UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.goV
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`90/012,432
`
`08/14/2012
`
`8121872
`
`1000-2739 Reexam 3
`
`9936
`
`01/16/2013
`7590
`22428
`FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP
`SUITE 500
`3000 K STREET NW
`WASHINGTON, DC 20007
`
`EXAMINER
`
`SAADAT, CAMERON
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`01/16/2013
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`
` TJNI TED S '.['ATE'F_-1 PATEN T AND TRADEE-‘IARK QFFI CE
`
`Cornrnis-sinner for Patents
`United States Patent and Tradernark Office
`F'.O. Elo;~t145I:i
`Alexaridria, VA 2231 3-1 450
`vuvu-wuspto.gmr
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)
`
`ORTIZ & LOPEZ, PLLC
`
`P.O. BOX 4484
`
`ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87196-4484
`
`EX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSM|'|'|'AL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/012 432.
`
`PATENT NO. 8121872.
`
`ART UNIT 3992.
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)).
`
`Where this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for filing a
`reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be
`acknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).
`
`PTOL—465 (Rev.O7—04)
`
`

`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Control No.
`90/012,432
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`8121872
`
`Examiner
`CAMERON SAADAT
`
`Art Unit
`3992
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`
`bI:I This action is made FINAL.
`.
`aI:I Responsive to the communication(s) filed on
`CIXI A statement under 37 CFR 1.530 has not been received from the patent owner.
`
`A shortened statutory period for response to this action is set to expire g month(s) from the mailing date of this letter.
`Failure to respond within the period for response will result in termination of the proceeding and issuance of an ex parte reexamination
`certificate in accordance with this action. 37 CFR 1.550(d). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY 37 CFR 1.550(c).
`If the period for response specified above is less than thirty (30) days, a response within the statutory minimum of thirty (30) days
`will be considered timely.
`
`Part I
`
`THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT(S) ARE PART OF THIS ACTION:
`
`1. El Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PTO—892.
`
`3. El
`
`Interview Summary, PTO—474.
`
`2. D Information Disclosure Statement, PTO/SB/08.
`
`4.
`
`El
`
`.
`
`Part II
`
`SUMMARY OF ACTION
`
`Claims 1-22 are subject to reexamination.
`
`Claims
`
`Claims
`
`are not subject to reexamination.
`
`have been canceled in the present reexamination proceeding.
`
`Claims j are patentable and/or confirmed.
`
`Claims 1—:22 are rejected.
`
`Claims j are objected to.
`
`The drawings, filed on j are acceptable.
`
`. CI The proposed drawing correction, filed on
`
`has been (7a)I:I approved (7b)I:I disapproved.
`
`.
`
`I:I Acknowledgment is made of the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. § 119( )—(d) or (f).
`
`a)|:I All b)I:I Some* c)|:I None
`
`of the certified copies have
`
`1I:I been received.
`
`2I:I not been received.
`
`3I:I been filed in Application No. j
`
`4I:I been filed in reexamination Control No.
`
`5I:I been received by the International Bureau in PCT application No.
`
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`9. I: Since the proceeding appears to be in condition for issuance of an ex parte reexamination certificate except for formal
`matters, prosecution as to the merits is closed in accordance with the practice under EX parte Quayle, 1935 C.D.
`11,453 O.G. 213.
`
`10. D Other:
`
`cc: Reuester (if third
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PTOL-466 (Rev. 08-06)
`
`Ottice Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Part of Paper No. 20121226
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,432
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Claims 1-22 of United States Patent Number 8,121,872, issued to Bowman et al., are
`
`subject to ex parte reeXarr1ination. A statement under 37 CFR 1.530 has not been received from
`
`the patent owner.
`
`References Asserted by Requester as Raising Substantial New Question of Patentability
`
`0
`
`0
`
`Silberschatz, EP 1091308
`
`Sehr, U.S. Patent No. 6,999,936
`
`0 Miller et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0082879, hereinafter Miller
`
`0 Brett, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0023041
`
`0 Merrill et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,333,257
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. l03(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in
`section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
`having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the
`manner in which the invention was made.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere C0., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459
`
`(1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35
`
`U.S.C. l03(a) are summarized as follows:
`
`:'>."°.N.“
`
`Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
`Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
`Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness
`or nonobviousness.
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,432
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Silberschatz (EP 1091308) in View of Brett (US 2002/0023041).
