set of disclosures found in the prior art with respect to claim l’s diverting limitation than to claim 24’s diverting limitation. Compare Petition for Inter Partes Review at 47, IPR2014-01133 (P.T.A.B. July 10, 2014), Paper No. 1, with id. at 51. In another example, in the Petitioner’s Reply to the Board, HTC argued that “CCE’s statement that ... D’Aviera does not disclose anything . .•. that could perform the intervening diverting step is misguided. The language of claim 1 does not preclude the same structure from performing the diverting step and the controlling step.” J.A. 570-71 (emphasis added) (quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted). And significantly, in its Final Written Decision, the Board also addressed claim 1 and claim 24 separately. See J.A. (Fed. Cir. 1983) (<HOLDING>). And the same approach is appropriate both in
holding that a court cannot construe claims to read an express limitation out of the claim or render it meaningless holding that in the case where patentee was attempting to argue that parallel meant perpendicular with respect to a particular claim and a claim ended with an incomplete limitation the claims at issue were indefinite holding that limitations from the specification should not be read into the claims holding that the argument that an additional limitation be read into claims 1 3 and 4 was only correct with respect to claim 1 and thus only claim 1 was invalid holding improper reading into claims a limitation appearing only in the specification