Bang-Er Shia v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Michelle K. Lee, Sarah Harris, Willaim Covey, Et Al.

Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 1-2 Filed 08/17/16 Page 1 of 113 PageID# 156
EXHIBIT AA
Exhibit AA
Evidence ofOED Counsels' tampering with evidence, including

i) exhibits T0-T5 replaced with immaterial others; and
ii) Dr. Shia's timely filed Appeal to the Initial Decision not included in the
official record.
Print
.Bltfbitbinderfor ALTb Tampetlns t8i evMenco of Resp.

rE;PT002011 Re<^tforAUIo^clResp
Subject: g^To-TSconlalng afoigolOEO dole stamp
- . zzL:
To: ^'""ûipTb.SOV; atiud.8W
Oate: Wednesday. June 24.201S lOfll AM
Attached is theOEDDictor's Response to the Motion to CorrecttheRecord, vrith attachments

1-5. Please contact me ifyou have any questions.
EWabethUllmer Mendel|AsKiate SolicitorllMtedStates Petert.dT,adenAOffice |Officeofthe Solicitor

Maim (571)*B1 Direct: (571)*itt |Fax; (57I)4PB*
email: _:;(fipto.yov
Mail: P.O. Box 1450. Mail SO^ - OtHce oftte Solicitor. USPTO, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand-Deliveiy: Madison West- BgWhRoor, D39,600 Dulaiy Street, Alexandria. VA 22314
From: Bang*er Shia [imlllomi|^^*@yal>oo*coinl

^"Stu:^<tteiel^#eiMtoPeAlley.Melinda;Alj.Alj;PTOHlJDCases
sSj^S^C^lF55^ÛtoSS5R5j.ExKbI.binderftrAU'sTanveringwilhevidcef^^
conlaing a forged OED datestanp
Dear Elizabeth Mendel, Melinda DeAtley, and the ALJ,
Based on the below^hed email from USPTOOED, it appears it is the ALJ that tampered wrth my ExhibjB
TO-TS
Tfl-is'lnRespondeni
the USPTOhereby
recordrequests the ALJ to Immediately
ofPTOD2014-31,based correctfiled
on the exhibits the fcUlfled Respondent
by Respondent sMhltals
totheAU.
also requests the AU to clarify the AU's tampering with Respondent's exhibits inmdlately
before a Is I"> fi> ofCongressional Inquiry to HUD regarding the tampered
exhibits.
To avoid further missing files orlalsified exhibits, an extra copy ofthe genuine exhibits ofT0-T5 will be
filed along with the reply briefadditionally to the Dept ofCommerce- USPTO, in the form of
Congressional Inquiry. The email communication between OED and respondent regarding the matte RESPONDENTS BQfiBIT
/ir?
Print
evidence tojustify Respondent's Congressional
as'
Inquiiy.
WithReg^
Respondent
Bang-crShia
. ... jjaLBEEOflS^.* .
,ausaafi2S>;A.j.A.j<...,i8W*<>
^SromU^wld.id.flU,p.ExT.T5^
DearDr.Shia,
Tlus IS. m
. ,.,wiiltodavteeaKlingthe
i record.
appears in theWeteceivedfiBmtheAUabmdw
certified record. Ifyou believe an
Youis Truly,
Liz Mendel
EUiabethUltae, M^lAssociate Sol!.^

Moiii'
Main: am rnJglâmcX: (571) 272-lHI
(571) 272-B[h>iiect: 272- 1Fax: (571) 273flH
email
& s ^ , . ^y. Cases
Dear Mendel and DeAtely. and the AU,
TieUSTOlecotd ofD2014-3I senttomeonJae 18.2015 showsdifferent exhibits of. at leastTO-TS. fiom

what were falsified by the OED Dictor and/or .he AU.
11 CXHBir I
\\M I
Print
WithRegans,
Banger Shia
. Forwarded
T,. <w.Eiiobiii!"i. . -^ - yamm.ooy*

Cc: Banger SWa Jgjaaalli^P
Dear Ms. Mendel and DeAtley,
1. Youranswertotiorquestionisiiotcomplyingith37CJA U.55(a),
n.55 Appeal to the ^ y^nofthe hearingoflicer under 1125or either
(a) Withinthttty|^y appeal shall include the appellant's brief. Ifmore tto ok
party may appeal to the Wwc^j" ofthis rule. Ifappeals ate fW oi
appeal isfiled, the pat^r who filM the ppe ,-| jjgied, then the OED Director shall tiansmitthe
the same day, the responfent isthe P^.,,^ f jî fourteen days after the date of
entire reconl tothe USPTO ofthe initial decisL ofthe hearing
cross-appellee brief.
myreplybriei;shouldan appeiiee or
reply briefis htodly given by the OED Director.
i-..iiwiUfilevrillalsoincludefactsaboutaparticuIarOEDdatestampappearôn
Washington, DC.
iv.inll also include 6cts about the more than one subpoena filed by Melinda
LM^"^Kf^KX^îtetioaallyfalsifdbyiemovig^^^^^^
provided thereon.
4. Thecongressional inquiry will request forthe authorityofUSPTOto remove an electronic signatures

previous^ entered at TEAS.
SThecong^ssionalinquiiywin includeaquestionofthetimeandexpensesUSPTOhasspentcntW-gî^
Mr2.
Print
.A 4n7ni4.:)l swellsasinOED208l,OED2341,andOED2505,
resolved byUSPTO.
Regards,
BangprShia
t>oiii;'êndd.Eli>>My>^.^- TiisPTn.fiO>!'
r -îsmoov^
DearDr.Shia,
towsponse to yourenuuls. your appedâs timely filedmth the
i,nn.prtofthenord before the ATJ so is not mdudedmtto
Director's ^pelleebriefin response is due m30 days. See 37 C.F.R. 11.55(a).
YoursTruly,
LizMoidel
HiabelhUIInKr Mendel |Associate SoUciM United Trademarlt Office |Office ofthe Solicitor
Main; (S7l)2'>2-fli||! Direct: (571)272-( IFax: (S7I)273-^H
S!^P.O.BoximMafsttSTs'-OffiM of"Solief"-"SPTO,
Zd-Delivev:Madison West- Eightl. Floor. 8D39,600 Dulany Street.Alexandra, VA 22314
nroBC BangerShia (i?I- . .

SffptT Thursday^ June 18,2015 5t32 PM , ^ .i *# r 4
Mendel, Elizabeth; DcAdey. Melinda
totheMatterofBang-erShla
Dear Sir/Mam,
Ihave filed on May 22,2015 an Appeal to the InttialDecision by USpostal service Certified Mail(7013 2250
0001 55061734). Istill kept the certified mail receipt with me.
However. Idonot see my Ap^l inthe documentyousent. Please explainwhy my appeal filed onIW 1 RESPONDENTS
2015 was not part ofthe official record. 1 EXHtBlT
.. J
Print
Yourexplanatfon ishi^ly appreciated.

WithRegards,
Banger Shia
ForwarfedM^^^ r
Sent' Thursday* June 18,2015 2:47 PM
Subject: D2014-31 IntheMatter ofBanker Slua
You have
Uie the received
lecuic 1secure
Wc below^ ffle from
dowrfoad.
i thenyorfll have access to the files.

1 Iwrnbeoutofteo^Fntoy^^
...j i_îci :@USElfi^(57l*)tfyouhavea^
and VfandavJime 22,2015. Please contaaMcUndaDÔr,
difficulty retrieving the documerts.

! Carrie Johnson
! USFTO Paralegal
!
; cc: Dr. Banger SWa

i
j Secure FDe Downloads:

1 Av^le untS:2S Juae 2015
Click ink to download:
743.53 MB
Seemedby
RESPONDENTS
EXHIBIT
https;//us-iTig6.mail.yahoo.conVnco/launch?.rand-e48nrasuniuo6#583.
Print
Attachments
OED Dir. Response to Motion to Correct Recor<i.pdf(872.24KB)

OED Director Response to Motion to Correct Record, Attachment 5.pdf(2.79MB)
^SpcRdeSts
EXHiBrr
/?
EXHIBIT T: Tq-Tj
OED's Exhibits ofPTO D2014-4 filed to the Court
showing two different OED date stamps
^SoBSBfre
EXHIBtT
RtCEWEO
Cotnmi8slonef.for'
PX>.Sox 1451
AIe)(andila.VA 22313-1461
www.uspU>.gov
January 23,2012
Mr.BangShia
102Xindencrest Court
SugarLand, TX 77479-5201
DearMr.Sbia: , *
4^;wmivcmihaLfartherôtJS.sctfoithbclow,tlieXJnitedStatcsPatentand
^!SÔffie(USm)isoiuided.eddingwfi^
otdomeslio lepieseotefivoin w iradnnad?"^
The USm*siecMdsiiuJistf8 8iatyottlwyeIieea involved vrithnuwthm23^
Slicattonsortegisttafioos. S?e<cdly.a>ejBcationsMaregisWtKB.Tto^^
vS&tiaSinaividuab.oftetlhw.yo5df.iayottalte
ZLmtafive. In addition, an Mnâddress contammgyourname jslypicanypio^
SatioMandiegistMttonstopposesofconep^^ InsTOinstooyoutri|Da^
SBintheapp&ontecoid. A.Ustofwlevantappbrahoasenalmuntotta^
^^mtolteniber2011. Pleasenotettoaay^ relevantappUcatoonsffled
<a othetvfise notincluded onUie attached lot, are abo sulaect to the acaons
described below.
AlthdufihUSPTO records.sUoVrthat yott are aiegistei^patentagen^ th^ U8PT0 has found no

indicationthatyou are an attonilsyauthorized to practicebefore the USPTO in trademaik .
inatleK. FUt(ii8rmoie,o*n-idatioiidnp tothesevaritras^licants and registrants isunclear,
calls into question the papose ofdiieeting all^lication-ielatedcottespondeiKeto you.
Hie ciicumslances soegcstfliat you arepreparing tiademaik filinips to be submitted to tin
USmoraceotoawiseanlingoabehalfof^licantsincotuiectionv^ttei*^^
ifso,theseaionsniayconstltulatteunattthorizedpiacticeoftt8deoiartlaw
^retheOSFTO. See 31CXR. n.5{b)C2). H-W:EP f60^.
nietetbio. youarecontact
ceaseuseofyour iietebyinformafionfor
provided 14aJsndffl daysto show canse
correspondenceand tlw USFTO slwuld not
probtapamci^ntyy^
conespondentor domestic rqnesentative in any trademaik cases beforefte USPTO. My such
diovriK should include evidcaice for eacHcase thatdemonstrates the legitimacyofiismg your
contactinfoimatioafoc purposes ofcorrespcndicncc fclating to trademark matters.

VUsuo TOtfr -Jir. -TMEP" Idcodfiei ibe Tradtmark Manual tfTExamtntngrrceedure (8th ed). aviCabte adIIim ct
hprfAsi2.t>s?to.govAmdWtinei/.
iTSpSSSIr?
' EXKSir
f fitckmo
DEC Si <012
ABonn* John C. Brederick OFFICE OF ENROUMlt
M.ilrt)p:OED ANOOISC.PC.W
VjSPTO,POBox 14S0
AtaBiiidria.VA22J3-WS piUNfl.mOV
Sto c)
reasons fliat follows!
t. toiSt<wCaaseisonconstituUonaUyserd.violalmgduepi<soflB^^^
2^ to Show Cause Ms to >ake aclaim for lackofjurisdictionover en enUty "Bang
SUa';
3. that the Request^ to makeaclaimfor lackofjurisdiction to hear non-patentmatter

over the undersigned;
4. that Show Cause i? constitutionally and stalutorily defective, Ming to disclose "right
tooleiw*'ftmdanwitol to
5. that Show Cause is constitutionally and statutorUy defective, violating the stttwoiy
minimum reply period of1month;
6. to Show Cause fills the statuteofBmitation;
7. jjiattheRequest Ms the statuteofBmitation;
8. toShowCauseUuncon8tilutional,lminn^gon6fthamendment;
9. totheRe<jueslisnconsatutlonal,impingingonfifthamendment;
EXWBIT
V - >
^ce/vg0
''fS 01 2013
I^'^p'So.uspTO.POBox 1450 >wooi|^^^Mavr
yVtaandfl^VA22313-1450 pU>lii.O20i
oB<inEDTOMaon.im
OTOHAL!,MmAL-^-MSOHOFDOMKtKMMEMmAT^
the Office Action issued 08/3/2011.
FoltowingpgraphQ.)tatheRFIdledDec.5.20n.appC8tlo791011M
showkethattheOffice'satU.n^yh.vetoowinglyaJd^Jim-represemedf^^
WBuU,ori2edpnUceofTdenttklawby presumablyknowingtotte
toftea,orothewiseserviceswererendeted.bysomeone notauthorizedtodo soin
eontravendonoftheUSTrademarklaw,andbyenteringthe appUcatlonvîhaUS serialnumber
uponreceivingfeeapaidp^somablyftoma-foîgnlocalagency"shownontheofficial.ecori
Other than the applicant
wo attotne/sexpUdtinstructionintheOffice Actiontoappoint aOS conespondent

jrieIsth.beHefthat.UK.rizationforaUScoespoJent(andlusaocto^
leceivepapes(bydectronis.meansorpostalservices) 6omandto the Officeislegally
m i
ÎgllSSSrihascanJInnedthathe/shelsm^^^
II EXHIBIT I '
ll^l
. . . ;* *'
rECEWEO
. MAR 26
OEOMDW-8C43B ftmCE0F6MR0liMENT
Attorney Emu j.All ANOOISClM.#
PO Box 1450Alexandria, VligWa 22313-WS1 Or. Banger Shia
Patent Office of Bang Stiia
102Lhdencre$tCt.
Sugar Land. TX 77479-5201
Dear Attorney EmB AH.
to Latter nn"TTf"1 Tpieconterenee
Responstvatothe tetterdatedMar. 15.2013.received onMar.20.2013. andrequested

torespond byMar. 22.2013 asaWedIntheletter. Dr. SWa. onbehalfoffdmignTrademaric
appBcantsorownerslegallyboundandoflldallyacknowledgedbytheUSPTOT.-ademarit
Director. he^byrequeststheOEDtoprovidespecifÛSserialorapplWonn^^^^
swatoobtalnauthototion and/or penrlssionfrom each and every foreign tr
orownerassociated withthe US serial or applicafion numberthu provided bythe 060 (orthe
pjirposeofa:eIeeonlerercewhthe OEO.Withoutthe authorization orpermissionfromforeian
TrademarkappHcants orowners. Dr. ShIawould beviolating USPTO Code ofProfessional
Responsibility, and besubject to lawsuitsfrom foreign appllcanUormark ownewfor havinga
teleconference. psumablytorthe goodnessof personalWereste. to discuss any maers
originated iom more.han230appHcaUonsintheOEO File NO. 62081.1isted in ExhlM
attached to the Second Request for Infomiatlonand Evidencedated Jan. 25.2J13.
The following statutorydefecUvenessIsfiffther noted in the OEO;

' I)aceonJing tothegtoballyaccessibleUSPTOoflidalwebsite, manyappHcattonsBstodIn
ExhibitAattachedto the Second Requestfor Infomiallon and Evidencedated Jan. 25. MISare
notassociatedwih Dr. ShlaIn anyways, including, but are not flmited to. US serial or
applicationNo. 76257209.76257214.78387838.76280138etc. In^fl^columnof^
EXHWT
I.
RECeWEO
MtomeyBaJ.An(OEDraeG2081)
S^VA2233-145 ^01SCa^
Dear Attorney AU,

Respaavcto>eUttdalcdMar.27forUOEDrdcNo.G2081forscheduUng.
,elecorfMencetodlsi8stheiitteroftheimdeisignedptactttioiw^
^pênutfive^coêsponderttofi^ffitowcommunicatfonoftta^
appHc>tsand-:iadematkDictor.theundets5gnedspectf^
A)to under37 CFR11.22f(iU)infoimationandevidenceregardinginsulScient
gioundsftomanon^srievingparties,whoseconsenthasalreadybeenobtainedbyDr.Shia;
B)toenterintoasettlementagreement withDr.Sbia's attorney forarecordedteleconferenceto
befiirtherscheduled, due to theshort notice toMar. and the lengthy prosecutionhistbiy
wid: File G2081 dated fiom Jan.. 2012; ot
Qtodosetheinvesfi^nvrilhout issuingawarningortaMngdisdpUnary actionanddecline
torefcr amaaerto the CommitteeonDiscipline,basedonthe fi>ets and rules presentedbdow.
i7 rro 11.22 "The information or tf
Evidence 1): Many applications listedin Exhibit Aattached to the letterfrom attorney John
Broderick 12/5/2012 ate not associated vrilhDr.Shia in aiqr ways, including, butate not
limitedto. US serial No. 762S7209.76257214.7636738. and 76280138, ete. in the firstcolumn
ofsdExMbit Kpresenting evidence ofawrongM accusationvilh an unverified automatic
coDiputcr-gencratcd output.
'S
EXHIBIT
RECEIVED
AttorneyJeSferA.Halviek(OEDHleG20) HW 03 2013
PO Box 1450 OFFICE OF ENROLIMENI
Alexandria VA 22313-1450 ANOOISCiPUNfi
Dear Attorn^ Haidildc,
Itoponsivc to the letterdatcdApr. 18 fortheOEDFtteNo. 02081, please enter

the following:
I.No counsel representing Dr. Shia; and

1 No teleconfeience for setaementpuiposecanbe sAeduled.
Respectfully submitted,
^Jfi^^signatureinher Buddhist's name)

Dr. Bang-er Shia(Reg. 57568)
102 UNDENCREST CT.. SUOARLAND, TX 77479-5201
msisff?
EXHWT
In the Matter Of:
BANG-ER SHIA
HEARING - VOLUME IH
October 08, 2014
i ourt Reporting
asamo \s s erencing
Phone: 703-837-0076 1010 Cameron Street

RESPONDENTS
Fax: 703-837-8118 EXHIBIT Alexandria. VA 22310
Toll Free: 877-837-0077 transcript@casamo.com
HEARING - VOLUME 111
BANG-ER SHIA
Page 405
Page 403
1 Q. Okay. Let's start with that pink 1 BY MS. MENDEL;
2 sheet. Jtist the pink sheet. Hold that up. 2 Q. At my request, did you, in fact,
3 Okayi can you tell the tell us what that 3 download print the documents from the ODUS
4 document is? 4 system this morning so we could coopare them?
5 A. This is an OED intake form. 5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. And where did you get that document? 6 Q. Did you bring those documents? I'm
7 A. This came out of the original file 7 sorry.
8 regarding Dr. Shia, G2081. 8 A. Yes, I did.