`
`Regarding claim 1, the following limitations are recited:
`
`A method for allocating ticketed event seats, the method comprising:
`
`receiving, at a device, a request for a number of seats at a ticketed event;
`
`the device selecting a first seat wherein the first seat is determined to be 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.
`
`Silberschatz discloses:
`
`“It is noted that at this point, no indication of available seating is given to the user. In step
`506 the user enter seat constraints. These constraints indicate the type of seats that the
`user wishes to purchase. For example, by using a graphical pointing device, the user may
`identify particular seats, a seating section, or multiple seating sections. The seat
`constraints will also indicate the number of seats required, and whether the seats need
`to be consecutive or not.” See Silberschatz, Col. 4, lines 4-12.
`
`Accordingly, Silberschatz discloses a ticket processing system (computer 100) that receives seat
`
`constraints from a user, including a request for a number of seats required. The user constraints
`
`further define particular desired seats, seating sections, or multiple seating sections. Thus, the
`
`user constraints described in Silberschatz define the best seat(s). This is consistent with the ‘872
`
`Patent Specification, where the best seat definition can be set or adjusted by the user. The
`
`specification of the ‘872 Patent provides the following description regarding the “best seat”
`
`definition, See Col. 3, line 58 — Col. 4, line 10:
`
`FIG. 2 illustrates a flow diagram depicting operations in a process of allocating seats for a
`ticketed event. Additional, fewer, or different operations may be performed depending on
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,432
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`the embodiment. In an operation 22, a ticket servicing computer receives a request for a
`number of tickets to a specified ticketed event. By way of example, the ticket servicing
`computer can be a server computer coupled to a network of computers, such as the
`Internet. In an operation 24, the ticket servicing computer identifies a best seat
`available at a ticketed event. Generally, the best seat available is the seat that is
`closest to the stage, playing field, or court. Best seat definitions can be changed
`based on the ticketed event. Some events may have different locations for the best seats.
`The best seat for a movie performance may not be the best seat for a rock 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 of the best seats at the
`ticketed event. Some purchasers may prefer balcony seats over floor seats. Similarly,
`some baseball fans may prefer seats along the first or third base lines instead of behind
`home plate.
`
`In steps 510 and 512, Silberschatz’s processor and algorithm implements a search matrix
`
`to determine whether seats that satisfy the seat constraints were found for a particular event and
`
`date. See Col. 4, lines 39-41. Silberschatz further describes an example in which a user wants 3
`
`consecutive seats in the first three rows:
`
`At this point, the search of step 510 finds that there are 3 consecutive seats
`available within rows 1 through 3. Thus, the test of step 512 is yes and in step 522 the
`available seats are displayed to the user.
`As seen from the event matrix 606, there are four sets of sets which satisfy the
`seat constraints. The four sets of seats satisfying the seat constraints are as follows:
`Set 1: (2,1), (2,2), (2,3)
`
`Set 2: (2,2), (2,3), (2,4)
`
`Set 3: (2,3), (2,4), (2,5)
`
`Set 4: (3,3), (3,4), (3,5)
`
`As such, there are various alternatives for the display and accept steps (522 and 524). In
`one embodiment, the ticket processing program code 110 (Fig.1) may contain an
`
`algorithm for making some judgment as to the “best" set of seats when multiple sets
`satisfy the seat constraints. For example, the algorithm may choose the center—most
`seats in the lowest row number, in which case the seats in set 2 would be chosen and
`
`displayed to the user in step 522.
`
`See Silberschatz, Col.6, lines 8-31
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,432
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Although Silberschatz’s algorithm selects a best set of seats based on user constraints
`
`(identifying particular seats, a seating section, or multiple seating sections and the number
`
`of seats required), it is not explicitly stated that the user constraints include preferences
`
`specified for the system to select a single first best seat and then determine the best grouping of
`
`seats. In the Silberschatz example above, the constraint followed by the algorithm involves
`
`particular rows designated by the user and choosing the center—most seats in the lowest row
`
`number. Silberschatz further suggests a constraint where the user identifies particular seats
`
`along with the number of seats required (See Silberschatz, Col. 4, lines 4-12). Although this
`
`example implies selection of a first best seat, it is not explicitly stated that the system selects a
`
`single first best seat and then determines the best grouping of seats.
