lies cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. So long as the disclosure defines structure to render the bounds of the claim understandable to one of ordinary skill in the art, the specification need not disclose a specific formula or mathematical equation, and text or. a flowchart may sufficiently disclose an algorithm. AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Comm’cns, Inc., 504 F.3d 1236, 1245 (Fed.Cir.2007); see also WMS Gaming, 184 F.3d at 1347-49; In re Freeman, 573 F.2d 1237, 1245-46 (C.C.P.A.1978) (discussing “algorithm” in the context of 35 U.S.C. § 101). However, if the specification merely states a computer or microprocessor performs the claimed function, the specification does not disclose adequate structure and the claim is indefinite. Aristocrat Techs., 521 F.3d at 1337-38 (<HOLDING>); Finisar Corp. v. The DirecTV Group, Inc., 416
holding claim indefinite as the specification did not disclose sufficient structure where disclosure stated one of ordinary skill in the art could program a computer with appropriate programming to perform a control means function holding that claims that contradicted the specification were invalid as indefinite holding that the determination of whether sufficient structure is disclosed in the specification to support a meansplusfunction limitation is based on the understanding of one skilled in the art holding that a claim was not indefinite for using the term selector because it was a standard component and its structure was well known in the art holding that the moving party must show prior art references which alone or combined with other references would have rendered the invention obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention