at least as best it can be understood, see Versata, 793 F.3d at 1323, 1326-27. 5 . It appears on only two other occasions and is nowhere defined. See 35 U.S.C. § 291 (2016); 42 U.S.C. § 262; see also 35 U.S.C. § 156 ("patent which claims”). 6 . "[W]here Congress borrows terms of art in which are accumulated the legal tradition and meaning of centuries of practice, it presumably knows and adopts the cluster of ideas that were attached to each borrowed word in the body of learning from which it was taken and the meaning its use will convey to the judicial mind unless otherwise instructed. In such case, absence of contrary direction may be taken as satisfaction with widely accepted definitions, not as a departure from them.” 7 . See, e.g., In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (<HOLDING>). LOURIE, Circuit Judge, dissenting. I
holding that in reviewing a claim construction decided under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard we determine whether the interpretation is within the range of reasonableness holding erisa plan interpretation is simply one of contract interpretation holding that we may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within the guidelines range holding that under a due weight deference standard a more reasonable interpretation overcomes an agency interpretation recognizing that the standard of review for issues of statutory interpretation and construction is de novo