Appeal No. 2004-0044
Application No. 09/375,214
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Taricani, Jr. (Taricani) 6,016,479 Jan. 18, 2000
(filed May 14, 1998)
Honarvar 6,321,206 Nov. 20, 2001
(filed Dec. 21, 1998)
Claims 13-19, 22 and 33-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Honarvar and Taricani.
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 23, mailed
May 21, 2003) for the Examiner’s reasoning, and to the appeal
brief (Paper No. 22, filed February 27, 2003) for Appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In rejecting the claims, the Examiner relies on Honarvar for
teaching an apparatus and the corresponding method including a
computer-implemented data mining, decision management system,
case management system and a feedback mechanism for identifying
taxpayer profiles and identifying links between the profiles
(answer, page 4). The Examiner further relies on Taricani for
disclosing a case management system which implements different
treatments for taxpayer compliance (answer, the paragraph
bridging pages 4 and 5). Based on the teachings of these two
prior art references, the Examiner concludes that the skilled
artisan would have found it obvious to combine the taxpayer data
of Taricani with the data mining system of Honarvar in order to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007