Appeal No. 2004-0992
Application No. 09/560,458
different medium and that there is no motivation for modifying
Hidary to provide for such.
We agree with appellant.
Each of claims 2-7 and 9-14 requires accessing an
advertisement distributed over a first medium, accessing content
from a second medium and interrupting the content and displaying
the advertisement. It is clear that Hidary does disclose two
mediums, a TV broadcast, and the Internet, whereby content is
accessed from one medium and advertisements are accessed from the
other medium. But, Hidary displays the content simultaneously
with the advertisement material, rather than interrupting the
content and displaying the advertisement.
The examiner recognizes this deficiency in Hidary but
contends that it would have been obvious to display the
advertisement by interrupting the content in view of the old and
well known technique, in broadcast TV, of interrupting the
content of a television program by commercials, i.e.,
advertisements.
We agree that it was well known, in commercial TV, to
interrupt program content for permitting advertisements.
However, in such cases, the advertisement and the program content
both emanate from the same medium, rather than two different
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007