161 F.3d at 703-04; Greenberg, 91 F.3d at 1580. That presumption may be overcome if the claim element only provides functional terms without the recitation of structure for performing that function. In determining whether the claim language recites a structural term or merely recites functional terms, the court should read the claim language in light of both the specification and prosecution history. See C.R. Bard, 102 F.Supp.2d at 216 (stating that review of prosecution history demonstrates that the examiner would not have allowed the claim but for examiners finding that claim limitation at issue was a “means” element). Moreover, a court should examine whether the claim element at issue has a well-understood structural meaning in the art. See Mas-Hamilton Group, 156 F.3d at 1213 (<HOLDING>). In this case, the court finds no reason to
holding that district court correctly held that movable link member for holding the lever  was a meansplusfunction element because there was no evidence that a movable link member had a wellunderstood structural meaning in the art holding that it was error to admit into evidence 880 cartridges found in defendants car where there was no link established between the cartridges and the crime charged holding that plaintiff who was iranian is a member of a protected class holding that an absent member of a subsection 23b3 class can be bound by the results of litigation about which that member was notified and given an opportunity to be heard holding inference appropriate where no rational class member would have acted if there had been adequate disclosure