Appeal No. 2004-0044
Application No. 09/375,214
Appellants that the sales transactions of Taricani relates to
only a single taxpayer event, which does not constitute the
claimed taxpayer profile including information relating to a
plurality of taxpayer events for the respective taxpayer.
In concluding that Honarvar’s case management system and the
sales tax database of Taricani provide the teaching and
suggestion for arriving at the claimed subject matter in claim
13, the Examiner attempts to forge a combination of a database
related to uncollected sales tax that has nothing to do with a
decision management system used for monitoring the movement of
clients across different client categories. Thus, assuming,
arguendo, that it would have been obvious to combine Taricani
with Honarvar, as held by the Examiner, the combination would
still fall short of teaching or suggesting the claimed taxpayer
profile and the feedback mechanism. We note that other dependent
claims, similar to claim 13, require identification of the
taxpayer profile and the feedback mechanism for feeding back the
result of the decision management system. Accordingly, as the
Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
independent claims 13, 22, 35-38 as well as claims 14-19, 33 and
34, dependent thereupon, over Honarvar and Taricani.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007