“The examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance is the personal opinion of the examiner as to why the claims are allowable. The examiner’s statement should not create an estoppel. Only applicant’s statements should create an estoppel. The failure of applicant to comment on the examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance should not be treated as acquiescence to the examiner’s statement. >See Salazar v. Procter & Gamble Co., 414 F.3d 1342, 1347, 75 USPQ2d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2005).”

This would tend to indicate that answer on the Feb 14, 2001 test is out of date. Be especially careful when studying some of the older tests.

From MPEP 1302.14:
The failure of applicant to comment on the examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance should not be treated as acquiescence to the examiner’s statement. Any inferences or presumption are to be determined on a case-bycase basis by a court reviewing the patent, the USPTO examining the patent in a reissue application or a
reexamination proceeding, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences reviewing the patent in an interference proceeding, etc.< Applicant may set forth his or her position if he or she disagrees with the examiner’s reasons for allowance.

As a reference:
Q17. Which of the following statements involving an examiner’s statement of reasons for
allowance in a Notice of Allowance dated February 8, 2001, is in accordance with USPTO rules
and procedure?
(A) Failure by applicant or patent owner to file a statement commenting on the
reasons for allowance cannot give rise to any implication that the applicant or
patent owner agrees with or acquiesces in the reasoning of the examiner.
(B) If applicant files a statement commenting on the reasons for allowance, failure by
the examiner to respond to applicant’s statement gives rise to the implication that
the examiner agrees with applicant’s statement.
(C) If applicant files a statement commenting on the reasons for allowance, failure by
the examiner to respond to applicant’s statement does not give rise to any
implication.
(D) (A) and (C)
(E) None of the above.

A17. ANSWER: (C) is the correct answer. 37 CFR § 1.104(e) (effective November 7, 2000);
“Changes To Implement the Patent Business Goals; Final Rule,” 65 FR 54604, 54633
(September 8, 2000). As stated in 65 FR at 54633, middle column, “In view of the recent case
law dealing with prosecution history, the failure of an applicant to comment on damaging
reasons for allowance would give rise to a presumption of acquiescence to those reasons…”
Thus, (A) is incorrect. 65 FR at 54633, middle column, also provides, “That the examiner does
not respond to a statement by the applicant commenting on reasons for allowance does not mean
that the examiner agrees with or acquiesces in the reasoning of such statement.” Thus (B) is
incorrect. (D) is incorrect because (A) is incorrect. (E) is incorrect because (C) is correct.