Ex Parte Francis

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 29, 2010

10638744 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 29, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
____________________ 2
3
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4
AND INTERFERENCES 5
____________________ 6
7
Ex parte MITCHELL J. FRANCIS 8
____________________ 9
10
Appeal 2009-005667 11
Application 10/638,744 12
Technology Center 3600 13
____________________ 14
15
Decided: March 29, 2010 16
____________________ 17
18
19
Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and JOSEPH 20
A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges. 21
22
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. 23
24
25
DECISION ON APPEAL26
Appeal 2009-005667
Application 10/638,744

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection 2
of claims 1, 3 to 6, and 8 to 10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) 3
(2002). 4
Appellant invented a system and method for distribution of premium 5
tickets (Spec. 1). 6
Claim 1 under appeal reads as follows: 7
1. A system for facilitating the distribution of 8
premium tickets to spectator events, the 9
premium tickets being offered for sale at a market 10
value price above a face value of the premium 11
ticket providing producers of spectator events 12
with an option to release a limited number of 13
premium seats for sale to profit from market value 14
of the released premium seats, comprising: 15
a central distribution processor to which 16
patrons are provided access for determining the 17
availability of premium tickets and purchasing 18
available premium tickets at a premium price; 19
a plurality of remote show box offices of 20
distinct spectator events linked to the central 21
distribution processor, the remote show box offices 22
including interface software compatible with the 23
central distribution processor for facilitating the 24
uploading of relevant ticket information to the 25
central distribution processor, the interface 26
software including an interface screen including an 27
interactive seating chart and menus for indicating a 28
date of the spectator event, a time of the spectator 29
event and a price at which seats are to be sold, 30
wherein the remote show box offices are 31
controlled by producers of the spectator event; and 32
wherein the interface software further 33
provides a user interface through which the 34
plurality of remote show box offices selectively 35
Appeal 2009-005667
Application 10/638,744

3
enter available premium ticket information which 1
is subsequently uploaded to the central distribution 2
processor for access and purchase by patrons and a 3
premium paid on the sale of the premium tickets is 4
split between an operator of the present system and 5
the producers of the spectator event. 6
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on 7
appeal is: 8
Nakfoor US 6,496,809 B1 Dec. 17, 2002 9
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3 to 6, and 8 to 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 10
102(e) as being anticipated by Nakfoor. 11
12
ISSUE 13
Has the Examiner erred in finding that Nakfoor discloses an 14
interactive seating chart and menus for indicating a date, time and price of a 15
spectator event? 16
17
FINDINGS OF FACT 18
Nakfoor discloses an electronic ticketing system which includes 19
terminals with which a user can log into a data center and view events which 20
will take place in the future, purchase tickets in the primary market from the 21
event sponsor, offer tickets for sale in the secondary market and purchase 22
merchandise or services related to the event (col. 3, ll. 34 to 39). User roles 23
are implemented in the system. These roles are venue management, event 24
management, event marketing, ticket owner, ticket buyer, and administration 25
(col. 5, ll. 49 to 52). A user fulfilling a venue management role can enter 26
information regarding the venue such as seating charts (col. 5, ll. 55 to 56). 27
Appeal 2009-005667
Application 10/638,744

4
A user fulfilling the event management role can enter information about the 1
venue such as name, time, date, and seating configuration of the venue (col. 2
5, ll. 57 to 60). 3
4
PRINCIPLES OF LAW 5
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in 6
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior 7
art reference. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 8
(Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). 9
10
ANALYSIS 11
We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection because Nakfoor does 12
not disclose an interface screen that includes an interactive seating chart. 13
While Nakfoor does disclose that a venue manager and an event manager 14
may enter information relating to seating charts, such is not a disclosure of 15
an interactive seating chart. Rather, it appears that Nakfoor discloses that 16
information regarding the seating arrangement may be entered. There is no 17
disclosure that the seating charts are interactive. Likewise, while Nakfoor 18
disclose that the time and date of an event is entered by the event 19
management, there is no disclosure that this information is available on a 20
screen in a menu format. 21
Appeal 2009-005667
Application 10/638,744

5
CONCLUSION OF LAW 1
On the record before us, the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims. 2
3
DECISION 4
The decision of the Examiner is reversed. 5
6
REVERSED 7
8
9
10
11
12
13
hh 14
15
16
17
WELSH & FLAXMAN, LLC 18
2000 DUKE STREET, SUITE 100 19
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 20