`
`However, Brett teaches a seat selection method and system where one of the user
`
`constraints (priority right option) allows the user to specifically require an aisle seat or a
`
`particular seat. See Brett, paragraphs 103-104
`
`[0103] Another example of a premium subsection priority right is the right to sit in an
`aisle seat at an event. The priority right options block 202 would allow the
`participant to specify aisle seat preference as a participant preference option. The
`
`system may present the participant with a number of choices concerning the aisle,
`including the following options: (i) must have an aisle seat and will move back to get on
`the aisle, (ii) will not accept an aisle seat, (iii) prefer the aisle, but will accept other seats,
`(iv) do not prefer the aisle, and (v) don't care. The "don't care" option is generally the
`system default. Based upon the participant's input, the system will attempt to place the
`participant in the desired location either on an aisle or away from an aisle.
`
`[0104] A number of other participant preference options other than those described above
`may also be specified in the priority right options block 202. For example, if the priority
`right is the right to sit in a particular seat at an event, the system may give participants
`options for being placed near concession stands, restrooms, exits, or the rear of a section.
`Other preference options are also possible and may be easily incorporated by those
`of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,432
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`In light of Brett, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention to modify the seat selection algorithm and user constraints described in Silberschatz
`
`by substituting a user constraint of a particular first best seat so the algorithm selects a first best
`
`seat and then determines the best grouping of seats (based on the number of seats requested), in
`
`order to satisfy a user constraint that specifies a requirement of an aisle seat or any particular,
`
`single seat requiring inclusion in a set of seats. The prior art exhibits that it was known to an
`
`artisan to automate seat selection based on user seat preferences/constraints (such as identifying
`
`particular seats, a seating section, or multiple seating sections and further based on the number of
`
`seats required. See Silberschatz, Col. 4, lines 4-12). It was additionally known that user seat
`
`preferences could include a particular single seat constraint, such as requiring an aisle seat. See
`
`Brett, paragraphs 103-104. Thus, a simple substitution of a particular seat constraint/preference,
`
`such as requiring an aisle seat, in Silberschatz’s automated seat selection system would result in
`
`selection of a first best seat (an aisle seat) along with determining a best grouping based on the
`
`number of seats requested and thereby obtaining the predictable result of satisfying Various
`
`known user seat constraints and preferences.
`
`Regarding claim 2, Silberschatz discloses the claim limitation “. . .Wherein determining
`
`a best grouping of seats comprises identifying unassigned seats at the ticketed events that
`
`are adjoining each other and total the number of seats requested.” In Col. 4, lines 2- 15
`
`Silberschatz discloses that a seating chart is displayed to the user and the user enters seat
`
`constraints that indicate the number of seats required (total number of seats requested) and
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,432
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`whether the seats need to be consecutive (adjoining each other). Furthermore, Col. 4 lines 31-35
`
`of Silberschatz discloses, “For example, suppose the user requested two consecutive seats in the
`
`first three rows of the venue. The search of step 510 would search rows 1-3 of the event matrix
`
`for two consecutive entries containing the Value 1." Thus, the search step identifies unassigned
`
`seats (seats having a value of 1).
`
`Regarding claim 3, Silberschatz discloses “...Wherein adjoining seats in a group are
`
`seats sharing a boundary with at least one other seat in the group”. Silberschatz discloses
`
`that a seating chart is displayed to the user and the user enters seat constraints that indicate the
`
`number of seats required (total number of seats requested) and whether the seats need to be
`
`consecutive (adjoining each other). See Col. 4, lines 2-15.
`
`Regarding claim 4, Silberschatz discloses wherein determining a best grouping of seats
`
`comprises identifying unassigned seats at the ticketed events that are adjoining each other and
`
`total the number of seats requested.
`
`In Col. 4, lines 2-15 Silberschatz discloses that a seating
`
`chart is displayed to the user and the user enters seat constraints that indicate the number of seats
`
`required (total number of seats requested) and whether the seats need to be consecutive
`
`(adjoining each other). Furthermore, Col. 4 lines 31-35 of Silberschatz discloses, “For example,
`
`suppose the user requested two consecutive seats in the first three rows of the venue. The search
`
`of step 510 would search rows 1-3 of the event matrix for two consecutive entries containing the
`
`value 1." Thus, the search step identifies unassigned seats (seats having a value of 1).
