Appeal No. 2000-1474 Page 5
Application No. 08/962,902
filed May 14, 1999) and reply brief (Paper No. 28, filed
September 20, 1999) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, to the
appellant's video tape submitted with his declaration under 37
CFR § 1.132 (Paper No. 9, filed May 11, 1998) and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Claim 1
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Mueller.
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as
set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
inherently described, in a single prior art reference.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007