Except for special limited circumstances, different claims have their distinct claim scopes, which is called the “doctrine of claim differentiation.” Hence when interpreting the claim scope, the court should not only base on the claim language that is used in the present claim, but also be mindful of the terms and phrases that are used in other claims yet omitted in the to-be-interpreted claim. The disputed Claim 4 is a dependent claim associated with Claim 1. In addition to the technical features contained in Claim 1, Claim 4 further recited “several compression chambers (152) of different length could be located in the cartridge tube (15).”Since Claim 4 expressly contains “several compression chambers (152) of different length,” which indicates a plurality of compression chambers of different lengths, Claim 1 and Claim 4 are distinctively different. According to the doctrine of claim differentiation, Claim 1 must therefore include the embodiment of a single compression chamber.