EXHIBIT 3006
`
`Amendments to the Claims:
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 080200-0325
`
`This listing of claims will replace all prior versions and listings of claims in the
`
`application:
`
`Listing of Claims:
`
`1.
`
`(amended) A method for allocating ticketed event seats with a device havin a
`
`processor coupled to an interface and a database, the method comprising:
`
`the device presenting a purchaser with an option of gouping of seats based on a number
`
`of tickets indicated by thgpurchaser and a besgggoupiiig selection made by the processor;
`
`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 ofseats 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; and
`
`presenting said best grouping_(_)f seats to the purchaser for selection by the purchaser.
`
`2.
`
`Cancel.
`
`3.
`
`(amended) The method of claim [[2]] l, wherein each seat in the best grouping of
`
`seats share [[adjoining seats in a group are seats sharing]] a boundary with at least one other seat
`
`in the group so that thegrouping of seats is contiguous.
`
`4.
`
`(amended) The method of claim 1, wherein [[deterrnining a best grouping of seats
`
`comprises identifying]] unassigned seats in the best grouping of seats include seats [[at the
`
`ticketed events]] that [[are adjoining each other,]] are located in more than one row[[, and total
`
`the number of seats requested]].
`
`5.
`
`Cancel.
`
`4842-4781 69793
`
`

`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 080200-0325
`
`6.
`
`(amended) The method of claim [[5]] 1, further comprising receiving a
`
`communication to reserve the determined best grouping of seats.
`
`7.
`
`(amended) The method of claim [[5]] 1, further comprising 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.
`
`8.
`
`(amended) The method of claim [[5]] 1, further comprising receiving a definition
`
`of best seat from a ticket purchaser.
`
`9.
`
`(amended) A system that identifies groupings of available seats to be allocated for
`
`a ticketed event, the system comprising:
`
`a database containing seating information for the ticketed event;
`
`a communication interface that receives a request for a number of seats at a ticketed
`
`event; and
`
`a [[programmed]] processor [[that deterrnines]] programmed to:
`
`present a purchaser with an option of groupingof seats based on a number of tickets
`
`indicated by the purchaser and a best grouping selection made by the processor;
`
`select a first seat wherein the first seat is determined to be a best unassigned seat at the
`
`ticketed event [[and a]];
`determine 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; and
`
`present said best grouping of seats to the purchaser for selection by the purchaser.
`
`4842-4781 —6979.3
`
`

`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 080200-0325
`
`10.
`
`(amended) The system of claim 9, wherein each seat in 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 grouping so that the groupingof seats is contiguous.
`
`1 1.
`
`Cancel.
`
`12.
`
`The system of claim 9, 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 ofseats requested.
`
`13.
`
`The system of claim 9, 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.
`
`14.
`
`The system of claim 13, wherein the communication interface receives a selection
`
`of the more than one grouping of seats.
`
`15.
`
`The system of claim 9, wherein the communication interface is coupled to the
`
`Internet.
`
`1 6.
`
`Cancel.
`
`17.
`
`(amended) A system that allocates seats for a ticketed event, the system
`
`comprising:
`
`means for presenting a purchaser with an option of grouping of seats based on a number
`
`of tickets indicated by the purchaser and a best grouping selection made by the processor;
`
`means for receiving a request for a number of seats at a ticketed event;
`
`4842-4781-6979.3
`
`