9 Q. And what was attached to that pink 9 Q. And could you show those to the
10 document? 10 Court?
11 A. This is the original grievance 11 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Thank you. Show

12 document that was received by OED in that same 12 those to Dr. Shia, please. Show the
13 matter. 13 original to Dr. Shia. Okay?
14 Q. Take a look at, if you would, in 14 DR. SHIA {interpreter): Is this
15 front of you Joint Exhibit 6. And turn to page 15 original?
16 G1470. Does the original document that you 16 MS. MENDEL: Yes.
17 brought today s^teeu: to be the same as the 17 DR. SHIA (inteipreter): nhen did
18 document that's marked 61470? 18 you punch the holes here?
19 A. Yes. 19 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: When were the
20 Q. On the original document, what does 20 holes punched?
21 it show with respect to the OED date stamp? 21 THE WITNESS: They would have been
22 A. It is dated November 8, 2012. 22 punched when they were processed and put
Page 404 Page 406
1 Q. Can you eaqplain -- maybe if you could 1 into the original file.
2 pull up Respondent's Dl, do you have that? 2 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Usually,
3 A. Yes. 3 when you process it
4 Q. And can you ea^lain why Respondent's 4 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: You can ask her
5 Dl appears not to have that same date stanp as 5 questions when it's your turn, okay?
6 is on the other document we looked at a second 6 MS. MENDEL: Your Honor, I would
7 ago in Joint 6? 7 move the admission of the original two
8 A. From my understanding, OED's scanner 8 documents as Government 603 and the copy
9 is a black-and-white scanner so it does not 9 as Government 604.
10 scan color, and depending on the quality of the 10 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: So you'd like to
11 scan, if things are in color, it may appear 11 move the original in as 603 and the copy
12 Jiqht or not at all in the scanned copy. 12 in as Government 604?
13 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: May I see the 13 MS. MENDEL: Yes, Your Honor.
14 original, please? And it's light blue. 14 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Dr. Shia, any
15 I just want the record to reflect that 15 objection?
16 it's light blue, which I know from 16 DR. SHIA {interpreter): No.
17 own experisnce is a notoriously 17 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: So ordered.
9 18 difficult solor to copy. In fact, I'll 18 (Government Exhibit Nos, 603 - 604 were
19 take judicial notics of the fact that a 19 received and admitted into evidence.)
20 lot of the editing Euid proofing gallies 20 BY MS. MENDEL:
21 are in light blue because the color does 21 Q. Now I want to ask you about the
22 not reproduce easily. 22 different date stamps.
I RESPONDENTS
Toll Free (877) 837-0077 EXHIBIT
T: (703) 837-0076
http://www.casamo.com Casamo and Associates
HEARING - VOLUME III
BAN6-ER SHIA
Page 409
Page 407
Can you e^qplain wby the date staop on 1 THE INTERPRETER: I'm sorry.
1
2 what was just adsdtted as govezxment 2 A. It says "OED front desk," which I
3 Exhibit 603 is different fron the date stanp on 3 wrote this morning.
other documoits received by OED, such as Joint 4 MS. MENDEL: Give that to the
4
5 Exhibit 11? 5 judge. Your Honor, may we admit that as
6 Government 606?
6 A. OED has more than one date stait^r
7 it depends cn which contractor processes 7 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Any objection.
that document. 8 Dr. Shia?
8
9 Q. And did you bring an OED date stamp 9 DR. SHIA (interpreter): No.
10 with you today? 10 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: So ordered.
11 A. Yes. 11 (Government Exhibit No. 606 was received

12 Q. And can you show us? 12 and admitted into evidence.)
13 And did you prepare a sao^le with 13 BY MS. MENDEL:
14 that date stamp? 14 Q. The one that was just admitted as

15 A. No, I did not. 15 Government 606, you indicated that was from the
16 MS. MENDEL: Your Honor, may I ask 16 front desk?
17 her? Could you just -- well, let me 17 A. Yes.
18 back up. 18 Q. And what typically gets stamped at

19 DR. SHIA (directly); I have this? 19 the front desk?
20 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: No. You'll have 20 A. Most incoming mail.

21 an opportunity. 21 Q. And where is the other date stasp
22 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I want to 22 used?
Page 408 Page 410

1 keep a copy of this. 1 A. It is used in the contractors'
2 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I'm sorry? 2 office.
3 DR. SHIA (intezpreter): I want to 3 Q. Please look at Government 521. Can
4 keep a copy of this. 4 you tell us what that is?
5 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Give it back to 5 A. This is a letter dated May 2, 2014,
6 Mr. Lastella. We will make you a copy. 6 from me to Dr. Shia.
7 It's with me. It's not going anywhere. 7 Q. And in that letter, did you in
8 MS. MZNDEL: May I move that in as 8 that letter, did you, among other things,
9 Government 605? 9 eicplain to Dr. Shia about the date stamps? The
10 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Any objection? 10 second paragraph.
11 DR. SHIA (interpreter): No. 11 A. Yes.
12 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: So ordered. 12 MS. MENDEL: Your Honor, move the

13 (Government Exhibit No. 605 was received 13 admission of 521.
14 and admitted into evidence.) 14 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Any objection,
15 BY MS. MENDEL: 15 Dr. Shia?
16 Q. Did yoa bring a sample of the other 16 DR. SHIA (interpreter): No.
17 date stan^ in OBD? 17 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: So ordered.
18 A. Yes, I did. 18 (Government Exhibit No. 521 was received
19 Q. Okay. Can you show us that one? Can 19 and admitted into evidence.)
20 you read into the record, the writing at the 20 BY MS. MENDEL:
21 top? 21 Q. Since you're here, I would like to

22 A. It saya -- 22 ask you a couplo of questions
respondentI
T; (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 EXHIBIT
http://www.casamo.com Casamo and Associates AA-fo
HEARING - VOLUME III
BANG-ER SHIA
Psge 433
Page 425
1 the front desk will stanp it. For internal

1 What we're really concerned about
2 is what the document says and what the 2 mails, the contractors' office will staitp it.
3 date on it is. That's what the real 3 Right?
4 issue is. 4 A. Internal mail can be atanaoed bv
5 Now, if you came to me and said -- 5 either the front desk or contractors' office.
6 and we're talking hypothetically, 6 Q. Under what circumstance a contractor
7 because nobody has said anything like 7 will stan^ it?
8 this. If you said to me. Judge, this 8 A. Contractors always staitp it, either
9 document was modified and now it says 9 the contractor at the front desk or the
10 something different than when I 10 contractor in the contractors' office.
11 submitted it, well, Dr. Shia, that's 11 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: You've got two
12 something conpletely different. 12 more questions on this and then we're
13 But if what you're telling me is 13 done.
14 this document doesn't have holes on the 14 BY DR. SHIA (interpreter):

15 top and the original one does, I don't 15 Q. Did a contractor from OED stanp my
16 care. You've got to pick and choose 16 document?
17 your battles. 17 A. I don't know who stamped the

18 DR. SHIA (interpreter); So vdiat 18 document. Contractors in general startpê
19 I'm saying is that they made up the date 19 documents.
20 for TO014-04 case iust to prolong, to 20 Q. So you allow the contractors to have
21 delay, ip to find more 21 different stands; right?
22 infnmwi-inn. Then after fhpy qrt mnrp 22 A. There's two date stamps that I'm
Page 424 Page 436

infonnation. they dismisspfi thP prpvimis 1
siassi.. 2 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Okay.

JUDGE FERNAllDEZ: Well, that's a 3 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Thank you. Any
very serious allega-ion. I hear you. 4 redirect?
And what I suggest -hat you do and, 5 MS. MENDEL: Your Honor, I just
God, pro is going to hate me for saying 6 have one.
7 this. But if you truly believe that -- 7 EXAMINATION
8 don't hate me -- write a letter to the" 8 BY MS. MENDEL:
9 IG's office and report them for doing 9 Q. You mentioned on your direct about
10 it. But that's outside of my 10 the ODUS system, and that's an electronic
11 jurisdiction because they've dismissed 11 document repository?
12 the case. 12 A. Yes, and case management.
13 THE INTERPRETED; I'm sorry, which 13 Q. And are documents uploaded into that
14 office? 14 system, then hole punched and put in the file?
15 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: IG, Inspector 15 A. Yes.
16 General. What I can tell you is that in 16 MS. MENDEL: Thank you. Nothing
17 terms of being in front of me, that's no 17 further.
18 longer in front of ne. You're not hurt 18 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Any last thoughts
19 by that statute of limitations. Those 19 on this. Dr. Shia?
20 charges are gone. 20 DR. SHIA (interpreter): No.
21 BY DR. SHIA (interpreter); 21 MS. MENDEL: That's all for this
22 Q. So your policy is for external nails, 22 witness. Your Honor. Thanl^^
I RESPONDENTS
T; (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 P; EXHIBIT ,
http://www.casamo.com Casamo and Associates transc
EXHIBIT AB
EiMbit AB
P-U-. ofOED tamiringlth .ôwlrfg^W>=

USPTO General Counsel Sarah Hams
1) Dr ShU's -imitled Mb,ts A-Z= O-""? ^

2014. on June 26, 2015, h hlbte A-R =
tolto ; -Itepomienf! Prapoî Exhibto". The rest of the timely sbmtte<l
eriUblts S-Z remained in the folde, I-Respondent's Proposed Exhibits- but wss
narked with an untimely submissiondate ofSeptember 22,2014.
U) The AU clifled in the letter ofJuly 9,2014 to have nothing to do trith the
missing files in the official record.
iU) In the letter ot July 23, 2015, the USFTO General Counsel Sarah Harris
,a^ t. pat ediibiB A-R back t. the tdder / "RespondenfsPr.ped
Exhibits", as she cUmed the whole set ottaitti exhibits A-Z we,, all mthe
folder D"Exhibits Introduced During Hearing".
iv) USPTO also removed the Joint Exhibit 3from the folder "Exhibits
Introduced During Hearing". Joint Exhibit 3 was a copy of the former
Commissioner's Show Cause Letter, coercing for Dr. Shia's submission of
documents in defense of an alleged violation in practice of law in trademark
matters.
Print
PTOD201+04..31 Resp.Wii>8 List EidiiMUrt and Exhlblto......08132014

From: BaifSNa(Mm i-Hiiayahoo.coin)
To: |te(8hud.gov;ptnttBBisi^pto.gov;
Qq.
Date: Wednesday.August 13,2014 356 PM 4-
Please find a total of 6 files; thank you. (file "Exhibits A-R" was already filed previously).
Attachments
Exhibits-A-R.pdf(2.58MB) ^
Exha)it-S.pdf(l.llMB)
EXHIBIT-T-Y.pdf(1.58MB)
EXHIBIT-Z.pdf(260.54KB)
EXHIBlT-LIST-8-13.pdf(12.59KB)
Witness-List-8-13.pdf (110.25KB)
BCHIBIT
M4-
In the Matter Of:
BANG-ER SHIA
HEARING - VOLUME V
October 10, 2014
Court Reporting
asamo Vidcography
Videoconferencing

RESPONDENTS
Fax: 703-837-8118 ^BIT Alexandria. VA 22310
BAN6-BR SHIA HEARING - VOLUME V
Page 624 Page 626
1 representative or correspondence 1 evidence to prove ny guilty.

2 addressee in front of US PTC. 2 With the permission from iny
3 We can show this with Exhibit N2 3 clients, I took off ray name and my
4 through N3. Previously, ray name 4 coney's name from all the related
5 appeared in domestic representative and 5 US pro website or documents and changed
6 correspondent address. However, after 6 their correspondent address to their
7 receiving the letter from the Trademark 7 attorneys in China and in Taiwan.
8 Director on February 21, 2013, though I 8 During the two months of appealing,
9 didn't think his decision was a fair 9 the Trademark Director sends letters to
10 decision, and he didn't have any 10 all the attorneys in China and in Taiwan
11 evidence. 11 telling them that Bang Shia has been
12 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Let's just Stop 12 excluded from being a U.S. domestic
13 for one second. I want to irake sure 13 representative or a correspondent
14 that all of the exhibits that you 14 address from the US PTO. It is a big
15 brought are received into evidence so 15 blow against me. The first petition
16 that we don't miss any. 16 from me through certified -- certified
17 Can pro take a moment, look through 17 mail, through certified mail,
18 the entirety of the binders, tell me if 18 disappeared among materials. Then later
19 there's anything that's wholly 19 on, I had to use E filing to send in my
20 objectionable in Respondent's exhibits 20 petition with two registered numbers.
21 so that 1 can just take them all at 21 I waited for five or six months
22 once? I just want to make sure we don't 22 without getting any response. Then
Page 625 Page 627
1 miss anything. 1 don't want to 1 finally, I had to go to a congressman
2 inadvertently leave something out. 2 for help. The congressman sent out the
3 MS. MENDEL: No, Your Honor, we 3 first Congressional inquiry to a
4 don't have any objection. 4 commerce agency. Commerce Department.
5 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: "pie Court is 5 Commerce Department says they are still
6 receiving into evidence all of^ 6 in response -- they are still preparing
7 Respondent's exhibits. So ordered. 7 a response and said that I may have
8 With that, we don't have to worry about 8 violated the law.
9 it anymore. It's just done. 9 In ray anger, I sent out the second
10 (Respondent's Exhibits were received in 10 and third Congressional inquiries. In
11 their entirety and admitted into 11 those inquiries, I told Commerce
12 evidence.) 12 Department. When I when during
13 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Continue? 13 the filing from OED G2081, OED's lawyer,
14 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Yes. 14 Ali, make a threatening phone call to
15 DR. SHIA (interpreter): So as we 15 me, force me to settle the case.
16 can see from N2 and N3, ray name appeared 16 Let me correct. It's OED file
17 in the column of Domestic Representative 17 G2081. And I said also that there is no
18 or Domestic Correspondent Address; 18 file number in the letter from Trademark
19 however, after receiving the Trademark 19 Director. If there were a file number,
20 Director's letter on February 21 of 20 then the letter from the Trademark
21 2013, no, I think his decision ^s 21 Director should have been should be
22 unfair and he didn't provide any 22 able to be located on US PTO's wyosit^^^^_|
T; (703) 837-0076
http://www.casamo.c om
Toll Free (877) 837-0077
Casamo and Associates tran^l I RESPONDENTS
3
EXHIBIT
Print ht^s://us-nig5.niail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.raiid=648nrasuniuo6#683.
Subject: Official Record - D2014-31, Inthe t\4atter of Bang-er Shia

From: c- '.T@U8pto.gov ('.-j.-.j .-on@uspto.gov)
To: jw a.t@uspto.gov; b' -jc @yahoo.com;
Cc: 'ey@USPTO.GOV;1igHBPHillP@uspto.gov;
Date: Friday. June 26,2015 9:03 AM
You have received 1 secure file from i@U8pto.gov.

