imply that the claims’ “ ‘controls’ are effective in the face of the attacks identified in the Big Book.” Finally, as an intuitive and legal matter, the Court is wary of reading into claims a limitation that is not expressly there. As InterTrust correctly notes, “[s]pecifica-tions teach. Claims claim.” SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 n. 14 (Fed.Cir.1985). With its global construction argument, Microsoft is not asking for construction of a term; it is asking for wholesale importation of a term that is present in only one of the claims at issue. In the absence of substantial justification for Microsoft’s position, the Court is disinclined to take such a drastic step. See Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186-87 (Fed.Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). For all of these reasons, the Court CONSTRUES
holding that claims are not to be interpreted by adding limitations appearing only in the specification holding improper reading into claims a limitation appearing only in the specification holding that courts must not import limitations from the specification into the claim holding that limitations from the specification should not be read into the claims holding that claims that contradicted the specification were invalid as indefinite