Extract to table

Moreover, Claim 5, which specifies a cascaded MZI architecture as the waveguide multiplexer, would become logically inconsistent with a Claim 1 already limited to AWGs, since Claim 5 depends from Claim 1 and must, under 35 U

2012) (claims must not be limited to a single disclosed embodiment absent clear disclaimer or lexicographic definition)

§ 112(d) (formerly § 112, ¶ 4), a claim in dependent form "shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed

To the contrary, the court has consistently held that a construction producing such results must be rejected

2005) ("A claim construction that renders a dependent claim meaningless must be rejected