Extract to table

However, the Federal Circuit has cautioned that extrinsic evidence is "less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language" and that courts must be careful not to permit extrinsic evidence to "contradict the meaning of claims in light of the specification and prosecution history

Two additional principles, both repeatedly invoked by OWS in this briefing and directly applicable to Lumos's arguments, warrant emphasis: First, a court must not import limitations from the specification's preferred embodiments into the claims

Even where the specification describes only a single embodiment, the Federal Circuit has held that "it does not follow that the claims must be limited to that disclosed embodiment

A central pillar of Lumos's argument is the assertion that the specification of the '567 Patent exclusively describes a continuous taper, and therefore "adiabatically coupled" must be limited to coupling achieved through such a taper

The two are not identical, and the latter must control

However, the scope of this surrender under Festo must be carefully circumscribed