have covered the competitor’s product. Where a long period of delay is involved, other inventors may work under the assumption that the patentee is not going to prosecute broader claims; they may develop improvements only to find that they are in-fringers of a later-prosecuted patent. Kingsdown therefore does not preclude an alleged infringer from asserting these kind of circumstances as grounds for a prosecution laches defense. Moreover, a bright line rule that the prosecution laches defense never applies when a terminal disclaimer has been filed would run contrary to the principle that “with its origin in equity, a determination of laches is not made upon the application of mechanical rules.” A.C. Aukerman, 960 F.2d at 1032; see also Cruz v. Melecio, 204 F.3d 14, 23 (1st Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). While it certainly is appropriate to weigh
holding that in determining the voluntariness of a waiver of miranda rights a court must evaluate the totality of the circumstances holding that a court in sitting in equity should assess the totality of the circumstances and customtailor appropriate relief holding that the reasonableness inquiry is based upon the totality of the circumstances in determining whether or not a search was reasonable holding that federal courts sitting in diversity should apply state law that determines the outcome of the case holding reasonable suspicion is based on totality of circumstances