2005),[1] was a case decided by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit en banc, that clarified the hierarchy of evidentiary sources usable for claim construction in patent law.
The panels interlocked by means of steel baffles - internal barriers meant to create fillable compartments or to deflect projectiles that penetrate the outer wall.
[4] The majority opinion, written by Judge Bryson, began by clarifying the hierarchy of evidentiary source usable for claim construction.
Turning to the facts of the case at hand, the court held that the claim limitations did not indicate that the baffles could not be situated at 90 degree angles.
Mayer argued that claim construction is similar to an obviousness determination, which is considered a factual finding (and thus subject to a "clear error" standard for appellate review).
The opinion held that the Federal Circuit court must apply a "clear error" standard to review questions of fact.