May a court construe a patent claim in a way that contradicts its plain and ordinary meaning by relying on statements in the specification that do not constitute lexicography or disavowal?

QUESTION PRESENTED Congress requires inventors seeking patent protection to specifically identify what they regard as their invention in a patent claim. The Patent Office relies on the claim language chosen by inventors to decide whether or not to grant a patent. When patent disputes arise, courts must construe this claim language to define the metes and bounds of the patentee’s exclusionary rights. The line drawn by this claim construction process also determines patent validity. Separately, Congress requires inventors to provide a specification containing a written description of the invention. This description serves a different purpose than the claim: it must teach the public how to make and use the invention and identify the inventor’s best mode of practicing the invention. May a court construe a patent claim in a way that contradicts its plain and ordinary meaning by relying on statements in the specification that do not constitute lexicography or disavowal?