EXHIBIT 1002
`
`EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`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 --
`
`b[8J This action is made FINAL.
`a[8J Responsive to the communication(s) filed on 27 April 2013.
`cO 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. 0 Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PT0-892.
`3. 0
`Interview Summary, PT0-474.
`2. 0 Information Disclosure Statement, PTO/SB/08.
`4. O_
`
`Part II
`
`SUMMARY OF ACTION
`
`1 a.
`[8J Claims 1-25 are subject to reexamination.
`1 b. 0 Claims __ are not subject to reexamination.
`2.
`[8J Claims 2,5, 11, 16 and 19 have been canceled in the present reexamination proceeding.
`3. 0 Claims __ are patentable and/or confirmed.
`4. 0 Claims 1. 3-4. 6-10. 12-15. 17-18. and20-24 are rejected.
`5.
`[8J Claims 25 are objected to.
`6. 0 The drawings, filed on __ are acceptable.
`7. 0 The proposed drawing correction, filed on __ has been (7a)0 approved (7b)0 disapproved.
`8. 0 Acknowledgment is made of the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`a)D All b)D Some* c)D None
`of the certified copies have
`1 0 been received.
`20 not been received.
`
`30 been filed in Application No. __ .
`
`40 been filed in reexamination Control No. __
`
`50 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. 0 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. 0 Other: __
`
`cc: Requester (if third party requester)
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-466 (Rev. 08-06)
`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Part of Paper No. 20130729
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,432
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`In response to amendment filed 4/27 /2013, Claims 1-22 of United States Patent Number
`
`8,121,872, issued to Bowman et al., are subject to exparte reexamination. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10,
`
`17, 18, and 20 have been amended, claims 2, 5, 11, 16, and 19 have been cancelled, and claims
`
`22-25 have been newly added.
`
`References Asserted by Requester as Raising Substantial New Question of Patentability
`
`• Silberschatz, EP 1091308
`
`• Sehr, U.S. Patent No. 6,999,936
`
`• Miller et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0082879, hereinafter Miller
`
`• Brett, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0023041
`
`• Merrill et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,333,257
`
`Claim Rejections - 35USC§112
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. l 12(b):
`(b) CONCLUSION.-The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing
`out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the
`invention.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph:
`The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
`claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
`
`New claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA),
`
`second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
`
`subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the
`
`invention. The antecedent basis for "the definition" has not been clearly set forth.
`
`Amended claim 1 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA),
`
`second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,432
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`
`subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the
`
`invention. In line 6 and line 8 of amended claim 1, it is unclear whether the device recited as,
`
`"the device" is referring to the device now mentioned in the preamble or the device recited in
`
`line 5. Consider amending the limitation in line 5, "receiving, at a device" to -- receiving, at the
`
`device-- to clarify the ambiguity.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35USC§103
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(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 Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459
`
`(1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35
`
`U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`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.
`
`Claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, 12-15, 17-18, and 20-22 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:
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,432
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 4
`
`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 ticket purchaser.
`
`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.
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,432
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 5
`
`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. '872 Patent Col. 3, line 58 - Col. 4, line 10.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,432
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 6
`
`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.
`
`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,
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,432
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`
`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 newly added limitations to claim 1, Silberschatz discloses," ... presenting the
`
`determined best grouping of seats to the purchaser for selection by the purchaser". 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.
`
`Silberschatz additionally discloses newly added limitation, " ... a device having a
`
`processor coupled to an interface and a database; the device 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''. Silberschatz discloses a ticket processing
`
`system 100 containing processor 102 and memory 104, wherein the processor is also connected
`
`to user 1/0 106 and network interface 108 (Silberschatz, paragraph 9). Silberschatz further
`
`discloses at paragraph 15,
`
`"If seats satisfying the search constraints were found, then in step 522 the available seats
`are displayed to the user. This may be accomplished, for example, by highlighting the
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,432
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 8
`
`available seats on the seating chart which was displayed in step 504. In step 524 the user
`is given the option of accepting or rejecting the seats. Silberschatz, col. 4: 57 - col. 5: 5.
`
`Regarding claim 3, Silberschatz discloses " ... wherein each seat in the best grouping of
`
`seats share a boundary with at least one other seat in the group so that the grouping of
`
`seats is contiguous". 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 unassigned seats in the best grouping
`
`of seats include seats that are located in more than one row. 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
`
`paragraph 93 that: finalizing the seat assignments involves application of an algorithm designed
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,432
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 9
`
`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 6, Silberschatz discloses, " ... receiving a communication to
`
`reserve the determined best grouping of seats." 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
`
`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 3-11, 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
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,432
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 10
`
`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 limitations 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.
`
`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
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,432
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 11
`
`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 1through3. 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
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,432
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 12
`
`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 first 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,
`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.
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,432
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 13
`
`[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 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 single 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 newly added limitations to claim 9, Silberschatz discloses," ... present said
`
`best grouping of seats to the purchaser for selection by the purchaser". In col. 4, line 57 -
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,432
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 14
`
`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.
`
`Silberschatz additionally discloses newly added limitation, " ... 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; a processor programmed
`
`to present 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".
`
`Silberschatz discloses a ticket processing system 100 containing processor 102 and memory 104,
`
`wherein the processor is also connected to user 1/0 106 and network interface 108 (Silberschatz,
`
`paragraph 9). Silberschatz further discloses at paragraph 15,
`
`"If seats satisfying the search constraints were found, then in step 522 the available seats
`are displayed to the user. This may be accomplished, for example, by highlighting the
`available seats on the seating chart which was displayed in step 504. In step 524 the user
`is given the option of accepting or rejecting the seats. Silberschatz, col. 4: 57 - col. 5: 5.
`
`Regarding claim 10, Silberschatz discloses "wherein each seat in the best grouping of
`
`seats share a boundary with at least one other seat in the grouping so that the grouping of
`
`seats is contiguous". 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
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 90/012,432
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 15
`
`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 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
`
`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 reques