EXHIBIT 3004
`
`TN THE UNITED STATES PATENT D TRADEMARK OEFTCE
`
`Patent No;
`
`8,121,872
`
`Date ofissue:
`
`2} February, 2912
`
`Nanie et‘Patentee:
`
`Bowinan, et ai.
`
`Titie of invention:
`
`System and Method for Allocating Seats for a Ticheted Event
`
`35 U.S.C. §§3t}l~3tE7 and
`REQUEST FQR REEXAM?TN'A'T E'{)N
`37 €.I.T7.R. §§T.5ti2, Tfitt} and LETS
`
`Parze Reexani
`Mail Stop
`Coniinissioner for Patents
`
`United States Patent & Tradeniarh Oftiee
`
`13.0. Box 1450
`
`Aiexandri.a, \''A 223 13- i 458
`
`Sir:
`
`Requester respeettiihy requests reexarnination, under 35 U.S.t'_3. §§3G1~3t)7 and 37 C.F.R..
`§§t .502, 1.510 and 1.515, ofciainis 1-22 ofUnited States Patent Ne. 8,ii2.1,872. (the ‘872 patent)
`entitled “S;v'steni and method for ahoeating seats for a ticketed event,” which names Robert A.
`Bowman, Heather L. Benz, and Mark Piutzer as the inventors and is assigned to MLB Advanced
`ivtedia, LP. The ‘872 patent presently appears enforceable. Pursuant to 37 C.E7.R. §"t.5i0(h){4:),
`a copy ofthe ‘S72 patent is filed herewith as Exhibit 1, inehiding the front taee, drawings, and
`specification/claims (in double column format). Requester submits that substantial new
`questions ot“pa.tentabiiity exist
`to claims 1-22 ofth.e ‘872 patent and requests ex pc:I!”l‘r2S
`reexaniinatien based on several prior art patents and pubiieatiens. This prior art presents new,
`hon—t:uniuEative teehnoiogical teachings that were not previously considered and discussed on the
`r'ecor'd during the prosecution ofthe application that led to the ‘872 patent. See MPEP 2216.
`
`E .
`
`Tiitreduetiuii
`
`The ‘872 patent discloses and claims niethods for a device to determine seating for a
`group ofpeopie within a partiediy titled seating section. The device determines a “best” seat and
`then finds additioiiai seats that are near that best seat. The ‘8772 Patent issued on 21 February,
`2932 after‘ examination ot‘U.S. patent appiieation TO,/'9:‘)8,834. The ‘872 patent issued with 22
`total eiainis, three otvxhirsh are independent.
`
`The ‘872 patent issued atter an orai hearing hefore the Board ()t‘Patent Appeals and
`Tnterterenees. An Appeal Brietiwas tiled on October 23, 2089 which the Examiner answered. A
`Reply Briefwas then filed on February 23, 2010. The Appeal Brief and the Repiy Brief both
`argued the same limitations recited in the claims. One ofthese argued, which all three
`independent eiairns have in eernnion, is: “the device selecting a first
`wherein the first seat is
`determined to he a hest unassigned seat at the ticketed event”. The second is the hniitation of
`dependent Claim 5: “further comprising presenting the determin.ed best grouping of seats.” Note
`
`

`
`Ex Partes Reexamination Request, US. Patent
`
`8,121,872
`
`that independent claini l7 is written in rneans~plus—iinietion laiiguage but that the “device” of the
`other independent eiainis is the means for providing the function.
`
`No claim iirnitations other than the aforementioned two were argued during the appeal
`process. The F.x'arnsiner’s prior art relerences, argunients, and rejections are therefore still
`applicable if new discovered prior art invalidates the argued liinitationst
`
`Requester has also discovered new relerences that quaitit”; as prior art to the ‘872 patent.
`These new references were not cited or considered hy the Exarniner during prosecution of the
`‘872 patent. These new references describe the elenients ofclairns 1422 and thus raise
`substantial new questions of patentahility. These new references, either individually or in
`conihination with other references, render claims 142.2 unpatentahle.
`
`Requester has discovered that the prior art that is “ofrecord” was either not applied to
`reject the claims or not substantively discussed during examination of the application that led to
`the ‘8772 Patent. The question is ttiei‘etore new because the prior art v
`not discussed on the
`record nor considered in view of the newly discovered references. Tlius, certain prior art of
`record helng presented in this Request “in a new light.” See It/ti’Els-T § 2216.
`
`2.
`
`The ‘$72 Pfiateut
`
`The following sections suniniarize the relevant disclosure, claims, and prosecution of the
`‘872 patent.
`
`a.
`
`Patent Tfiisclosure
`
`principally directed toward finding seats for a group of people
`The ‘872 patent
`initially, when individuals and groups huy tickets they can leave a spattering of open
`at a venue.
`seats within a seating section Those open seats can be single seats or small clusters. The ‘872
`patent discloses means for seating groups of people into those open seats.
`
`Th.
`
`Claims
`
`The ‘$7..-. patent has independent clairns 3:, 9, and t7 and dependent Cl,a,ilTlS 2-8,
`and lt)~l€S, and 18-22.
`independent claim 1 recites as follows:
`
`l‘ A method for allocating tichetted event seats, the niethod comprising:
`receiving, at a device, a request for a nurnher of seats at a ticketed event;
`the dev' te selecting a. tirst seat whei'ein the tirst seat is deterrniried to he a.
`best unassigned seat at the ticketed event; and
`the device determining a best grouping of seats wherein the best grouping
`of seats includes the number of seats requested and further wherein the best
`grouping of seats comprises the best unassigned seat at the ticketed event.
`
`independent claim 9 recites as follows:
`
`

`
`Ex Partes Reexarniriatien Request, US. Patent
`
`8,121,872
`
`9. A system that identities groupings of avaiiabie seats to be aiiecated fer a
`ticketed event, the system comprising:
`a cernrnnnitcatien interiace that receives a request fer a number ofseats at
`a ticketed event; and
`
`a pregrainrned prccesser that determines a best unassigned seat at the
`ticketed event and a best grouping o f seats wherein the best grcnping of seats
`inc hides the number of seats requested and further wherein the best grouping of
`seats cernprises the best unassigned seat at the ticireted event.
`
`independent ciairn it 7 recites as teiiowsz
`
`i7. A system that aiiocates seats for at ticketed event, the system comprising:
`means for receiving a r'eqnest fer a ntiinber ef seats at a ticketed event;
`means for determining a best unassigned seat at the ticketed event; and
`means for determining a best grouping of seats wherein the best grouping
`0? seats inciiides the nnrnher of seats requested and further wherein the best
`grcuping of seats CG111p1‘iSf3Sti1€: best unassigned seat at the ticketed event.
`
`c.
`
`Preseeutien Histcry ef the ‘8772 Patent
`
`The “$72 Patent issued en 21 Febr'uai‘y, 29} 2 atter exaininatien ct‘U.S. patent
`application it)./'998,834. The ‘872 patent issued with 2'2 total claims, three of which are
`independent.
`
`Ah the ciaiins were rejected in a first eftice action on June 25, 21008. Ciaiins i-8
`had a 33191 rejection that was easiiy remedied by amending claim it to ciarify that the method
`steps were p€?t‘f0i'D’1$Ci by a device. The recitatien eta device becomes crucial at later stztges of
`the prosecution. Ciaims i-12, 15-18, and 20-22 were rejected under §iQ3(a) as nnpatentabie
`ever Brett (US. Patent Pubiicatien 2iiii2/'iiii23041, issued as US. 6,9i)7,4{35). Ci-aiins 13, 14, and
`19 were rejected tinder §it)3(2t)
`anpatentahie ever Brett" in view et‘Kanai (US. Patent
`i)tli)iiCfliiO1’i 2i)04,«’02050G6).
`
`in respense, the patentee properly addressed the §iOi rejectien by amending
`Ciairnii to recite a device. Ciairn 9 was amended thusiy: “at prograrnrned processor that
`determines a best unassi ",'(16Ci seat at the ticketed event and ...”. Ciairn '37 was amended te add
`
`All the other
`the liniitatieiiz
`ciaini aniendrnents cerrected iiitbrniaiities. Patentee then proceeded to argue that the prior art
`(B.re=iz' and Kauai) did not teach selecting a best assigned
`Patentee never addressed the
`rejections of the dependent eiainis er the appiieation of the prior art to other limitations of the
`independent ciairns.
`
`In a final office action, the Examiner rejected ah the claims. Ciairns ii -12, i5-18,
`and 20-22 were again rejected under §i(i3(a,) as unpatentabie ever Brett (US. Patent Puhiicatieri
`2002./'0O23t_i4i, issued as US. 6,907,405), Ciainis 13, i4, and i9 were again rejected under
`
`

`
`Ex Partes Reexarrilriation Request, U.S. Paterit
`
`8,121,872
`
`§lt_l3(a) as unpatentable over Brett in view citKz:znai (US. Patent Publication 200/-l-/’02tl5{3tl6).
`The E>:arnirier’s arguments substantially repeated those in the first office action.
`
`ln an afierdinal response, Patentee repeated the arguinents in the previous reply
`and added additional arguineht that the prior art did not teach assigning or selecting a best
`a.vaila.ble seat. Pztteiitee also added an argurnent that Claim 5 was not taiiglit by the prior art.
`None of the claims were anrended. Other than Clainr 5, none of the independent claims were
`argued. Other limitations of the independent claims were not argued.
`
`l’atentee then tiled a notice of appeal and a pre~brief conference request. The
`request substantially repeated the aigiiniehts inade in the previous response and started to stress
`the “device” recited in the claims that selects a first seat that is the best unassigned seat. The prem
`brief conl’ereiice tbund that there was at least one issue for appeal.
`
`The appeal brief substantially repeated the arguments niade in the pre—appeal
`conference request.
`'l‘he lEi>s;aininer’s answer repeated the earlier rejections and addressed the
`“d.eviee” by referencing ln re Venner. l2t) U-SPQ l92 (CCPA l958) to support the argument that
`“it has been well established that it is not ‘invention’ to broadly provide a niechanical or
`autoinatic means to replace irianiial activity which has aceornplished the saihe result.”
`
`Patentee responded with a reply bri et‘ that siibsta.ntially repeated the appeal hriet‘
`but that also asserted out that the device was peilorrniiig an operation slightly different than that
`argued by the Examiner and supported by the prior art. As with the appeal briet‘, no dependent
`elaiihs or claim lirnitation.s were argued other than Claim 5 and the device./rneaiis that selected a
`best available seat.
`
`An oral hearing was requested, held, and the Exa,rniner’s rejeetioiis ofthe
`independent claims overturned. The Appeal Board found that the prior art did not teach “the
`device selecting a tirst seat” and that the l3xaii'ii.rier’s arguirients to the contrary did not articulate
`reasoning with stillieient underpinnings to support the Exaininer"'s assertions. Claini 5 was not
`addressed
`it depended front an allowed claini. No other claim limitations were mentioned in
`the boards decision.
`
`it.
`
`Meaning of certain claim terms
`
`Certain clairn language is unclear or may need further interpretation. That claini
`language includes: “best”, “suh—gi'o1ipi.rig”, and the rneahs~pliis—tlinetion terihs.
`
`The term “best” is unclear because it is a relative terin and different people have
`ilillereiit notions as to what is best. The ‘872 patent uses “best” for a riuiriber ofterrns such
`“best unassigned seat”, “best grouping of seats”, and “best seat available”. The ‘872 patent
`discusses this problem at col 3 line 6:3
`co l4 line ll:
`
`“ln an operation 24. the ticket servieirig eoniputer identil_ies a best seat av‘ailable
`at a ticketed event. Generally, the best seat available is the seat that is closest to
`
`

`
`Ex Partes Reexarnination Request, US. Patent
`
`8,121,872
`
`the stage, playing field, or eourtt Best seat definitions can be changed based on
`the ticlteted event. Some events may have different locations for the best
`The best seat for a movie performance may not be the test seat for a t'OCl( concert.
`Further, the best seat definition can be set or adjusted by the ticket purchaser.
`Different purchasers may have different opinions as to the location ofthe best
`seats at the ticketed event. Some purchasers may prefer balcony seats over floor
`seats. Sirnilarly, some baseball fans may prefer seats along the first or third base
`lines instead ofbehind home plate.”
`
`Claims 8 and lo each contain limitations intended to constrain the interpretation
`of “best unassigned seat”. Claim 8’s limitation is: “receiving a definition ofbest seat tiorn a
`ticl<:et ‘purchaser? Claim l6’s limitation is: “wherein the best unassigned
`is selected from a
`section of seats identified by a ticket purchaser.”
`
`Based on the written description and the claims, it is clear that the choice of
`“best” seat is pretty much what any algorithm or person comes up with.
`l’or example, the
`Mlarrih’ reference, cited below, teaches a “scheme to offer seats to customers in a predeterrnined
`order (normally biasing in favor of offering less—desirable seats), in the hope of selling more
`ticltets,” in it/[erriif is‘ case, best for ticltet seller and best for the ticket buyer are completely
`different things.
`
`Given the preceding argument, the best interpretation ofthis subjective and
`relative claim term is simply that the “best seat” is one that has been chosen by someone or
`something based on any criteria l7l1l"ll,‘tE31‘l’,‘(l,01‘€,
`that criterion can be implicit or explicit,
`long
`as a seat is chosen.
`
`Another issue to consider is that there can be very many “best” seats For
`example, a person may have a desired seating section, a maximum ticket price, or Wants an aisle
`in various oftlie reference prior art, a person chooses a set of seats, any ofwhich are line.
`An even sotranger criterion could define the “best unassigned seat” as a having a contiguous
`boundary with a certain number of other unassigned seats. The reason that criteria is strange is
`that it maltes many of the claimed elements in the ‘$7.,-. patent into mere redundant phrases.
`
`The term “sub—gro’uping” is used in claims I/ill and 2l. The claims were properly
`rejected by the original examiner under §lt)3 who, as stated in the office actions and responses to
`briefs, interpreted “‘sub~grouping” to be a division of a group (leg, splitting the group into two
`subsections). This interpretation tliftl-tۤS sense in light ofthe cited prior art refer'ence. Both
`claims also run afoul of § l l2 as not being enabled. Other than in Claims 2t_l—2l, “sub—group” or
`“sub—grouping” appears in the written description only at col 5,, lines 33-37 as follows:
`
`“This grouping of thirteen seats can be presented to a purchasers desiring to
`purchase thirteen tickets as a group or the grouping can be divided into sub-
`groups for purchaser seeking groups ofsix and seven tickets or other various
`combinations.”
`
`

`
`Ex Partes Reexamtriation Request, U.S. Paterit
`
`8,121,872
`
`Claims l7, l9, and 20 eontaiii “niearis~plus—funetion laiiguage” and thereby are to
`be examined in a special manner. lf the limitations are actually enabled (35 U.S.C. §ll2
`pai'agi'aph 2}, they are exaniinerl
`requi‘ed by 35 l_l.S.t'_3, §l l2 paragraph six, Claim l7’s
`“ineans for Cleterinining a best unassigned seat at the ticlsetetl eVeiit"" and “nieans for cleterinining
`a best grouping of seats” botli appear enabled. and the means can be interpreted as a device or
`processor running an a,lgorithin. Uniler this interpretation rnakes the rejections applied to Claim
`l and to Claim 9 apply equally to Claim l7.
`
`Claiin l9’s “means for tletermining more than one grouping of seats” also appears
`enabled aiitl can he interpretecl as a device or processor running an algorithm that finds groups of
`seats.
`it is interesting that two unrelated seatirigs of two unrelated groups ofpeople are “more
`than one grouping of seats”.
`ln other wortls, Claiin l9 doesn’t actually limit anything.
`
`Claim 2t)’s “means for itleritityiiig sub—grouping of seats” does not appear
`enabled, but if it were it coultl be interpreted as any tlevice or processor running an algorithm
`that determines that a group can be divided.
`
`3.
`
`Substantial New Question of Patentahllity
`
`a.
`
`Listing of Patents and Priiiteti Publications
`
`l?’ursuant to 37 CER. § l .5561, below are citations ofthe patents and other
`i'etereriees that are presented to provide substantial new questions Ollpitlfi-lll'.fll)lll,t)/' as to elainis l-
`22 ofthe ‘872 patent:
`
`European Patent Application iiuiiiber 0030837937 published as EPl09l3{38 on April ll, 2GGl
`(hereinafter “Silberss:hatz”) attaoliecl as Exhibit 2;
`
`U31 Patent No‘ 6,999,936 {liereinalter “-Sehr”); attached as Exhibit 3;
`
`US. Patent Application 09/"75(3,4-45, Pub No, US 2(3t}2,"l}i}828'79 (hereinsattter “Miller”);
`attachetl
`Exhibit 4;
`
`US Patent Application G9./'778,60o, Pub No. US 20t_l2,r"t)tl2304-l (ltereinafier “Bi‘ett"’);
`attaoliecl as Exhibit 5; and
`
`US. Patent No. 5,333,257 (hereinafier “l\/lei*i'ill”); attached. as Exhibit 6.
`
`Eresentetl below is a table listing the above referencetl patents aiitl publications
`antl detailing the statute uncler which each qualities as prior art, it it is “ot‘record” as cited in a
`previous exaininatiort, and if that previous examination applied the relereiiee to reject any claim
`ofthe "872 patent.
`
`

`
`Ex Partes Reexarnlriatiori Request, US. Patent
`
`8,121,872
`
`
`Gt reeorrl? Qualifying
`P§‘tW§€}ilSiy
`g
`Statute
`Applied To Reg? eet
`Ciainis“?
`
`'
`
`
`
`
`Brett
`
`Merrill
`
`Copies of each reference are submitted herewith in fulfillment ofthe requirenients
`of37 t'_3,l7,R. § lo.5ltl{b)(3).
`
`ti.
`
`Listing of Snhstaiitial New Questions of Patentahility (SNQs}
`
`Requester respeetfiilly requests reexamination of claims l~2.2 of the ‘872 patent.
`While the Requester submits that the proposed l(l2(b) re_ieetion (SNQ 1} and the following 4
`proposed §l(l3(a) rejections (SNQS 2I—5) render the claims unpatentable, the other grounds of
`rejection are submitted to provide illustrative examples of the nurnerous diffe1‘ei1t ways that the
`elairns are tinpatentable in View of the prior art, and insures as a. pr'oeedural matter that the other
`material prior art references are timely presented to the iUSi"i'O. Qther grounds ofrejeetions are
`clearly possible based on the numerous disclosures in the prior art ofthe eleinents of the elairns,
`but providing a detailed listing of these grounds
`part of this Request would unduly add to its
`length and eoinplexfity. Exhibit 16, labeled “Relationship Between the Prior Art and the Claiins”
`iprovides a eoriveriient table by which the various claim elements appear in the pifior art such that
`further l03(a) SNQs ean he assenibled.
`
`SNQl: Claiins 1-3, 5, ziznd 7-22 would have been anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §lt_l2(l3) by
`Silberseliatz.
`
`SNQ2: Claims 2.0 and 21 would have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §ll2 paragraph two
`for lack ofenablenient.
`
`SNQ 3: Claims 1, 5, 6, 8—l ll, l4—l7 would have been anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §lll2(‘o)
`by Eéelu.
`
`SNQ 4: Claims 1-3, and 5~2.2 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. §l03(a) over
`Silbersehatz in View of Sehr.
`
`SNQ :3: Claims 2-4, 7, l2, l8, 209.2 would have been obvious under 3:3 U.S.(f?. §l(l3(a’l
`over Brett in View of Silbersehatz.
`
`SNQ 6: Claims 24, 7, 12, l8, 2ll—22 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. §l(l3{a)
`over Brett in View of Sehr.
`
`

`
`Ex Partes Reexamlriation Request, U.S. Paterit
`
`8,121,872
`
`SNQ 7: Claims l, 5, 6, 8, 9, l75 and 22 would have been obvious under 35 USC.
`§l03(a) over Miller‘ in View of Sehr.
`
`SNQ 8: Claims 1, 5, 6, S5 9, l7, and 2?; would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§lt)3{a) over Miller in View ofSilbersc hatz.
`
`SNQ 9: Claim ll would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. §l{l3ta) over Merrill in
`View of Sehr.
`
`SNQ ll): Claiin ll would have been obvious under 35 13.8.5. §lt)3(a) over Merrill in
`View of Silberschatz.
`
`Description of References and Manner by ‘Which They Raise
`Substantial New Questions of l‘*“atentahlElty
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR. § l.5l0(b)(2)r the following section provides a, brief
`description of the above—cited references and discusses each suhstantiail new question of
`patentability in detail, dernonstraiting that the questions are substantially dill’erent than those
`considered during the prior CX§.’ilf11lIl.’€tl'l0;l[L Some of the SNQ’s build on earlier SNQs by adding to
`the same
`references to meet additional dependent claini liniitations.
`
`While some Sl\lQj’s are based upon refei‘eitces that were rnade “’ofi'ecoi'd"’ in the
`application leading to the ‘872 patent (i.e., Anderson), Requester respectfully submits that all
`references relied upon present a new question of patentability because they were not applied to
`reject the claims, not substantively discussed, or are still applicable to a dependent claiin,
`Requestefs position is supported by at least establislied Ollice practice. For exainplefi the
`l’etition Decision of Sept. 27, 2006 in inter partes reexani control no. 95,/0t'lGG59, page 7, states
`the following (eniphasis supplied):
`
`initially, it is to be noted that the placement ofthe eXarniner’s initials adjacent one
`or rnore citations on a listing of prior art retererices submitted as part of a prope ly
`filed lnforrnation Disclosure Statement
`is not
`tantamount
`to a detailed
`
`V‘c't1‘lO1.lS
`in
`or
`individually
`references, whether
`those
`consideration of
`t.TOl'I1bll1.’:1l.lGl1S., with respect to the clainis. As pointed out in MPEP § 6G9.t.l5(b),
`the initials of the examiner placed adjacent to the citations on the listing of
`docurnents simply means that
`the infornia.tion has been considered by the
`examiner in the same manner
`other documents in Oilice search files are
`
`considered by the e>;;aniiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper
`lield of search. Consideration of documents that are being ‘tlipped through,’
`whether in a paper bundle of documents or as presented on a computer screen
`during a coniputerized search, is not an in depth consideration ofthe documents
`equivalent to an application of such documents to the claims of an application
`under exarnination, or a discussion of such documents on the record during the
`examination process.
`
`

`
`Ex Fortes Reexamiriation Request, U.S. Paterit
`
`8,121,872
`
`Moreover, the Sample Request for lnter Partes Reexamination provided in l\/EPEP
`§22l4, states that “[t]he Cooper reference was cited in the prosecution ofU.S. Patent 9,L)99,999,
`but was never relied upon in any rejection of the claims. . .Because this teacliihg of Cooper was
`not applied in any rejection ofthe clairns during the prosecution ofU.S, Patent 9,999,999, a
`substantial new question of patent-ability
`raised ‘by Cooper.”
`
`Similarly, 35 U.S.C. § 3G3(a) states that “ltlhe existence of a substantial new
`question of pateutahility is not precluded by the fact that a patent or printed publication was
`previously cited by or to the Office or considered by the Ottice.”
`
`in View of the above, Rerruester r'espeetl”ully submits that the mere
`acltnowledgernent of a reference cited by Applicants in an ll)-S does not preclude a finding of a
`substantial new question ofpatentahility.
`
`l°t/lotiyation to (Iornhine
`
`2 r
`
`.
`
`The rnotiyation to combine the prior‘ art references is to sell good seats to groups
`of people. All of the prior art references specifically teach systems and nietliods for selling
`ticltets to groups otpeople who want to attend similar types olievehts.
`in fact, sporting and
`theatrical events/Venues are specifically listed in every one of the prior‘ art reterences as needing
`their respective systems and methods for assigniri g seats, The ‘$7..-. patent also lists these
`events/venues systems and methods for assigning seats,
`
`ii.
`
`Clairn 29 and 35 U.S.C. §l 12 second paragraph.
`
`The USl"l'() issued a memo entitled “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. ll2 second
`paragraph when examining means ifor step) plus function claim limitations under 35 U.S.C. l l2
`sixth paragraph,” on September 2, 2008. The niernorancluni states that the “written description
`rhust at least disclose the algorithm that l.1‘a,DSfOl‘ll'lS the general purpose computer to a special
`purpose cornputer pro grammed to perform the disclosed algorithm that perfornis the clainied
`function”.
`l7or support, the nrernorandurn footnotes zlrisl0(:ral‘ 'Fe2c?i~zn0iogies, Inc.
`1’.
`Irz.te:t‘rzaz'ionc:z.i Gcimze Techuoiog *, 52l F,3d l328, B33, 86 USPQ2d l235, l239—4{3 (Fed. Cir‘.
`2908} wherein the court stated:
`
`Thus, in a nieans—plus~function claini "in which the disclosed structure is at
`computer, or microprocessor, prograninied to carry out an algorithm, the
`disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather the special
`purpose computer prograrnrned to per‘for'ni the disclosed algorithni." ld. at l3/-‘l9.
`
`lit a. later case, this court made the same point, stating that a "computer
`irnpleniented nieans—plus~function term is limited to the corresponding structure
`disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof, and the corresponding
`structure is the algorithni.“ Harris Corp. V. Ericsson lnc., /ll? F,3d 12/-ll, l253
`(Fed.Cir.2tlO5). The court in that case characterized the rule of lWl\/ES Gaining as
`follows: "(Ellie corresporrding structure for a. §l l2 6 el,airn for a cornputer'~
`
`

`
`Ex Partes Reexarninatiori Request, U.S. Paterit
`
`8,121,872
`
`inipteniented function is the aigorithrn discio sed in the speciiicattionf‘ 417 F311 at
`it 249.
