Appeal No. 2000-2210
Application No. 09/002,828
contemplates the use of screen overlays, albeit limited to
textual content, as described at column 6, lines 50-52.
We further find to be unpersuasive Appellant’s contention
(Brief, page 7; Reply Brief, page 3) that the applied Hellhake
and Harper references are from non-analogous art. The test for
non-analogous art is first whether the art is within the field of
the inventor's endeavor and, if not, whether it is reasonably
pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was involved.
In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979).
A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in
a different field of endeavor, it logically would have commended
itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem
because of the matter with which it deals. In re Clay, 966 F.2d
656, 659, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Our review of
the disclosures of Hellhake and Harper finds it apparent that
both references are directed to user interactive features in a
broadcast television multimedia environment. In our view, the
skilled artisan, when considering the recognized problems
associated with facilitating user interaction with the multimedia
communication system as disclosed by Hellhake, would logically
have consulted the teachings of Harper to address the problem.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007