Defendants further correctly assert that the patent specifications suggest that the behavior illustrated in figures 2F and 2H — spontaneous return precisely to original shape from strains of up to 6% — can be achieved by the claimed invention at temperatures as low as — 20°C. While it is certainly appropriate to consider a patent specification when constru ing a disputed claim term, it is not proper to read limitations into a claim from the specification. SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed.Cir.1985); see also Markman, 52 F.3d at 980 (noting that the specification “does not delimit the right to exclude. That is the function and purpose of the patent claims.”); Electro Medical Sys. v. Cooper Life Sciences, Inc., 34 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed.Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Figures 2F and 2H are therefore relevant only
holding that limitations from the specification should not be read into the claims holding that courts must not import limitations from the specification into the claim holding that claims that contradicted the specification were invalid as indefinite holding improper reading into claims a limitation appearing only in the specification holding that claims are not to be interpreted by adding limitations appearing only in the specification