using means plus function language. In In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189 (Fed.Cir.1994) that court stated that “[a]lthough paragraph six [of § 112] statutorily provides that one may use means-plus-function language in a claim, one is still subject to the requirement that a claim ‘particularly point out and distinctly claim’ the invention... If an applicant fails to set forth an adequate disclosure, the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of section 112.” 16 F.3d at 1195 (en banc). Accordingly, defining a limitation purely by function, such that it covers all means of achieving the function, renders a claim indefinite. See MDS Associates Limited Partnership v. United States, 37 Fed.Cl. 611, 625 (<HOLDING>). The only guidance Plaintiffs have provided
holding that insurer was not the plan administrator and thus was not liable under erisa  502c for failing to disclose certain information holding a claim indefinite for failing to disclose any means for calculating cpa range and cpa bearing using particular input signals holding that claim limitation using the term means for and not reciting any structure presumptively falls within the scope of  112  6 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 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