algorithm.” WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed.Cir.1999). Disclosure of a general purpose computer without a corresponding algorithm renders the means-plus-function claim indefinite. Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1337-38 (Fed.Cir.2008). Network-l’s argument for a distinction, one based on whether only a computer or a computer plus additional structures is the corresponding structure, is without support in the case law. The distinction is one without a difference because whether the computer stands alone or is combined with additional structures, the structure of the computer itself nevertheless includes its programming. As Defendants argue, programming of the c 84 F.Supp.2d 1016, 1022-23 (E.D.Tex.2005) (Ward, J.) (<HOLDING>); see also Biomedino LLC v. Waters Techs.,
holding that although appellant filed a proposed jury charge appellant did not preserve error because trial court did not endorse proposed charge and appellant did not call trial courts attention to the portions of the proposed charge that were complained about on appeal holding that the trial court was without authority to set aside entry of default on motion to set aside default judgment holding statute did not create claim to set aside improper conveyance recognizing that a trial court can set aside verdict holding claim indefinite where patentees proposed structure of a microprocessor running a procedure call that sets aside resources such as a memory area did not set forth an algorithm for performing the claimed reallocating processing resources as a function of task priority function