Opinion
Civil Action No. 09-1484 (JR).
February 19, 2010
MEMORANDUM
Neither party has added anthing but argument to the record since my memorandum order of 1/29/10 [#12]. Plaintiff (a) argues that the question of what is a reasonable interpretation underChevron always involves disputed questions of fact, and (b) invokes Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f) to support his demand for discovery, but (a) the Ninth Circuit case on which he relies (which never was controlling law in this Circuit) was reversed,Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), and (b) his Rule 56(f) motion is unsupported by the required affidavit or by any statement of what discovery is needed or what plaintiff (or the Court) might learn from it. For the reasons set forth in my memorandum order of 1/29/10, summary judgment will now be granted in favor of the PTO. An appropriate order accompanies this memorandum.