Goethe wrote:
Murphy wrote:
And what useless dross would that be, then, specifically?
Doing the quickest possible scan, Rules 2137, 2138, parts of 2141, 2143,
the expansion of R789, and a pointless definition of the term "paragraph"
are all signs of an overly-formalizing bureaucracy running amok.
Have fun with it though! -G.
2137, 2138: We decided to re-split a couple of positions. Big deal.
2141, 2143, 789: Which parts, and why?
Definition of "paragraph": I don't know that it's been used yet, but
it certainly could be. Consider this hypothetical proposal:
Proposal 6000
Amend Rule 991 (Invoking Judgement) by replacing the paragraph
containing "A CFJ should be" with this text: <new text>
(Incidentally, who were the authors of Proposals 1000, 2000, 3000, and
4000? I'm thinking of proposing a new patent title.)
