OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States Code/Title 35/Chapter 30/Section 305

From the U.S. House of Representatives.
Section 305. Conduct of reexamination proceedings
If, in a determination made under the provisions of subsection 303(a) of this title, the Director finds that a substantial new question of patentability affecting any claim of a patent is raised, the determination will include an order for reexamination of the patent for resolution of the question. The patent owner will be given a reasonable period, not less than two months from the date a copy of the determination is given or mailed to him, within which he may file a statement on such question, including any amendment to his patent and new claim or claims he may wish to propose, for consideration in the reexamination. If the patent owner files such a statement, he promptly will serve a copy of it on the person who has requested reexamination under the provisions of section 302 of this title. Within a period of two months from the date of service, that person may file and have considered in the reexamination a reply to any statement filed by the patent owner. That person promptly will serve on the patent owner a copy of any reply filed.

## Source

(Added Pub. L. 96-517, Sec. 1, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 3016; amended Pub. L. 106-113, div. B, Sec. 1000(a)(9) [title IV, Sec. 4732(a)(10)(A)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A-582; Pub. L. 107-273, div. C, title III, Sec. 13206(b)(1)(B), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1906.)

## Amendments
### 2002

Pub. L. 107-273 made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 106-113. See 1999 Amendment note below.

### 1999

Pub. L. 106-113, as amended by Pub. L. 107-273, substituted “Director” for “Commissioner” in section catchline and text.

#### Effective Date of 1999 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 106-113 effective 4 months after Nov. 29, 1999, see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, Sec. 4731] of Pub. L. 106-113, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.
# United States Code/Title 35/Chapter 31/Section 311

From the U.S. House of Representatives.
Section 311. Request for inter partes reexamination
(a) In General.—Any third-party requester at any time may file a request for inter partes reexamination by the Office of a patent on the basis of any prior art cited under the provisions of section 301.
(b) Requirements.—The request shall—
    (1) be in writing, include the identity of the real party in interest, and be accompanied by payment of an inter partes reexamination fee established by the Director under section 41; and
    (2) set forth the pertinency and manner of applying cited prior art to every claim for which reexamination is requested.
(c) Copy.—The Director promptly shall send a copy of the request to the owner of record of the patent.

## Source

(Added Pub. L. 106-113, div. B, Sec. 1000(a)(9) [title IV, Sec. 4604(a)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A-567; amended Pub. L. 107-273, div. C, title III, Sec. 13202(a)(1), (c)(1), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1901, 1902.)

## Amendments
### 2002

Pub. L. 107-273, Sec. 13202(c)(1), made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 106-113, which enacted this section.
Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107-273, Sec. 13202(a)(1)(A), substituted “third-party requester” for “person”.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 107-273, Sec. 13202(a)(1)(B), substituted “The” for “Unless the requesting person is the owner of the patent, the”.

## Effective Date

Chapter effective Nov. 29, 1999, and applicable to any patent issuing from an original application filed in the United States on or after that date, see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, Sec. 4608(a)] of Pub. L. 106-113, set out as an Effective Date of 1999 Amendment note under section 41 of this title.

## Report to Congress

Pub. L. 106-113, div. B, Sec. 1000(a)(9) [title IV, subtitle F, Sec. 4606], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A-571, provided that: “Not later than 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 29, 1999], the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office shall submit to the Congress a report evaluating whether the inter partes reexamination proceedings established under the amendments made by this subtitle [see Short Title of 1999 Amendment note set out under section 1 of this title] are inequitable to any of the parties in interest and, if so, the report shall contain recommendations for changes to the amendments made by this subtitle to remove such inequity.”
# Voodoo Planet

Written as Andrew North one or more chapters are available in a spoken word format.

## Cast of Characters

Dane Thorson
He wanted to spend a short vacation on Khatka, not the rest of his life.
Medic Tau
Was he physician or magician—or a little bit of both?
Chief Ranger Asaki
Tracking the forests had taught him that mad animals—whether real or imaginary—were to be feared.
Captain Jellico
Would his knowledge of alien life-forms help him in his fight against alien ghosts?
Nymani
Not even this pilot's most scientific skill could overcome a voodoo charm's ground-drag.
Lumbrilo

## Contents

* Chapter I
* Chapter II
* Chapter III
* Chapter IV
* Chapter V
* Chapter VI
* Chapter VII
* Chapter VIII
# Von Cotzhausen v. Nazro

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
107 U.S. 215
Von Cotzhausen v. Nazro
F. W. Cotzhausen, for plaintiff in error.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for defendants in error.
MILLER, J.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Von Moltke v. Gillies

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Burton
United States Supreme Court
332 U.S. 708
Von Moltke v. Gillies
Argued: Nov. 20, 1947. --- Decided: Jan 19, 1948
Mr. G. Leslie Field, of Detroit, Mich., for petitioner.
Mr. Frederick Bernays Wiener, of Providence, R.I., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BLACK announced the judgment of the Court and an opinion in which Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, Mr. Justice MURPHY, and Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE concurred.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Von Cleef v. New Jersey/Concurrence Harlan

