Appeal No. 2000-2210
Application No. 09/002,828
With respect to independent claims 1, 7, 14, and 19, the
Examiner, as the basis for the obviousness rejection, proposes to
modify the interactive multimedia system disclosure of Hellhake.
According to the Examiner, Hellhake discloses the claimed
invention except for the overlay component. To address this
deficiency, the Examiner turns to Harper which, in the Examiner’s
view, “ . . . teaches that graphics can be overlaid onto the
video at the subscriber site through the use of a character
generator 624 . . . . ” (Answer, page 4). In the Examiner’s
line of reasoning (id.), the resultant increased ease of operator
interaction would suggest to the skilled artisan the obviousness
of adding the screen overlay feature of Harper to the system of
Hellhake.
After reviewing the Examiner’s analysis, it is our view that
such analysis carefully points out the teachings of the Hellhake
and Harper references, reasonably indicates the perceived
differences between this prior art and the claimed invention, and
provides reasons as to how and why the prior art teachings would
have been modified and/or combined to arrive at the claimed
invention. In our opinion, the Examiner's analysis is
sufficiently reasonable that we find that the Examiner has at
least satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007