Appeal No. 2000-0305 Page 11
Application No. 08/887,453
Claim 12
The appellant argues (brief, p. 12) that Andersen does
not disclose a hollow interior space similar to the shape of
an article whereby closure and release is provided through an
opening as a portion of the protective case is inverted and
re-inverted over an end of the article as recited in claim 12.
We find this argument unpersuasive for the same reasons as set
forth above with respect to claim 11. Furthermore, as shown
in Figures 1-3 of Anderson, his cover 10 does provide a hollow
interior space similar to the shape of the binoculars 80.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Andersen is affirmed.
Claims 1, 2, 8 and 9
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 9-11) that Andersen's
cover does not provide a shape retaining hollow interior space
as recited in claim 1. We agree. In that regard, the hollow
interior space defined by Andersen's cover is not shape
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007