US 5797126

I'll verify the patent against live sources before summarizing.

US Patent 5,797,126 — "Automatic Theater Ticket Concierge"

Source of record: Google Patents full text (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5797126A](/patent/US5797126A)/en), corroborated for the bibliographic data and claim 1 text by RPX Insight (https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/US5797126A) and Justia citations of "5797126 | August 18, 1998 | Helbling et al."

Bibliographic data

Abstract (as issued)

A theater-ticket concierge system in which individual kiosks are in wireless communication with a central station so that, based upon programming from the central station, individual events of interest can be selected by a patron who can view an excerpt or scene and, upon indicating interest, can then view available seating on a seating plan. By selecting an available seat, the patron is provided a display of the stage or performance from that seat and, once confirmed, the kiosk charges the patron's credit card via the central station and issues an information carrier — a ticket, or a coupon redeemable for one.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — Method of correlating theater ticket sales (the core method claim). Eight steps:

• (a) push event/time/seating-availability information out to many vending kiosks;
• (b) display event information at the kiosks;
• (c) on a patron's event selection, display a scene representative of that event, specifically by accessing coded and digitized live video;
• (d) show a seating plan of available seats for that event at that venue;
• (e) on seat selection, show the view from that seat, again accessed from coded and digitized live video;
• (f) charge a card presented by the patron;
• (g) issue an information carrier that is both a receipt and a confirmed seat selection, admitting the bearer to the event; and
• (h) display, from coded/digitized live video, the venue's area and street surroundings, marquee, box office, lobby, lounge, and historical/architectural points of interest, so the patron can virtually tour the venue.

Note that the "live video which has been coded and digitalized" limitation is recited in the independent claim itself (steps c, e, h) — not merely in dependent claims or the specification. That is the principal point of novelty over the cited art (e.g., the computer-illustrated seating views of US 5,333,257, which the specification expressly distinguishes).

Claim 11 — Apparatus for correlating theater ticket sales (the core apparatus claim). A central station accumulating event, availability and timing data for many venues; multiple kiosks remote from the central station; means for communicating event/time availability to the kiosks; means at each kiosk for displaying event information; means responsive to event selection for displaying a scene of the event; means for displaying a seating plan of available seats; means responsive to seat selection for displaying the view from that seat; means for charging a card; means for issuing an information carrier that is a receipt plus confirmed seat selection and admits the bearer; and means for displaying coded/digitized live video of the venue's area, street vicinity, marquee, box office, lobby, lounge and historical/architectural points of interest to enable a virtual tour, and for virtually moving the patron through the tour. Written in means-plus-function form.

Dependent claims (2–10, 12–17) in brief: claims 2–5 add central-station dialogue for availability, charging, seat-view display, and carrier issuance; claim 6 adds touch-screen display/selection; claim 7 adds an "attract mode" showing excerpts of actual performances; claim 8 adds on-demand video previews of an actual event; claim 9 adds performer/author/producer/director/star information video; claim 10 adds facility history video. On the apparatus side: claim 12 a communications link for dialogue; claim 13 a wireless link; claim 14 modems; claim 15 a printer for the carrier; claim 16 a card reader; claim 17 a touch screen.

Additional technical context from the specification

• Wireless communication is preferably CDPD (Cellular Digital Packet Data), with telephone/cable or optical links as alternatives; kiosk hardware includes a CPU, memory, wireless unit/antenna, credit-card reader, ticket/coupon printer, optional currency acceptor, joystick for the virtual tour, and optional cellular handset.
• The system blocks selected seats at the central station in real time and confirms reservation before printing the carrier; the carrier may be a coded, serialized, counterfeit-resistant coupon usable directly for admission.

CAFC 2026 docket check — no match found

I ran targeted searches for this patent number combined with Federal Circuit 2026 docket activity. I found no CAFC 2026 appeal, petition, or opinion involving US 5,797,126. The 2026 Federal Circuit materials surfaced by those searches concern unrelated patents (e.g., Spero v. Mercedes-Benz, No. 2025-1306; Keysight/Centripetal; NantWorks v. Niantic; Global Tubing v. Tenaris). This is consistent with the patent having expired (anticipated expiration 2016-02-16) and its expiry status being "Expired – Fee Related."

Uncertainty flags:

1. I could not access the USPTO PatentCenter/Public PAIR record directly in this session; the bibliographic data above comes from the authoritative Google Patents text plus secondary corroboration. If a formal prosecution-history or assignment-chain confirmation is required, verify against USPTO PatentCenter for application 08/602,975.
2. Absence of a CAFC 2026 hit is a negative search result, not proof of no litigation; district-court or ITC activity, and any pre-2026 appeals, were not exhaustively searched and remain unknown.
3. The document contains minor internal inconsistencies worth noting for accuracy: the "Summary of the Invention" duplicates the phrase "means for payment by a selector"; in the FIG. 3 description, reference numeral 57 is used for both the communication antenna and the credit-card reader; and the currency-input paragraph refers to "computer 50" where the computer is elsewhere designated 54 (50 being the housing). These appear to be typographical artifacts rather than substantive limitations.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 5797126.

Let me search more specifically for litigation databases and the patent holder.

Let me check RPX Insight and Unified Patents litigation databases directly.

Litigation Search: US Patent 5,797,126

Bottom line: I found no record of any litigation (district court infringement suit, declaratory judgment action, ITC investigation, or PTAB proceeding) involving US Patent 5,797,126.

What I searched

• Google Patents (the authoritative record provided): The patent's "Cited By" (148 entries), "Patent Citations" (6 entries), and "Non-Patent Citations" (4 entries) sections contain no litigation references. For comparison, Google Patents litigation-heavy patents typically surface court documents and case citations in these fields.
• RPX Insight (insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/US5797126A) — the RPX patent page returned only bibliographic and claim data; no litigation records were listed.
• Unified Patents litigation portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com), PACER/CAFC-style queries, and general web searches for "5797126", "5,797,126", "Interactive Patents" + lawsuit/defendant, and Helbling theater-ticket litigation.

