only a partial return toward original shape absent heat, to depict the “at least 3% elasticity” described in claim 5. It therefore follows that the term 3% elasticity as used in claim 5 refers not to the spontaneous return of a component to its original shape, but rather to the ability of a component to “spring back” by an amount equal to 3% of its original length. Moreover, the term is used in claim 5 precisely as it is used in claim 1, and there is no reasoned basis to apply different definitions to the same term used in two claims of the same patent. See Southwall Technologies, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1579 (Fed.Cir.1995), petition for cert. filed, 60 U.S.L.W. 3250 (Sept. 19, 1995) (No. 95-475); Fromson v. Advance Offset Plate, Inc., 720 F.2d 1565, 1570 (Fed.Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). This Court concludes, therefore, that the
holding that declaratory judgments fall outside the scope of the court of claims jurisdiction holding that evidence of the scope of a particular claim can be found on review of other claims holding that as to the scope of court review substantial evidence is a stringent limitation holding the scope of a particular claim can often be determined on inspection of other claims holding that in the case of state procedural default a federal habeas review of the claims is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate among other things that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice