Ex Parte Darr

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2014

10382947 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAMES J. DARR
____________

Appeal 2012-001384
Application 10/382,947
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-001384
Application 10/382,947

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6-39, and 41-102. 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 (Spec. 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 one or more insurance policies on a life of each of the
one or more identified individuals naming the first organization
as beneficiary and granting the first organization an irrevocable
right to utilize the one or more insurance policies on a life of
each 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;
Appeal 2012-001384
Application 10/382,947

3
naming the first organization as beneficiary of the
structured financial asset;
transferring, partially, exclusively or wholly, one or more
rights or benefits from the structured financial asset to at least a
second organization to raise funds for at least one of (i) the
first organization and (ii) the second organization; and
wherein the structured financial asset generates a variable
net cash flow, after the payment of premiums, based upon and
timed by actual mortality payments and not based upon and
timed by an expected mortality rate.

Appellant appeals the following rejection:
Claims 1-4, 6-39, and 41-102 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated
by Herman (US 2002/0035489 A1; pub. Mar. 21, 2002).

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 actual 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, 18-20.

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
Appeal 2012-001384
Application 10/382,947

4
mortality rate. See Br. 13-16. Herman discloses at paragraphs [0007]-
[0009] 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. 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 the remaining
claims 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 Br. 16-31.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 102(e) rejection of claims 1-4, 6-39, and
41-102 as anticipated by Herman.

Appeal 2012-001384
Application 10/382,947

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