Courts can't re-draft claims
Although the Examiner has interpreted the claims applying the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard, Appellant submits that some other standard should apply. However, Appellant has not shown that the claim interpretation would be any different under another standard. Even in proceedings where the presumption of validity applies, our reviewing court has repeatedly and consistently recognized that “courts may not redraft claims, whether to make them operable or to sustain their validity.” Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). “[I]n accord with our settled practice we construe the claim as written, not as the patentees wish they had written it.” Id. Further, our reviewing court has repeatedly warned against confining the claims to specific embodiments described in the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).