Use the secure link below to download.
Ms. Seifert,
We are resubmitting and recertifying the administrative recordinD2014-31. Certain eidiibits were inadvertently left
out of ourprevious filing and we believe that tNs iqsdated administrative record contains the entirerecord as
transmitted by the AU.
Please downtoad and replacethe previously forwarded record from the Department of Commerce RIeShare
website.
Should you have any difficiities downloading and/or retrieving the record, please let me know.
Kindest regards,
Paralegal Spedalist
Office of the Solicitor
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Phone:(571)272-5169
Email: i@uspto.gov
Secure File Downloads:

Availableun6l:03 July 2015
Click link to download:
ShIa Official Record.zip

832.99 MB
Youhavereceived secure links within this emailsent via Commerce - OCtO Secure FileSharing.To retrieve the files, please clickon the
Snks above. Toteam howyourcompan/ can tsenefit from Accôn Secure RIeSharing, pleasevisit http://www.acceiSon.com
Secured tw AcceKon
RESPONDENTS
EXHIBIT
OFFICIAL RECORD INDEX
A) Administrative Law Judge's Initial Decision and Order

B) Administrative Law Judge's Record, Bang-erShia, D2014-04
C) Administrative Law Judge's Record, Bang-erShia, D2014-31
D)Exhibits Introduced During Hearing
E) Respondent's Documents for Authorization from Applicants (submitted after
hearing)
F) Hearing Transcripts
G) OED Director's Proposed Exhibits

H) OED Director's Proposed Supplemental Exhibits
I) Respondent's Proposed Exhibits
J) ProposedJoint Exhibits
CTSpSndeBts
JTc
Nanne Size Type

Favorite Links
Files Currently on the Disc (11) - -
m Documents B. Administrative Record C. Administrative Record
H) Pictures A. Initial Decision and Order D2014-04 D2014-31
File Folder I f
^ File Folder File Fcider
11^ Music
D. Exhibits Introduced During E. Respondent's Documents F. Hearing Transcripts
(5 Recently Changed
Hearing for Authorization from Appl. File Fcider
ibi Public File Folder FileFclder
R Searciies G. OED Director's Proposed
f-.
H. OED Director's Proposed I. Respondent's Proposed
Exhibits Supplemental Exhibits Exhibits
File Fclde'- i , FileFclder
I Official Record Index.pdf
File Fcider
J. Proposed Joint Exhibits

File Folder ^ Adobe Acrcbat Document
68.0 KB
Folders
11 items
Shta Official Record I. Respondent's Proposed Exhibits Submitted on September22,2014 |si<^

Is
>
Datemodif... ; Location |68e9-l008aVE
Name Size Type
Favorite Links
Files Currently on the Disc C&)
m Documents Exhibit S.pdf K, ! ExhibitT0-75.pdf ; Exhibit Ul-U6.pdf
Pictures Adobe Acrobat Document ! Adobe Acrobat Document i Adobe Acrobat Document
Music 106 KB ' 306 KB ...JH KB

Recently Changed Exhibit Vl-V2.pdf ExhibitWl-W6.pdf "7^1 Exhibit X.pdf
Adobe Acrobat Document Adobe Acrobat Document I Adobe Acrobat Document
_j,j. Public 140 KB 573 KB B 100 KB
Searches
Exhibit Yl-Y2.pdf ExhibitZl-Z5.pdf Respondent's Exhibit List.pdf
Adobe Acrobat Document ! Adobe Acrobat Document I Adobe
425 KB 752 KB 4H
Folders
9 items
INDEX - PROPOSED JOINT EXHIBITS ^
,)X\ u I)OCliMi:N 1 BINDKR BAI KS U 1

L U.S. Trademark App. No. 77691338 X 1 G6038-G6179
2. U.S. Trademark App. No. 79101128 ^ 1 G11274-G11391.3

01-23-2012 Letter from Commissioner of Trademarks 1 G806-G808
3.
4. 02-21-2013 Exclusion from Practice Letter 1 G863-G865
5. 10-17-2013 PTO Response to Representative Farenthold 1 G962.G963
6. 12-05-2012 OED Requestfor Information 1 G1459-G1499
7. 01-25-2013 Second Requestfor Information 1 G1515-G1558
8. 03-15-2013 Ali Letter re Teleconference 1 G1564-G1565
9. 03-27-2013 Ali Second Request for Teleconference 1 G1568-G1569
10. 04-18-2013 Harchick Letter re Entry of Appearance G1579-G1580

11. 04-16-2013 Response to SecondRequestfor Teleconference 1 G1570-G1578
12. 03-19-2013 Shia Petition to the Director 1 G866-G961.3
13. U.S. Trademark App. No. 85348144 1 1G1-G85

14. U.S. Trademark App. No. 85374195 1 G86-G242

19. U.S. Trademark Ap^. No. 85477766 1 G695-G805
32. U.S. TrademarkApp. No. 77193795 2 G2451-G2536
38. U.S. Trademark App. No. 77280522 3 G2955.G3005
RESPONDENTS
EXHIBIT
Is
INDEX - JOINT EXHIBITS INTRODUCED DURING HEARING
INT# DOCliMfNT B.vrr.s ^
1. U.S. Trademark App. No. 77691338 U6038-U617y
2. U.S. Trademark App. No. 79101128 011274-Gl 1391.3

4. 02-21-2013 Exclusion from Practice Letter G863-G865
5. 10-17-2013 PTO Response to Representative Farenthold 0962-0963
6. 12-05-2012 OED Request for Information 01459-01499
7. 01-25-2013 Second Request for Information 01515-01558
8. 03-15-2013 Ali Letter re Teleconference 01564-01565
9. 03-27-2013 Ali SecondRequest for Teleconference 01568-01569
10, 04-18-2013 Harchick Letter re Entry of Appearance 01579-01580
11. 04-16-2013 Response to Second Request for Teleconference 01570-01578
12. 03-19-2013 Shia Petition to the Director 0866-0961.3
21. U.S. Trademark App. No. 77080008 01634-01734
116. U.S. Trademark App. No. 77952581 08183-08235
RESPONDENTS
EXHIBIT
Favorite Links
Name Size Type Date modified Location
Files Cjrrently on the Disc (14)
P) Documents
00 Index - Joint Exhibits JNT#l.pdf JNT#2.pdf
^ Pictures Introduced DuringHearing.. Adobe Acrobat Document Adobe Acrobat I
IP' Music Adobe Acrobat Dccument 6.01 MB 7.82 MB
Recently Changed jNT#4.pdf JNT#5.pdf JNT#6.pdf

Adobe Acrobat Dccument Adobe Acrobat Dccument Adobe Acrobat I
J)} Public
IIS KB 167.1 KB 1.03 MB
R Searches
JNT#7.pdf JNT#8.pdf jNT#9.pdf
Adobe Acrobat Dccument Adobe Acrobat Document Adobe Acrobat i
1.12 MB I3'3.4 KB 88.6 KB
JNT#10.pdf JNrT#ll.pdf JNTtfl2.pdf
Adobe Acrobat Document Adcbe Acrobat Dccument Adobe Acrobat i
B 82.7 KB L-. I 224 KB 2.38 MB
JNT#21.pdf I JNT#116.pdf
Adobe Acrobat Document I Adobe Acrobat Document
2.73 MB jg 1.49 MB
Folders A
14 items
>(9 iinrc3d,i banger:-... ^ GOV-514.pdf m Joint E:<fiibit,s Dccunic.-'itl - Micro
pSSpSmEH??
EtoaBIT
UNITED STATES PATENTAND TRADEMARKOFFICE

BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
In the Matter of: Proceeding No. D2014-31
Bang-erShia (II)t June 30,2014
Respondent
NOTICE OF HEARING AND ORDER
OnJune 27,2014, the inthis mattCT was received and assigned to the
undersigned for hearing pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 32 as implemented by 37 CJ'.R. Part 11.
The paities are encouraged to discuss setdement in this matter. Ifsuch discussions have
not yet commenced or ifsuch discussions have stalled, each party b reminded that pursuing diis
matter throu^ hearing and possible appeals will require the expendituie ofsignificant time and
financial resources. The parties should realistically consider the risk ofnot prevailing in the
proceedings despite such expenditures.
Asettlement allows the parties tocontrol the outcome ofthe case rather than have a
decision made for them. Accordingly, the parties are strongly encouraged toengage in
settlement discussions and attempt toresolve this matter. Ifatany time the parties seek the
assistance ofa settlement judge inthis matter, please advise the Court ofthat fact, witfiout
elaboration.
The merependency ofsettlement negotiations, however, does not constitute a basisfor

fidling to comply strictly with the requirements ofthis Order.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
The cldms asserted in this matter shallbe decided in an administrative proceeding

pursuant to 35.U.S.C. 32 and the regulations at 37 C.F.R. Part 11.^
It is further ORDERED that:
1. Answer. Respondent shall file aresponse as specified in 37 C.F.R. 11.36. The

response must include an admission or denial ofeach allegation ofliability in the
' Pursuant toanInteragency Agreement ineffect beginning Marcli 27,2013, AdministraUve Law Judges ofthe U.S.
Department ofHousing and Urban Development are authonzed to hear casej for the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office.
*This proceeding is separate from another matter before the Court that is docketed as Proceeding No. D2014^
and scheduled for hearing on July 28,2014.
EXHIBIT
At't!
Complaint and set forth any affirmative defenses and any mitigating factors or
extenuatuig circumstances. The Answer must be receiv^ by the Docket Clexk on or
before July 28.2014:
2. TimeANDDateOF Hearing. The hearing inthis matter will be held commoicing at

10:00 a.m. on October?. 2014. in Washington, DCat the U.S. Courtroom in theHUD
Office ofHearings and Appeals, 4093rd Street, SW, Suite 201. The hearing isscheduled
tn on or before October 9.2014. unless the parties indicate more time is
required by August 26.2014:
3. Discovery. Discovery is not authorized absent anorder oftheCourt after the Answer
has beenfiled. 37 C.F.R. 11.52. A partymoving for discovery shallfile a motion as
specifiedby 37 C.F.R. 11.43 and 11.52 demonstrating that discovery is reasonable and
relevant onorbefore Aupist28.2014. The non-moving party may file anopposition to
the discovery motion onorbefore September 8.2014.
4. AffirmativeDefenses. Counsel for theOED Director shallfile Motion to Strike
Affirmative Defenses, if any, to bereceived by theDocket Cleric onor before August 19.
2014: die Respondent(s) shall file a response toa Motion toStrike Affirmative
Defensesif any--to bereceived bythe Docket Clerk onorbefore Au^t28.2014:
5. Witnesses. Onor before August 13.2014. theparties shall exchange lists of witnesses
expected to be called atthe hearing, except for impeaduncnt orrebuttal, togethw with a
brief statement following each name describing the substance of the testimony tobe
given; \
'y 6. nnniMBNTR. On orliefore Au^t 13.2014. the parties will exchange documents and
otheritems to be ofifeied as exhibits at thehearing. Eachdocument and exhibit shallbe
numbered foridentification (with die prefix "GOV #."fortheGovernment's exhibits and
"RES #." forRespondent's exhibits);
7. Experts. If scientific, technical or otherspecialized knowledge will assist the AU to

the evidence or to determinea fact in issue, a witaess qualified as an expert
by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of
an q>inion orodierwise. Aparty seeking to present anexpert athearing must:
a. Disclose to theother party(ies) the identity of any witness it may use at trial to
present evidence under 37 C.F.R. 11.52(e)(3), on orbefore August 13.2014:
b. File a Written Expert Report received by theDocket Clerk on or before Aufnist
22.2014. The WrittenExport Report shallfollow the format set fordi by FRCP
26(a)(2)(B);
c. Any Expert Report rebutting a previously submitted expert report must be

received by the Docket Clerk on or before September 2.2014:
8. Format And Submission OFExhibits. For receipt by the Dodcet Clerk onorbefoie
September 23.2014. each party will submit Binders containing the party's exhibits:
[Note: copies ofexhibits in scanned electronic format may also be filed, but the complete
exhibitbindersmust be received on or beforethe abovedate.]
a. ExhibitBinders must be ^le to remain flat whileopen. To the extent

practicable, all exhibits will be numbered in the order they ate intended to be
introduced and will beseparated inthe binder(s) bycorresponding numbered tabs;
b. Toavoid duplication ofexhibits, the parties will coordinate and submit JOINT
EXHIBITS. Theseexhibits willbe designated "JNT#." The Government
counsel will cooidinatethis effort The other party(s) is expectedto cooperate
fully with the Government's efforts in this regard. The Joint exhibits wiU be in
separate bindei(s), orinasegregated part ofthe binder containing die
Government exhibits;
9. Objections. Any party objecting toany known exhibit and/or witness tobepresented
atthe hearing must file a written objection, stating the legal reasons for the objection, to
bereceived bythe Docket Clerk no later than September 26.2014. The party attempting
to introduce the exhibitand/orwitness mustfile its response, to be receivedby the
Docket Clerk, no laterthanSeptember 30.2014. Theparties must fax(oremail) these
objections and responses to such objections [to each other] immediately upon filing;
10. Pre-hearing Statements. Each party shall filea pre-hearing statement, to be
received bythe nncket Clerk on orbefore September 30.2014. briefiv setting forth the
following:
a. The issues involved in the proceeding;

b. Facts stipulated bythe parties, together with a statement that the parties have
made a good faith effort tostipulate to the greatest extent possible;
c. Anticipated witnesses and a summary of testimony foreachwitness;
d. Estimated time required forpresentation ofthe Party's case;
e. Facts in dispute;
f. Applicable law; and,
g. Conclusions to be drawn;
11. MonONS. Priorto filing anymotion, themoving party is required under37 C.F.R.
11.43to confer with the non-moving party in a good faith effort to resolve by agreement
the issuesraised in the motion. Any motion filed with the Court roust be accompanied
bya separate, dearlv labeled Memorandum of Points andAuthorities in support of said
motion. The Memorandum ofPoinls and Authorities must contain a thorou^ analysis of
the issues presented along withtheconcordant application of lawto facts;
a. Dispositive Motions. Any motion, the granting ofwhich could result inthe
disposition ofsoyS ^ portion ofthereof) ofthe Counts contained inthe
Complaint, oralleviate the need for a hearing, should befiled assoon as
practicable, but must be received by the Docket Clerk no lat^ than September 5>
2014;
b. Motions in Limine. Motions directly affecting the conductof the hearing (other
thanthoseabady specified herein) should be filed as soonas practicable, but
must be received by the Docket Cleri: no laterthanOctober 2.2014:
12. Tiunsmittal. Thepreferred method ofelectronic document delivery istransmittal as

scannedemail attachments. However, documents ten (10) pages or less may be
transmitted to this office by facsimile to (202) 619-7304. The originalsof document
so transmitted (bv email or facsimfle^ must be sent bv U.S. mall or commercial
nn the next business dav> For fiuther information, please contact the Docket
Cleik on (202) 254-0000;
13. file Nomenclature. Documents filed electronically should be named by docket

number, briefdescription of document, and date, using thefollowing hig(hli^ted
example:
FTO l>2dl3-07 RespAnswer 04292013
14. ServiceAND filing* Copies of all documents filedshallbe servedon all parties of
recordat the same time as the originals are filedwith the Docket Clerk:
If filing bv United States Postal Service (USPS):

Office of Hearingsand Appeals
4517*** StreetS.W.Room, B-133
Washington, D.C. 20410
If sending bv non-USPS couriers send to:

Office of Hearings and Appeals
4093"* StwetS.W., Suite 201
If sending bv email scannedattachment send to: alj.alj@hud.gov
Service to all parties of record must be made in the same form filing is made to the
Docket Clerk or to theCourtin general (e.g. if a party emails a document to theJudge,
Clerk, Docket Clerk, etc., that partymustservethe remainingparties by email as well).
All filings with the DocketCleik or withtheCourt in general must be madeby 6:00 p.m.
EST for the filing to be docketed on that specific date. Documents received by facsimile
or email after 6:00 p.m. EST will be docketed on the following business date;
15. Appearances. Rach attomeyappearing for a Partymust file an Appearance of Counsel

Form provided by theCourt with diis Order. If a Party is appearing without attorney
lepxesentation, thatParty must file a Pro SeAppearance Form also provided bytheCourt
withthis Older. Said completed forms mustbe received bv the DocketCleric within three
businessdavs of receipt of this Noticeof Hearingand Order. **Fillable-PDP forms may
berequested from theCourt byemailing alj.a]jhud.gov;
16. Other Matters. Issues including accessibility for the disabled, the need for
interpreters, courtroom equipment, etc., must bebrought to theattention of theDocket
Clerkat least four (4) weeks priorto thestartof the hearing; and,
17. Procedure. The hearingproceedings shallbe conducted in accordance with 37 CJP.R.

