1452-53 (Fed.Cir.2000) (quoting Serrano, 111 F.3d at 1583, 42 USPQ2d at 1542). Accordingly, where the specification discloses different alternative embodiments, the claim is valid even if only one embodiment discloses corresponding structure. Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1113— 14 (Fed.Cir.2002). With respect to the “central-impression” embodiment, the written description expressly discloses that “the impression cylinder drives each plate cylinder.” '368 patent, col. 9, lines 28-30. Although the disclosure with respect to the “in-line” embodiment is less clear, Figure 1 of the '368 patent indicates that each print cylinder in that embodiment rotates on a spindle through its axis, and Presstek’s expert tes 1382, 58 USPQ2d 1801, 1810-11 (Fed.Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc.,
holding that box labeled vacuum sensor and passage which notes that vacuum sensors were well known in the art at the time the patent issued sufficiently disclosed structure holding that the specifications reference to commercially available vacuum sensors constituted sufficient structure as one skilled in the art would have understood the reference holding that reference to ordinance is not improper reference to an external document because injunction sufficiently describes the act sought to be enjoined and reference to the ordinance as stated in the injunction is merely to give further notice as to the enjoined conduct but the reference was unnecessary to give the appellants sufficient notice of that conduct holding that the specifications reference to a selector sufficed as one skilled in the art would have understood the term 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