`
`Silberschatz does not explicitly disclose that the determining the best grouping of seats
`
`includes identifying seats located in more than one row. For example each of the four potential
`
`sets of best seats identified in Silberschatz are each within one row. However, Brett teaches in
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,432
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`paragraph 93 that: finalizing the seat assignments involves application of an algorithm designed
`
`to ensure that seats within a bid are contiguous. . .In unusual circumstances, this could result in
`
`the moved group spanning two subsections again. Thus in light of Brett, it would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the best grouping of seats determined in
`
`Silberschatz, by identifying seats located in more than one row, since it is obvious that not all
`
`user seat preferences/constraints can be accommodated. It would have further been obvious to
`
`assign a grouping of best seats spanning over more than one row for users that do not
`
`require/request consecutive seats, thereby giving precedence to other users that request
`
`consecutive seats in the grouping.
`
`Regarding claim 5, Silberschatz discloses, “. .. presenting the determined best
`
`grouping of seats”. In col. 4, line 57 — col. 5, line 1 Silberschatz discloses that if seats satisfying
`
`the search constraints were found, then in step 522 the available seats are displayed to the user.
`
`Regarding claim 6, Silberschatz discloses,
`
`. . receiving a communication to reserve
`
`the determined best grouping of seats.” In col. 5, lines 3-1 1, Silberschatz discloses that in step
`
`524 the user is given the option of accepting or rejecting the seats. If the seats are accepted, then
`
`in step 526 the corresponding entries in the event matrix for the current search—date are assigned
`
`the value 2 to represent that these seats are no longer available.
`
`Regarding claim 7, Silberschatz discloses, “. . . receiving a communication to identify a
`
`next best grouping of seats, wherein a next best grouping of seats includes the number of
`
`seats requested and further wherein the next best grouping of seats comprises the next best
`
`unassigned seat at the ticketed event”. In col. 5, lines 3-1 1, Silberschatz discloses that in step
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,432
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`524 the user is given the option of accepting or rejecting the seats. If the seats are rejected, then
`
`control returns to step 514 and processing continues in order to attempt to find acceptable seats
`
`for another date. Furthermore, col. 6, lines 28-33 disclose that the algorithm may choose the
`
`center—most seats in the lowest row number, in which case the seats in set 2 would be chosen and
`
`displayed to the user in step 522. If the user rejected this set, the remaining sets could be offered
`
`in a similar manner.
`
`Regarding claim 8, Silberschatz discloses, “
`
`receiving a definition of best seat from
`
`a ticket purchaser”. In col. 1, lines 41-44, Silberschatz discloses a ticket processing system that
`
`receives seat selection constraints which indicate the seats desired by a user.
`
`Regarding claim 9, the following lirr1itations are recited:
`
`A system that identifies groupings of available seats to be allocated for a ticketed event,
`the system comprising:
`
`a communication interface that receives a request for a number of seats at a ticketed
`event; and
`
`a programmed processor that determines a best unassigned seat at the ticketed event and
`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.
`
`Silberschatz discloses:
`
`“It is noted that at this point, no indication of available seating is given to the user. In step
`506 the user enter seat constraints. These constraints indicate the type of seats that the
`user wishes to purchase. For example, by using a graphical pointing device, the user may
`identify particular seats, a seating section, or multiple seating sections. The seat
`constraints will also indicate the number of seats required, and whether the seats need
`to be consecutive or not.” See Silberschatz, Col. 4, lines 4-12.
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,432
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Accordingly, Silberschatz discloses a ticket processing system (computer 100) that receives seat
`
`constraints from a user, including a request for a number of seats required. The user constraints
`
`further define particular desired seats, seating sections, or multiple seating sections. Thus, the
`
`user constraints described in Silberschatz define the best seat(s). This is consistent with the ‘872
`
`Patent Specification, where the best seat definition can be set or adjusted by the user. The
`
`specification of the ‘872 Patent provides the following description regarding the “best seat”
`
`definition, See Col. 3, line 58 — Col. 4, line 10:
`
`FIG. 2 illustrates a flow diagram depicting operations in a process of allocating seats for a
`ticketed event. Additional, fewer, or different operations may be performed depending on
`the embodiment. In an operation 22, a ticket servicing computer receives a request for a
`number of tickets to a specified ticketed event. By way of example, the ticket servicing
`computer can be a server computer coupled to a network of computers, such as the
`Internet. In an operation 24, the ticket servicing computer identifies a best seat
`available at a ticketed event. Generally, the best seat available is the seat that is
`closest to the stage, playing field, or court. Best seat definitions can be changed
`based on the ticketed event. Some events may have different locations for the best seats.