None returned a case naming this patent. Search results for the numeric string "5797126" were dominated by unrelated foreign corporate-registry filings (a Lithuanian company code, a Brazilian JUCEEC registration) and by citation entries in later patents (e.g., CEATS, Crawford Group, Ticketmaster), none of which are litigation against the '126 patent.

Key context on the patent itself

Why the absence of litigation is plausible

1. No assertion activity appears in the record. The '126 patent was never the subject of a reissue, reexamination, or IPR that I could locate — tools that usually leave traces on the Google Patents/RPX pages when a patent is being litigated.
2. Terminal disclaimer via lapse. The patent lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees and reached its full 20-year term on 2016-02-16, so any assertion window has closed.
3. The patent is heavily cited but not asserted. It appears as prior art/citation in numerous later ticket- and reservation-system patents (CEATS, Ticketmaster/Live Nation, StubHub, Crawford Group, etc.), which is the opposite posture from an actively asserted patent.

Important caveats and confidence level

• Confidence: moderate. My searches were bounded by the tools available in this session and returned no litigation, but I cannot rule out a short-lived or state-court dispute, an unindexed 1990s-era suit, or a case that settled before generating a public docket entry. Pre-2000 litigation is often sparsely indexed in free databases.
• For a definitive answer you should run a docket-specific check on PACER (party name "Interactive Patents"), Lex Machina, Docket Navigator, or a Westlaw/Lexis KeyCite search on the '126 patent — the same method used in the USPTO reexam litigation-search reports (e.g., the KeyCite/CourtLink protocol shown in the results above).
• I have not fabricated any case name, number, jurisdiction, or outcome. Because none was found, I am reporting "none known" rather than inventing a plausible-looking docket.

Recommendation if you need certainty

Run a KeyCite/CourtLink search on US 5,797,126 and a PACER party search for "Interactive Patents, Inc." If those return nothing, you can state with high confidence that the patent has no known litigation history.

I'll start by verifying the structured ODP result against live web sources.

Proceedings overview

US 5,797,126 has zero AIA trial proceedings on file — no IPR, no PGR, and no CBM review has ever been instituted (or, on the record I could locate, petitioned) against this patent. Breakdown: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials. The bottom line for a defendant is not "the patent survived IPRs and is hardened" and not "the claims are already canceled" — it is that the patent lapsed nearly a decade ago (Google Patents lists legal status as "Expired - Fee Related," with anticipated expiration 2016-02-16), so the PTAB question is largely academic. An IPR is the wrong first move here; a § 286 / expiration analysis and a standing-and-damages letter is the right one.

Verification performed (2026-09-28): I searched Google Patents, RPX Insight (patent page for US5797126A), Justia patent pages that cite the patent, Docket Alarm PTAB materials, and general web for "US5797126 / 5,797,126" plus "IPR," "CBM," and "PTAB." Every hit was either the patent itself or third-party patents citing it as prior art (e.g., the CEATS/StubHub seat-selection families). No IPR/CBM/PGR number, no PTAB docket, no Final Written Decision, and no Federal Circuit appeal surfaced. Confidence: moderately high, but I cannot rule out a pre-2018 petition that never instituted and is poorly indexed — confirm on PTAB E2E before relying on this in a brief.

---

No proceedings to report

There is no {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} — {Petitioner} v. {Patent Owner} entry to fill in. I will not invent one. For completeness, the two "near-miss" traps worth knowing about, so you don't misattribute a docket:

• CBM eligibility window is closed. CBM review under AIA § 18 was available only to persons sued or charged with infringement, and the program sunset on 2020-09-16. Even if the patent's kiosk/ticketing claims might once have been argued to be a "covered business method" (they recite the financial-ish act of charging a card for a reserved seat), that door is shut.
• Don't confuse this patent with the CEATS / Live Nation / Ticketmaster PTAB families. Dozens of PTAB proceedings exist citing US 5,797,126 as prior art (CEATS seat-selection patents, StubHub, Tixtrack, Ticketmaster), but those proceedings are against other patents. The citation relationship runs the wrong way — 5,797,126 is the art, not the target.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: all 17 claims are UNTESTED at the PTAB — none canceled, none sustained. Independent claims 1 (method) and 11 (apparatus) and their dependents (2–10, 12–17) have never been through an AIA trial. That cuts both ways. There is no statutory estoppel against any defendant: no § 315(e)(2) bar attaches because no IPR was instituted, and no § 325(e)(2) bar from a PGR. A defendant is free to run any § 102/§ 103/§ 112/§ 101 ground it wants, in the PTAB or in district court. The counterweight is that there is also no PTAB precedent to lean on — no FWD construing "coded and digitalized live video," "information carrier," or "virtually moving the patron through the tour" that you could cite as the Board's binding view of these terms.

The dispositive fact is expiration, not validity. US 5,797,126 was filed 1996-02-16 as a pre-AIA application, so its term ran 20 years from filing with no known terminal disclaimer or extension in the record — expiring 2016-02-16. Google Patents' "Expired - Fee Related" status is consistent with non-payment of a § 41(b) maintenance fee. Two consequences: (1) enforcement of the claims for any conduct after 2016-02-16 is impossible — an expired patent cannot be infringed prospectively; and (2) under 35 U.S.C. § 286, damages are limited to six years before suit, so a complaint filed today (2026-09-28) reaches back only to 2020-09-28 — entirely post-expiration. In other words, even a perfect infringement theory on claim 1 yields zero recoverable damages absent some pre-2020 filing. Note the narrow caveat: the § 286 bar is a damages limitation, not strictly a limitations bar on the cause of action, so a plaintiff could theoretically plead an earlier-accrued claim — but the recovery window is still closed.

If you actually need to kill the claims on the merits (e.g., because a plaintiff is seeking a declaratory judgment of validity, or because successor claims in a related family are being asserted), the PTAB is available but awkward for an expired patent: the Board can still institute an IPR on claims that have expired, but claim construction and amendment practice give the patent owner fewer levers. The better target is the art already on the face of the patent — US 3,705,384 (Wahlberg, business transaction apparatus), US 5,239,480 (AIS Infonetics, automatic ticket dispensing), US 5,237,499 (Garback, computer travel planning), and especially US 5,333,257 (C/A Architects, "System for displaying selected assembly-facility seating views," 1994) — which the specification itself concedes can be used to practice the seating-view feature. The two non-patent references cited by the examiner (Marketing News, 1996-01-15; Computerworld, 1992-03-02) round out the § 103 story. No pattern signals exist: no repeat petitioner, no patent owner PTAB appeal history, no Unified Patents or other aggregator involvement in the record I could find.

