Appeal No. 2006-1332 Page 7 Application No. 09/548,687 claim if it discloses the claimed invention 'such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention.'" In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936, 133 USPQ 365, 372 (CCPA 1962)). Of course, anticipation "is not an 'ipsissimis verbis' test." In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing Akzo N.V. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479 & n.11, 1 USPQ2d 1241, 1245 & n.11 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). "An anticipatory reference . . . need not duplicate word for word what is in the claims." Standard Havens Prods. v. Gencor Indus., 953 F2d 1360, 1369, 21 USPQ2d 1321, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Here, Blount discloses "a shared virtual memory type data processing system comprising a plurality of virtual memory type data processing units interconnected in a cluster configuration. . . ." (Col. 4, l. 66 - col. 5, l. 2.) "As shown in FIG. 1 [of the reference], the data processing system comprises a plurality of processor units 10. . . ." (Col. 8, ll. 7-8.) Each processor unit, i.e., processor, 10A - 10D includes a main memory ("MM") 17, (id. at ll. 24-26), and a "remote memory manager function," (col. 9, l. 59). A disk drive 24 is attached to each processor. (Col. 8, ll. 29-32),Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007