Appeal No. 2004-0044
Application No. 09/375,214
provide optimized decision strategies and efficient taxpayer
tracking (answer, page 5).
Appellants point out that Honarvar does not disclose or
suggest using the disclosed decision management system for any
taxpayer compliance (brief, page 5). Appellants further point
out that although Honarvar describes a loop back from the
“execute process” 80, in figure 2, this loop is not for feeding
back data for data mining (brief, page 6). With respect to
Taricani, Appellants argue that the reference discloses a system
for recovering sales tax from the purchaser in a sales
transaction and does not relate to treatment of taxpayers in
accordance with their taxpayer profiles (brief, page 8).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner argues
that Honarvar does teach the feedback mechanism where the client
ID is linked with the segment or group the client was in at the
time of making the decision (answer, pages 6 & 7). The Examiner
further asserts that the plurality of sales transactions of
Taricani generates a profile of a plurality of taxpayer events,
each including categories of sales or information related to tax
exemptions (answer, page 7).
As a general proposition, in rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting
a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007