`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 080200-0325
`
`means for determining a best unassigned seat at the ticketed event, said best unassigned
`
`seat being determined by the device according to a definition based on the ticketed event; [[and]]
`
`means for determining a best grouping of seats wherein the best grouping of seats
`
`includes the number of seats requested and fiirther wherein the best grouping of seats comprises
`
`the best unassigned seat at the ticketed eventggnd
`
`presentingsaid best_grou_pjgig of seats to the purchaser for selection by the purchaser.
`
`18.
`
`(amended) The system of claim 17, wherein each seat in the best grouping of seats
`
`[[c0mprises seats in a group where the seats in the group]] share a boundary with at least one
`
`other seat in the grouping, so that the grouping of seats is contiguous.
`
`19.
`
`Cancel.
`
`20.
`
`(amended) The system of claim 17, further comprising means for dividing said
`
`bestgrouping of seats into sub-groups [[identifying sub-grouping of seats wherein the sub-
`
`grouping of seats includes the number of seats requested and further wherein the sub-grouping of
`
`seats comprises a best unassigned seat at the ticketed event]].
`
`21.
`
`The system of claim 20, wherein the sub-grouping of seats comprises two sub-
`
`groups.
`
`22.
`
`The system of claim 17, wherein criteria for seats in a group is adjustable by
`
`selection from a ticket purchaser.
`
`23.
`
`(New) The method of claim 1 wherein the definition is set by a ticket seller.
`
`24.
`
`(New) The system of claim 9, wherein the definition is set by a ticket seller.
`
`4842-4781 -6979.3
`
`

`
`25.
`
`(New) The s stem ofclaiin 17 wherein the definition is set b a ticket seller.
`
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. N0. ()8()20()-(B25
`
`4842-4781 —6979.3
`
`

`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 080200-0325
`
`REMARKS
`
`Patent Owner respectfully request reconsideration of the rej eetion of claims 1-22 in view
`
`of the foregoing amendments and the reasons that follow.
`
`1.
`
`Status of Claims and Amendments
`
`Claims 1-22 are subject to reexamination. Patent Owner proposes: amending claims 1, 3,
`
`4, 6-10, 17, and 18; canceling claims 3, 5, 11, 16, 19 and 20; and adding new claims 23-25.
`
`Upon entry, claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12-15, 17, 18, 21 and 22-25 will be presented for consideration
`
`and reexamination.
`
`Independent claim 1 is amended to further clarify that the device includes a processor
`
`coupled to an interface and a database, as described and supported, for example, at Figure 1 and
`
`column 3, lines 19-20. Independent claim 1 is also amended to further clarify that the best
`
`unassigned seat is determined by the device according to a definition based on the ticketed event
`
`as described, for example, at column 3, line 63 to column 4, line 5 and column 4, lines 46-47.
`
`Independent claims 9 and 17 are amended in a similar manner as claim 1.
`
`The remaining dependent claims are amended to conform to the changes to the base
`
`claims upon which they depend, and to improve clarity.
`
`Newly added claims 23-25 recite that the definition used to determine a best seat is set by
`
`a ticket seller. Support for these claims is found at, for example, column 4, lines 46-47.
`
`II.
`
`Rejection of Claims 1-22 Under 35 U.S.C. § 1031211
`
`Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Silberschatz (EP 1091308) in View of Brett (US 2002/0023041). Patent Owner respectfully
`
`traverses.
`
`As amended, claim 1 recites as follows:
`
`4842-4781 -6979.3
`
`

