Appeal 2007-0712
Application 90/006,713
Sense is not limited to tax data. Here, the Examiner has failed to sufficiently
demonstrate that the data obtained from the bank is anything more than
information that a taxpayer would use for household budgeting purposes,
which data the Examiner has failed to demonstrate would in fact be used to
determine a tax payer’s tax liability.
For all of these reasons, the Examiner’s determination that the data
collected from the bank must necessarily or inherently be data that is used to
process a tax payer’s liability is not supported by record evidence.
As applied by the Examiner (FF 26 and 27) none of the other
references make up for the deficiencies of Beamer.
For all of these reasons, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of the claims based on the prior art of record.
F. Decision
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given, the
Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 29-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is
reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 29-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8-10, 14, 15, 17-20 and 29-
36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Beamer as further
supported by “It’s W-2 Time” is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-5, 7 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
25
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013