and support[.]” (Resp. at 11.) To support this assertion, Defendant cites the following statement from Phillips: “[t]he construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” (Resp. at 11, citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316.) Defendant’s reliance on this passage is misplaced, as Defendant points to nothing in the claim language requiring contact, and the passage does not dictate that the Court adopt a construction that precisely reflects the embodiment of the invention shown in the patent’s drawing in the specification. In fact, case law clearly establishes that the Court need not do so. See Teleflex Inc. v. Ficosa N. America Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325-28 (Fed.Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). Here, while Defendant
holding that although the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments holding that embodiments disclosed in the specification are not determinative of the meaning of disputed claim terms 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 the determination of whether sufficient structure is disclosed in the specification to support a meansplusfunction limitation is based on the understanding of one skilled in the art