Appeal No. 2004-0992
Application No. 09/560,458
mediums, as required by the instant claims. It is true that
Hidary shows two different mediums for presenting the content and
the advertisement, but there does not appear to be any reason for
the artisan to have modified Hidary to provide for an
interruption of the content in order to display the
advertisement.
Hidary recognized the old broadcast TV method of
interrupting programs to display advertisements. This is
apparent throughout Hidary’s disclosure as, for example, at
column 2, lines 62-64, wherein it is disclosed that
advertisers can speak more directly to consumers by
directly sending Web pages to the consumer instead of
only displaying Web addresses in their commercials; and
consumers can gain a new level of interest and
interactivity over a video-based medium.
Thus, it is clear that Hidary wants to get away from the
mere watching of TV commercials which interrupt regular broadcast
TV programs and wants to involve viewers interactively. This is
why Hidary provides for simultaneous display of content and
advertisement. Accordingly, it would appear contrary to Hidary’s
teachings to merely interrupt a broadcast TV program with the
display of an advertisement, rather than the simultaneous display
of both. Accordingly, we find that the skilled artisan would not
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007