Part 11.
So ORDERED,
Alexander Fenitodez
Administrative Law Judge
Enclosures
Appearance of Counsel Form
Pro Se Appearance Form (Respondent only)
lit^s://us-mg6.inail.yahoo.conVneo/launch?.raiid=ejarbmirht0sp#7824.
Subject: D2014-31 OED Director's Response to Respondenfs Motion to Correct Record 07-08-2015
From: DeAtley, Melinda "* V@USPTO.GOV)
To: t@USPTO.GOV:
_ .a@yahoo.confi. 'j^hud.gov.' y@USPTO.GOV;
Cc: . @USPTO.GOV ' - ^n@USPTO.GOV;
Date: Wednesday.July8,20151:25 PM
Dear Ms. Seifert,
On July 7,2015, Respondent filed a Motion to correct the certified record. Respondent requested that
the ALJ "re-transfer thecorrect and complete Respondent's exhibits A-Z." Respondent first did so via
anemail. Ina second filing. Respondent requested the correction via a formal motion. Please find that
motion attached.
Also, please find attached, the OED Director's Response to Respondent's Motion to Correct the
Record.
Please contact me with any questions.
Thank you,
MelindaM. DeAtley
Associate Solicitor
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Direct: 571-272-a0
Main: 571-272-Si
Fax:571-273-HB
Email: i y@uspto.gov
RESPONDENTS
EXHIBIT
Print Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 1-2 Filed 08/17/16 Page 39 of 113 PageID# 194
https://us-mg0.inail.yahoo.com/iieo/launch?.raiid=ejarbmirhtOsp#7824.
Mail: PO Box 1450, Mail Stop 8
USPTO
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand Deliver: Madison West- 8^ Floor

600 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message is intended only for the addressee and may
contain confidential and/orprivileged material Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or
distribution isprohibited. If you are notthe intended recipient, please contact the sender byreply
e-mail and destroy allcopies of the original message. If you are the intended recipient butdonotwish
to receivecommunications through this medium, please advisethe sender immediately.
Attachments
D2014-31 OED Director's Response to Respondent's Motion to Correct Record 7-08-15.pdf

(450.72KB)
D2014-31 Respondent's Request to Correct ALJs tampered evidence (2).pdf (230.69KB)
-aCNTo^ U.S. Department ofHousing and Urban Development

Office of Hearings and Appeals
409 3"* Street, S.W., Suite 201
July 9,2015
Re: In the matterof Bang-er Shia

Proceeding No. D20 i4-31
Dear Dr. Shia,
We are in receipt ofyour e-mails sent on June 23,2015, July 7,2015, and today,
regarding the record ofthe proceeding referenced above. As you Icnow, Proceeding No. D2014-
31 was as ofthe issuance ofthe Initial Decision and Order, dated April 22.2015. In
accorfance with its usual practice, after the issuance ofthe Initial Decision this office transferred
all related documents in its possession (to include both originals and copies) to the OED. The
OED keeps the record and transmits it to the USPTO Director ifan appeal is filed.
USPTO regulation 37 C.F.R. 11.55(3) states, "[i]fan appeal is filed, then the OED
Director shall transmit the entire record to the USPTO Director." Pursuant to the regulation it is
the OED Director, not the Office ofHearings and Appeals, which is responsible for transmitting
the record to the USPTO Director.
Ifyou believe there is an issue with the record as transmitted to the USPTO Director by
the OED Director, you may consider raising ihe issue, in writing, with the USPTO Director.
And, because the documents you claim are missing are your own exhibits, you should be able to
provide them to the USPTO Director should the Director need them during her du mvo review of
the record. Moreover, once aparty appeals amatter to the USPTO Director and the files are
transferred out ofthe Office ofHearings and Appeals, our involvement in the matter concludes
as the USPTO Director is tasked with making the final agency decision.
Sincerely,
Hnthia Matos
Docket Clerk
Cc: Melinda M. DeAtley
Elizabetii Uilmer Mendel
s@usDto.gov
RESPONDENTS
EXHIBIT
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE USPTO DIRECTOR
In the Matter of )
BangHir Shia, ) Proceeding No. D2014-31

)
Respondent )
)
ORDER
On June 23,2015, Dr. Bang-er Shia, aprose Respondent in the above-captioned matter,
filed arequest toask that the hearing record becorrected. Respondent asserted that certain
exhibits, identified as"T0-T5" in therecord ofthe hearing proceedings, hadbeen omitted fix)m
the official record.
OnJune24,2015, the OED Director responded to Respondent's request, noting that

Respondent filed two sets of exhibits wththe prefix *T' during the hearing proceedings for
D2014-31 (exhibits T1-T3 were filisd onJanuary 15,2014 andexhibits T0-T5 were filed on
September 22,2014). TheOED Director acknowledged thepossibility of confusion due to the
fact that Respondent filedtwodifferent setof exhibits labeled withtheprefix "T."However, in
advance of a ruling on Respondent's request, the OED Director submitted a second, corrected
record. The corrected record included both sets of"T' exhibits.
Thereafter, on July 7,2015, Respondent filed her Reply Brief as well as anotherrequest
to correctthe record. In this second request.Respondent no longer makes any requestwith
regard to the'T' exhibits. However, she alleges that hearing exhibitsA-R, whichwereadmitted
bytheAdministrative LawJudge during thehearing proceedings, arcomitted firom the record.
OnJuly 8,2015, the OED Director responded to the July7 request, notingthatexhibits A-Rare
in Folder "D" of the corrected record. A review ofthe corrected record shows that all of
Reqjondent's exhibits A-Rareincluded in Folder *T)" ofthe corrected record.
Respondent's request is DENIED.
7/Z3//S'
Date Sadn Harris
General Counsel for General Law
United States Patent and Trademark Office
RESPONDENTS
on behalf of
IfoteSenaryofConunetcefor InteUectualPtopeiând
Director offl>e United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
cc:
Dr.Banger-Shia
Patent OjQSice of BangShia
102 Lindencrest Court
Sugar Land, TX 77479
.!;4a@yahooxota
Respondent
OED Director
'' 'V'@uspto.gov
C' ..n@usDto.gov
EXfflBIT AC
Exhibit AC
Evidence ofUSPTO tampering with Dr. Shia's Reply Brirf
i) Dr. Shia's Reply Brief-was timely submitted to the OED Counsel

Melinda DeAtley andthe USPTO Director onJuly 3,2015.
ii) In an informal "courtesy" email, Dr. Shia's Reply Brief was first
acknowledged by USPTO with a timely "receipt" date of July 6,2015,
contradict with the U.S. postal service date and the certificate of
service date of July 3,2015.
iii) Dr. Shia's Reply Briefwas stamped with the "receipt" date of "July
6,2015".
iv) Dr. Shia's timely submitted Reply Brief was eventually

acknowledged by the USPTO General Counsel Sarah Harris with an
untimely "filing" date of July 7,2015.
U.S. Postal Service'"

CERTIFIED MAIL' RECEIPT
Do/resj/c Mail Only
Far de;tvery inlofmalion, visit our weiisfte at ivww.uaps.com".
Pcta>] ; $
Racum Rocipt F<m

(EnlcKvtmcMRmi*c4
n*ilnetad Otlhwv Fa
(EnKmrncfll Raglrd>
Total Pos:i*&Faef. k
StiaJi
^S. Postal
Ml
JH
1certifiedmaTl
^'^'estic Man On!v
<"'VCry lr./or:i,arion "*
m
ru
r
to
m Pwiag. i S
o CttK4p0 I
a
o
a ^^yPoWMWl
tr IMv
RESPONDENTS
=4
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 1-2 https://iis-nig6.inail.yahoo.coin/neo/laiinch?.ra!id-e48nrasuniuo6#346.
Filed 08/17/16 Page 46 of 113 PageID# 201
?rint
D2014-31 Baig^r Shia Reply Brief to the OED Directors Appellee Brief
From: (Qflaie3lfiteafir@USPTO.GOV)
To:
l@USPTO.GOV;
Cc: .teiiiittfi@yatioo.com; ftâWafiBfittBy@USPTO.GOV;
Date: Tuesday, July 7,201512:19 PM
Ms. Seifert:
Please find attached, an electronic copy of"Respondent's Reply Briefto the OED Director's Appellee
Brief received timely in the Solicitor's Office on July 6,2015. The hard copy will be delivered today,
July 7,2015. ^
A
Kindest regards.
GtamMoBa
Paralegal Specialist
Office ofthe Solicitor
US. Patent and Trademark Office
Phone: (571)272-5169
Email: <MMkJdMMac@usDto.gov
Attachments
D2014-31 RESP Reply to USPTO Director's Brief07.06.15.pdf{1.90MB)
^SpSiS^T?
- 1IT
PROCEBDINONO. D2014-31
SOLICITOR
IN THE MATTER OF:
JUL 06 209
O&RaBir&IRMIQIAflKOinS
DR* BANG-ER SlliAi
respondent.
RESPONDENT'S REPLY BRIEF

TO THE OED DnffiCTOR'S APPELLEE BRIEF
Dt.Bang-erSWa
My 3.2015
102 Ijndfflicrest'Coiirt
fi...rT^tX 77479
ioo.com
EXHIBtr
TABl.R OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS '

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 1
DISPUTED FACTS ^
DISPUTED POINTS OF LAW 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT -2
ARGUMENT SUPPORING DISPUTED FACTS 2
A. Evidence existed to dispute the valicBty ofthe Show Cause letter. 2
B. Evidence existed to dispute the validity ofthe Exclusion Order 2
C. No evidence existed tojustify the TEAS's erasing ane-signature 3
D. No evidence racisted ofviolations of rules in 37 C.F.R. 2 andTMEP...4
E. 37 CJ-R. part 10 was replaced by part 11 after May 3,2013 .4
F. Noevidence existed offorging a written signature wth a keyboard 5
G. No evidence existed ofUPL, including assisting another's UPL 5
H. No evidence existedofthe alleged misrepresentation or deceit 6
L No evidence existed ofthe OED's compliance with 37 C.F.R. 11.32....7
J. Evidence regarding 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c)(2) was missmg from fects 7

K. Dr. Shia'stestimony of the legal authority was missing from facts 8
L. Docimients supporting Dr. Shia's testimony were missing from fects 8

M.TheAO's feetfinding of77/836,647 wasfalsified andprejudiced 9
N. Material Factswere missing or felsified in AU's Findings of Fact 10
ARGUMENT SUPPORTING DISPUTED POINTS OF LAW 10
A. The Show Cause letter violated the Fifth AmendmentPrivilege 11
B. The Exclusion Order, violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process

Clause and 35 U.S.C. (3)(b)(2)(A), is invalid 11
C. No case law supports the alleged violationofdisciplinary rules 12
D. PTO's Authority of35 U.S.C.2(bX2) must be consistent with law...13
E. Jurisdiction of 35 U.S.C. (2)(bX2)(D) is forfeited when it is applied

inconsistent with 35 U.S.C. (2)(bX2XA) or 37 C.F.R. 11.1 15
CONCLUSION 15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 16
u
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Animal Legal Def, Fund,

932F.2d 927 14
Armstrong v. Manzo^
380U.S. 545,552(1965) 11
Boddie v. Connecticut,
401 U.S. 371,379(1971) 11
Borlem S,A. Empreedimentos Industriais v. UnitedStates,

913 F.2d 933,937 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 12
Cooper Technologies Co. v. Dudas,
536 F.3d 1330,1335-1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008) 14
Fuentes v. Shevin,
407 U.S, 67,82 (1972) *. 11
Le^witzv. Tvrley,
414U.S. 70,77(1973) 11
Merck & Co, Inc., v. Kessler,
80F.3d 1543,1550 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 13,14
Tafas V. DolU
559 F.3d. 1345,1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2009) 14
Wyeth V. Kappos,
No. 2009-1120 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7,2010) 14

111
United States Constitution
The Fifth Amendment 11,12
Statutes And Other Legal Authorities

5 U,S.C. 558 7,15
35U.S.C.2 1,2,3,4,13,14,15
35U.S,C.3 11,12
35 U.S.C. 32 1,12
37CJ.R.2.17 4
37 C.F.R. 2.193 2,3,4,6,7
37 CJf.R. 10.23 .4
37 CJJl. 10.77 .4
37 C.FJI. 10.20through 10.112 4

37CJJL11.1 2,13,15
37C.F.R. 11.19 7
37CJfJl.11.23 7
37 CJJl. 11.32 1,7
37CJF.R.11.34 7
37 CJJR. 11.49 1
37 CJJL11.303 13
37 C.F.R. 11.505 5,6,13
37 CJ.R. 11.701 6,13
37 CJF.R.11.804 13
37 C.F.R.11.901 5
iv
37 C.F.R. 11.101 through 11.901

American Inventor's Protection Actof 1999, Pub,L. No. 106-113 1
Regulations
Manual ofPatent Examimng Procedure ,
Rules ofProfessional Conduct
Tradonaric Manuel ofExamination Procedure ('TMEP") 2,4,
TMEP601
TMEP 608.01
TMEP 611.04
TMEP611.06(dHe)
USPTO Code ofProfessional Responsibility
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether the Show Cause letter and the Exclusion Order issued by the
former Commissioner of Trademarks (^^Commissioner") are valid? Whether the
Initial Decisionissued by the Administrative Law Judge ("ALT') is warranted?
DISPUTED FACTS
No evidence of 37 C.F.R. 11.49 existed to justify the PTO's erasing
electronic signatures Cê-signatures") at the Trademark Electronic Application
System ("TEAS"), to justify the alleged violations ofrules in 37 C.F.R. part2, part
10,and part 11, and in Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure ("TMEP"), or
tojustify the procedural compliance with 37 C.F.R. 11.32, and thejurisdiction of
35 U.S.C. 32. Dr. Shia's hearing testimony of the legal authority to bind the
applicants, and her admitted supporting documents, both admitted mto evidence
and material to the case, were missing in the ALJ's FindingsofFact.
DISPUTED POINTS OF LAW
Dr. Shiatestified to have the legal authority to bind the applicants. Neither
case lawnor notices of violations existed to justify the alleged violations. Also, no
evidence existed that the PTO's interpretation can be more than "procedural" by
surpassing the limits on the PTO's statutory authority of 35 U.S.C. 2, or by

preempting the state in theregulation of law inthis disciplinary proceeding.
SUMMARY OF ARUGMENT
The rules governing electronic signature ("e-signatures') are 37 C.F.R.