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Harlan
United States Supreme Court
395 U.S. 814
Monique VON CLEEF v. NEW JERSEY.
Argued: June 23, 1969. ---
Mr. Justice HARLAN, concurring in the result.
Unfortunately, I remain unconvinced that the search in this case may be properly distinguished from the search tolerated by the Court in Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145, 67 S.Ct. 1098, 91 L.Ed. 1399 (1947). Nor do I believe that our decision in Kremen v. United States, 353 U.S. 346, 77 S.Ct. 828, 1 L.Ed.2d 876 (1957) proscribes this search. Kremen simply prohibits the police from seizing the entire contents of a building indiscriminately, without considering whether the property they take is relevant to the crime under investigation; it does not bar the removal of all property that may reasonably be considered evidence of crime. The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court properly found that the police in the case before us did not engage in the practice condemned in Kremen: '(T)he search was extensive, but under the circumstances it was reasonable * * * the items searched for and seized related to the criminal operation for which the arrest had been made.' (Emphasis supplied.) Surely, there is no reason to condemn a search as resulting in a 'mass seizure' simply because it uncovers abundant evidence of wrongdoing. And yet, that is what the Court does today in relying on Kremen to decide this case.
Consequently I am obliged to reach the question whether the stricter Fourth Amendment standards announced today in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685, govern this case; for in my view, it is only if Chimel is applicable that we may legitimately reverse the judgment of the New Jersey courts. Since I have reached the conclusion that all cases still subject to direct review by this Court should be governed by any 'new' rule of constitutional law announced in our decisions, see my dissent in Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244, 256, 89 S.Ct. 1030, 1038, 22 L.Ed.2d 248 (1969), I join in the Court's judgment.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 3/15th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 94

Chap. XCIV.—An Act concerning the allowance of pensions upon a relinquishment of bounty lands.
The 2d section of the act of 16th April, 1816, ch. 55, &c. continued in force. Act of March 3, 1817, ch. 107. Proviso.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the second section of the act making further provision for military services during the late war, and for other purposes, approved April sixteenth, one thousand eight hundred and sixteen, and so much of the act to amend the same, approved March third, one thousand eight hundred and seventeen, as relates to the subject of that section, shall be continued in force for the term of three years from and after the passing of this act: Provided, nevertheless, That no pension shall be granted under the said acts, after the sixteenth day of April next, unless, at the time of relinquishing the bounty land, in the manner therein described, the children, for whose benefit the same may be granted, or one of them, shall be under sixteen years of age: And provided also,Proviso. That the pensions shall commence at the date of the relinquishments respectively.
Approved, March 3, 1819.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 3/15th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 91

Chap. XCI.—An Act to authorize the Secretary at War to appoint an additional agent for paying pensioners of the United States, in the state of Tennessee.
Act of April 24, 1816, ch. 68. The Secretary of War to appoint an additional agent, to pay pensions in E. Tennessee. His duties the same, &c.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, from and after the passing of this act, the Secretary for the Department of War be, and he is hereby, authorized to appoint an agent, in addition to the one already appointed in the state of Tennessee, under the act of the twenty-fourth of April, one thousand eight hundred and sixteen, for the purpose of paying pensioners of the United States, residing in East Tennessee; whose duties shall be, in all respects, similar to those appointed under the aforementioned act.
Approved, March 3, 1819.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 3/15th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 95

Chap. XCV.—An Act granting a donation of land to the state of Illinois, for the seat of government of said state.
Act of March 2, 1821, ch. 17. Four sections granted to Illinois for a seat of government. To be selected as provided, &c. Proviso.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be granted to the state of Illinois four sections of land, or contiguous quarter sections and fractions, not exceeding the quantity contained in four entire sections, for the purpose of fixing thereon the seat of government for the said state; which lands shall be selected in the manner provided by the thirtieth section of the schedule to the constitution of the said state: Provided, That such selection shall be made before the public sale of the adjoining public lands shall have taken place.
Approved, March 3, 1819.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 3/15th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 90

Chap. XC.—An Act to authorize the Secretary of War to convey a lot of parcel of land, belonging to the United States, lying in Jefferson county, in the state of Virginia.
The Secretary of War authorized to convey Keep-Tryst Furnace, &c. upon terms conducive to the interest of the United States. The money to be deposited in the Treasury.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, authorized to convey, by deed, in fee simple, to a certain John Peacher, a lot, or parcel of land, with the appurtenances belonging to the same, lying in Jefferson county, in the state of Virginia, called the Keep-Tryst Furnace, and containing two hundred and twenty-one acres, belonging to the United States, upon such terms as he may think most conducive to the interest of the United States; and the money arising from the sale thereof to deposit in the treasury of the United States.
Approved, March 3, 1819.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 3/15th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 98

