is applied to two different embodiments. The more conventional embodiment is an arrangement of the printing stations in a straight or “in-line” configuration. The second embodiment relies on a central impression cylinder that carries a sheet of recording material past each print station, eliminating the need for mechanical transfer of the medium to each print station. “[Pjroper application of § 112 ¶ 6 generally reads the claim element to embrace distinct and alternative described structures for performing the claimed function. Specifically, ‘disclosed structure includes that which is described in a patent specification, including any alternative structures identified.’ ” Ishida Co. v. Taylor, 221 F.3d 1310, 1316, 55 USPQ2d 1 F.3d 1374, 1378-79, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1227-28 (Fed.Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Thus, in addressing the question whether a
holding that the determination of whether sufficient structure is disclosed in the specification to support a meansplusfunction limitation is based on the understanding of one skilled in the art holding that the specifications reference to a selector sufficed as one skilled in the art would have understood the term holding that an accused infringer must show by clear and convincing evidence that a skilled artisan could not discern the boundaries of the claim based on the claim language the specification and the prosecution history as well as her knowledge of the relevant art area holding that the specifications reference to commercially available vacuum sensors constituted sufficient structure as one skilled in the art would have understood the reference 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