Appeal No. 2005-1722
Application 10/420,901
examiner's rejection, and to the brief (pages referred to as
"Br__") and reply brief (pages referred to as "RBr__") for a
statement of appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Comment on examiner's objections to brief
Initially, we do not concern ourselves with the examiner's
objections to the Summary of Claimed Subject Matter in the brief
as being deficient for its length and discussion of dependent
claims (EA2). If appellant had merely copied the specification
into the summary this might be objectionable as not being a
concise description. However, there is no set limit on page
length. Also, the fact that appellant discusses the dependent
claims even though they are not separately argued is noted, but
is not objectionable. Of course, appellant can not rely on
discussions of dependent claims in the summary of claimed subject
matter as arguments for the separate patentability of the claims
since arguments must be contained in the Argument section, see
37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Obviousness
The examiner finds that Cameron teaches an Internet-based
product presentation page at column 5, line 15 (FR2). The
examiner finds that Cameron teaches issuing "awards" in
connection with purchasing the product selected at column 20,
lines 7-18, and an award presentation page at Fig. 35 and
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007