`The best seat for a movie performance may not be the best seat for a rock 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 of the best seats at the
`ticketed event. Some purchasers may prefer balcony seats over floor seats. Similarly,
`some baseball fans may prefer seats along the first or third base lines instead of behind
`home plate.
`
`In steps 510 and 512, Silberschatz’s processor and algorithm implements a search matrix
`
`to determine whether seats that satisfy the seat constraints were found for a particular event and
`
`date. See Col. 4, lines 39-41. Silberschatz further describes an example in which a user wants 3
`
`consecutive seats in the first three rows:
`
`At this point, the search of step 510 finds that there are 3 consecutive seats
`available within rows 1 through 3. Thus, the test of step 512 is yes and in step 522 the
`available seats are displayed to the user.
`As seen from the event matrix 606, there are four sets of sets which satisfy the
`seat constraints. The four sets of seats satisfying the seat constraints are as follows:
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,432
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Sét 11 (2,1), (2,2), (2,3)
`
`Sét 21 (2,2), (2,3), (2,4)
`
`Sét 31 (2,3), (2,4), (2,5)
`
`Set 4: (3,3), (3,4), (3,5)
`
`As such, there are various alternatives for the display and accept steps (522 and 524). In
`one embodiment, the ticket processing program code 110 (Fig.1) may contain an
`
`algorithm for making some judgment as to the “best" set of seats when multiple sets
`satisfy the seat constraints. For example, the algorithm may choose the center—most
`seats in the lowest row number, in which case the seats in set 2 would be chosen and
`
`displayed to the user in step 522.
`
`See Silberschatz, Col.6, lines 8-31
`
`Although Silberschatz’s algorithm selects a best set of seats based on user constraints
`
`(identifying particular seats, a seating section, or multiple seating sections and the number
`
`of seats required), it is not explicitly stated that the user constraints include preferences
`
`specified for the system to select a single best unassigned seat and then determine the best
`
`grouping of seats. In the Silberschatz example above, the constraint followed by the algorithm
`
`involves particular rows designated by the user and choosing the center—most seats in the lowest
`
`row number. Silberschatz further suggests a constraint where the user identifies particular
`
`seats along with the number of seats required (See Silberschatz, Col. 4, lines 4-12). Although
`
`this example implies selection of best seats (plural), it is not explicitly stated that the system
`
`selects a single best seat and then determines the best grouping of seats.
`
`However, Brett teaches a seat selection method and system where one of the user
`
`constraints (priority right option) allows the user to specifically require an aisle seat or a
`
`particular seat. See Brett, paragraphs 103-104
`
`[0103] Another example of a premium subsection priority right is the right to sit in an
`aisle seat at an event. The priority right options block 202 would allow the
`participant to specify aisle seat preference as a participant preference option. The
`
`system may present the participant with a number of choices concerning the aisle,
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,432
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`including the following options: (i) must have an aisle seat and will move back to get on
`the aisle, (ii) will not accept an aisle seat, (iii) prefer the aisle, but will accept other seats,
`(iv) do not prefer the aisle, and (V) don't care. The "don't care" option is generally the
`system default. Based upon the participant's input, the system will attempt to place the
`participant in the desired location either on an aisle or away from an aisle.
`
`[0104] A number of other participant preference options other than those described above
`may also be specified in the priority right options block 202. For example, if the priority
`right is the right to sit in a particular seat at an event, the system may give participants
`options for being placed near concession stands, restrooms, exits, or the rear of a section.
`Other preference options are also possible and may be easily incorporated by those
`of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`In light of Brett, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention to modify the seat selection algorithm and user constraints described in Silberschatz
`
`by substituting a user constraint of a particular best unassigned seat so the algorithm selects a
`
`single best seat and then determines the best grouping of seats (based on the number of seats
`
`requested), in order to satisfy a user constraint that specifies a requirement of an aisle seat or any
`
`particular, single seat requiring inclusion in a set of seats. The prior art exhibits that it was
`
`known to an artisan to automate seat selection based on user seat preferences/constraints (such
`
`as identifying particular seats, a seating section, or multiple seating sections and further based on
`
`the number of seats required. See Silberschatz, Col. 4, lines 4-12). It was additionally known
`
`that user seat preferences could include a particular single seat constraint, such as requiring an
`
`aisle seat. See Brett, paragraphs l03—l04. Thus, a simple substitution of a particular seat
`
`constraint/preference, such as requiring an aisle seat, in Silberschatz’s automated seat selection
`
`system would result in selection of a single best seat (an aisle seat) along with determining a best
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,432
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`grouping based on the number of seats requested and thereby obtaining the predictable result of
`
`satisfying various known user seat constraints and preferences.
