David Walter v. Andrei Iancu, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office

Is the United States Patent and Trademark Office (hereinafter “USPTO”), entitled to Skidmore [Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944)], Mead [United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001)], or Chevron [Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)] deference in the implementation of its own internal Interpretive Rules, which are set forth in its own Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (hereinafter “MPEP”). If said deference results in a patent Rexam Petitioner being denied his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, should any deference to said agency continue? Is the United State Patent and Trademark Office’s failure to follow its own interpretive rules in its MPEP and give proper any adequate notice to a patent reexamination petitioner that the patent office had rejected, or otherwise not given any weight to, a 37 CFR 1.32 expert affidavit, and, as a result, the patent Reexam Petitioner’s patent is invalidated by the USPTO, a violation of due process rights in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and a violation of Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C. §701-708, and related administrative law, and U.S. Supreme Court precedent [see Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath 339 U.S. 33, 70 S.Ct. 445, 94 L.Ed. 616 (1950)]?