Chap. XCVIII.—An Act providing for the correction of errors in making entries of land at the land offices.
Act of May 24, 1824, ch. 138. Purchasers making entries different from what they intended, may make application to the register of the land office.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in every case of a purchaser of public lands, at private sale, having entered, at the land office, a tract different from that he intended to purchase, and being desirous of having the error in his entry corrected, he shall make his application, for that purpose, to the register of the land office; and if it shall appear, from testimony satisfactory to the register and receiver of public moneys that an error in the entry has been made, and that the same was occasioned by the original incorrect marks made by the surveyor, or by the obliteration, or change, of the original marks and number at corners of the tract of land; or that it has, in any otherwise, arisen from mistake or error of the surveyor, or officers of the land office; the said register and receiver of public moneys, shall report the case, with the testimony, and their opinion thereon, to the Secretary of the Treasury,The Secretary of the Treasury may allow the entries to be withdrawn, and the moneys paid to be applied to other purchases of land. who shall have power to direct, if in his opinion it shall be proper, that the purchaser shall be at liberty to withdraw the entry so erroneously made, and that the moneys which have been paid, shall be applied in the purchase of other lands in the same district, or credited in the payment for other lands which shall have been purchased at the same office.
Approved, March 3, 1819.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 3/15th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 97

Chap. XCVII.—An Act to continue in force an act regulating the currency, within the United States, of the gold coins of Great Britain, France, Portugal, and Spain, and the crowns of France, and five franc pieces.
Act of March 3, 1821, ch. 53. Gold coins of Great Britain and Portugal. Of France. Of Spain. Current until first Nov., 1819; then to cease.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the gold coins of Great Britain and Portugal, of their present standard, shall be a legal tender in the payment of all debts, at the rate of one hundred cents for every twenty-seven grains, or eighty-eight cents and eight-ninths per pennyweight. The gold coins of France, of their present standard, at the rate of one hundred cents for every twenty-seven and a half grains, or eighty-seven and a quarter cents per pennyweight: The gold coins of Spain at the rate of one hundred cents for every twenty-right and a half grains, or eighty-four cents per pennyweight: until the first day of November next: And that, from and after that day, foreign gold coins shall cease to be a tender within the United States, for the payment of debts or demands.
So much of the act of 29th April, 1816, as relates to foreign silver coins, in force until 29th April, 1821. Act of April 29, 1816, ch. 139.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That so much of the act, entitled “An act regulating the currency, within the United States, of the gold coins of Great Britain, France, Portugal, and Spain,” passed on the twenty-ninth day of April, eighteen hundred and sixteen, as relates to foreign silver coins, shall be, and the same is hereby, continued in force two years from and after the twenty-ninth day of April next, and no longer.
Approved, March 3, 1819.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 3/15th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 96

Chap. XCVI.—An Act authorizing the purchase of fire engines and for building houses for the same keeping of the same.
The President to cause two fire engines to be purchased, with suction pipes and hose, &c., for protecting buildings in Washington. Engine houses to be built, &c.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized and requested to cause to be purchased two fire engines, of the first class, with proper suction pipes, and six hundred feet of rivet leathern hose, for the purpose of protecting the public and other buildings in the city of Washington from fire.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States cause to be built two good and sufficient houses, for the safe keeping of the said engines; one to be located on the Capitol hill near the Capitol, and one near the President’s house and public offices.
4500 dollars appropriated.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That for defraying the expenses of the same, the sum of four thousand five hundred dollars be, and is hereby, appropriated, out of any unappropriated money in the treasury.
Approved, March 3, 1819.
# United States v. Schider

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
246 U.S. 519
United States v. Schider
Argued: March 6, 1918. --- Decided: April 15, 1918
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frierson, for the United states.
Mr. Joseph S. Rosalsky, of New York City, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Schlesinger

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
120 U.S. 109
United States v. Schlesinger
Sol. Gen. Jenks, for the United States.
W. S. Hall and L. S. Dabney, for defendants in error.
BLATCHFORD, J.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Schoverling

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
146 U.S. 76
United States v. Schoverling
Sol. Gen. Aldrich, for the United States.
Albert Comstock, for appellees.
Mr. Justice BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Schwimmer

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It concerned a pacifist applicant for naturalization who in the interview declared not to be willing to "take up arms personally" in defense of the United States. Originally found unable by the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to take the prescribed oath of allegiance, a decision reversed in appeal, the case was argued before the Supreme Court, which ruled against the applicant, and thus denied her the possibility of becoming a United States citizen. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
279 U.S. 644
United States v. Schwimmer
Argued: April 12, 1929. --- Decided: May 27, 1929
[Syllabus from pages 644-646 intentionally omitted]
The Attorney General and Mr. Alfred A. Wheat, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Mrs. Olive H. Rabe, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Waggoner Estate v. Wichita County

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
273 U.S. 113
Waggoner Estate v. Wichita County
Argued: Dec. 3, 1926. --- Decided: Jan 3, 1927
Messrs. George Thompson and J. H. Barwise, Jr., both of Fort Worth, Tex., for appellants.
Mr. T. R. Boone, of Wichita Falls, Tex., for appellees.
Mr. Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Wager v. Providence Insurance Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
150 U.S. 99
Wager v. Providence Insurance Company
George Clinton and Spencer Clinton, for H. for Providence Ins. Co. and Security Ins. Co.
George Clinton and Spencer Clintion, for H. & A. Morse.
Mr. Justice SHIRAS delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse