“Consideration by the full court is . . . necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the Court’s decisions as follows:” “The Panel Decision finding that the USPTO OED Director may violate federal law and delegate his signature authority conflicts with United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954) that holds that an Agency must comply with it’s own regulations;” “This Court’s Panel decision erroneously holds that U.S. v. Telecom Ass ‘n v. F.C.C., 359 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir 2004) supercedes Supreme Court precedent including Cudahy Packing Co. of Louisiana v. Holland, 315 U.S. 357, 62 S.Ct. 651, 86 L.Ed. 895 (1942);” “The Supreme Court’s holding in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Ltd., 561 U.S. 247, 248 (2010) that U.S. law only applies within it’s territorial limits was ignored by the Panel Decision;” “The Panel’s decision that USPTO attorneys may avoid regulations requiring the disclosure of material exculpatory evidence conflicts with United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954);” “The Panel Decision also conflicts with 200 years of American Law, including, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) that requires every significant legal wrong has a legal remedy.”
