That is, certified to use 91 octane unleaded fuel.

The Rotax 912 and Rotax 912s found in Diamond's DA20-A1 and DA20-100 are certified 91 octane unleaded fuel.

A programmed digital computer for reproducing audio programs, said computer comprising, in combination: ....

Does this claim include a general purpose computer that is not "for reproducing audio programs", but happens to have the ability to reproduce audio programs?

No it's not. One would result in criminal charges, the other is just an insult.

It could be argued that they're doing more than the standard of care requires of them, so that would be a defence against a negligence tort. I'm not sure what other legal liability you're suggesting, though.

Official source: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/obtainopinions.aspx

However, the official source suggests some unofficial sources, and one of them is http://www.oyez.org/cases, that I listed in my original post.

oyez.org is a very good resource. They briefly summarize every Supreme Court case and decision. There are links to the full written opinion, oral argument transcripts, an audio player with oral argument audio synced with the transcript, and audio of the oral opinion announcements when available.

Ya that too :) I don't know what russotto talking about when he/she said:

Partial marks are often part of the issue, but the marks are considered as a whole, and you're correct, the test is whether the mark is confusing, not character matching.

This isn't true. The test for confusion looks at the entire mark.

A trademark on "iPad Mini" wouldn't prohibit others from using the word "Mini" as part of another mark, unless that causes confusion with the original. For example, I doubt that a court would find "Surface Mini" confusing with "iPad Mini".

I think Apple would have a good counter-argument in that "iPad" has acquired secondary meaning, and that consumers use that mark to distinguish between wares made by Apple and those made by others.

A mark being "merely descriptive" is a prohibition against registration unless that mark has acquired secondary meaning via extensive use in the marketplace.

No, a trademark for "iPad mini", had it been granted, wouldn't prohibit the of "mini" in other contexts. "Austin Mini", "Mini Oreo", "Mini Ritz", "Blackberry Mini Keyboard", "Galaxy S4 Mini", "Android Mini Pad" would all be allowed, unless they cause confusion with the original mark.

• oyez.org
• SCOTUSblog
• Supreme Court Review
• Federalist Society's SCOTUScast

Rick Joyce and Gopal Gupta - Identity Authentication Based on Keystroke Latencies, 1990

F Monrose, A Rubin - Authentication via Keystroke Dynamics, 1997

Arkady G. Zilberman - US Patent 6442692: Security method and apparatus employing authentication by keystroke dynamics, 1998 (I think some of the claims in this patent could be invalidated because of previous disclosure in the 1990 and 1997 papers)

Bank of Montreal's passwords for online banking must be exactly 6 characters long, and contain no special characters.

FYI: List of Kirkland & Ellis IP lawyers in New York