A second issue of interpretation besides the tradition of allegorization must be faced by the reader of the Song.
Not exact matches
The timing
of the tweet is in the poorest
of taste, but I would expect no less from the NRA, who continuously makes it their responsibility to act completely tone - deaf to the
issues that plague this country because
of their loose
interpretation of the
Second Amendment.
Second, the «flattening down»
of society by social media, tweets, and the overwhelming impact
of the internet, and especially its capacity to influence by «post-truth» assertions and statements, can, when combined with a populist, single
issue vote, give rise to an entirely new form and
interpretation of what the National Interest — still poorly defined — should now mean.
Second, OCR's reading
of its authority under Title IX goes far beyond the
interpretation adopted by the Supreme Court in two decisions that squarely addressed the sexual harassment
issue.
Second, the Times story and the response reminds us that the accountability and responsiveness that journalists ask
of public officials is not something that they're always equally willing to give to readers and sources — especially when the
issue is a matter
of interpretation than factual accuracy.
The case presents two procedural
issues under the AIA trial format: First, whether the PTAB should construe claims during an IPR using the USPTO's «broadest reasonable
interpretation» (or «BRI») construction standard; and
second, whether the PTAB's decision to institute review is subject to review by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In the
second case, SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, No. 16 - 969 (U.S. Apr. 24, 2018), the Court rejected the USPTO's
interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 318 (a), which requires the Patent Trial and Appeal Board («PTAB») to
issue a final written decision on the claims challenged by a petitioner at the conclusion
of an IPR trial.