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. § 103

Cancer Control Month

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 36 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)General.—The President is requested—(1) to issue each year a proclamation designating April as Cancer Control Month; and(2) to invite each year the chief executive officers of the States, territories, and possessions of the United States to issue proclamations designating April as Cancer Control Month.(b)Contents of Proclamations.—As part of those proclamations, the chief executive officers and President are requested to invite the medical profession, the press, and all agencies and individuals interested in a national program for the control of cancer by education and other cooperative means to unite during Cancer Control Month in a public dedication to the program and in a concerted effort to make the people of the United States aware of the need for the program.(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1255.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Revised

Section

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

103

36:150.

Mar. 28, 1938, ch. 56, 52 Stat. 148.

In subsection (a)(2), the words “chief executive officers” are substituted for “Governors” for clarity and consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1989–2017 · leading case: Olson v. Nieman's, Ltd., 579 N.W.2d 299 (Iowa 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Olson v. Nieman's, Ltd., 579 N.W.2d 299 (Iowa 1998). “36 U.S.C. § 103 provides: A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter…”
Consol. Aluminum Corp. v. Foseco Int'l Ltd., 716 F. Supp. 316 (N.D. Ill. 1989). “36 U.S.C. § 103 . The district court did not rule on whether the patent was invalid for failure to disclose the best mode.”
Weatherchem Corp. v. J.L. Clark, Inc., 937 F. Supp. 1262 (N.D. Ohio 1996). “A patent is invalid “if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which such subject…”
Est. of Stoller v. Ford Motor Co., 711 F. Supp. 1451 (N.D. Ill. 1989). “We find that no factual issue exists relating to claim 6 and that Terracini discloses every element of that claim.”
Freedom From Religion Found., Inc. v. Obama, 705 F. Supp. 2d 1039 (W.D. Wis. 2010). “§ 101 (American Heart Month); 36 U.S.C. § 103 (Cancer Control Month), family, e.”
Gold Stand. Instruments, LLC v. US Endodontics, LLC, 696 F. App'x 507 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “Prost, Chief Judge, Gold Standard Instruments, LLC (“GSI”) appeals from an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding, No, IPR2015-00632, where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) held all claims obvious under 36 U.S.C. § 103 . We affirm. I This appeal involves U.”
Boundary Solutions, Inc. v. Corelogic, Inc., 711 F. App'x 627 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “” 36 U.S.C. § 103 (a) (2006). 7 Obviousness is a legal determination based on underlying findings of fact.”
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.