Appeal No. 2000-0305 Page 16
Application No. 08/887,453
cover 16) is made of a resilient, deformable, waterproof
material which permits the case to be easily reversible or
invertible. In view of the nature of Alwitt's cover 16, it is
our determination that it is reasonable to conclude that the
cover 16 is inherently capable of stretching and inverting to
cover and uncover an end of an article. Hence, the
appellant's burden before the PTO is to prove that Alwitt does
not perform the functions defined in claim 11. The appellant
has not come forward with any evidence to satisfy that burden.
Appellant's mere argument on page 14 of the brief that Alwitt
does not disclose the functions defined in claim 11 is not
evidence.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Alwitt is affirmed.
Claim 12
The appellant argues (brief, p. 14) that Alwitt does not
disclose a case whereby an enlarged opening is maintained when
a portion of the case is inverted and re-inverted over an end
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007