`
`it is theretore clear that an algorithm performing Ciaiiri 2G”s “means for
`ideiitifiying sub-grouping ofseats” must be taught sornewhere in the application.
`it is not. Sub»
`grouping appears only in claims 28 and 21. The term sub~gro up zppears once in the description
`at col 5, lines 33-37
`follows:
`
`“This grouping of thirteen seats can be presented to a purcha,sers desiring to
`purchase thirteen tickets as a group or the grouping can be divided into sub-
`groups for purchaser seeking groups ofsix and seven tickets or other various
`combinations.”
`
`Ciairn 20 should be rejected under 35 U,S,C. §.11'2 second paragraph because no
`subgrouping aigorithni
`taught. As such, there is no teaching of a means for perforniing the
`aigorithrn.
`
`iii.
`
`Sitherschatz
`
`Siiberschatz teaches systems and aigorithnis for finding seats for groups ofpeopie
`of venues, Siibershattzfs invention ahnost corn iietetv antici ates the ‘$7..-.
`atent.
`at various t I
`_
`.
`k
`>
`The greatest difference between Siihershatz and the ‘872 patent is that the ‘872 patent is more
`about fitting seats at a specific venue on a specific day whereas Silberschatz focuses on tinding
`group seats within at date range. Siiherscha,tz teaches each and every ii}'Tii'i.aii01’i ofthe ‘$72
`patent°’s ciaiins L3, 5, and 7-22.
`
`The ‘872 patent teaches receiving a request for a number of seats, finding the best
`unassigned seat, and deterniining if there are enough open seats around the best open one.
`
`Siiberschatz teaches a device that receives a request for a group of seats, the
`constraints for determining which seats are best for that group, and an aigorithrn for finding the
`group of seats. Siiiber'schiatt;:’$ system can tind numerous groups of seats that match the
`requestor’s constraints on a singie day. Furthermore, if there are no appropriate seats on that
`day, SiEherschat;e: nioves on to the next day. Siiherschatz teaches this algorithm at paragraphs 12»
`18. Siiberschatz teaches soirie ofthe even more obvious tiniitations in the background section
`spanning paragraphs 2 and 3.
`
`More speciticaity, Siiberschatz anticipates Claims 1, 9:, and 17 by teaching
`receiving a request for a group ot‘tici<ets at a device or interface at paragraphs 3 and 12.
`in
`paragraph 3, the Tiieiretrrraster system is referenced as ba,ck“grotirrd. Patratgraph i2 teaches at user
`entering constraints for desired seats. Paragraph 14 teaches selecting a group of seats matching
`the constraints. The group of seats contains the “best” seat because the group meets the
`requestor’s constraints.
`
`10
`
`

`
`Ex Partes Reexarriination Request, US. Patent
`
`8,121,872
`
`At paragraphs i2 and £4, Siiberschatz anticipates Claims 2, 3, 10, and 18 hy
`teaching consecutive seats. Consecutive seats, by definition, are adjoining or sharing a
`bourirta.ry.
`
`At paragraph 14, Siiherschatz anticipates Ciaini :3 hy teaching the grouping of
`seats is displayed to the user.
`
`At paragraph 14, Siihersc hatz anticipates Claims 7 and 12 hy teaching that the
`user can reject the grouping ofseats being offei"ed. On receiving the i'e_iection, the systein
`proceeds to find and offer the next hest grouping of seats.
`
`At paragraph 5, Sitberschatz anticipates Claim 8 by teaching: “the ticket
`processing system receives seat selection constraints which inrticate the seats desired by a user.”
`
`At paragraph 2, Siiberschatz anticipates Claim 9, hy teaching that Ticketmaster
`was on the internet.
`
`At paragraph 5, Siiherschatz anticipates Claim 11 hy teaching: “a database
`containing seat as/aiiaihiiitty information”
`
`At paragraphs M and 18, Siiberschatz anticipates Claims 13 and '39 by teaching
`that the system finds more than one grouping of seats sequentially (paragraph i3) or at the same
`time (paragraph 18}.
`
`At paragraph 19, Siiherschatz anticipates Ciaini 14 by teaching that the “best”
`seats are cffererl to the user and the user accepts them.
`
`At paragraph 12, Siiherschatz anticipates Claim 16 by teaching that the “user may
`identity particuiar seats, a seating section, or multiple seating sections.”
