We apply, in particular, the principle that “[t]he construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed.Cir.1998), adopted by Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316.
As we have noted, the district court relied only on the intrinsic record, not on any testimony about skilled artisans’ understandings of claim terms in the relevant field, and neither party challenges that approach.
The district court did not conclude, and the Camera Manufacturers and HP have not meaningfully argued, that the ordinary meaning of “second connecting device” (or “connecting device”) requires a physical plug, socket, or other structure that permits a user to readily attach and detach something else.
Nothing in the written description suggests that this depends on what non-host physical memory units hold the data as long as the interface device mimics the data-organizational tools expected by the host-native driver, such as directory structures for a hard-disk drive, to enable the host to gain access to it.
In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation, 778 F.3d 1255 (2015) 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1533 preferred embodiment ‘is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support.’ ” (citation omitted)).