring an examination as a part of any continuing education activities would be an unnecessary and onerous burden on any practitioner. An active practitioner already must devote a significant amount of time to attend continuing legal education (CLE) programs and to keep apprised of the current state of federal law, state law and PTO procedures. These activities, together with engaging in daily practice, keep conscientious practitioners, up-to-date on current patent laws in order to competently represent our clients. Any additional requirement mandating an examination; would require time beyond what is already devoted to maintaining current knowledge of the law to prepare for and take the examination. This is time that would be removed from our practices, impairing the time devoted to my clients and increasing the cost of my representation. As a result, an examination as part of any continuing education requirement would be a significant burden upon all active practitioners and their clients.



Harry I. Moatz
January 26, 2004
Page 2

Furthermore, the Notice states that the continuing education requirement is modeled after the state systems for attorneys. To my knowledge, no state requires an examination as part of its continuing education requirement once an attorney is admitted to practice. And no bar examination requires a candidate to obtain a perfect score to pass; indeed there have been occasions following a bar examination when those administering the examination first became aware that some of the questions were defective in that multiple answers could be equally correct or that none of the offered answers were correct. Thus, any examination requirement lacks a basis in the systems after which the PTO CLE proposal is modeled. Such an unprecedented requirement could/would effectively revoke a practitioner's duly-obtained license to practice without appropriate cause.

It is therefore my view that any examination requirement is unnecessary and unduly burdensome, and any such requirement should be deleted from the proposed rules.


Yours truly,

David M. Ronyak
Reg. No. 29,106

United States Patent and Trademark Office
This page is owned by Office of Patent Legal Administration.
Last Modified: 7/4/2009 5:44:39 PM