that exhibits no redundancy. 713 patent at 13:5-13. The claim lan-gúage, 'however, does not require elimination of- all redundancies from the archive. For example, the specification discloses providing users with “user interfaces and tools for examining and choosing the elimination of document and document element redundancies.” Id. at 6:60-65 (emphasis added). Indeed, Mr. Berkheimer acknowledges that “the invention attempts to minimize redundancy but may not in all cases achieve absolute [elimination of] redundancy.” Appellant Br. at 64. The specification contains no point of comparison for skilled artisans to determine an objective boundary of “minimal” when the archive includes some redundancies. Sonix Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd., 844 F.3d 1370, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (<HOLDING>). The prosecution history does not add clarity.
holding that in order to understand patent claims a court can take instruction from the other claims the specification and the prosecution history holding that specific examples in the specification provided points of comparison that helped form an objective standard of the claims scope 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 that contradicted the specification were invalid as indefinite