that such spindles are commonly used for rotating plate cylinders in printing presses. Thus, we conclude that the specification of the '368 patent discloses adequate structure corresponding to the “means for rotating” limitation of claim 1. To the extent that Creo contends that additional structure is required for completely performing the function of “rotating each cylinder,” we consider such' structure to be implicit in the disclosure of the '368 patent. Under our case law interpreting § 112, ¶ 6, knowledge of one skilled in the art can be called upon to flesh out a particular structural reference in the specification for the purpose of satisfying the statutory requirement of definiteness. See, e.g., S3 Inc. v. nVIDIA, 259 F.3d 1364, 1370, 59 USPQ2d 1745, 1749-50 (Fed. Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 250 F.3d
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 that the specifications reference to a selector sufficed as one skilled in the art would have understood the term holding that a claim was not indefinite for using the term selector because it was a standard component and its structure was well known in the art 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 what is important is not simply that the element at issue is defined in terms of what it does but that the term as the name for a structure has a reasonably well understood meaning in the art