Petition includes a detailed narrative of different ailments that can be treated through specialized knowledge in various study areas. See Petition 9-14. Lyons’s curriculum, however, is merely a bulleted list of different areas of study. See ACVSMR Bylaws 2-5. While Lyons’s curriculum mentions some similar topics of study, it fails to include any detailed explanation similar to the type provided in the Petition. See ACVSMR Bylaws 5 (listing areas of study without additional explanation). The mere fact that both curriculae cover some of the same topics does not support a finding of infringement because copyright law does not grant Lyons a monopoly over the idea of a particular curriculum for this specialty. See Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 219, 123 S.Ct. 769, 154 L.Ed.2d 683 (2003) (<HOLDING>). Given the College and Lyons’s divergent
holding that the character et in the motion picture et the extraterrestrial itself a copyrighted work contains unique elements of expression and is protectable under the copyright act holding that every idea theory and fact in a copyrighted work becomes instantly available for public exploitation at the moment of publication holding that public demonstration of electronic organ at show for national association of music manufacturers constituted public use under section 102b despite fact that instrument was not then available for sale to the public holding a document accessible only through the public reference room at the securities and exchange commission constituted a printed publication under  102b holding that the right to recover statutory damages accrues at the moment the privacy act was violated