construction dispute is Defendants’ contention that, because of the content of the specifications of the patents, the claims in the ’589 patent must be construed to embrace only a device for heating the specific type of clamp described in the specification of the '461 patent, and that the ’461 patent claims only nickel-titanium alloy clamps. “Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. While the Court recognizes that claims must be read in light of the specification, it is careful to avoid “reading limitations from the specification into the claim.” Id. at 1323 (<HOLDING>). The Federal Circuit has “expressly rejected
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 claims that contradicted the specification were invalid as indefinite holding that embodiments disclosed in the specification are not determinative of the meaning of disputed claim terms 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 limitations from the specification should not be read into the claims