Autogiro Co. of Am. v. United States, 181 Ct.Cl. 55, 384 F.2d 391, 397, 155 USPQ 697, 702 (Ct.Cl.1967) ("In utilizing all the patent documents, one should not sacrifice the value of these references by the unimaginative adherence to well-worn professional phrases.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); cf. Karl N. Llewellyn, Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision and the Rules or Canons About How Statutes Are to be Construed, 3 Vand.L.Rev. 395, 401-06 (1950) (listing thrusts and parries of canons of construction of statutory provisions to illustrate their tractability). 3 . Likewise, any interpretation that is provided or disavowed in the prosecution history also shapes the claim scope. See Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal, Ltd., 781 F.2d 861, 867, 228 USPQ 90, 93-94 (Fed.Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); see also CVI/Beta Ventures, Inc. v. Tura LP,
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 when a term is defined in the statute it need not be further alleged in the indictment holding term share legal fees although not expressly defined provides adequate notices of type of conduct it would include holding that although term was not limited by the specification it was expressly defined in a narrow manner in the prosecution history holding that summary judgment was improperly granted in view of the need for careful interpretation of the original and reissue claims in light of the specification the prosecution history and the alleged industry practice