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 15Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007