With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed.Cir.2001). After looking at the claim language, the court can consider the remaining intrinsic evidence, Interactive Gift, 256 F.3d at 1331, however, the court “does not accord the specification, prosecution history, and other relevant evidence the same weight as the claims themselves.” Eastman Kodak Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 114 F.3d 1547, 1552 (Fed.Cir.1997) overruled on other grounds by Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1452-1455 (Fed.Cir.1998) (en banc). This hierarchy among the sources of intrinsic evidence translates into a “proscription of not reading limitations” from the specification and prosecution history into the claim language. Texas Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1204 (Fed.Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); see also Middleton, Inc. v. Minn. Mining and

A: holding that limitations from the specification should not be read into the claims
B: holding improper reading into claims a limitation appearing only in the specification
C: holding that claims are not to be interpreted by adding limitations appearing only in the specification
D: holding that the general equitable tolling doctrine is read into every statute of limitations
A.