==============================  CFJ 3333  ==============================

    Rule 649 contains the phrase "As soon as possible after a patent
    title is awarded or revoked".


Caller:                                 woggle

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by woggle:                       31 May 2013 08:08:58 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         09 Jun 2013 18:16:55 GMT
Judged TRUE by G.:                      10 Jun 2013 18:04:56 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

This proposal only replaces "as soon as possible", but the text is
"As soon as possible" in this sentence. The text "as soon as possible" also
appeared elsewhere in the rule. R217's requirement that capitalization is
"generally inconsequential" suggests that this means that both are replaced,
but arguably this creates an "ambiguity in meaning".


Judge G.'s Arguments:


The Proposal in question is Proposal 7420, and the clause is:
  Amend the following rules, in the specified order, by replacing "as
  soon as possible" with "in a timely fashion": [...] 649
The phrase in R649 is capitalized while it is not in the proposal.

This puts R105:
       Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
       change to be void and without effect.   An inconsequential
       variation in the quotation of an existing rule does not
       constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any
       other variation does.
in opposition to R217:
       Differences in spelling, grammar, capitalization, whitespace,
       dialect, or the use of synonyms or abbreviations, are generally
       inconsequential in interpreting rules or communications, as long
       they do not create ambiguity in meaning.

Three possible arguments:
1.  R105 takes precedence over R217.
2.  R217 says only "generally" inconsequential, which is weaker than
     R105's specific definition of inconsequential (for which this
     variation would be consequential, as it is "any other variation").
3.  R217 qualifies itself by saying "as long as they do not create
     ambiguity" and R105 deals with the case where there is ambiguity.

Any one of these arguments, or all together, argue for the difference in
capitalization of 'A' as being consequential, therefore it was ambiguous
as to whether the proposal text referred to the capitalized clause,
therefore the rule change was void and without effect and the phrase
remains in the rule.  TRUE.