2.193(c). No violation of37 C.F.R. 2.193 (c) can be sustained due to the lack of
information provided under 37 C.F.R. 2.193 (cX2).
Absent notices ofeolation, no evidence existed ofthe alleged violation of

the mles in 37 C.FJR. 2 and TMEP. The AU's application ofthe procedural rules
in 37 CJ.R 2 and TMEP to the alleged misconduct is inconsistent wth 35
U.S.C. 2(bX2XA). Absent supporting case law, noncompliance witii 37 C.FJL
11.1, flie ALJ preempted tiie state in regulating 37 C.F.R. Part 11 by interpreting
Dr. Shia's entering e-signatures as practice oflaw and forgery. The jurisdiction of
35 U.S.C. 2(bXa)0D) is forfeited when it is j^plied inconsistence witii 35 U.S.C.
2(bX2XA) or37 C.F.R. 11.1.
APrtlTMKNT SUPPORTING DISPUTED FACTS
A. Evidence existed to dispute the validity of the Show Cause letter.
Absent a file No., the Show Cause letter was not published at Trademaric
and Document Retrieval ('TSDR") for public review. TVS 627:17- 628:7.
The Show Cause letter coerced Dr. Shia for evidence in proofof herinnocence ina
charge ofUPL. R. Ex. Ci-C->. The Show Cause letter was misrepresented with a
peculiar OED date stamp. TV3 404:4-22. R. Ex. T(f-T^: Gov. Ex.520. G18783.
2
B. Evidence existed todispate tlie validity ofthe Exclusion Order.
Lade of a file No, Exclusion Order was not published. IVS 627:17- 628:7.
No evidence was presented in the Exclusion Order to support the alleged charge.
The mere statement that"... it may be presumed that you are completing, signing,
and thesc filings yourself..." isinsufficient to sustain the allegation of
UPL. R. Ex. G2. Exclusion Older was also misrepresented with the citation of37
C.F.R. 2.193(cXl) without the presence ofits counterpart (cX2). And, the blue-
ink signature was not believed to be personally signed by the Commissioner.
C. No evidence existed to justify the TEAS's erasing an e-signature.
The TEAS encoded "electroiuc signing" in XML programming as "creating
new (signatures)", which erases an e-signature if the form is not submitted

immediately. TV2 213 1:14; G. Ex. 508.017938,017964. Tanya Amos testified
that the TEAS was "designed" to remove e-signatures. TV2 214:1-9. The ALJ's
niiffgntinn that the TEAS "inadvertently" removed an e-signature was falsified.
Tnitifll rwiisinn. at 20. The OED presented no evidence to justify the TEAS's
<M'fl<iing an e-signature entered. Neither evidence existed to justify the TEAS's
unjustified act in this procee(Ung initiated under 35 U.S.C. (2Xb)(2)(D), which

requires the PTO's action not tobeinconsistent with law. 35 U.S.C. (2Xb)(2).
D. No evidence existed ofviolations of rules in 37 C.F.R. 2 and TMEP.
The ALJ alleged that Dr. Shia's typing in e-signatures at the TEAS violated
37 CJJL 2.17(0X1X2), and 2.193(a), (eXl). and TMEP 601, 608.01, and
611.06(d)-(e). Initial Decision, at 9-16. These rules are contained in 37 C.F.R. 2
and TMEP and are made under 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(A) to govern the conduct ofthe
proceedings in registering a trademark. No notice of violation was issued as to e-
signatures entered. TW2 222:6-21, TJ^ 251:4-19; G. Ex. 506-5IS The evidence
shows if examining attorneys do not contact the applicant by iggning an OA to

inquire signer's authority, the signature has been accepted. T\Q 362:3-8. Absent
notices ofviolations ofthese rules, ALJ's allegations were unwammted.
E. 37 CFJt. part10 was replaced by part11 after May 3,2013.
The USPTO Code ofProfessional Responsibility, 37 C.FJI. 10.20-112,

was replaced by part 11,37 C.F.R. 11.101-901, Rules ofProfessional Conduct,
effective May 3,2013. Manual ofPatent Examining PmceHnra at R-308. The AU
erred in applying to the alleged misconduct the expud rules of37 C.F.R. part 10,
whffli the Amended Complamt was filed on July 22,2014. Tnirial iVciemn at 2,16
and 21. No evidence existed as to the applicability of37 C.FJI. part 10, innlnHing
10.23(a). (bX4). (bX5), (cX2)(ii), 10.77(a), and 10.23(b)(6), after May 3,2013.
"A disciplinary proceeding based on conduct engaged in prior to the

effective date of these regulations may be instituted subsequent to such
effective date, if such conduct would continue to justify disciplinary
sanctionsunder the provisionsofthis part."
37CF.R. 11.901.
F. No evidence existed of forging a written signature with a keyboard.
The TEAS is posted online by the PTO. TV2 224:6-7. Dr. Shia could not
sign an applicant's pen-and-ink signature from online ^th a keyboard. Gov. Ex.
506-514. The allegation of forging an applicant's signatures was practically
impossible and was falsified by the TEAS's evidence.Initial Decision, at 17.
G. No evidenceexistedof UPL,including assistinganother's UPL.
All trademark forms are provided online as ready-to-fill-in, not restricted to
attorneys. TVl 53:6-17; R. Ex. S. The fillable paper application, PTO Form 148;
0MB No.0615-0009 is promulgated to tlie public at httD://www.pdffiHerrnm/
189271-1478a-PTO-Form-1478a-Various-Fillable-Forms. R. Ex. 85/689.678. No
evidence of unauthorized practice of law ("UPL") existed showing that Dr. Shia's
entering online e-signatures identical to the pen-and-ink signatures on paper forms
waspracticing law in violation ofthe lawofTexas, whereshe resided in.
37C.F.R. 11.505, Unauthorized Practice of Law, provided

Apractitioner shall not practice law in ajurisdiction in violation oftiie

regulation oftiie legal professi<m in tiiat jurisdiction, or unnthAr
in doing so.
The ALJ's allegations ofDr. Shia assisting anotiier's UPL is unwarranted:

no evidence was presented that the foreign attorneys are licensed practitioners with
the state orthe PTO, which is anecessary element requited of37 C.FJI. 11.505.
H. No evidence existed ofthe alleged misrepresentation or
As detaUed in Respondent's Appeal Brief, tiie AO's cited cases bear no

relevance to the alleged misconduct ofentering e-signatures with akeyboard. Also,
Dr. Shia could not misrepresent any information, which is published online or
within the Icnowledge ofthe PTO. Dr. Shia did not autiiorize anyone to access her
emails: an OA is published online at TSDR whenever it is emailff/f G. Ex. SOfi-
514. Tanya Amos testified tiiat tiie fectual predicate oftiie alleged violation under
37 C.F.R. 2.193 (c) is tiiat IP addresses in tiie XML data did not correlate witii
tiie same location as where tiie signatoiy was located. 182: 7-22. In feet, as
early as on February 21,2013, tiie Commissioner has stated tiiat
"Moreover, embedded information in tiiese TEAS filings indicates tiiat tiiev
were directiy electronically signed and submitted by someone using a
compute on a computer network located in or around Sugar Land Tern
where you maintain a mailing address. As it is highly unlikely tiiat all of
fliese apphcants, most ofwhom are foreign, are traveling to your location to
complete and sign these electronic filings, it may be presumed that you are
completing, signing, and submitting these filings yourself..." R P.v no
In addition, the Ryu204 enuul was identified wifli Dr. Shia at the instant
when the online submission was made. Gov. Ex. 507. at G17862; flnv Rv sift at
G18117; Gov. Ex. 512. at G182SS: Gov. Ex. 508. at G17939, G17964. Gov. Ex.
512, at G18333. The ALJ even disputed, without basis, in footnotes Dr. Shia's
testimony, for fects that he believed to be unmaterial. Initial r>ip.ifiinn at 20, fii 12.
I No evidence existed ofthe OED's compliance with 37 C.F.R. U32.

Under 37 C.F.R. 11,32, ifthe OED Director is ofdie opinion that grounds
exist for discipline under 11.19(b), the OED Director, after complying where
necessary with the pro\dsions of5 U.S.C. 558(c), shall convene a m.ring of a
panel ofthe Committee on Discipline, which shall then determine.! as specified in
11.23(b) whether adisciplinary proceeding shall be instituted. If probable
is determined to exist to bring charges under 11.19(b), the OED Director shall
institute a disciplinary proceeding by filing a complaint under 11.34. No
evidence existed tojustify the OED's procedural compliant'^' of37 C.F.R. 11.32.
J. Evidence regarding 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c)(2) was missing from facts.
37 C.FJI. 2.193 (c) contains (c)(1) and (cX2) connected by the Boolean
connector "or". TV2 181:5-182:2. R. Ex. X. There is no information currently
7
provided for tiie TEAS users to foUow under 37 C.F.R. 2.193(cX2). IV2201:9-
10, m 385:19-386:9. 386:19-21, m 623:12-16. No violation can be alleged
for noncompliance vdth an "unspecified" 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c)(2), and thus no
violation of37 C.F.R. 2.193 (c) can ever be sustained. Initial Decision, at 10.
K. Dr. Shia's testimony ofthe legal authority was missing from facts.
Persons who have legal authority to bind the appUcants are not exhaustively
listed in TMEP 611.04. liS 350:1-20. Foreign q)plicants authorized Dr. Shiato
submit trademark documents to the USPTO. TVl. 473:15-16, TY2 221:1-6, TY4
470:12-14; w F-v- 8S/SltS.031: 85/595.869. 85/689.678. 85/712.340, 85/719,310,
S/747.741.85/756.529. Attorney Catherine Cm testified that if Dr.
Shia fstflWwbfid that she had legal authority to bmd her clients, this case would fall
apaiL TV2 192:17-22; 193:1-5. Dr. Shia testified she had the legal authority to
bind the applicants. TVl 473:15-16. JVl 221:1-6; Order For Documents, at 1. Dr.
Shia's testimony, nevertheless, was not included in the ALJ's Findings ofFact
L. Documents supporting Dr. Shia's testimony were missing from focts.

On October 9,2014 the ALJ ordered Dr. Shia to file documents supporting
her testimony of entrusted legal authority. Order For Documents, at 1. On
October 20, 2014, Dr. Shia filed documents supporting her testimony of legal
authority. Pftsnnndent's nocuments For Authorization From Applicants. On
November 20, 2014, Hie AU denied the OED Director's objection and admitted
into evidence Dr. SWa's autiiorization documents supporting her hearing testimony
ofIfae oitrusted legal authority. Order Denvine The OED Director's Motion to
gfriiTA s Post-hearine Exhibits And Respondent's Motion To Strike
Pvhihit A of Amended ComolMnt and Hearing Testimony.
Catherine Cwn, a staff attorney and an editor ofthe TMEP, T\Q 325:16-18,
"[wle do not require an E signature. If you submit as part of the
applirati"" adocument such as aPDF file with ahandwritten signature, there is no
requirement for an additional signature." TN^ 395:12-16. However, Dr. Shia's
sutoiitted on October 20,2014 containing the applicant's pen-and-ink
signature on die trademark forms submitted to the PTO, admitted by the AU, were
not included in die AU's FindingsofFact
M. The ALJ's fact findii^ of77/836,647 was falsified and prejudiced.
Hie ALT alleged that Dr. Shia "signed" and "changed" the address on a
rhanga of Correspondence Address form ofthe 77/836,647 (*647) application on
Febiuaiy 7,2013. Initial Decision, at9. In &ct, Dr. Shia electronically entered her
own nattif! as domestic representative when she amended "TW" as 'Taiwan" on
^ orib iabk mrie. 14.T> A"''l^

F.hn, tb wi no plo. of th. W at hA DM
4M-.16.20; 508:1l-l. DC. Shin""! i* W " OPP""'"!' ''^
Hie AU's allegations ofthe *647 were notonly unfoundedbut also prejuMced.
N. Material Facts were missing or fobified in AU's Findings ofFact
nie AU's allegations ofDr. Shia's pleading the Fifth Amendment did not
occur in this proceeding; it occurred at the proceeding of D2014-04. ^
at 27; 619:18-620:4; R.Ex,E-F. For 85/756,529, the AU's Finding
ofFact Med to include the applicant's Response to OA and the Statement ofUse
(SOU) submitted on March 24. 2013 and August 17, 2013, respectively, even
thou^ both the OA and the SOU were admitted into evidence. G. Ex. 514, at
G18425 and G18448-18450. Also, the IP addresses traced by tiie Windstream
Inc. showed that the submission of documents in 85/595,869,
85/748,531 and 85/719,310 was not identified with Dr. Shia. G. Ex. 517, at
G18578-18580. This undisputed feet, well cited in Dr. Shia's post-hearing brief,
not fevorable to the AU's Initial Decision, was missing in his Finding ofFact Id.
ARGUMENT SUPPORTING DISPUTED POINTS OF LAW
10
A. The Show Causeletter violated the Fifth Amendment privilege.

nie Fifth Amendment provides that no person "shall be compelled in any
criminal case tobeav^tnessagainsthimself." This protections
witness in acivil proceeding, "where the answers might incriminate [the witness]
in fixture criminal proceedmgs." Lîtz v. Tta-ley. 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973). The
alleged charge mthe Show Cause is UPL, acrime regulated by each ofthe States.
The Show Cause letter compeUed Dr. Shia to be awitness against herself for an
alleged charge ofUPL, where the answermight incriminate her in afiiture crimmal
proceeding in astate, where she resided in. The Show Cause letter therefore
violated Dr. Shia's FifBi Amendment priwlege against self-incrimination for the
answers compelled might incriminate her in afuture criminal state case ofUPL.
B. The Exclusion Order, violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process

Clause and 35 U.S.C. (3)(b)(2)(A), Is Invalid.
The Order deprived Dr. Shia's right to be a domestic

representative or correspondent. The "rootrequirement ofthe Due Process Clause
is that an individual be given an opportunity to be heard before she is derived of
any "gnifiirant property interest. Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67,82 (1972); Boddie
V. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371,379 (1971); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545,552
(1965) (the fanHamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard
"at ameaningful time and in ameaningful manner^). The Show Cause letter of
n
January 23, 2012, Med to be issued at ameaiui^l time after the e-agnatures
were entered online and submitted to the PTO since 2006; it also failed to be issued
in a manner for Ming to inform the ^plicants of aviolatirai ofPTO
rules, if any, as to the e-signatures. Absent a meaningfid notice issued at a
time, the Exclusion Order violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process
by depriving Dr. Shia's right ofadomestic representative or correspondent.
35 U.S.C. 32 vests the authority ofexcluding any person ftom fiirther

practice with the PTO Director. No evidence shows that adomestic representative
or correspondent shall be able to practice before the PTO. As such, neither the
PTO Director northeCommissioner isauthorized to exclude Dr. Shia from being a
representative. Also, no evidence existed that the Commissioner is
audiorized to interpret her authority under 35 U.S.C. (3Xb)(2XA) to manage the
admimstrative activities of the PTO to include the exclusion of any person fiom
being a representative or correspondent, which even exceeds the PTO

Director's ri^t to exclude under 35 U.S.C. 32. An agency's determination of
the scope of its own authority is not entitled to Chevron deference. Borlem S.A.
Empreedimentos Industriais v. UnitedStates, 913 F.2d 933,937 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
C. No case law supports the aUeged violation of disciplinary rules.
12
No evidence ewsted of the alleged violations of 37 C.F.R. 11.804(a),

11.303(aXl), 11-505, 11.701, 11.804(c), 11.804(d). The practice of law is
regulated by each State. The PTO rules ofProfessional Conduct of37 C.F.R. part
n are modeled aftw tiie American Bar Association (ABA) rules of Professional
37 CJ.R. 11.1 provided "Nothing in this part shall be construed to
preempt the authori^ of each State to regulate the practice of law, ..." The
of UPL is Unwarranted: no cases presented intius proceeding shows that
"entering an e-signatures" identical to the pen-and-ink signature constitutes