---

Recommended next steps

• Do not spend IPR money. Write the expiration/§ 286 letter first. Quote the legal-status entry: Google Patents shows "Expired - Fee Related" with "Anticipated expiration 2016-02-16," and the term date is 20 years from the 1996-02-16 filing. The USPTO PatentCenter maintenance-fee history (linked from the same Google Patents page under "USPTO PatentCenter") will confirm the lapse date and the unpaid fee window — pull that document into your file before you assert anything.
• Verify the empty PTAB record yourself at USPTO PTAB E2E / PTAB Decisions (https://ptacts.uspto.gov) and by searching the patent number on CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%225797126%22). If both return nothing, state in your own papers: "No AIA trial proceeding has been instituted against US 5,797,126; U.S. Patent No. 5,797,126 expired 2016-02-16 for failure to pay maintenance fees."
• If a demand letter cites claim 1 or claim 11, respond that the patent is expired and that § 286 forecloses any recovery on a suit filed now. Flag the possibility of a related, unexpired continuation in the same family (Ser. Nos. 08/234,409 and 08/215,372 are cross-referenced in the specification as the charitable-contribution kiosk applications, and the family ID is 24413544) — confirm there is no live continuation or reissue before you close the file.
• Check for a reexamination or reissue you don't know about. The absence of PTAB activity is itself a signal: well-asserted patents attract IPRs. This one was never asserted hard enough to draw one, which is consistent with a lapsed patent rather than a hardened one. Before relying on that inference, confirm no ex parte reexamination certificate or reissue issued that could have altered the claims.

Bottom line: no PTAB activity exists, and I could not find any to flag. The defensive posture is strong, but for a reason that has nothing to do with the Board — the patent is dead by its own term and fees. Build the defense on expiration and § 286, not on an IPR.

I'll research the assignment record and ownership history for US 5797126 before drafting.

Assignment & Ownership Reconstruction — US 5,797,126

Patent: US 5,797,126 A — "Automatic theater ticket concierge"
App. No.: 08/602,975 | Filed: 1996‑02‑16 | Granted: 1998‑08‑18 | Assignee of record: INTERACTIVE PATENTS Inc.
Status: Expired (Google Patents indicates anticipated expiration 2016‑02‑16, status "Expired – Fee Related")

Source limitation, stated up front. I could not query the USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) directly — it renders results via a client‑side application and my retrieval attempts returned no assignment‑database hits for this patent number or assignee. No reel/frame number and no correspondent of record were retrievable for this patent, and I will not invent them. The assignment events below are taken from the Google Patents "Legal Events" / "Reassignment" record for US5797126A (https://patents.google.com/patent/US5797126/en), which is the only machine‑readable assignment evidence I could obtain. Reel/frame and correspondent must be confirmed manually in the Assignment Center before this memo is relied on for litigation or diligence purposes.

---

Inventors

Pattern note. No "inventor departure within 12 months" pattern is observable here, and that itself matters: the assignment from both inventors to Interactive Patents Inc. was recorded 1998‑08‑11, roughly one week before grant and ~30 months after filing. That is the signature of a routine inventor‑to‑applicant recordation made at issue, not of employee departures preceding a portfolio sale. There is no evidence of any inventor assigning away and re‑acquiring, and no second inventor group appears in the record.

---

Original assignee

INTERACTIVE PATENTS Inc. (also rendered "INTERACTIVE PATENTS, INC." in the 1998‑08‑11 reassignment entry).

• Entity type / line of business. Private entity, not SEC‑registered; I found no 10‑K, 8‑K, S‑1 or bankruptcy docket referencing it. Usefully, the patent's own text describes the commercial program: a network of free‑standing ticket kiosks communicating by CDMA/CDPD wireless link to a central station, with a card charge center interface. The patent also cites two Helbling copending applications (08/234,409; 08/215,372) on charitable‑contribution kiosks — i.e. Interactive Patents Inc. appears to be the vehicle for a family of kiosk/vending inventions rather than a theater operator.
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? No evidence found of a shipped product. The specification is written as a system plan ("the basic elements in the concierge system of the invention comprise…"); no commercial deployment, no product literature, no trade press was surfaced. Marked unclear, leaning no evidence.
• Current status. No evidence of acquisition, dissolution, or bankruptcy. The patent lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees (Google's "Expired – Fee Related" label) rather than expiring on term; the listing also records "Anticipated expiration 2016‑02‑16." Practical read: the assignee simply stopped paying — the classic profile of a dormant holding entity, not of an operating company policing a revenue‑bearing patent.
• Commercial significance versus commercial exploitation. The patent is heavily cited as prior art downstream (Google's "Cited By" lists 148 entries in the first block alone, spanning Ticketmaster/Live Nation, StubHub, Visa, Ceats, Priceline, IBM, Nokia, Motorola). It is a genuinely foundational reference in online reserved‑seat ticketing — yet it generated no recorded downstream monetization chain. That combination (seminal citation weight, zero assignment activity, lapse for fees) is the central finding of this memo.

---

Assignment timeline

The Google Patents legal‑events record for this patent contains exactly one recorded assignment. There are no post‑issuance transfers in the record I could retrieve.

• Execution date not stated in the retrieved record / recorded 1998‑08‑11 — Reel not retrieved / Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (see document for details)
  • Assignor: GLASS, ANDREW; HELBLING, EDWARD
  • Assignee: INTERACTIVE PATENTS, INC.
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved. Note for verification: a secondary bibliographic record (CNIPR/IP Publishing House republication of the US grant data) lists the prosecution agent for this application as Herbert Dubno, a New York‑based patent attorney. I flag this as a prosecution agent of record lead, not a recording correspondent, and it is unverified against the Assignment Center. If Dubno also appears as recording correspondent, that is a single‑link appearance and — per the recurrence rule — not an NPE finding on its own.
  • Context: Internal/captain‑of‑the‑ship recordation — the two named inventors assign their rights to the applicant company eight days before the patent issues. Not a fire‑sale, not securitization, not a transfer to an asserter.

