specification qualifies as “corresponding” structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly link or associate that structure to the recited function. Id. The corresponding structure does not need to include all necessary elements to enable the claimed invention, but the structure must include all structure that actually performs the recited function. Id. Courts consider the entire specification to determine the structure that is capable to perform the recited function. Id. “In a means-plus-function claim in which the disclosed structure is a computer, or microprocessor, programmed to carry out an algorithm, the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather the special purpose computer programmed to perform the di 490 F.3d 946, 953 (Fed.Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, the specification does not
holding that claims that contradicted the specification were invalid as indefinite 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 claim that included database editing means  for generating  and embedding  limitation was indefinite where the specification merely restated that software performed the recited function 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 claim that included control means for automatically operating said valving limitation was indefinite as the specification merely disclosed a diagram with a box labeled control and a stated the invention may be controlled automatically by known differential pressure valving and control equipment