"practice oflaw" in Texas, where Dr. Shia resides in, and is "in violati<i ofthe
law of Texas". The allegation of Dr. Shia's assisting another's UPL is fiirther
unwarranted. No evidence ôws that any oneofdie foreign attorneys is a licensed
practitioner, let alone his work constitutes "practice of law" in that state, and "in
violation ofthe law ofthat State". The name ofthe state is not identified.
D. PTO's authority of 35 U.S.C 2(b)(2) must be consistentwith law.
Pursuant to American Inventor's Protection Act of 1999, the PTO may
establi^ regulations, not inconsistent with the law, as provided in 35 U.S.C.
2(bX2). Pub. L. 106-113. But this authority does NOT grant the PTO the authority
to issue "substantive" rules. Merck & Co. Inc., v. Kessler, 80 F.3d 1543, 1549-50
(Fed. Cir. 1996). "Arule is 'substantive' when it 'effect a change inexistmg law or
13
poUcy' which 'affect[s] individual ri^ts and obUgfttions." Animal Legal D^.
Fund, 932 F.2d 927. To comply with 35 U.S.C. 2(bX2XA), aPTO rule must be
procedural", meaning it must "govern the conduct of proceedings in the Office."
Cooper Technology Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330,1335-1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
The Federal Circuit limited Chevron deference to the PTO intwo different
ways, each relating to its prior hol<fing that the PTO has no "substance rulemaking
power". Id. Wyeth v. Kappos, No. 2009-1120 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7,2010). Mcrfc &Co.
V. Kessler, 80 F.3d 1543,1550 (Fed. Cir. 1996). ("Because Congress has not vested
the [PTO] Commissioner with any general substantive rulemaking power, the
[rule] at issue ... cannot possibly have the 'force and effect oflaw."). PTO rules
accorded deference must be procedural", related to the "proceedings" of the PTO
ra&w than substantive law. y. The Federal Circuit's precedent was clear that
Chevron deference should be accorded to procedural rules promulgated under 35
U.S.C 2(bXaXA) and section 132(b) of the Patent Act Tafas v. Doll, 559 F.3d.
1345, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Absent evidence of violation of the PTO
procedural rules made under 35 U.S.C 2(b)(aXA), the ALJ's interpretation of

PTO procedural rules tohave an effect on a practitioner's conduct isunwarranted.
E. Jurisdiction of 35 U.S.C. ^)(b)(2)(D) is forfeited when it is applied

inconsistent with 35 U.S.C. (2)(b)(2)(A) or 37 C.F.R. 11.1.
14
Ue rules of35 U.S.C. (2)(bX2XA) and (2)(bX2)(D) are exclusive of

each other. To comply with 35 U.S.C. (2XbX2XA). PTO rules must be
"piocedural" to governthe conductofdie proceedings. The ALTs mterpretationof
prorules of37 C.F.R. part 2andTMEP to have an effect on Dr. SWa's conduct is
not consistent with 35 U.S.C. (2XbX2XA). which must forfeit the authority of35
U.S.C. (2)(bX2XD). Also, lade of supporting case law, noncompliant witii 37
CPU. 11.1, tiie ALJ preempted tiie state by interpreting the alleged miscondua
as forgery or UPL in violation of disciplinary rules, which also forfeits tiie
au&ority of 35 U.S.C. (2)(bX2XD). Asanction may not be impose or a
substantive rule orordw issued except vnHbia jurisdiction delegated to tfie agency
and as auttiwized by law. 5U.S.C. 558 (b). Ladt oftiie autiioriQr of 35 U.S.C.
(2Xb)^XD)i the Initial Decision witii a sanction was issued in violation of 5
U.S.C. 558(b).
roNCLUSiON
Dr. Shia respectfiiUy reque^ tiiat tills disciplinary action and tiie Irutial
Decitionbe <fismissed.
Respectfully Submitted,
. Diâng-erShia
IS
fRPTIgiÂTR OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the origiiial and three true and correct copies of the
-Respondent's Reply Brief were served viapostal certified mail onthe 3rfday of
July, 2015,on:
USFTO Director
Mail Stop 8
Officeofthe Solicitor,
United States Patent and Trademark OfSce
P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
A trae and conect copy of "Respondent's Reply Brief was served via postal
certified mail ontiie 3td day ofMy, 2015, on:
T
/ MelindaDeAtley
/ Elizabeth Ullmer Mendel
/ Associate Solicitors
Mail Stop 8
OfiSce ofthe Solicitor
P.O. Box 1450
Respectfully Submitted,
A
/.^v>
Dr.'Bang-erShia
16

before THE USPTODIRECTOR
In the Matter of
Bang-erShia, ProceedingNo. D2014-31
Respondent
ORDER
On June 23,2015, Dr. Bang-er Shia, apro se Respondent in the above-c^tioned matter,
filed arequest to ask that the hearing record be corrected. Respondent asserted that certain
exhibits, identified as "T0-T5" in the record ofthe hearing proceedings, had been omitted fix>m
the official record.
On June 24,2015, the OED Director responded to Respondent's request, noting that
Respondent filed two sets ofexhibits withthe prefix during the hearing proceedmgs for
D2014-31 (exhibits T1-T3 were filed on January 15,2014 and exhibits T0-T5 were filed on
September 22,2014). The OED Director acknowledged the possibility ofconfusion due to the
feet that Respondent filed two different set ofexhibits labeled witli the prefix "T." However, in
advance ofaruling on Respondent's request, the OED Director submitted asecond, corrected
record. The corrected record included both sets of"T* exhibits.
^ Thereafter, on July 7,2015, Respondent filed her Reply Briefas well as another request
toconectlherecoid.
- ... j
finEs^cSScl request. Respondent no longer makes any requestwith
nf\ Irtna^r malrAC flfiv rftnilPJst witli
regard to tlw "T" exhibits. However, she alleges that hearing exhibits A-R, wWch were admitted
bytheAdministrative Law Judge during thehearing proceedings, are omitted from the record.
On July 8,2015, the OED Director responded to ttie July 7request, noting that exhibits A-R are
inFolder "D" ofthe corrected record. Areview ofthe corrected record diows that all of
Respondent's exhibits A-R are included in Folder "D" ofthe corrected record.
Respondent's request is DENIED
7/23//r
Date Sar^ Harris
Genera] Counsel for General Law
United States Patent and Trademark Office
PrSpondSts
EXHIBIT
40^
on behalf of
Michelle Lee
UnderSecretary ofCommercefor Intellectual Property and
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
cc:
Dr. Bang^-Shia
Patent Office ofBang Shia
102 Lindenciest Court
SugarLand,TX 77479
toiiiiiMB@vahoo;Com
Respondent
OED Director
Hhîfey@"sptQ,Rov
).gOV
EXHIBIT AD
Exhibit AD
Evidence ofUSPTO General Counsel Sarah Harris' tampering witti

evidence in the Final Order.
i) On October 9, 2015, Dr. Shia testified at the trial she had the legal
authority to bind the applicants and also electronicaUy entered the
foreign applicants' names as they were removed by the TEAS.
ii) In the General Counsel Saf^ Harris' Final Order, Dr. Shia's
testimony was tampered as "Dr. Shia testified she signed and filed
trademark dociraients with the Office."
iii) In the Final Order, Dr. Shia's testimony of the legal authority to
bind the applicants was completely leftout.
iv) Dr. Shia's post-hearmg documents supporting her testimony of legal

authority to bind the applicants were admitted by the ALJ into evidence,
but the validity thereof was denied by the General Counsel Ms. Harris in
her neither redacted nor published Final Order.
v) Dr. Shia's post-hearing documents were placed in a folder by

themselves and misleadingly marked as "submitted after hearing".
In the Matter Of:
BANG-ER SHIA
HEARING - VOLUME IV
October 09,2014
('ourt Reporting
asamo \s erencing

Fax: 703-837-8118 EXHIBIT
Alexandria, VA 22310
HEARING - VOLUME IV
BANG-ER SHIA
Paga 543
Page 54X
1 determine whether or not pursuant to the
1 the Exhibit G that I sent to the
Director of US PIO to prove roy innocence 2 regulation in question you could do what
2
was not permitted and should -- and will 3 you did. That's why I told you, send to
3
4 me any authorizations you had by
4 be disciplined because of this.
5 October 31.
5 JUDGE FERNMJDEZ: All right. What
6 Do you understand now?
6 he said was that it may be a violation
7 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Generally
7 of the disciplinary rules and statutes,
not that it was a violation of the 8 speaking, yes. I still have one
B
disciplinary rules and statutes. 9 question I'm not sure whether I can ask.
9
DR. SHIA (interpreter): Then but 10 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: YOU can go ahead
10
11 and ask.
11 I'm not an attorney, so looking at this,
I got scared, so I didn't want to said 12 DR. SHIA (interpreter): My
12
anything to him. 13 Exhibit Z3 through E5 Z5, I'm sorry,
13
14 BY MS. MENDEL:
14 it shows that Jaye Huang is only an
5 Q. Dr. Shia, this paragraph is telling 15 authorized correspondent, and he
16 you that you cannot use Exhibit G, which is the 16 signed -- he E signed the name he E
authorization vou provided from Jennie Wiii who 17 signed for Yunsheng Tianen (phonetic);
18 says you can electronically sign her name, to 18 however, he didn't have to provide the
9 contravene the recpiiraaents of 37 CFR 2*193r 19 evidence to show the authorization.
20 isn't he? 20 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: So what you're
21 A. Then I'm wondering what else, what 21 saying is that under Respondent's
22 other document can prove ray innocence. What on 22 Exhibit Z5, somebody else signed for a
Page 542 Page S44
1 earth do you want? I don't understand. 1 client and they were treated differently
2 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I mean, that's 2 than you were?
3 PTO's position. I get to irake the 3 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Yes. I'm
4 determination as to whether or not it 4 pretty clear. Can I go on?
5 can be used. Maybe it can be used, 5 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Well, you can
6 maybe it can't be used. You can send 6 certainly submit that exhibit and you
7 all those documents to me by October 31. 7 can make that argument, and I will
8 Do you understand? 8 consider it along with all the evidence
9 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I'm still 9 in the case.
10 not so clear. 10 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Jaye Huang

11 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; What paragraph W 11 is not an attorney in Taiwan or in
12 means is that PTO said that you could 12 China.
13 not use that authorization to circumi'ent 13 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Okay.

14 their regulation. That's I^TO's 14 DR. SHIA (interpreter): While ray
15 interpretation of their regulation. 15 authorization is from the attorney in
16 Now, you're claiming, your defense, 16 Taiwan and in China, so I don't know why
17 is that you had an authorization to be 17 I did everything legal and I have to sit
18 able to sicpi somebody pTfle'g name to 18 here and Jaye Huang doesn't have to sit
19 this application. .And that is vour 19 here.
20 authorization contained in Exhibit G to 20 JUDGE FERNÊZ: Okay. I

21 this letter. So because that matter is 121 understand what the argument is.
22 being disputed legally it's up to me to 22 BY MS. MENDEL:
T; (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 P; (703) 837-8118

http://www.casamo.com Casamo and Associates transcriptecasamo.com
A 4* i y
HEARING - VOLUME IV
BAN6-ER SHIA
Page 571
Paê 569
1 forward slashes as an electr<mic signature on
1 president.
2 Q. Please look at 618342. 2 page 618366, didn't you?
3 A. Okay,
3 A. Yes, I did type in "TimWu." I
4 Q. This is a Response to Office Action. 4 should not have typed two slash, though.
5 A. Can I just answ2r your question 5 However, PTO accepted it.
6 directly? The personal signature of Mr. Wu is 6 MS. MENDEL: Move the admission of
7 right there under the section of Miscellaneous. 7 Government 513.
8 Q. Did you file the -- 8 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Any objection?

9 A. And it is also on G18345. 9 DR. SHIA {interpreter): Nb.
10 Q. Did you electronically file this 10 MS. MENDEL: Let's tum to --
ill document on March 24# 2013? 11 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: So ordered.

12 A. AS far as I knew, yes, I did. 12 (Government Exhibit No. 513 was received
13 Q. And on that san-fi page, there is a 13 and admitted into evidence.)
14 response signature which appears to be the 14 BY MS. MENDEL:
15 electr<mic signature of Tim Wu in between 15 Q. Let*s tum to Government 54.

16 forward slashes. 16 A. Okay.
17 Do you see that? 17 Q. This is a third trademark application
18 A. Yes, I can answer this directly. I 18 for the same mark?
19 typed in the words "Tim Wu" because the 19 A. Yes. It " because it has a
20 original E signature was taken away by yqu. 20 different class number, this is Class 9.
21 And also, we attach the original signature of ^ 21 Q. And this is serial number 85756529?
22 Mr. Wu under the section of Miscellaneous. You 22 A. Yes. Can we not waste this time and
Page 570 Page 573
1 can see it in 618345. 1 if the answer would be the same, can we just
2 Q. Please look at 618365. 2 have a general answer to those questions?
3 A. Okay. 3 Q. Sure.
4 Q. This Is a Statement of Use? 4 Hill you agree that on every
5 A. Yes. 5 application that you submitted in this
6 Q. And you filed this on August 17, 6 Complaint that you signed the electronic
7 2013? 7 signature of your client?
8 A. Yes, I should be I should. 8 A. The " okay, are all these cases from
9 Q. And again, this has the electronic 9 D2014-31?
10 signature of Tim Nu between two forward 10 Q* Yes. 31, or is it 13? Yes.

11 slashes, but it is placed in the Signatory's 11 A. Let me give you a general answer.
12 Name box; is that correct? 12 okay?
13 A. So I made mistakes before. There's 13 Q. Sure.
14 no need to have two slash; however, PTO 14 A. If it's E signature, it was because
15 accepted it. We must type in "Tim Wu" because 15 the original E signature from the downloaded
16 he is the real applicant. He his real 16 portable file were taken away by you.
17 signature is in the Signature part attached 17 When we - when I uploaded those
18 file. His personal signature is also shovm in 18 files, your system eliminated those E
19 G18378. So we have --we have to type in T-I-M 19 signatures and you said it says to create
20 W-U, because that's what it shov;s in 618378 in 20 new. In the program, in coniputer program, if y
21 his personal handwritten signature. 21 it says create new, it means to eliminate all u
22 Q. But you typed in "Tim Wu" between 22 Uie previous versions. Using the program \
T: (703) 037-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F; (703) 837-8118

http://www.casamo.com Casano and Associates transcriptcasanio. com
a- - 1 /
HEARING - VOLUME IV
BAN6-ER SHIA
Page 575
Pa<ge 573 1
1 language, it says reset to zero, so it will 1 Q. And you filed you personally filed
2 these, documents?
/ 2 wash out all previous data.
I couldn't sign ray name because the 3 A. Yes.
3
4 applicant and the person with firsthand 4 MS. MENDEL: All right, I would
5 knowledge was sonebody else. And that name of 5 move the admission of Government
6 that person was there, only you took it away. 6 Exhibit 14.
Q. Okay, I would like to save time, but 7 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: 14?