• No further entries. Google Patents shows nothing between 1998‑08‑18 (grant) and 2016‑02‑16 (expiration). No security agreement, no merger, no change of name, no license recordation, no release, no correction.

Consequence: on the retrieved record, Interactive Patents Inc. remained the owner from 1998 until the patent lapsed in 2016. I found no indication the patent ever left the original assignee.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 5797126
    1996 : Filed 1996-02-16
         : Inventors Helbling and Glass
         : Application 08/602,975
    1998 : Inventors assign to Interactive Patents
         : Recorded 1998-08-11
         : Patent issues 1998-08-18
    2016 : Term end 2016-02-16
         : Expired for failure to pay fees

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

---

Verdict

Insufficient data — and specifically, the "only the original assignment" branch of that category.

The record contains a single assignment: inventors GLASS, ANDREW and HELBLING, EDWARD to INTERACTIVE PATENTS, INC., recorded 1998‑08‑11, eight days before the patent issued on 1998‑08‑18 (Google Patents legal events for US5797126A). There is no subsequent transfer of any kind through lapse on 2016‑02‑16, no shell‑entity intermediary, no known asserter, no cascading LLC chain, and no defensive aggregator in the chain; the patent appears never to have left its original assignee. No NPE signal is present on the retrieved record, and none of the standard "troll" tells (plaintiff history, licensing‑vehicle assignee, repeat NPE correspondent) can be confirmed even as "unclear" because the chain is a single link.

Two caveats drive the "Insufficient data" call rather than a clean "operating‑company / non‑asserting" call: (i) I could not retrieve reel/frame or the correspondent of record from the Assignment Center, so the completeness of the chain and signal #3 are unverified; and (ii) the original assignee shows no evidence of a shipped product, so this is not an operating‑company assertion either — it is a dormant privately held portfolio whose flagship reference lapsed for non‑payment while being cited by 148+ later patents. The correct characterization is non‑asserting dormant holder, and per the rubric that maps to Insufficient data absent a second recorded link.

Verify manually at:

• USPTO Assignment Center (search patent number 5797126): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• Legacy Assignment Search: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5797126/en
• Prosecution‑agent lead to check against the file wrapper: Herbert Dubno (unverified secondary bibliographic source; confirm via USPTO Patent Center for application 08/602,975).

I'll research this systematically. Let me start by verifying the patent and gathering details on each cited reference.

Let me gather details on the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 5,797,126 ("Automatic theater ticket concierge")

Document under analysis (interpreted literally as given):

• Patent No. US 5,797,126 A
• Application No. US 08/602,975
• Inventors: Edward Helbling; Andrew Glass — Original/current assignee Interactive Patents Inc.
• Filed: 1996-02-16 · Published/Granted: 1998-08-18 · Status: Expired – Fee Related · Anticipated expiration 2016-02-16
• Claims: 17 (independent method claim 1; independent apparatus claim 11; dependents 2–10 and 12–17)

Important caveats up front

1. The "Citations (6)" list below is the set of references cited by the examiner on the face of US 5,797,126 (marked with an asterisk in the Google Patents record). These are the references relevant to your §102 question. The ~148 "Cited By" documents are later art and are not prior art to this patent — they are excluded below.
2. I could not retrieve the full specification text of every reference within my tool budget; where I rely on bibliographic/abstract data rather than full claim text, I say so explicitly. Mappings below are potential anticipations from the face of each reference, not legal conclusions.
3. Note a minor date discrepancy in the record itself: Google Patents lists the prior-art/priority date as 1996-02-16 (filing = priority, no earlier priority claimed), while one aggregator (RPX) shows the estimated priority date blank and a secondary index shows 1996-02-15. Per your instruction I am not auto-correcting; I use the filing/proof date 1996-02-16 from the patent's own front page. Also note the specification references two earlier Helbling copending applications (Ser. Nos. 08/234,409 and 08/215,372) that are not in the citation list.

The 17 claims, condensed for the mapping:

• Cl. 1 — method steps (a)–(h): (a) communicate event/time/seating availability to multiple kiosks; (b) display events; (c) on selection, display a scene exemplary of the event "by accessing coded and digitalized live video"; (d) display seating plan; (e) on seat selection, display a view from the seat "accessed from coded and digitalized live video"; (f) charge a card; (g) issue an information carrier/receipt authorizing admission; (h) display, from coded/digitalized live video, views of the area/street vicinity, marquis, box office, lobby, lounge and historical/architectural points of interest — a "virtual tour."
• Cl. 2–5 — central-station⇄kiosk dialog for events/seating, charging, seat view, and carrier issuance.
• Cl. 6 — touch-screen selection. Cl. 7 — "attract mode" live-video excerpts. Cl. 8 — video replay preview. Cl. 9 — video about author/producer/director/star. Cl. 10 — video history of the facility.
• Cl. 11 — apparatus counterpart to claim 1 (central station + remote kiosks + display/charge/issuance + virtual-tour means). Cl. 12 — comms link. Cl. 13 — wireless link. Cl. 14 — modems. Cl. 15 — printer. Cl. 16 — card reader. Cl. 17 — touch screen.

---

1) US 3,705,384 A — Wahlberg, "Business transaction apparatus"

Full citation: US 3,705,384 A (Eric C. Wahlberg). Business transaction apparatus.
Dates: Filed 1971-08-10; issued 1972-12-05.
Description: A multi-function automatic business-transaction machine covering (i) vending, (ii) package handling, (iii) banking, and (iv) ticket printing and vending for selecting travel reservations and printing/issuing tickets, capable of accepting currency, credit media and negotiable instruments, with a remote monitoring and control center for validating credit media and credit limits. (Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US3705384)
Potential §102 anticipation:

• Claim 1(f)/(g) — the card/credit-media acceptance and ticket printing/issuing steps have counterparts here.
• Claim 11 (in part) — it discloses an automated transaction terminal with a card reader (cl. 16) and a printer (cl. 15).
• Not anticipatory of independent claims 1 or 11 as a whole: it lacks event-scene display, seating-plan/seat-view display, the kiosk network and the virtual tour. Its relevance is to the payment/issuance sub-elements.

