Appeal No. 2000-2210
Application No. 09/002,828
As to the system services and overlay features of claims
9 and 10, respectively, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
these claims as well. In our view, the user interface examples
provided by Hellhake in Figures 6-8 suggest, at the very least,
user interface and opportunities services. Further, we find that
Hellhake’s suggestion of a textual overlay, as well as the
explicit description of graphical overlays in Harper, provide a
clear guidance to the skilled artisan to present access
instructions (menus) to the user in the form of screen overlays.
In the same vein, we find that Hellhake’s end user station
is explicitly disclosed as a television or a personal computer
which provide TV and PC views as set forth in dependent claim 12.
Similarly, we agree with the Examiner that the access screen
items described in Hellhake’s Figures 6-8 examples provide
functionality to the system services they represent.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claims 12 and 13 is sustained.
In conclusion, for all of the reasons discussed supra, we
have sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of all
of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1-19 is affirmed.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007