`
`At paragraph 18, Siiherschatz anticipates Ciainis 263 and 2} hy teaching muitipie
`oyeriappiiig seats. Unrier the bi'oad interpretation ot“‘best” every
`could he the hest, one of
`the seats that is in many groups could be “best”, or the “program code it
`it 0 (Fig. I) may contain
`an aigorithrn for making some jucigrnent as to the “best” set ofseats”.
`
`At paragraphs ii
`user enteririg seat coristraints.
`
`and i4, Siiberschatz anticipates Claim
`
`by teaching that the
`
`Further application of the teachings of Eiiiherschatz to the
`in the claim chart heiow.
`
`patent is detaiied
`
`iv.
`
`Sehr
`
`Sehr teaches systems and algorithms for using data cards that help a user receive
`various services. Amongst those servi tes is the purchase ofticitets to various venues. The d'ata
`
`11
`
`

`
`Ex Partes Reexamination Request, US. Patent
`
`8,121,872
`
`card. stores criteria that int.lic.ate the users’ Cleliniticn ct“‘hest"’. The data card. and user are taught
`interacting with a. ticketing system that automatically lincls a.ncl cffcrs “best” seats.
`
`Sehr anticipates Claims 1, 9, and l7 by receiving a seating request at a
`device/precesser (col. 36 lines 32-35, ccl. 36 lines 5l~:”>—/l., col. 27 lines 8-19), by seats being
`aincrnatircally ehesen (eel. 36 lines 29358, eel, 27 lines l'7—l.9)i that the right number of seats are
`chosen (col. 36 lines 34-38), and that the seating includes the requestcrs “best” seat (col. 27 lines
`15-17)
`
`Sehr anticipates Claim 5 by teaching that the user interacts with a map to confirm
`cl cancel seat selections (cal. 36 lines 36-4-l).
`
`Sehr anticipates Claim 6 by teaching that users input the specific seats they want
`to reserve (eel. 36 lines 4347}.
`
`l6 and 22 hy teaching that user storing a set cl’
`Sehr anticipates Claims
`preferrerl seat locations cr budgetary pricing (cal. 36 lines 2981).
`
`Sehr a.nticipa.tes Claim ll by teaching that user storing a rlatabase ct‘ seating
`ii1lhrniati0n(ccl. 8 lines l—8).
`
`Sehr anticipates Claim 15 by teaching that the internet can be one of the
`cernmunicaticn rlata links (col. 7 lines l3—l6).
`
`Further application of the teachings of Schr to the ‘872 patent is tletailecl in the
`claim chart helcw.
`
`iv.
`
`Miller
`
`lvliller teaches systems and algorithms fer helping a user lind, eyahlate, reserve,
`and purchase tickets.
`ll»/lill.er’s system can a.nt0inati.cally select a “best” seat arid tiller it to the
`user.
`
`At paragraph 2-48. l\/liller anticipates a limitation in Claims l, S, 9, l7 and 22 by
`teaching that a user may enter criteria for selecting a “best available” seat and may request that
`‘Q-'c1l7,
`
`At paragraph 248, Miller anticipates a limitation in Claims 5 and 6 by teaching
`that a list of “best” seats is presenterl to a user arid that the user can reserve the seats.
`
`Further applicaticn cftlie teachings cf Miller to the ‘872 patent is detailerl in the
`claim chart laelcw.
`
`‘V.
`
`Brett
`
`12
`
`

`
`Ex Partes Reexarniriation Request, US. Patent
`
`8,121,872
`
`lri tact, Brett is the rnain prior art refei'enc.e previously
`Brett is pricr art cl’ record.
`used to originally reject the "872 patent’s claims. Brett, however, failed to adequately disclose
`that a “device” was selecting seats and 'p61'f0ffillt1g ether tiinctiens.
`it for this reascn that
`Patentee succeeded in its appeal Note that the newly disccvered refereirces all cure this tlaw in
`Brett.
`llatentee argued claims l, 5, 9, and 17. As such, Requester does not here use Brett as a
`prior art retei'erice for these claims. Nerie eftlie other claims were argued. As such, applieatit_in
`of Brett to these claims is still Valid as are the arguments presented by the original Examiner.
`
`At paragraph 93, Brett anticipates Claims 2, 3, it), 18 hy teaching “an algorithni
`designed to ensure that seats within a bid are contiguous.”
`
`At paragraph 93, Brett anticipates Claims «ill by teaching “this could result in the
`mo veil group spanning two rows”.
`
`At paragraph ltll , Brett anticipates Claims 7 by teaching that