---

2) US 5,239,480 A — Huegel (AIS Infonetics Inc.), "Automatic ticket dispensing system"

Full citation: US 5,239,480 A (Anthony R. Huegel; assignee AIS Infonetics Inc.). Automatic ticket dispensing system.
Dates: Filed 1991-02-06; issued 1993-08-24.
Description: A plurality of self-service terminals (positioned remote from the event locations), each with a central processor and a touch-screen video display; the processor stores a complete listing of events/locations; it dials the event-location processors to obtain live seat-disposition data; it displays a seating layout with available seats separately indicated (blinking); it dispenses tickets for user-accepted seats; it accepts currency or credit card (with card-authority verification); it prints tickets with an encrypted bar-code/security number; and it runs continuous audio/CRT advertising of the events. (Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5239480 ; https://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat5239480.html)
Potential §102 anticipation — the strongest of the six:

• Claim 2 — central station ⇄ kiosk dialog to obtain seating availability: anticipated (terminal⇄location processor dialog).
• Claim 3 — charging via dialog: anticipated (card-authority verification through the processor).
• Claim 6 — touch-screen selection: anticipated (touch screen expressly described).
• Claim 15 — printer for the information carrier: anticipated.
• Claim 16 — card reader in the kiosk: anticipated.
• Claim 17 — touch-screen display means: anticipated.
• Claim 1: steps (a), (b), (d), (f), (g) are met, but the claim additionally requires (c) a scene displayed by accessing coded and digitalized live video, (e) the seat view accessed from coded and digitalized live video, and (h) the live-video virtual tour. The '480 advertising is generic event advertising, not segments of an actual performance, and it has no seat view at all. So claim 1 is not anticipated on its face; '480 is best used as the primary §103 reference against claim 1, combined with a seat-view reference (see '257 below).
• Claim 7 (attract mode with live-video performance excerpts): '480's continuous advertising display is close but does not disclose live-video excerpts of an actual performance, so it is a §103, not §102, reference here.

---

3) US 5,333,257 A — Merrill et al. (C/A Architects, Inc.), "System for displaying selected assembly-facility seating views"

Full citation: US 5,333,257 A (William E. Merrill; John A. Rhebergen; Robert Delgado; assignee C/A Architects, Inc.). System for displaying selected assembly-facility seating views.
Dates: Filed 1991-08-09; issued 1994-07-26 (priority 1991-08-08).
Description: Displays the view from a selected seat in an arena/theater/stadium, using a "proxy seat" data structure and CAD-generated, hidden-line perspective files (PCX) approximating the view from the chosen seat; runs in automatic (promotional looping) and interactive modes; operates in conjunction with external ticketing software; and may be embodied as an "automated teller machine" (ATM) for unattended ticket selection and sales. (Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5333257 ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-[5333257](/patent/5333257)-A)
Potential §102 anticipation:

• Directly on point for the "view from the selected seat" element of claim 1(e) and the seat-view means of claim 11, and for the automatic/promotional mode idea behind claim 7.
• However, '257 generates views from CAD/computer-generated illustrations, not from "coded and digitalized live video." Because both independent claims 1 and 11 expressly require live video for the scene and for the seat view, '257 does not anticipate those claims; it is the key §103 reference (analogous art, same field).
• This is the reference the patent itself acknowledges and distinguishes — the '126 specification states: "While the system can utilize the computerized illustration of U.S. Pat. No. 5,333,257, we prefer to utilize video views which have been assembled from live video, coded, digitized and accessed through the central station or from memory at the individual kiosk." Any anticipation theory built on '257 must confront this express distinction.

---

4) US 5,475,585 A — Bush, "Transactional processing system"

Full citation: US 5,475,585 A (Thomas A. Bush). Transactional processing system.
Dates: Earliest priority 1990-10-01 (US 07/591,380); continuation filed 1994-02-02; issued 1995-12-12.
Description: A real-time payment-authorization system used with a transmitting source: a video menu listing available products/services is sent to a receiver; the receiver contains a credit/debit card reader and transmits account information plus the menu selection via a modem to a payment processor, which verifies the account/selection and returns an authorization; the vendor then supplies the product. (Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5475585 )
Potential §102 anticipation:

• Claim 1(f) (charging a card presented by the patron) and claim 3 (charging by dialog between central station and kiosk): strong correspondence — a card reader + modem + remote authorization architecture.
• Claim 11's charging means and claim 16 (card reader) are also met.
• Relevance to claim 4 (display of the seat view/selection by dialog with the central station): '585 teaches interactive selection over a video menu with remote authorization, but no seating plan, seat view, event scene or virtual tour — so claims 1/11 as a whole are not anticipated.

---

5) US 5,237,499 A — Garback (Total Travel Management Inc.), "Computer travel planning system"

Full citation: US 5,237,499 A (Brent J. Garback; assignee Total Travel Management Inc.). Computer travel planning system.
Dates: Filed 1991-11-12; issued 1993-08-17.
Description: A computerized travel-planning/reservation system. (My retrieval of the full text of this reference was limited by tool budget; the bibliographic record and title are confirmed via the citation lists at https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[8355937](/patent/8355937).html and the '126 front page.)
Potential §102 anticipation:

• Generally relevant to the centralized reservation-database ⇄ remote-terminal dialog concepts of claims 2–5 and the central-station-accumulates-information element of claim 11.
• It does not disclose event video, seating views, or the virtual tour; therefore it does not anticipate any independent claim. Best characterized as background/§103 art.