`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 080200-0325
`
`A method for allocating ticketed event seats with a device
`having a processor coupled to an interface and a database, the
`method comprising:
`the device presenting a purchaser with an option of
`grouping ofseats based on a number of tickets indicated by the
`purchaser and a best grouping selection made by the processor;
`
`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, said
`
`best unassigned seat being detcnnined by the device according to a
`definition based on the ticketed event;
`
`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; and
`
`presenting said best grouping of seats to the purchaser for
`
`selection by the purchaser.
`
`Claims 9 and 17 recite similar features.
`
`One advantage provided by the invention as claimed is that it provides a convenient
`
`option by which a purchaser may be presented with an option by which the user provides the
`
`number of desired seats and the ticketing system automatically identifies a grouping of
`
`contiguous seats that are includes a best seat tailored to a particular event. As discussed in the
`
`specification, the invention provides an option that can be used in conjunction with conventional
`
`ticketing processes. See col. 3, lines 31-48.
`
`The claimed method and systems differs from the prior art in which seats are presented
`
`based on general availability or based on general preferences selected by the purchaser. Indeed,
`
`in reversing the final rejection in the application that led to the ‘872 patent, the Board expressly
`
`relied on this distinction, finding that Brett failed to disclose the device selecting a first seat as a
`
`best unassigned. Rather, as determined by the Board, Brett “discloses that the user may define
`
`the personal bidding section (FF2) and this does not show that the computer or device selects the
`
`seat which has been determined to be the best seat.” Board Op. at 4. Patent Owner submits that
`
`Silberschatz does not disclose this feature of the claim found by the Board to be absent in Brett.
`
`Based on the express determination by the Board, Brett cannot remedy this deficiency.
`
`4842—4781—6979.3
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`Atty. Dkt. No. ()80200~0325
`
`Silberschatz. is directed to a ticketing system designed to address a problem with earlier
`
`systems in which: “if the desired seats [requested by a purchaser] are not available for the chosen
`
`event on the chosen date, the customer must initiate another search for the desired seats for
`
`another date of the particular event.” Silberschatz at 1:24—~28. Silberschatz solves this problem
`
`“by allowing a user to indicate desired seats and the ticket processing system will determine the
`
`next date on which the desired seats are available.” Id. at 3437.
`
`It is clear from Silberschatz’s disclosure that, like Brett, it relies on criteria selected by the
`
`user.
`
`In fact, the Office Action specifically notes that Silberschatz ticketing system receives seat
`
`constraints from a user and selects seats based on those constraints. Office Action at 3. The
`
`present claims, however, select seats based on a pre-determined definition. As disclosed in the
`
`specification of the ‘872 patent, the criteria for selection of best seat may be changed by a user,
`
`the system conveniently provides for automatic selection based on the type of event. For
`
`example, best seats may be defined for many events, as those closest to the “action,” but in others
`
`(such as a movie) may be further away. See specification at column 3, line 58 to column 4, line
`
`11.
`
`The present amendment amends each independent claim to further clarify this distinction.
`
`Newly added claims 23-25 further specify that the definition is set by the ticket seller, and thus
`
`further distinguishes over prior art systems, such as Silberschatz, in which user selected criteria is
`
`required to select a best grouping.
`
`Again, Brett cannot be properly relied upon to remedy this deficiency of Silberschatz. As
`
`acknowledged in the Office Action at pages 5 to 6, Brett similarly teaches that the user defines
`
`the criteria for seat selection. That was the express finding of the Board during prosecution of
`
`the application that led to the ‘872 patent. For the same reason as adopted by the Board, this
`
`teaching is insufficient to demonstrate obviousness.
`
`For at least these reasons, Patent Owner submits that neither Silberschatz nor Brett, alone
`
`or in combination, renders the claims obvious.
`
`4842-4781 —6979.3
`
`

`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 080200-0325
`
`Finally, Patent Owner acknowledges the Office Action’s observation that Silberschatz
`
`and Brett are “deemed to be the best available art,” but “prior to conclusion of this reexamination
`
`proceeding, the claims must be patentable over all prior art cited” including Sehr, Miller and
`
`Merrill.
`
`In reply, Patent Owner submits that because the claims are patentable over what the
`
`examiner deems as the best available prior art, the claims are likewise patentable over the other
`
`prior art of record.
`
`The Examiner is invited to contact the undersigned by telephone if it is felt that a
`
`telephone interview would advance the prosecution of the present reexamination.
`
`The Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any additional fees which may be
`
`required regarding this application under 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.16-1.17, or credit any overpayment, to
`
`Deposit Account No. 19-0741. Should no proper payment be enclosed herewith, as by the credit
`
`card payment instructions in EFS-Web being incorrect or absent, resulting in a rejected or
`
`incorrect credit card transaction, the Commissioner is authorized to charge the unpaid amount to
`
`Deposit Account No. 19-0741. If any additional extension of time is needed for timely
`
`acceptance of papers submitted herewith, Applicant hereby petitions for such extension under
`
`37 C.F.R. §1.136 and authorizes payment of any such extensions fees to Deposit Account
`
`No. 19-0741.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date: March 18, 2013
`
`By /George C. Beck/
`
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`Customer Number: 22428
`Telephone:
`(202) 672-5300
`Facsimile:
`(202) 672-5399
`
`George C. Beck
`Attorney for Applicant
`Registration No. 38,072
`
`4842-4781 -6979.3
`
`-10-