On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, Charles Reiss wrote:
> Counter-argument: since "[t]he status of Bearing a Patent Title can
> only be changed as explicitly set out in the Rules" and removing the
> patent-title for non-personhood would be only implicitly set out in
> the rules, it stays regardless of what the definition would seem to
> imply.
Counter-counter argument: you're not removing it, you're just not
legally recognizing it.
Either (1): The herald should legally ignore it.
(2): It may be that this requires a special section of the
Herald's report ("Titles which are not recognized but
have not been revoked").
I wonder if Rule 1586 (Definition and Continuity of Entities) helps
us. It specifically says that "new definitions" govern entities when
rules are modified, so removing the definition of "person" from a
partnership also removes the definition of patent title.
-Goethe
