context: As such, claim 10 is inconsistent with claim 1 and, indeed, contradicts claim 1. A dependent claim that contradicts, rather than harrows, the claim from which it depends is invalid. See 35 U.S.C. SS 112(d) (requiring that "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" (emphasis added)); Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 299 F.3d 1336, 1349
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that claims that contradicted the specification were invalid as indefinite
citation_a.sentence: Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1291-92 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding a claim invalid under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 4 for claiming subject matter that was “non-overlapping” with the claim from which it depended); Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc., 438 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (noting that a dependent claim can be invalid for failing to comply with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 4); see also Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims that were internally contradictory were invalid as indefinite); Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., 299 F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that claims that contradicted the specification were invalid as indefinite). “[Wjhere ... claims are susceptible to only one reasonable interpretation and that interpretation results in a nonsensical construction of the claim as a whole, the claim must be invalidated.... ” Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 438 F.3d 1374, 1380
citation_b.parenthetical: noting that a dependent claim can be invalid for failing to comply with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. SS 112 P 4
citation_b.sentence: Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1291-92 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding a claim invalid under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 4 for claiming subject matter that was “non-overlapping” with the claim from which it depended); Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc., 438 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (noting that a dependent claim can be invalid for failing to comply with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 4); see also Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims that were internally contradictory were invalid as indefinite); Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., 299 F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that claims that contradicted the specification were invalid as indefinite). “[Wjhere ... claims are susceptible to only one reasonable interpretation and that interpretation results in a nonsensical construction of the claim as a whole, the claim must be invalidated.... ” Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999).