concurring in the judgment.
The right of the PTO to require special technical and other qualifications of its practitioners, 35 U.S.C. § 31, was reaffirmed in Sperry v. Florida, 373 U.S. 379, 83 S.Ct. 1322, 10 L.Ed.2d 428, 137 USPQ 578 (1963) (setting forth the history of the PTO’s regulation of patent agents and attorneys). Mr. Premysler has disputed the reasonableness of the Commissioner’s new scientific and other requirements. That question is not answered by stating that the matter is discretionary, for such discretion must be exercised by the objective application of reasonable standards, and the majority offers no analysis of the reasonableness of these rules. However, since I believe that the Commissioner’s handling of Mr. Premysler’s applica*391tion is sustainable under these particular cir-eumstances, I concur in the court’s judgment,