Appeal No. 2001-1624
Application 09/164,583
rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 15) (pages referred to as
"Br__") and reply brief (Paper No. 17) (pages referred to as
"RBr__") for a statement of appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Comments regarding Summary of the Invention
We have considered the examiner's disagreements with the
Summary of the Invention (EA3) and appellant's response (RBr1-3).
Normally we would not say anything about this matter because it
is a matter of procedure, not substance, and the panel evaluates
the rejection based on the claim language, not the Summary of the
Invention. However, in view of the effort appellant took in
responding, we present a short discussion.
We find nothing wrong with the Summary of the Invention and,
in fact, find it to be succinct, complete, and accurate. While
the examiner objects to the summary of conventional copying
machines as improper in a description of the invention, we find
such a description helpful as background in understanding the
invention without having to refer to the specification. The
Summary of the Invention accurately describes the claimed
invention. As to the examiner's objection to the analysis of
certain claims in the Summary, the Summary of the Invention
points out (at Br3) that this is recommended practice in the
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1206.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007