Appeal No. 2003-0655
Application No. 09/406,001
Additionally, the Examiner should address whether claims 14 and 20 are proper
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph claims. There is no antecedent basis for “the file of
addresses” in claims 10 and 18 from which claims 14 and 20 respectively depend.
Lastly, the Examiner should address whether “computer program” claims 18-20 are
proper 35 U.S.C. § 101 claims given that these claims may be directed to a “computer program”
per se.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have reversed the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1-11 and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ALLEN R. MACDONALD )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ARM:psb
15
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007