as follows: The amendment therefore moves the angling function from a micro level (i.e. provided with the fiber optic connectors), to a macro level wherein the angling function can presumably be accomplished by the angling or reconfiguration of the front panel, ■ the cabinet and/or the distribution frame. This broadens the claim. Memorandum of Telect in Support of Motion at 10. Telect’s argument, however, ignores the claim language and specification. The phrase “provided with” does not require that the holding structure be a part of the connector. Rather, the phrase requires that there be a means for holding the fibers at an angle. The means for holding described as the preferred embodiment in the specification is a structure separate from the connector. See Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583 (<HOLDING>). Reexamined claims 12 and 15 require means for
holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required if there are no factual issues in dispute holding that an unsworn memorandum is a pleading and not an evidentiary document therefore it had no evidentiary value and should not have been admitted as an exhibit recognizing that an interpretation which excludes a preferred embodiment is rarely if ever correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support holding that the supreme court does not require an evidentiary hearing in every case holding that a court must defer to an agencys reasonable interpretation of a statute even if the court might have preferred another