7
8 this is not saving tixie. 8 MS. MENDEL: I'm sorry, 514. I
9 Are you willing to state on the 9 don't know what I said.
10 record that you signed the electronic signature 10 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Any objection.
11 of every client that appears in the 11 Dr. Shia?
12 applications that are in that are in the 12 DR. SHIA (interpreter): No.
13 second case? And if not, I'll just go ahead 13 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: So ordered. Is
14 ani< we'll finish. I'm on the last one* Let's 14 608 in? Yes, it's just not marked on ray
15 keep going. 15 sheet.
16 A. This is only the second case? How 16 (Government Exhibit No. 514 was received
17 many cases do we have? 17 and admitted into evidence.)
18 Q. Let's just go to page 618410. Does 18 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: No, I never ruled
19 this indicate that you filed this application 19 on that, did I?
20 on October 17, 2012? 20 MS. MENDEL: I'm sorry, I I have
21 A. This 2012 expire? 21 no idea what 608 is.
22 Q. Pardon ste? 22 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: It's the
Page 574 Page 576

1 A. I " I don't understand what new 1 declaration or no, I never ruled on
2 conplaint contains. Does it contain this 2 608. 608 is received into evidence.
3 material? Isn't that expired? 3 MS. MENDEL: Thank you, Your Honor.
4 Q. Please look at 618410. 4 (Government Exhibit No. 608 was received
5 A. Okay. 5 and admitted into evidence.)
6 Q. He are discussing Govenment 6 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I'm going to put
7 Exhibit 514. Does this indicate that you filed 7 Shia E5 into evidence also. Shia E5 is
8 this fi^lication on October 17, 2012? 8 in evidence also.
9 A. I don't want to waste an>ix:dy's time. 9 (Shia Exhibit No. E5 was received and
10 I admit all of it. They're all submitted by 10 admitted into evidence.)
11 me, okay? 11 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Respondent
12 Q. I just want to be clear on the 12 Exhibit Shia E5 is in evidence. And
13 record. So you admit that all of the 13 since I'm on a roll, let's do Shia 61,
14 electronic signatures on the applications and 14 62, and 63, also into evidence.
15 the other filings in these trademark 15 (Shia Exhibit Nos. 61 - 63 were received
16 applications, let me just make this clear, 16 and admitted into evidence.)
17 50 I guess 506 through -- not 506, I'm 17 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Okay, that cleans
18 sorrv, 507 throuah 514, vou entered those . 18 me up.
19 ywraelf? 19 MS. MENDEL: I just have a coiqple
20 A. Yes, zhe oricfinal. 20 of questions about 506, which is a
21 original clients' signatures were washed awav 21 slightly different application.
22 by vou, Next craestion? 22 BY MS. MENDEL:
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

http;//www.casarao.com Casamo and Associates transcriptQcasamo.com

In the Matter of: Proceeding No. D2014-31
Bang-erShia, October 9 2014
Respondent.
ORDER FOR DOCUMENTS
Respondent, through her hearing testimony, has indicated that her clients impart^ on her
ttie legal authority to bind chem in matters before the USPTO. Respondent further explained that
she may be in possession of such documents demonstrating this fact, but she would have to
check her records to confirm.
Accordingly, itis hereby ORDERED that Respondent shall file any such documents by
3;00 p.m. ETon October 31,2014.
So ORDERED,
lexandel^pemiSndez
HESPONDENrjs
mm
Proceeding^; 02014-3! RespondeiU'sDocumenis I0.2;20I4

pro,
Proceeding No. D2014-31
V.
Bang-er Shia,
ttftgpondent's Documents For Authorization From Applicants
Respondent testified at the hearing that Applicants imparted on her the legal authority
to bmd them in matters before USPTO. Counsel bears the burden to prove otherwise. The
documents attached hereto are evidence for the authorization from Applicants ofApplications
85/585,031,85/595,869,85/689,678,85/712,340,85/747,741,85/719,310,85/748,531, and
85/756,529,' compliant with the version ofTMEP 611 as ofthe filing dates ofthese eight
' The Amended Complaint ofD2014-31 alleges violations ofthe disciplinary rules related to ei^t
trademark applications not cited in. the Show Cause letter:
1) Paragraphs 1-303 were rebutted by Respondent's testimony;
2) Paragraphs 304 -340 were linked with Opposition No. 91195188, acontinued prosecution of
Application No. '647 first cited in D2014-04, dismissed by Counsel; and
3) Paragraphs 341 -347 refers to the e-signature/bang er shia/ above the signatory's name "bangcr
shia "ofApplication No. '647, compliant with 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c)(1).
Upon reporting to Applicants the filing ofthe documents to clear offthe alleged charges,
Applicants' attorneys would like Respondent to ask Commissioner and the OED why there had never
been a notice sent to Applicants ofadeficiency under 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c)(l), and ''Why wouldDr,
Shia be so dumb topay Commissioner to benefit iheApplicants, had Dr, Shia not had the legal
authority to bind theApplicants?" Submissions to the Court will be sent to Applicants' attomeys for
reference. On behalfofthe Applicants ofthese 8Applications, Respondent reserves the right to file a
complaint against Commissioner for violation of afair due process in the application of37 C.F.R.
2.193(c), for unauthorized tampering with Applicant's e-signatures inTSDR online documents, and
for discriminating the Applicants in the application of37 C.F.R. 2.193(c). Respondent also reserves
the right to seek ajudicial relieffiom Commissioner for asanction imposed by the OED in the matters
of tliis proceeding.
fl RESPONUbNI'S
1 ^ EXHlBfT ^
IWding:D20-4-JI Rp,te.fs l)ocu..ros lWOI4

appUcations.Acolor image OfUie authorization ftom ApplicantofApplication No.
85/712,340 is enclosed to show the Applicants blue-ink written signature.
To avoid apossible violation ofUSPTO Disciplmary Rules and Statutes, some
information in the documents were redacted.^
Respectfully submitted,
Oct 20,2014
Dr. Bang-erShia
-li|W|piiihin@yahoo.com
Int'l PatentOffice ofBang Shia
102 LINDENCREST CT. SUGAR LAND TX 77479
^Paragraph wofResp. Ex. Es, namely the RFI (Request for Information) letter ofOED File
No.G2081 datedDecember 5,2012, stated "In accordance with 37 C.F.R.2.193 andTMEP
611.01(c), the use ofExhibit Gisnot permitted in defiance ofthose requirements, and to do so
may be aviolation ofUSPTO Disciplinary Rules and statutes." Exhibit Gis the authorization
ofelectronic signature for Statement ofUse of Application No. 77/691,338, which was
compelled to be submitted in proofofinnocence by Commissioner's Show Cause letter dated
January23,2012.
2
PtoMedinsKMOi^'l Roronlltnl's l>ucumeni lajllOM

CERTOICATE OF SERVICE
Ihereby certify that aPDF version is filed with theAdministrative Uw Judge via
email to: a1j.al|@hud.gov.
Acopy ofthe foregoing is also served on the Director ofEnrolhnent ofDiscipline

via email to "pto-hudcases@uspto.gov"
Qct20.2014 tL
Dr.Bang-erShia
b8^nfeia@yahoo.com
Inf1Patent Office of Bang Shia
102LINDENCREST CT. SUGAR LANDTX 77479
1.
Application No. 85/585,031

Dr.BangerSHIA
International Patent Office of Bang Shia, INC.
102LINDENCRESTCT.
SUGAR LAND. TX 77479, U.S.A.
0^
Title: Int CL; 029

Applicant: Dongshan Dongxing Aquatic Processing Co., Ltd.
Director. Chi-CMng.Wcng . ^
.Address: 892# Dongxing Road. TonglingTown. Dongshan. Zhangzhou. Fujian. China
Nationality: China
' Goods: Meat; Food prepared from fish; Canned seafood; Canned fish; Preserved ftuit;
Preserved vegetable.
(X) Sign^ Power ofAttorney
Exwerr
85/585,031: p.1
POWER OF ATTORNEY
WITH LEGAL AUTHORITY TOBIND THE APPLICANT
fiworfavdHgoaaaiOf%od^vteItnS.C i UOl, lal tfntnAvOailftlMiMBanlta^r

illttcMintcavaidtfVSVUBiiai^didMitfiillMAbftliinpi^vlMadtettttaiiflliqvlaiteemWtf
tTliliMi Titfiil n m r f i M n r t f nr rflftiiriifriMiin
tcbffOftlsrUVJLC110Sl(bXletoiMIewistietitebsliledteRiMkdilMliefleitiweBori^
MaaBD<tottetatcfUiAerlBM(irfi4p>.a3MiiriclkrpcM%flBivB9QBtiaâaBtiUoalutfaiit^lilli
mdÛeicnmnBiktilelilfcildelleAfbmtteeeroihiriiiariiiariHiaoidwbait^belfcdkileawaflietfa
eaemdloeiiiifcttBieeditaiteriiMMiefioAeAetpwvtoeMieeeaMiwkOftoceieebidoMrtedeciiisetftKfl
i*tfUitomlBrM|iOTt(BQs<adtibldMagttSMdiiinSaBitiaaaaiMitfmMisicdibttair
OtfaSgoeâf M.
C<k'' 4*^
dnu> CM-CMnOrWcng
<ttAf> DMor
<COOTACriNFORMA'nOW>
Or. BMnSBR smh

jnt*X Patent Office of BAMQ SBIA
<SM> 102 LXHDBHCRSffiF Oi, '
<C&^ WOGKBL LMD
<SHM>
<Couotqi>
774.8201
âNtaM> 579-9966
<MiaMttwi> bitpat-banyhiaiBWi
PQPIT.
185/586,031; P.2
2.

DearDnShia:
Mark; (logoonly)
Classification: 9
Appltcanl/Natlonalliy/Address
Eng Ku Optleal Industrial Co., Ud. (President:Terry Chou)
Taiwan, R.O.C
No.12, XInhebeng Rd., South DIst., Tainan Oty 702,Taiwan (R^.C)
DocMMnts Enclosed
(X; Executed
(X) Power of Attorney/Declaration
ResMMoiHf
aaSL-
85f58J69; p.1
POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR

legalauthorityto bind with the applicant
Dedaration
giepumsinble^ fineorin^ ^jt,.kvj niayjeopardize&e validity offlie ^licafion

ot uqr ftoolicant: he/diebdievesflie applicantto befhe owwofthe
tq^llcation kg legjslei^, or, ifthe apptication is bang filed \mdet
IS U.S.C toowWge andbeliefno other person, fmn, coipoiation,
AppUeanti ^ fu^tical Indn^^âl Co., Ltd.

Signatur*:^^
" Chou
President
Datat March 22.2012
contact INFORMATION:
Name: Banger Shia
int'l Patent Office of Bang Shia, ICQ LINDENCREST CT, SUGAR LAND
TX-77479
TEL: (261) 285-9179; (361) 485-9179

FAX: (361) 579-9966
HkU^
BUBir .
88695.869: p.2
3.

rt.mini7.AT10N FpnM tup. AfWJCANT BETORETPS WfTQ
on
The
PEPwmo textile CO. LTP atMaJS
piiftnffpiHfliigMid Road. Lujia Tnwn. Kunahan City. JianiBU Provmce 21S33LChm8 for
tiademaik mattots before Ae USPTO including electronic signing for documents filed to the
USPTO fw applying die Trademark nf^fi^WR ADesign, in International CIssb 25'
Name ofAn>ticants Attorney: De-YanXu

Signature ofApplicants Attorney:
Address of Applicanlfs Attorney:
KunShan BaikeTrademaik AgentCo^ Ltd.

m ' 2rRi^mii0Mnûi689ie A307
A307, No.68, Hel Long Piang North Road, KunShan, Jiang Su,
China 215300
TEL:+86-512-57375732
FAX:+86-512-5737573l
WebSite: www.baike-tm.com
Mnil : pidevan@king-craft.com.tw
Enclosure: Tndemaikapplication Qf365WR ADesign, in International Class2i executed by

flppiicant ca July 23.2012
exhibit
{188/689.6781 p.l
"COLLECTIVE TRADEMARK/SERVICE MARK APPLICATION

(15 UAC. g1051,112fi(<0&(e))~
-TotheAsditiDtCoiiiiBiisioiieribrTmdeaiariis-
<APPUCANT INPORMATIOrO
<Hm>KUNSHAN PEPWINGTEXTILECX)..LTD
<SttBel>N0.I9 Huangpujiang Mid Road,Lujia Town,Kunshan City,
<City>Jiangsu Province 215331,
<Countiy>China
<;AFPUCANT ENirry ISfOmAXnOS>-SdeetoiÔNB^

<Ittdividiial: Counliy ofCitizeodup>
<CorpoTation: State/CountryofIiiooiporatios>China
<Partiiers!iip: State/Countiy under which OigBnized>
<4ame(8) ofOenenil Paitoer(8) & CitizenAip/lncoipontion>
<Olher Enti^ Type: Spedfie HafiueofEtttity>

<State/C(^ttviinderwhich Chmizcd>
<COLLECnVE TRADEMARK/SERVICE MARK INFORMATION>
<Maik> 365WR & Design
<TVped Fonn> YES "Enter YES, ife^firopriatr'
'Ââuit requats r^ttnaUm cfthe (Aove4dait\fidcfêetivemorft bithe UnludStatee PatentandVrodmark Office oti the
PrtndpdlRegltterestabttskedbyAetqfJufySt J946 QS U,S.C S i05I etieq,)/ortheJ6Uawiiiggoo(b/servfeet:''
<GOODS AND/OR SERVICES>

international Class Number(8)> 25
<Li8ting ofGoods and/or Service8>-4JsttyaieeMBnttkunidJUiiiib$b-'
Apparel fordancers, namely, tee shirtsji sweatshirts, pants, leggings, shorts andjackets; Athletic apparel,
namely, shirts, pants, jackets,footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms; A-shirts; Dust coats; Sport coats;
Turtleneck sweaters; V-neck sweaters; Sweaters; Pants; Jogging pants; Gym pants; Dress pants; Sleep
pants; Sports pants: Sweat pants; Wind pants; Yoga pants; Layettes; Waterproofjackets and pants; Hats;
Shoes! Socks: Gloves: Gloves as clothing: Belts rdothingl: Belts for clothing: Shawls: Running shneQ.
rSondeSi?
EXHIOT.
85/689,678: P.2 i|
Pcfft 2
<rrotalFi FeePaid>325
<io<nft^MimiherofClMsea> J
GBAiK
ss^SiK$STSftTOSicstnt?;;;5Ssssr5!2i-i
showb^themarkasMsedhiytiiemmbmineommate.''
<DateofFiist Use AnywbetO

<Dftte ofFirst Use in Commerce
'ôidfli Priority: SeetiM 44^ -'Enuryss,âppn>priaur

i!sz's:srjssss2sss's^^
i^plteatkM fti aceonkmcewUh IS VS.C II26(<0-"
CountryofForeign Filing?*
<FoieigD A{q)UcationNiimbei>
<DateofFoiciigiFiling>
<Forelgi Regbtratfons Seellon 44(e)> "BtOarYBS, tfappmpHaur
c^lkn ydth the above-Uknt^fieclgoodt/servlca (IS USC 1054), AppltcmtimutsubmittkefonlgnngbtntUmeertyteate

oraeertf^copyqftheforelgif ng^treUon, UiaeeordatieewUh IS U.S.C U26(e). -
<Countfy ofForeigp Reg)8tiation>
<FoidgD ItpgistntfonNttinbei>
<FoieigD Rjpgistnttion Date>
<ForeigaRegi8trttionRenewal Date>
<Forei9i Registtatioa Expiratioii Pate>
<METOOP OF CONTROL>
'rÂeaiileoiift9b.orMKfr focofi^ VJS.CIOSmh tkeute qfike mark fy memben as/ol/om:
<Meihod ofContxol>
BOSBir
IIM889.W8:P^_
wilhBlikfionidBBVfnItltfblBty
ffiir:h!l?Sfiiiiiinf nrt^ nVSJC.ImhuAîAmA^Vm
'^patmr^
OiteSigned July T
George YANCAJ
" BANGDtflBIA
mCAMYON GREEK
<StnO
<a^y> ViCTOBU
Stito TX
<Oointt^ TOA
77>0t-36f5
<7WftftAl fWfa
<IUfl|tooNanba>
<taNi&iibei> 3il-87999<6
<MiaAddpew>
nÔNDoSrs
EXHiBrr
678: P
4.

Oflte ot sw.. WC
DearDr. Shia:
Application fon Trademaric in Int Cl.; 25 ^

TiUe- Healthy
Applicant: JETWalking
CROWNbegins with STRONG CO.,
INTERNATIONAL FEETLTD.(simple word mark)
Address: No. 88, Yuwun Road, East District, Tainan City, Taiwan
Nationality: Taiwan
Documents:
(X) Power ofAttorney by mail later
BOgBIT
^2,340: P.I
POWER OF ATTORNEY
<
This is to authorize Dr. Baneer Shia. at Infl Patent Office ofBane Shia.
to have thelegal authority to bind theapplicant before the USPTO.
DecUnitlon
TheundersigDed, bdaglxetetv waned thutvnllfol iklsestttements tndtfao like sohuuIq

uepufdshableby fine orimprisoiuneUt, orbolb, under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001, nd that
such'wiU&l ftlseitatements, and the like, ou^Jetâidlze ibevalidiQf of theipplicaaoa
ortayiwdting legiatntioivdedares that he/she isproperly udxized toexecute this
appHretion oo behalfofthe sppUcaat; fae/iAe believesOe applieaat tobethe ownerofthe
tratouuk/setvice soo^to beregistered, or, ifthe appUcetioa isbdagfiled under
1$U.S.<^. Section 10Sl(b), he/flebdieyet qipUcaat tobeentitled tousesuch mark in
oommnceitotbebôfhii/herknowledge and beliefno dtherpenon, fiiin,coriioniUon,
<. hasthe right touse theinaik incommerce, eitherintheidentieal form
khenofOf lasuchseartesenblBBCo dieieto astobe Iikdy, when Qsedonoriaconnectioa
'^tb fto jnods^rvicesofsuch otheriôn,to cause confiu!on;tftocause mistake, or
-'fiMlê;aadlliBtaUstttemefltsm8deofhis/herown kB0Wlc4g4 are true; and that all
statements made oninfitnnaâ and bdiefare bdtevedtobetrue.
NameOfApplicant: JET CROWN INTERNATIONAL CO.. fTH
Address of Applicant: No. 88. Yuwun Road. East District. Tainan qtv TW
Signature ofapplican^
NameofSignatory: Wang,
Title ofSimatorv: Director Date: 08/20/2QI2
EXHtBIT
i^12^D:P.2
5.

