Appeal 2007-0712
Application 90/006,713
The prior art rejections
The Examiner finally rejected all of the independent claims as being
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Beamer and further supported by
the disclosure of “It’s W-2 Time.” The Examiner relied on Beamer to teach
collecting electronically tax data from said tax data provider.
An issue raised by Simplification is whether Beamer describes that the
information collected from the tax data provider, e.g., bank, is “tax data.”
For the reasons that follow, the Examiner has failed to sufficiently establish
that Beamer describes that the information collected from the tax data
provider, e.g., bank, is “tax data,” and therefore the rejection of all of the
claims 1-20 and 29-36 is reversed.
In reviewing both the Examiner’s and Simplification’s arguments, it
appears that both agree that “tax data” is data that is used to determine a tax
payer’s liability (FFs 18 and 23), which is consistent with the Specification
description of tax data (FF 25). The specification describes examples of “tax
data” as IRS Forms W-2 from their employers and IRS Forms 1099 from
their banks (FF 25). Simplification disagrees that Beamer describes that the
information obtained from the bank, e.g., tax data provider, is data that is
used to determine a taxpayer’s liability.
Simplification argues that the information obtained from the tax data
provider, e.g., the bank, is described as “salary data” and that “salary data”
does not indicate the net pay of the taxpayer, which is necessary to
determine the taxpayer’s taxable income (FF 23). Specifically,
Simplification argues that the Beamer bank record indicates the salary of the
20
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013