1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008). It is true that “[o]ther claims of the patent in question ... can ... be valuable sources of enlightenment as to the meaning of a claim term.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). But the language of a dependent claim cannot change the scope of an independent claim whose meaning is clear on its face. We have held that “[wjhile it is true that dependent claims can aid in interpreting the scope of claims from which they depend, they are only an aid to interpretation and are not conclusive. The dependent claim tail cannot wag the independent claim dog.” N. Am. Vaccine, Inc. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 7 F.3d 1571, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Dakocytomation Cal. Inc., 517 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that the specification of the
recognizing a rebuttable presumption of reliance in rule 10b5 holding however that a first party insured is not entitled to a rebuttable presumption of harm holding that guidelines create a rebuttable presumption holding that a rebuttable presumption in favor of the action of an administrative agency and the burden of proof is upon one challenging its action holding that the presumption that an independent claim should be construed in view of its dependent claim is rebuttable