Appeal 2007-0712
Application 90/006,713
The 112, ¶ 1 and ¶ 2 rejections
7. The Examiner rejected claims 29-36 under 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 1,
as the Specification allegedly does not provide the intended metes and
bounds of:
1) the electronic collection of tax data wherein the tax data
collected electronically is not collected manually or manually entered
onto said electronic tax return (as recited in claims 29-32) (Final
Rejection 5 and Answer 5-6);
2) the automatic and electronic collection of tax data (as recited
in claims 33-36) (Final Rejection 12 and Answer 6).
8. The Examiner also argues that since the Specification describes
that the invention may be implemented using existing software, such as
TurboTax®, that the demarcation between one off-the-shelf software
program being integrated into another piece of software is not made clear by
the Specification (Final Rejection 11 and Answer 5 and 40-41).
9. Simplification’s Specification states:
Hence, with the electronic collection of tax data as in step 12,
the invention eliminates the current requirement that a taxpayer
manually collect the tax data, eliminates the current requirement that a
taxpayer manually enter such tax data onto a tax return or into a
computer, and eliminates the need for all, or virtually all, intermediate
hard copies of tax data, thereby saving paper, time, and cost.
In step 13, the electronic intermediary processes the tax data
obtained electronically from the tax data providers in step 12. In the
present invention, step 13 can be implemented using a computer
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013