1. Whether a pro se plaintiff has properly served a
defendant when the plaintiff serves the defendant himself
at the advice of the court's clerk and then the court's clerk
notifying the plaintiff that he has properly served the
defendant at the time of submitting the executed
summons to the court in person, and the District Court
failing to meet its obligation under Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(i)(4)(A) to notify and grant the pro se plaintiff a
reasonable extension of time to cure deficiencies in his
service of process under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5)?

2. Federal regulations under 37 C.F.R. § 11,7(h)(4)(iii)
applies to "[a]n individual who has been disbarred or
suspended from practice of law or other profession, or has
resigned in lieu of a disciplinary proceeding[.] " The
Federal Circuit concluded that being a federal employee
working as a primary patent examiner is not performing
the duties of a profession and thereby the job of
examining U.S. Patent applications is not a profession.
On the other hand, the District Court concluded that
defenses under C.F.R. § 11.7(h)(4)(iii) only apply to disbarment
or suspension from the practice of law.
The question presented is:
Whether the defenses available under 37 C.F.R. §
11.7(h)(4)(iii) apply to primary patent examiners and hence,
would a person 's employment as a primary patent
examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark
Office constitute a profession?

3. Whether an unintentional mistake on a timesheet
always constitutes conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
misrepresentation, deceit, or a violation of Federal or
State laws or regulations?

4. Whether being explicitly advised by an employer
that an employee has no right to file a discrimination
claim effectively delays the 45 day reporting obligation
until the employee becomes aware of his right to file a
discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964?

5. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it
unlawful for an employer "to fail or refuse to hire or to
discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate
against any individual " with respect to "compensation,
terms, conditions, or privileges of employment " on the
basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l). It is understood from the Federal
Circuit 's ruling that retaliatory job suspensions and
compensatory withholdings are lawful under Title VII
when a retaliation is based on discriminatory action
against a father of a child to be born in the immediate
future. Furthermore, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act,
42 U.S.C.§ 2000e(k), provides that "[t]he terms "because
of sex" or "on the basis of sex" include, but are not limited
to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or
related medical conditions " and "women affected by
pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall
be treated the same for all employment-related purposes
* *

Whether a pro se plaintiff has properly served a defendant when the plaintiff serves the defendant himself at the advice of the court's clerk and then the court's clerk notifying the plaintiff that he has properly served the defendant at the time of submitting the executed summons to the court in person, and the District Court failing to meet its obligation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(4)(A) to notify and grant the pro se plaintiff a reasonable extension of time to cure deficiencies in his service of process under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5)?