Extract to table

Across multiple disputed terms, Lumos repeatedly seeks to: (1) import fabrication process limitations into structural product claims; (2) read specific numerical thresholds and performance parameters from isolated examples in the specification into the claims; and (3) confine the claims to single preferred embodiments, in direct contravention of the Federal Circuit's instruction that courts must not "confine the claims to those embodiments

The claims must be read in view of the specification, and the specification provides context and meaning that may inform the proper construction of a claim term

The applicant's amendment and remarks established only that the claimed coupler must achieve adiabatic coupling; they did not limit the term to any particular taper geometry

The fact that "adiabatically coupled" was added during prosecution to overcome prior art does not mean that the Court must construe the term more narrowly than its plain and ordinary meaning

A "tip" in this context is simply the narrow end of the taper; it need not be geometrically "pointed" in the sense of coming to a sharp point, nor must there be only a single tip