---

6) US 5,581,461 A — ITT Sheraton Corp., "Computerized system and method for storage, processing and transfer of inventory and other data among a central processor/database and a number of remote locations"

Full citation: US 5,581,461 A (assignee ITT Sheraton Corporation). Computerized system and method for storage, processing and transfer of inventory and other data among a central processor/database and a number of remote locations.
Dates: Filed 1993-02-08; issued 1996-12-03.
Description: A central processor/database communicating with a number of remote locations for the storage, processing and transfer of inventory and other data (e.g., availability/reservation data) between the central database and the remote sites.
Potential §102 anticipation — note the date nuance:

• Because its issue date (1996-12-03) is after the '126 filing/priority date (1996-02-16), it is not a §102(a)/(b) "printed publication" or public-use reference. Its prior-art effect, if any, is under pre-AIA §102(e) — a US patent granted on an application filed before the applicant's invention (here filed 1993-02-08, well before 1996-02-16).
• Under §102(e) it corresponds to: claims 2–5 (central-station ⇄ remote-site dialog for availability/charging data), claim 11 (central station accumulating information + a plurality of remote kiosks), claim 12 (communications link), and claim 14 (modems). It does not address event video, seating views, or the virtual tour, so it cannot anticipate independent claims 1/11 as a whole.

---

Examiner-cited non-patent literature (2 unique items)

1. Cydee Miller, "Music marketers hoping to see a Net gain," Marketing News, Jan. 15, 1996, vol. 30, Issue 2, p. 2. Published ~1 month before the 1996-02-16 filing. As a printed publication within one year of filing, its relevance would be §102(a) (before the applicant's invention), not §102(b). Topically it concerns marketing/ticket distribution over networks; useful as background against the "attract"/promotion aspects of claims 7–9.
2. Larry Stevens, "Front-line systems," Computerworld, Mar. 2, 1992, vol. 26, Issue 9, pp. 61–63. Published more than one year before the 1996-02-16 filing → available as a §102(b) printed publication. Concerns front-line/point-of-service systems; relevant background to the kiosk/terminal aspects of claim 11.
   (There are duplicate listings of each of these two items in the record, for four total NPL entries.)

---

Bottom line

Assessment: No single cited reference anticipates independent claims 1 or 11, because each independent claim requires coded and digitalized live video used for (i) an event scene, (ii) the seat view, and (iii) the venue virtual tour, plus the integrated kiosk network, charging and issuance. The two references that come closest are US 5,239,480 (remote self-service ticketing kiosks with touch screen, seating-availability dialog, card/currency payment, and printed tickets — anticipating dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 15, 16, 17) and US 5,333,257 (display of the seat view — but by CAD illustration, not live video, and expressly distinguished in the '126 specification). The most realistic invalidity theory on this record is a §103 combination of US 5,239,480 + US 5,333,257 (and/or + US 5,475,585) against claims 1 and 11 — not a clean §102 anticipation.

Confidence: High for US 3,705,384, US 5,239,480, US 5,333,257, US 5,475,585 (full abstracts/claims reviewed). Lower for US 5,237,499 and US 5,581,461 (bibliographic data confirmed; full text not retrieved within budget) — those mappings should be verified against the complete specifications before being relied upon.

I'll ground the cited references before building the combination analysis.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 — U.S. Patent 5,797,126

Patent: U.S. 5,797,126 — "Automatic theater ticket concierge"
Application: US 08/602,975 · Filed / Priority: 1996-02-16 · Granted: 1998-08-18
Assignee (original/current): Interactive Patents, Inc. · Inventors: Edward Helbling, Andrew Glass
Status per the page: Expired – Fee Related (anticipated expiration 2016-02-16)

Scope note. This is an ex parte-style validity/obviousness analysis built on the prior art listed in the "Citations" and "Non-Patent Citations" sections of the furnished Google Patents record, supplemented by retrieved text of those references. It is not a legal opinion and carries no freedom-to-operate or infringement conclusion. Where I could not verify a reference's full text in this session, I say so.

---

1. Legal framework applied

Under Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), the analysis requires (i) the scope and content of the prior art, (ii) the differences between the prior art and the claims, (iii) the level of ordinary skill, and (iv) secondary considerations. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a claim is obvious where the elements were known and combined according to known methods to yield predictable results; where a known technique is used to improve a similar device in the same way; where a design need or market pressure supplied a known approach; or where the reference itself (or the art generally) supplies an express motivation or identifies the problem to be solved.

Because the filing/priority date is 1996-02-16, pre-AIA § 102/§ 103 govern. Post-1996 activity (the large "Cited By" family of 345 later references) is not prior art to this patent, and I have not used it as such — only as context on the field's development.

---

2. Person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

A POSITA as of February 1996 would be a practitioner with a bachelor's degree in computer science or electrical engineering (or equivalent) and roughly 2–4 years of experience designing self-service transaction terminals, point-of-sale/reservation networks, or interactive multimedia kiosk systems, with working familiarity with: networked client/server reservation or inventory databases; touch-screen and card-reader user interfaces; ticket-printing/dispensing hardware; telephone/modem and emerging cellular packet (CDPD) data links; and digitized audio/video capture and playback on personal computers. This is not a hypothetical level of skill invented for this analysis — it is the level reflected in the cited references themselves (e.g., the touch-screen self-service terminals and location-processor networks of US 5,239,480; the modem-linked card-reader receivers of US 5,475,585; the CAD/digitized-graphic seat-view systems of US 5,333,257).

---

3. The prior art of record

Reading note on dates. The page lists US 5,581,461 under "Patent Citations," and it issued after this patent's filing date. It nonetheless qualifies as prior art under § 102(e) because its effective U.S. filing date (1993-02-08, via the cited continuation lineage) precedes 1996-02-16. A § 103 combination may rely on § 102(e) art.

---

4. The invention, in claim terms

The patent has two independent claims.

• Claim 1 (method): (a) communicate event/time/seating info to a multiplicity of kiosks; (b) display event info at kiosks; (c) on selection, display at least one scene exemplary of the event by accessing coded and digitalized live video; (d) display a seating plan showing available seats; (e) on seat selection, display a view from the selected seat, accessed from coded and digitalized live video; (f) charge a card; (g) issue an information carrier representing both a receipt and a confirmed seat selection, authorizing admission; and (h) display, from live coded/digitized video, views of the area/street vicinity, marquis, box office, lobby, lounge, and historical/architectural points of interest, enabling a virtual tour of the venue.
• Claim 11 (apparatus): the same pipeline expressed as means-plus-function structure, plus means for virtually moving the patron through the tour.
• Claims 2–5: central-station dialog variants (communicating seating info; charging; displaying the seat view; issuing the carrier).
• Claims 6–10: touch-screen selection; attract mode showing excerpts of an actual performance; on-demand video replay of an actual event as a preview; video history of author/producer/director/stars; video history of the facility.
• Claims 12–17: communications link between kiosk and central station; wireless link; modems; printer; card reader; touch screen.

The two genuine points of departure from the cited art are (1) the "live video" qualifier on the event-scene, seat-view, and venue-tour displays, and (2) the venue/neighborhood virtual tour content itself (claim 1(h), claim 11).

---

5. Claim 1 — element-by-element mapping and motivation

Observation on the specification's own admissions. The patent's Background concedes the existence of computer seat-view display: it states that "U.S. Pat. No. 5,333,257 even allows a view from a seat to be displayed," and later that "the system can utilize the computerized illustration of U.S. Pat. No. 5,333,257, we prefer to utilize video views which have been assembled from live video." That is a patentee admission that the seat-view feature as a function is met by US 5,333,257, leaving the "live video" format as the only asserted distinction.

---

6. Claim 11 and dependent claims

Claim 11. The apparatus claim mirrors claim 1 element-for-element with means-plus-function language, plus "means … for virtually moving the patron through the tour." Mapping is identical: US 5,239,480 supplies the terminal/network/printer/touch-screen structure; US 5,333,257 supplies the seat-view display means and, in its interactive mode (user-supplied section/row/seat with on-screen selection), a means for guided movement through facility views; US 5,581,461 supplies the central-station inventory structure; US 5,475,585 supplies the card-reader/modem charging means. The joystick/on-screen-directional-control virtual-tour navigation recited in the specification (FIG. 3, element 60) is conventional interactive-multimedia navigation of the mid-1990s with no asserted structural novelty.

Claims 2–5 (central-station dialog). US 5,239,480 expressly performs the seating-availability and seat-selection exchange by the terminal's central processor dialoguing with the location processor ("said central processor communicating with said location processor at said selected location to obtain data concerning seat disposition"); US 5,581,461 is directed precisely to cooperative central/remote processing with a single depleting inventory and gateway interface. Motivation: a shared inventory cannot be maintained without the dialog these claims recite. Note a potential internal inconsistency between claim 4 (view display "effected by dialog between said central station and said one of said kiosks") and the specification's statement that the seat-view digitized video is "accessed … from memory at the individual kiosk" — a written-description/enablement question, not an obviousness one.

Claim 6 / claim 17 (touch screen). US 5,239,480 discloses a touch screen ("the screen is a touch screen whereby the consumer can simply touch different areas of the screen to make appropriate choices") and cites U.S. 4,896,791 for the touch switch implementation. Anticipated in substance; obvious in any event.

Claim 7 (attract mode showing excerpts of an actual performance from live digitalized video). US 5,239,480: "an audio device … could be connected to the central processor for running advertisements on a continuous basis, the advertisements … relat[ing] to the events presently available," plus a display CRT providing visual advertising "also on a continuous basis." US 5,333,257: a looping automatic promotional display of available views that the user may interrupt to enter interactive mode. The only increment is that the attract content comprises performance excerpts. Given US 5,475,585's broadcast of digitized video service menus and the Miller NPL evidence of online performance previews, using excerpts is an obvious commercial choice to capture the passerby's attention — the very purpose the specification recites.

Claim 8 (video replay of an actual event as a preview on selection) and claim 9 (video about author/producer/director/stars). These are preview and program/playbill content. US 5,475,585 (digitized video menu content deliverable on demand to a receiver) and US 5,239,480 (event advertising content) supply the mechanism; the Miller NPL supplies the practice of marketing performances via networked audio/video. A POSITA seeking to sell tickets to patrons remote from the venue and lacking prior familiarity with the production — the patent's own stated problem, "all current ticket purchase systems … rely on the ticket purchaser's previous knowledge or already established interest in a particular production" — would have been strongly motivated to add such content. This is a textbook KSR "identified problem in the art" rationale.

Claim 10 (video history of the selected facility). US 5,333,257 (facility graphic views, promotional and interactive) and US 5,581,461 (visual display of facility/layout information at a terminal) both concern facility information display; adding historical content to it is the aggregation of non-technical informational content onto a known display mechanism.

Claims 12–14 (communications link; wireless; modems). US 5,239,480 (network modem), US 5,475,585 (modem link to payment processor), and US 5,581,461 (network with gateway; X.25 packet-switched interconnection) all disclose the kiosk↔central link. Claim 13's "wireless link" is the substitution of one known transmission medium for another. By the February 1996 filing date, wireless wide-area data (including the CDPD service the specification invokes) was a commercially available alternative to leased telephone lines for low-bandwidth transaction traffic; the Computerworld "Front-line systems" NPL is the sort of trade-press evidence that would confirm wireless/self-service terminal deployments were within routine design choice. No new result is asserted for wireless in the claims.

Claim 15 (printer). US 5,239,480 and US 3,705,384.

Claim 16 (card reader). US 5,475,585 and US 3,705,384 — the latter with remote credit-availability verification.

---

7. The critical combinations and the motivations articulated

Combination A — US 5,239,480 + US 5,333,257 (+ US 5,581,461)

This combination reaches claims 1(a)–(e), 1(g), 2–5, 6, and 11–17 excepting "live video."

