Ex Parte DarrDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 12, 201410798551 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JAMES J. DARR ____________ Appeal 2012-002275 Application 10/798,551 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1–8 and 12–24. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. BACKGROUND Appellant’s invention is directed to a fund raising program for non- profit organizations utilizing life insurance. Appeal 2012-002275 Application 10/798,551 2 Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A system for raising funds for a first organization, the system comprising: a memory for storing executable instructions; and a processor for performing the steps comprising: identifying one or more individuals associated with the first organization; requesting enrollment of the one or more identified individuals in a program permitting the first organization to take out an insurance policy on each life of the one or more identified individuals naming the first organization as beneficiary and granting the first organization an irrevocable right to utilize the insurance policy on each life of the one or more identified individuals to serve the best interests of the first organization; receiving information from one or more of the identified individuals accepting the enrollment; selecting one or more of the one or more enrolled individuals based upon the received information to create a structured financial asset comprising one or more insurance policies for each of the selected individuals, wherein the one or more insurance policies are selectively grouped based upon actuarial matrices or formulas into the structured financial asset; facilitating payment of premiums for the structured financial asset; holding the structured financial asset of the first organization in a passive vehicle; providing, by a second organization, capital to the first organization as evidenced by a promissory note secured by the structured financial asset; transferring a right or a benefit that the passive vehicle receives with respect to the structured financial asset as repayment of the promissory note to the second organization; and Appeal 2012-002275 Application 10/798,551 3 wherein the structured financial asset generates a variable net cash flow, after the payment of premiums, based upon and timed by mortality payments and not based upon and timed by an expected mortality rate. Appellant appeals the following rejections: Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 12–20, and 22–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Herman (US 2002/0035489 A1; pub. Mar. 21, 2002). Claims 6 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Herman. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 because Herman does not disclose wherein the structured financial asset generates a variable net cash flow based upon and timed by the mortality payments and not based upon and timed by an expected mortality rate? FACTUAL FINDINGS We adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. Ans. 4–6, 10–12. Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis that follows. ANALYSIS We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellant’s argument that Herman does not disclose wherein the structured financial asset generates a variable net cash flow based upon and timed by the actual mortality payments, and not based upon and timed by an expected mortality rate. See App. Br. 13–14. We find that Herman discloses at Appeal 2012-002275 Application 10/798,551 4 paragraphs 7–9 a foundation funds generation system in which insurance policies are obtained on a block of individuals, and the death benefits from the insurance policy are used to make payments on a loan. We find that Herman also discloses that in the event that there is a shortfall in the death benefits, a re-insurer makes payments based on a re-insurance policy thereby protecting the lender. We agree with the Examiner that a shortfall in benefits occurs when there are not enough benefits available to make loan payments based on the actual deaths of the insured. As such, by teaching that there is a provision for a re-insurer, Herman discloses that the death benefits described are benefits based on actual mortalities. We note that claim 1 does not exclude payments made under a second asset such as a re- insurance policy to supplement the payments made under the first asset. In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–5, 7, 8, 12–20, and 22–24 because Appellant makes the same arguments in response to the rejection of the remaining claims as is made in response to the rejection of claim 1. See App. Br. 16–26. We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the Appellant makes the same arguments in response to this rejection as was made in response to the anticipation rejection discussed above. DECISION The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. Appeal 2012-002275 Application 10/798,551 5 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1) (2011). AFFIRMED hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation