and third examples show how the OOKeyMan software manages and tracks encrypted objects that may be transmitted between different applications, such as between WordPerfect® and Microsoft Word®. Id. col. 7 ll. 54-61, col. 9 l. 4-col. 11 l. 11. The defendants contend that these examples only disclose generic software and not a specific algorithm. We disagree. It is true that “black box” disclosures of software are often too generic to provide corresponding structure for computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations. E.g., Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1383 (Fed.Cir.2009) (“The ACM is essentially a black box that performs a recited function. But how it does so is left undisclosed.”); ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 518 (Fed.Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). But the examples here provide detailed prose
holding that orders remanding an action to a federal agency are generally not considered final appealable orders holding that black box labeled purchase orders was insufficient structure to perform the generate purchase orders function recognizing that orders denying motions to reopen are treated as final orders of removal holding black box labeled sel was sufficient structure because it was a well known electronic structure and performs a common electronic function holding that twentythree purchase orders made up a single installment contract