Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, a means-plus-function term in a computer implement claim must be supported by an example algorithm
Aristocrat Technologies Australia (ATA) v. International Gaming Technology (IGT) (2007-1419) (Fed. Cir. 2008) http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/07-1419.pdf
The CFAC held that to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, for a means-plus-function term in a computer implement claim, the specification must disclose an example ( "structure") algorithm for that means-plus-function term.
The court stated that the patentee
"was not required to produce a listing of source code or a highly detailed description of the algorithm to be used to achieve the claimed functions in order to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. It was required, however, to at least disclose the algorithm that transforms the general purpose microprocessor to a “special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.” WMS Gaming, 184 F.3d at 1349
Practice tip: include algorithm for computer mean plus function claim. Also write additional claim types without means plus function terms.