Mark: MIn Hsiang &Device

Goods/ Classification: 12
Applicant/Addtess
MIN HSIANG CORPORATION
No.99. Zhongshan 1stSt., fiuifen Dist,Tainan City 711, Taiwan (R.O.C.)
(X)PowerofAttorney (X)Execule^
i EXHBIT
1*88/747.741; P.I
Bfdtritlon
The
le
y?!ÎSlîiMalc'tf^y*'^{ff!3i>^tiobeeBt8aedtoeBdiM*fa
AwltaaK ^
tUmn Wi4
TltlM i *
Dftitt >"'*
CONTACI WFOBMATION:
Nanr.Banter Shi
AMmi: Infl Menl Office of Ba ShU. 102 UMBdlESr a. SW UIQ

TO77W9
TEt!(MmM-; <3l)S-9lW
FAX: (3611 579-9966
! EXHIBIT
47,741: I
6 .

Ur. ttngerSlilA
Intemsfional Patent Office ofBang Shia, INC.
102LINDENCRESTCT.
SUGAR LAND, TX 77479, U.S.A.
DearDr.SHU:
îbiD
Title: '
i^licanu SHUANGFEl DAILY CHEMICALS USA INC
DiiectoR Zhenhui,LI
Addiess: Unit 24.212 NMain Street, North Wales, Montgomery Country, Pennsylvania
19454
Nationality: United State ofAmerica
Documents:
(X) Signed Power ofAttorney
Tssssssrr
BWOTl.
8S/713.310: P,1
POWER OF ATTORNEY
WITH LEGAL AUTHORtTY TO BIND THE APPLICANT
<SIGWATDB)BAND OTTORIKFORMATIGIO
-4>kCUBAll(fc TteiaMps^MagbmbrimudtMwilUldfilitiUtaBMttaadtbUMMinifotnpwtt*
niiiiitM[iiiiinir :t^rlrnrik
mtai^MteUtteiatteipêiflltoUi&ieincroritoecilIffeiiteBtt&ieQ^tobfiflbt^ or. tflte ifl&iifeati
bdifSModerllVJLC flOSlC^XMibiMlHii vplleiallebtcsAM toondMktltl^coMiQlomnttofUii odcb
GBMMCieialfeiblr&bllarla0iihdfiiodbeltafwltepeMflififBVC9ipfntI^raitodg|feabwtlitii^towiai
nAfacnmcc,iflrUfbildealfcrfbttklUcMrerbncIiaetfKsasbluc11nKt0wtoblikclf,w)iiuedeairla
coMctaiiriihfbtcoodtaadferMcvkMofnchoterpMQfitocnMegflteiiai^MlecMtMalitakêrtodeMlveiiitfaiiaB
tUIcaaimd*of]|||AMroimlcfiQfiirk4sBU*tna;iadtlaliflitiknea(fnsdtealBrttaMliBaiadbUtfmMifrcditotK^
^laU^ XlMlaÛ
<COMTACTIHFOHMA'nOK>
<htU> Dr. BAHCER SHZA
<CMipii9/KiaMaffl> mt*! 9tnt Office of bamq shik
<Stld^ 102 LZNDBNCUST CT.
<(^ SOGMl LAND
w
^ÔitilCcSI^ 77479-5201
<dÎtobe> 2BS-9179 , CJ149S.179
<yWBb> 579.9966
^SofSon?
EXHWT
P.2
|l8Sflri9,31P; P
7.

Mark: MinHsiang ft Device
Goods/Oassification: 11
Applicant/Address
MIN HSIAN6 CORPORATtON
No.99, Zhongshan 1stSt.,Guiren Dist,Tainan Qty 711âlwan (R.O.C)
(X) Power otAttorney \X) âjteo
RESKNOBfTS
EXWBtr
1 8S748,5S1:P.1 i
îS!SR?SS251S!SAuc.
DcdaraUoa
SSSnSXS^^ggSS^S'^^^<^^^S!f'
EE%iSSSs5?bs&" mdbeUeliitWiewedto bo true.
JwiMxnty^'f*i "'""
Itaw VVi*-
TMte
BtW //ujott *fi **'*
COOTACrlNWWBIATION:
NaBu:Ba>ser Shit
AW l.t'I P.t.l Office of But ShU. 102 UM)BESr a. SWtt W

TX 77479
mUOil) 285-9J79; (361) <8S.TO

FAX: (3611 579-9966
... BCPIT
l8a748J31;P3
8.

Mark; MinHsiang& Device

Goods/Classification; 09 _
MIN HSIAN6 CORPORATION

NoS9* Zhongshan 1stSt< Guiren Dlst* Tainan City 711, l^lmn (R.O.cy
Documents Enclosed
iXl Power of Attfilliey.. (X)ExetMwu
RESPONDENTS
EXHIBIT .
88nr86,529: P.I
POWER OF ATl'ORNEY FOR

legalauthority to bindwiththe appucant
Peclaration
JiraucoipotaUon*
SigBBtore: "
Names TIMW
TOe. PRESIDENT
Date:
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Name;Baneei $l>ia
Addrtn; Infl Patent Office of Bang Shia. 102 LINDENCREST CT. SUCSffi liAHD
TX 77479
TBL: (261) 285-9179: (361) 485-9179

FAX: (361) 579-9966
^SRSSnT"
.Ewnr
88/766,529:
UNITED STATES PATENT ANDTRADEMARK OFFICE

In the Matter of:

Proceeding No. D2014-31
Bang-erShia,
November 20,2014
Respondent
ORDERDENYING THE OED DIRECTOR'S MOTIONTO STRIKE RESPONDENTS

POST-HEARING EXHIBITS, ANDRESPONDENT'S MOTION TO STRIKE EXHIBIT
A OF AMENDED COMPLAINT AND HEARING TESTIMONY
I. The OED Director's Motion to Strike Respondent's Post-Hearing Exhibits
Atthehearing. Respondent testified that she may be in possession of documents

supporting herassertion that her clients imparted upon her the legal authority to bind them in
matters before theUSPTO. ByOrderfor Documents, issued October 9,2014, theCourt required
Respondent to produce such documents. OnOctober 20,2014, Respondent filed various
documents in response to the Orderfor Documents,
On October 31,2014, the OED Directorfiled an Objection to and Motion to Strike

Respondent's Post-Hearing Exhibits ("Motion to Strike'O. * USPTO regulations governing
disciplinary hearings statethat, **T'he rules of evidence prevailing in courts oflawandequity are
notcontrolling in hearings in disciplinary proceedings. However, thehearing officer shdl
exclude evidencethat is irrelevant, unmaterial, or undulyrepetitious.** 37 C.F.R. 1l.S0(a).
The OED Director's bases for the Motion to Strike Respondent's Post-HearingExhibits
speaks to theweight the Court should afford thedocuments and notto their admissibility.
Therefore, the Courtfinds that such documents are admissible and may be considered by the
Court in reaching its decision regarding theallegations in theAmended Complaint, However, the
Court willconsiderthe parties* positions regarding these exhibits in determining how much
wei^t, ifany,to affordthem. Accordingly, the OED Director's Motion to Strike Respondent *s
Post-HearingExhibitsis DENIED.
II. Respondent's Motion to Strike Trial Exhibit A ofAmended Complaint and
Respondent moves to strike Trial Exhibit A,which is a copy of Amended Complaint

mthis proceeding, as well as various testimony and exhibits entei^ into evidence. The general
basis forRespondent's Motion to Strike TrialExhibit AofAmended Complaint and Hearing
Testimony ("Respondent's Motion to Strike") is thattheAmended Complaint is "inconsistent
*Respondent was afforded tho opportunity torespond tothe Motion to Strike, She did so on November 10,2014.
^kponmBt^
- EXHIBIT
A t>-
wilh, ifnot contradictory to, including wthout limitations, the witness* hearing testimony, the
rules oflaw, and exhibits admitted into evidence.**
TheAmended Complaint was enteied into evidence upon motion ofthe Court Upon the
commencement ofthe hearing. Respondent appeared to be very emotional. She stated that the
procee(ting was causing her severe stress, which was resulting mconfusion and memory loss.
To assess whether Respondent was sufiBciently competent to present her case, the Court refened
to the Amended Complaint in this proceeding and asked Respondent aseries ofquestions. The
allegations contamed within, and whether she understood that the allegations contained in the
Amended Complaint formed the basis for the proceeding. After determining Respondent
recognized and understood the allegations in the Amended Complaint, the Court concluded that
Respondent had sufficient ciq)acity to proceed with the hearingpro se. The Court then, sua
sponte, admitted diei^wemferfCowp/a/nrasatrialexhibi^ûse it was us^during that
particular line ofquestioning. Its admission as atrial exhibit does not establish that the
contained tfierein have been proven.
With regard to Respondent's claim that portions ofthe hearing testimony and trial
exhibits are contradictory, the Court finds that such argument relates to the wei^t the Court
should assess suchevidence and notto admissibility. Asnoted in the OrderDenying
Respondent's Motion to Sanction Counselfor the OED Director^ dated October 2,2014, "the
parties will draw different mfermces and reach different conclusions fiom the same piece of
evidence... Such disagreements are brought to the Court and resolved by the Judge.**
Therefore, indetermining whether Respondent violated the disciplinary rules, the Court may
consider allthe evidence ^propriately admitted into the record ofthis proceeding. However, as
with Respondent's post-hearing exhibits, the Court vnll consider the parties* positions, and
determine the weight afforded to the testimony and exhibits offered atthe hearing. Accordingly,
Respondent's Motion to Strike Trial Exhibit AofAmended Complaint andHearing Testimony is
DENIED.
So ORDERED,
Alexander Fem^dez ^
^TheCourt afforded Respondent theopportunity toseek legal counsel, butshedeclined.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that copiesof this ORDER DENYING THE OED DIRECTOR*SMOTION TO
STRIKE RESPONDENT'S POST-HEARING EXHIBITS. AND RESPOIWENT'S MOTION TO
STRIKE EXHIBIT A OF AMENDED COMPLAINT AND HEARING TESTIMONY, Issued by
Alexander Fernandez,Administrative Law Judge in D2014-31, were sent to the following partieson this
20* day ofNovember, 2014, in the manner indicated: /
[y Johnson, StaffAssistant
m E-MAIL:
Dr. Bang-erShia
PatentOfficeof Bang Shia
102 Lindencrest Court
Sugar Land,TX 77479
)vahoo.com
Melinda DeAtley
Elizabeth Ullmer Mendel
Associate Solicitors
Mail Stop8
P.O. Box 1450
ÛSptO.gQV
Favorite Links
Name Size Type
FilesCurrently on the Disc (10)
pi Documents
1. Respondent's Exhibit 2. Respondent's Exhibit 3. Respondent's Exhibit
Pictures 85585031.pdf 85595869.pdf 85689678.pdf
Adobe Acrobat Document Adobe Acrobat Document Adobe Acrobat Document
Music
Recently Changed 4. Respondent's Exhibit 5. Respondent's Exhibit 6. Respondent's Exhibit

85712340.pdf 85747741.pdf 85719310.pdf
jk. Public Adobe Acrobat Document Adobe Acrobat Document Adobe Acrobat Document
Searches 8. Respondent's Exhibit Power ofAttorney.pdf

t 7. Respondent's Exhibit
I8S748531.pdf 85756529.pdf Adobe Acrobat Document
i.-
n Adobe Acrobat Document Adobe Acrobat Document i .jd
khSSIKB
1 Respondent's Documents for
I Authorization fromApplica...
Adobe Acrobat Document
Folders
10 items
toepH'm^.miw''-"-'"'-'"-"''"'-'"-'*^"^"'''"'
(
*
,^,fc.37C.JLin.iO.)~lBPS<.M.î..
t ,,,dlCi.-dA.A.~<W~"~'"^
So by the Trademark Commissioner.
27
' -i'- : ' I'l' :.. " V/
'=; ,": :' '
't' :\i,i :. .
; ;
V;
' i:- , :r^0 ::;r

, . -: .-.r
=;: -If: f
.V V
, V. ., .r _ , . \.:. f.(. ' ':- i-:
- -iV ;v
^f.
:-)
liX.'V: V*-. / -.I ''* ;
V: ;:;
'j.; i
ii '

Bang-Er Shia v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Michelle K. Lee, Sarah Harris, Willaim Covey, Et Al.

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Bang-Er Shia v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Michelle K. Lee, Sarah Harris, Willaim Covey, Et Al.

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 1-2 Filed 08/17/16 Page 1 of 113 PageID# 156

Evidence ofOED Counsels' tampering with evidence, including

.Bltfbitbinderfor ALTb Tampetlns t8i evMenco of Resp.

Attached is theOEDDictor's Response to the Motion to CorrecttheRecord, vrith attachments

EWabethUllmer Mendel|AsKiate SolicitorllMtedStates Petert.dT,adenAOffice |Officeofthe Solicitor

From: Bang*er Shia [imlllomi|^^*@yal>oo*coinl

Dear Elizabeth Mendel, Melinda DeAtley, and the ALJ,

EUiabethUltae, M^lAssociate Sol!.^

& s ^ , . ^y. Cases

Dear Mendel and DeAtely. and the AU,

TieUSTOlecotd ofD2014-3I senttomeonJae 18.2015 showsdifferent exhibits of. at leastTO-TS. fiom

T,. <w.Eiiobiii!"i. . -^ - yamm.ooy*

Dear Ms. Mendel and DeAtley,

4. Thecongressional inquiry will request forthe authorityofUSPTOto remove an electronic signatures

nroBC BangerShia (i?I- . .

Yourexplanatfon ishi^ly appreciated.

i thenyorfll have access to the files.

difficulty retrieving the documerts.

; cc: Dr. Banger SWa

j Secure FDe Downloads:

OED Dir. Response to Motion to Correct Recor<i.pdf(872.24KB)

OED's Exhibits ofPTO D2014-4 filed to the Court

showing two different OED date stamps

AlthdufihUSPTO records.sUoVrthat yott are aiegistei^patentagen^ th^ U8PT0 has found no

reasons fliat follows!

3. that the Request^ to makeaclaimfor lackofjurisdiction to hear non-patentmatter

wo attotne/sexpUdtinstructionintheOffice Actiontoappoint aOS conespondent

Dear Attorney EmB AH.

to Latter nn"TTf"1 Tpieconterenee

Responstvatothe tetterdatedMar. 15.2013.received onMar.20.2013. andrequested

The following statutorydefecUvenessIsfiffther noted in the OEO;

Dear Attorney AU,

i7 rro 11.22 "The information or tf

Dear Attorn^ Haidildc,

Itoponsivc to the letterdatcdApr. 18 fortheOEDFtteNo. 02081, please enter

I.No counsel representing Dr. Shia; and

^Jfi^^signatureinher Buddhist's name)

102 UNDENCREST CT.. SUOARLAND, TX 77479-5201

In the Matter Of:

October 08, 2014

Phone: 703-837-0076 1010 Cameron Street

1 Q. Okay. Let's start with that pink 1 BY MS. MENDEL;

8 regarding Dr. Shia, G2081. 8 A. Yes, I did.

11 A. This is the original grievance 11 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Thank you. Show

11 A. Yes. 11 (Government Exhibit No. 606 was received

14 that date stamp? 14 Q. The one that was just admitted as

17 her? Could you just -- well, let me 17 A. Yes.

18 back up. 18 Q. And what typically gets stamped at

20 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: No. You'll have 20 A. Most incoming mail.

Page 408 Page 410

12 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: So ordered. 12 MS. MENDEL: Your Honor, move the

21 top? 21 Q. Since you're here, I would like to

1 the front desk will stanp it. For internal

10 something different than when I 10 contractor in the contractors' office.

14 this document doesn't have holes on the 14 BY DR. SHIA (interpreter):

17 your battles. 17 A. I don't know who stamped the

Page 424 Page 436

siassi.. 2 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Okay.

P-U-. ofOED tamiringlth .^owlrfg^W>=

1) Dr ShU's -imitled Mb,ts A-Z= O-""? ^

PTOD201+04..31 Resp.Wii>8 List EidiiMUrt and Exhlblto......08132014

Date: Wednesday.August 13,2014 356 PM 4-

In the Matter Of:

From: Banger Shia [imlllomi|^^@yal>oo*coinl