Am.), Inc. v. VDO N. Am., LLC, 375 F.3d 1126, 1135 (Fed.Cir.2004) (means-plus-function presumption overcome where claim limitation for “pumping means” recited its structure, “a nozzle and a venturi tube in alignment with the nozzle,” location, “being located within the reservoir in the region of the opening,” and method of operation); Searfoss v. Pioneer Consol. Corp., 374 F.3d 1142, 1149 (Fed.Cir.2004) (means-plus-function presumption overcome where claim limitation specifically set forth the structure that performs the claimed function, by reciting “said actuation means including first and second pivot connections respectively between said first and second tension bail legs and a midpoint on said respective first and second extension bail legs”), with Omega Eng’g, 334 F.3d at 1321 (<HOLDING>). The Court finds that limitation (d) of Claim
holding that claim was in meansplusfunction format where it recited means for causing said at least one laser beam to strike the periphery of the energy zone for visibly outlining said entire energy zone holding that rule 58 allows inclusion of at least one citation to legal authority and at least a onesentence explanation of the courts reasoning holding a coinventor of at least one claim is entitled to a pro rata undivided interest in the entire patent holding that a legislature need not strike out all evils at one the same time 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