U.S. Code » Title 36 » Subtitle Subtitle I— Patriotic and National Observances and Ceremonies › Part Part A— Observances and Ceremonies › Chapter CHAPTER 1— PATRIOTIC AND NATIONAL OBSERVANCES

36 U.S.C. § 102

Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 36 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Designation.—May is Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month.(b)Proclamations.—The President is requested to issue each year a proclamation calling on the people of the United States, and the chief executive officers of each State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau are requested to issue each year proclamations calling on the people of their respective jurisdictions, to observe Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1254.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Revised

Section

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

102(a)

36:169k(a).

Oct. 23, 1992, Pub. L. 102–450, § 2, 106 Stat. 2251.

102(b)

36:169k(b)–(d).

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1972–2016 · leading case: Ross-Hime Designs, Inc. v. United States, 126 Fed. Cl. 299 (Fed. Cl. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ross-Hime Designs, Inc. v. United States, 126 Fed. Cl. 299 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “In the Patentee’s own words: The Examiner then goes on to reject claims 1 through 3, 5, 7 and 11 under 36 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by U.”
Fonar Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 902 F. Supp. 330 (E.D.N.Y 1995). “§ 102 (f), for failure to disclose all the *341 inventors; (3) that the ’966 patent was invalid, pursuant to 36 U.S.C. § 102 (b), because its subject matter was in public use more than one year prior to the filing date; (4) that the ’966 patent was invalid, pursuant to 35 U.”
Sram Corp. v. Ad-ii Eng'g, Inc., 155 F. Supp. 2d 826 (N.D. Ill. 2001). “” Claim 36 was also rejected under 36 U.S.C. § 102 (b) as “clearly anticipated by applicants’ admitted prior art.”
Keystone Plastics, Inc. v. C & P PLASTICS, INC., 340 F. Supp. 55 (S.D. Fla. 1972). “Therefore, the Court finds the patent invalid for this reason ( 36 U.S.C. § 102 (b)). Further the Court finds that the Goulds filed for and obtained Patent No.”
Reed Tool Co. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 499 F. Supp. 935 (S.D. Tex. 1980). “They allege that the patent is invalid for lack of novelty under 36 U.S.C. § 102 , for obviousness under 35 U.”
Abraskin v. Entrecap Corp., 55 F. Supp. 2d 224 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). “See 36 U.S.C. § 102 (b). Following discovery, Entrecap moved for summary judgment.”
Molten Metal Equip., Innovations, Inc. v. Metaullics Sys. Co., 130 F. Supp. 2d 917 (N.D. Ohio 2001). “In the remarks accompanying the amendment, Cooper wrote: Claims 19-24, as originally submitted, were rejected under 36 U.S.C. § 102 (b) as being anticipated by Thut.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.