Appeal No. 2004-0992
Application No. 09/560,458
have been led to modify Hidary in such a way to interrupt the
broadcast TV program content in order to provide for an
advertisement from a different medium. The display of an
advertisement alongside content is not an “interruption” of the
content, as required by the instant claims.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 2-7
and 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
We reach the opposite result with regard to claims 15-26 and
we will sustain the rejection of claims 15-26 under 35 U.S.C.
103.
With regard to claims 15-26, appellant argues that the
examiner relies on inherency for the rejection of these claims.
This is true. The examiner does find it inherent in Hidary to
determine whether a client is configured to automatically display
advertising material in association with other content. The
examiner explains that it is necessary to determine whether a
client is configured to automatically display advertising
material in association with other content before the advertising
material is automatically displayed in association with other
content.
Appellant does not argue, in any meaningful way, the merits
of the examiner’s position that in order to automatically display
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007