Which limitation cannot be read into a claim that does not specifically include it?

The correct answer relates to the principles of patent claim interpretation. A claim defines the scope of the patent protection, and it must stand on its own merits as written. When it comes to reading limitations into a claim, one must be cautious about what can be considered an integral part of the claim's language.

Positive limitations are those that specify what is required in the claim, essentially stating what must be present. If a claim does not explicitly include a particular positive limitation, it cannot be inferred or added based on the specification. The rationale behind this is that a claim must be interpreted based solely on the language used. This prevents an applicant from broadening their claim scope during prosecution or litigation based on descriptions provided elsewhere in the patent application that are not explicitly included in the claim.

In contrast, the other choices involve other types of limitations that can potentially be read into claims. Negative limitations, for instance, clarify what is excluded from a claim, and if those limitations are part of the original claim's structure, they can often be maintained even if not explicitly repeated. Functional limitations in drawings may also suggest capabilities or intended use, which can inform understanding even if inadvertently left out initially. General limitations from an abstract may hold contextual value but still align with the claims if