choice to interactively [modify and/or accept],” that, too, appears unnecessary. “Enabling” may mean “allowing,” but the shared definition alone is not a reason to substitute a synonym for a word that was chosen by a patent’s drafters and is easily comprehended by a layperson. Likewise, the claimed invention impliedly involves interactions between a human user and a system, but inserting “interactively” into the claim appears unwarranted. Finally, and on similar grounds, the addition of a purposive statement about “accurate transfer” is unnecessary. Again, a court may not import limitations into the claims that have no basis in the language of the claims themselves, whether those limitations come from the specification or from some other extrinsic source. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (<HOLDING>); see also DSW, Inc. v. Shoe Pavilion, Inc.,
holding improper reading into claims a limitation appearing only in the specification holding that limitations from the specification should not be read into the claims holding that claims are not to be interpreted by adding limitations appearing only in the specification holding that courts must not import limitations from the specification into the claim holding that claims that contradicted the specification were invalid as indefinite