In re Gulack, 703 F, 2d (381 217 USPQ
401, 404 Fed Cir.
89) 54 USPQ
(2d) 1344 (D Cal 2000) [Ticketmaster 2000].
See also Re Yuan, 188 F 2d 377, 380 (Garrett CJ for Garrett C J, Jackson, O'Connell, Johnson and Worley JJ) (CCPA, 1951) ('[i]t is interesting to note that this particular grant is the only one of the several powers conferred upon the Congress which is accompanied by a specific statement of the reason for it'); Exparte Lundgren, 76 USPQ 2d (BNA) 1385, 1388 (Smith J) (Bd Pat App & Int, 2005) (designated precedential opinion); Ex parte Bilski, Appeal No 2002-2257, 69-70 (Barrett J) (Bd Pat App & Int, 2006); Durham, above n 108, 1426; Malla Pollack, 'The Multiple Unconstitutionality of Business Method Patents: Common Sense, Congressional Consideration, and Constitutional History' (2002) 28 Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal 61, 118-19.
112) See Exparte Lundgren, 76 USPQ 2d (BNA) 1385, 1400-1 (Smith J) (Bd Pat App & Int, 2005) (designated precedential opinion); Exparte Bilski, Appeal No 2002-2257, 19 (Barrett J) (Bd Pat App & Int, 2006).
In buttressing its point, language from previous cases, such as In re Rosen, 673 F2d at 390, 213 USPQ 349, was cited: "in determining the patentability of a design, it is the overall appearance, the visual effect as whole of the design, which must be taken into consideration.
29 USPQ 2d 1115 (District Court, Eastern District, New York, 1993), the defendant was charged with infringing the plaintiff's patent for its Giant Stuff-a-Pumpkin.
When a USPQ
citation expressly referred to a related
See also House of Representatives Committee on Patents, above n 43, 5; Senate Committee on Patents, above n 43, 6; Ex parte Moore, 115 USPQ
145 (BPAI, 1957); Rossman, 'The Preparation and Prosecution of Plant Patent Applications', above n 59, 633.
The two conflicting cases were In re Grams, 888 F2d 835, 12 USPQ
2d 1824 (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, November 3, 1989) and In re Iwahashi, 888 F2d 1370, 12 USPQ
2d 1908 (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, November 7, 1989).
141) Sega Enterprises Ltd v Accolade Inc, 977 F 2d 1510, 1524 (Reinhardt J) (9th Cir, 1992); Atari Games Corp v Nintendo of America Inc, 18 USPQ
(2d) (BNA) 1935 (ND Cal, 1991).
2d (BNA) 1826, 1829 (SD Cal 1996) (stating "[B]ecause the Web enables easy world-wide access, allowing computer interaction via the web to supply sufficient contacts to establish jurisdiction would eviscerate the personal jurisdiction requirement as it currently exists").
2d 660, 18 USPQ
2d 1331 (CAFC 1991), forebodes the severe curtailment of using affidavits in this area.