(Fed.Cir.1996). Claim interpretation defines the scope of the claim. York Prods., Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1572 (Fed.Cir.1996). In determining the meaning of disputed claim terms, a court may consider the written description, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed.Cir.1996). These additional sources “may provide a context and clarification about the meaning of claim terms.” York Prods., 99 F.3d at 1572. Throughout the interpretation process, however, “the focus remains on the meaning of the claim language.” Thermalloy, Inc. v. Aavid Engineering, Inc., 121 F.3d 691, 693 (Fed.Cir.1997); Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 619 (Fed.Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the language of the claim frames
holding that an assignment or sale of rights in the invention and potential patent rights is not a sale of the invention within the meaning of section 102b holding first amendment claim requires actual protected conduct recognizing that through the structure of its government  a state defines itself as a sovereign holding that first and most importantly the language of the claim defines the scope of the protected invention holding when a statute defines manner or means of committing an offense indictment need not allege matters beyond the language of the statute