`
`Regarding claim 10, Silberschatz discloses “wherein the best grouping of seats
`
`comprises seats in a group where the seats in the group share a boundary with at least one
`
`other seat in the group”. In Col. 4, lines 2-15 Silberschatz discloses that a seating chart is
`
`displayed to the user and the user enters seat constraints that indicate the number of seats
`
`required (total number of seats requested) and whether the seats need to be consecutive
`
`(adjoining each other). Furthermore, Col. 4 lines 31-35 of Silberschatz discloses, “For example,
`
`suppose the user requested two consecutive seats in the first three rows of the venue. The search
`
`of step 510 would search rows 1-3 of the event matrix for two consecutive entries containing the
`
`value 1." Thus, the search step identifies unassigned seats (seats having a value of 1).
`
`Regarding claim 11, Silberschatz discloses, “a database containing seating
`
`information for the ticketed event”. In col. 1, lines 44-45, Silberschatz discloses that the
`
`system searches a database containing seat availability information.
`
`Regarding claim 12, Silberschatz discloses, “wherein the processor determines a next
`
`best grouping of seats if the best seat unassigned at the ticketed event does not have a
`
`grouping of proximate seats totaling the number of seats requested.” In col. 4, lines
`
`Silberschatz discloses that steps 510-516 are repeated until either seats satisfying the seat
`
`constraints are found (step 512) or until there are no more dates for the event (Step 514). Also,
`
`In col. 5, lines 3-11, Silberschatz discloses that in step 524 the user is given the option of
`
`accepting or rejecting the seats. If the seats are rejected, then control returns to step 514 and
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,432
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`processing continues in order to attempt to find acceptable seats for another date. Furthermore,
`
`col. 6, lines 28-33 disclose that the algorithm may choose the center—most seats in the lowest row
`
`number, in which case the seats in set 2 would be chosen and displayed to the user in step 522.
`
`If the user rejected this set, the remaining sets could be offered in a similar manner.
`
`Regarding claim 13, Silberschatz discloses, “wherein the programmed processor
`
`determines more than one grouping of seats wherein each of the more than one grouping of
`
`seats includes the number of seats requested.” In col. 5, lines 3-11, Silberschatz discloses that
`
`in step 524 the user is given the option of accepting or rejecting the seats. If the seats are
`
`rejected, then control returns to step 514 and processing continues in order to attempt to find
`
`acceptable seats for another date. Furthermore, col. 6, lines 28-33 disclose that the algorithm may
`
`choose the center—most seats in the lowest row number, in which case the seats in set 2 would be
`
`chosen and displayed to the user in step 522. If the user rejected this set, the remaining sets
`
`could be offered in a similar manner.
`
`Regarding claim 14, Silberschatz discloses, “wherein the communication interface
`
`receives a selection of the more than one grouping of seats”. Silberschatz discloses that the
`
`user may identify particular seats, a seating section, or multiple seating sections. The seat
`
`constraints will also indicate the number of seats required, and whether the seats need to be
`
`consecutive or not.” See Silberschatz, Col. 4, lines 4-12.
`
`Regarding claim 15, Silberschatz discloses, “wherein the communication interface is
`
`coupled to the Internet.” In col. 2, lines 45-48, Silberschatz discloses network interface 108
`
`allows the computer 100 to communicate with other devices via a computer network, such as a
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,432
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`local area network (LAN) or wide area network (WAN). Silberschatz’s invention is directed to
`
`improving known Internet—based ticketing systems, “One example of a current web based
`
`Internet ticket processing system is Ticketmaster Online, which currently may be accessed via
`
`the Internet at www.ticketmaster.com". See Silberschatz, col. 1, lines 17-20.
`
`Regarding claim 16, Silberschatz discloses “wherein the best unassigned seat is
`
`selected from a section of seats identified by a ticket purchaser.” In col. 1, lines 41-44,
`
`Silberschatz discloses a ticket processing system that receives seat selection constraints which
`
`indicate the seats desired by a user.
`
`Regarding claim 17, the followin