to agree with the district court’s construction of the function of this means-plus-function claim, and disagrees only with its finding that the specification did not disclose a corresponding structure. Because this means-plus-function term is a computer-implemented one, the patent must disclose more than a general purpose processor; it must also include an algorithm to perform the function. See Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333 (“In cases involving a computer-implemented invention in which the inventor has invoked means- plus-function claiming, this court has consistently required that the structure disclosed in the specification be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor.”); see also Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (<HOLDING>). The district court found that the ’616 patent
holding that the error must be egregious or othexnvise constitute a manifest miscarriage of justice citation omitted recognizing that dismissal is warranted only in extreme cases citation omitted holding that prejudice may result when the alien is prevented from  reasonably presenting his or her case  citation omitted emphasis added holding that the weight and credibility to be given to the opinions of expert witnesses is uniquely within the province of the fact finder  in this instance the trial court citation omitted holding that however an algorithm is expressed it must be a stepbystep procedure for accomplishing a given result citation omitted