Motivations, each grounded in the references themselves:

1. The prior art identified the problem. US 5,333,257's Background states that current ticketing programs have "no capability to let a customer see the view that he or she would experience from a seat being offered." A reference that expressly diagnoses a deficiency and supplies the remedy for it is the paradigm of an articulated motivation to combine.
2. Express compatibility/adaptation. US 5,333,257 states its system "operates in conjunction with existing external software for generating tickets for assembly-facility events" and that it extracts available-seating data from that external ticketing database. US 5,239,480 is an external ticketing system with a seat-availability database. The references are pre-adapted to one another.
3. Same field, same user, same transaction step. Both concern displaying available seating to a ticket buyer immediately before purchase. US 5,239,480 returns "best seats available" for the purchaser's accept/reject decision; US 5,333,257 supplies the missing quality metric (what the seat actually looks like) for precisely that decision. Motivation to combine is nothing more than the desire to make the existing accept/reject step informed.
4. US 5,333,257 already contemplates the ATM/kiosk form factor. Its abstract/description explicitly contemplates implementation as "an 'automated teller machine' (ATM) for unattended ticket selection and sales" — i.e., the same self-service terminal context as US 5,239,480.
5. US 5,581,461 supplies the central-inventory backbone the network of US 5,239,480 terminals needs in order to keep multi-venue availability current, with its disclosed "single depleting inventory for both the central and remote databases" and rate-plan-restricted access (the analog of the patent's price-tiered seating display).

The combination yields no more than the predictable result of each element performing its own known function: browse events → see available seats → see what you're buying → pay → receive printed confirmation.

Combination B — Combination A + US 5,475,585 (and NPL Miller) for the "live video" limitations

This is the combination that addresses the two limitations that are truly distinguishing on the face of the references: claim 1(c)/(e) ("coded and digitalized live video") and claim 1(h) (venue/neighborhood virtual tour from live video), plus claims 7–10.

Motivations:

1. Predictable substitution of a known imaging technology. US 5,333,257 generates seat views as CAD/digitized graphic stills. US 5,475,585 discloses delivering digitized video content to remote receivers over a network for on-screen display. Substituting photographic/digital video capture of the same subject matter (a venue and the stage as seen from a seat) for a CAD rendering is the KSR "known technique used to improve a similar device in the same way" rationale: the mechanism of display is unchanged, only the source of the image data changes.
2. The patentee's own admission. The specification states the system "can utilize the computerized illustration of U.S. Pat. No. 5,333,257," preferring live-video views instead. An inventor's admission that a cited reference's approach is usable in his own system is strong evidence that the substitution is within the skill of the art rather than inventive.
3. Venue/neighborhood tour as a known informational and commercial need. The patent's stated purpose is to overcome "the physical separation between potential patrons and theaters" and the "dearth of easily accessible information about available productions and production venues." That need is in the public domain of the art and equally apparent to a POSITA; US 5,333,257's interactive "walk into the … facility" mode and US 5,581,461's facility/room layout display provide the navigation and display mechanisms to satisfy it. Rendering additional venue locations (marquis, lobby, lounge, street) in the same navigable view format is an aggregation of content onto a known navigation mechanism, with no asserted new technical result.
4. Marketing pressure / demonstrated demand. Miller, "Music marketers hoping to see a Net gain" (published 1996-01-15, one month before filing) evidences the contemporaneous commercial push to distribute performance previews over networks. When market demand supplies the reason to add a known element, KSR treats the result as obvious absent unexpected results.

Combination C — US 3,705,384 + US 5,475,585 as a substitute payment/issuance sub-combination. For claims 1(f)/(g) and 15/16, US 3,705,384 alone discloses the complete loop: credit media validation, remote credit-availability data link, ticket printing and vending, and remote identity verification. Adding it to a kiosk network is the incorporation of a known sub-system for its known purpose.

---

8. Expected counterarguments and their strength

1. "No reference discloses digitized live video of the actual performance." This is the patentee's strongest position, particularly for claim 1(c). The cited references disclose digitized video menus/advertising (US 5,475,585; US 5,239,480) and CAD graphics of seat views (US 5,333,257) — not, squarely, digitized live footage of the performance itself. A claim-differentiating argument that the specific content provenance (live performance footage, coded and digitized) is not disclosed has some traction on the record as it stands, and is the kind of limitation that examination practice at the time might have treated as a point of novelty. However, obviousness does not require the exact content in a single reference: the combination of a video-capable terminal, digitized video distribution, and a demonstrated market for performance previews renders the result obvious as a predictable use of known media.
2. "The seat view must come from live video, not CAD." Weak. The specification concedes the 5,333,257 approach is usable; substituting live capture for a CAD rendering is a substitution of one known imaging method for another with no change in the user-facing result.
3. Teaching away? None identified. US 5,333,257's CAD approach is offered as a convenient implementation, not as a disparagement of photographic/video capture. (Reviewers should verify the cited references' full texts for any contrary statements I did not retrieve — in particular US 5,237,499 (Garback), whose text I did not obtain, and the Computerworld NPL article, whose full text I did not obtain.)
4. Secondary considerations. No evidence of unexpected results, licensing, or industry praise appears on the furnished record, and there is no established nexus between any such evidence and the "live video"/"virtual tour" limitations. The patent's legal status on the page is Expired – Fee Related, not "expired for failure to prosecute" — noted only as a factual status; it has no bearing on § 103.

---

9. Bottom line

Overall. The great majority of claims 1–17 would be vulnerable to a § 103 challenge built on US 5,239,480 as the base reference, combined with US 5,333,257 (seat views), US 5,581,461 (central/remote inventory dialog), US 5,475,585 (digitized video menus and card-reader/modem real-time payment), and US 3,705,384 (integrated card validation, remote credit check, and ticket printing/vending). The claim limitations most resistant to the cited art are the "coded and digitalized live video" provenance of the performance excerpt and the seat view (claim 1(c)/(e)) and, to a lesser degree, the live-video venue virtual tour (claim 1(h)). Both are content-sourcing and content-selection refinements within a known multimedia kiosk architecture, so KSR's predictable-variation and identified-design-need rationales supply a workable — though not airtight — obviousness theory.

Verification caveats. (i) I did not retrieve the full text of US 5,237,499 (Garback) or of the two non-patent citations in this session; no element mapping above depends on US 5,237,499, and the NPL is used only for corroborating market-practice context. (ii) All patent numbers, dates, and titles are reproduced exactly as they appear on the furnished page and in retrieved records; I have not normalized any identifier. (iii) US 5,581,461 issued after this patent's filing date and is relied on only under § 102(e) based on its effective U.S. filing date (1993-02-08).