Ex Parte BUTLER et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 10, 2010

08902005 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 10, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte LAURA J. BUTLER and GEORGE M. MOORE
____________________

Appeal 2009-005954
Application 08/902,0051
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Decided: March 12, 2010
____________________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO,
and MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Microsoft Corporation.
Appeal 2009-005954
Application 08/902,005

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (a) from a Non-Final
Rejection of claims 1-43 and 45-50. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ invention concerns a video broadcast system and method
that includes a broadcast source that broadcasts a video stream and provides
accompanying supplemental data files. Each supplemental data file is an
HTML file having instructions for rendering a hyperlink overlay on the
video stream. A receiver is configured to receive the video stream and
accompanying supplemental data files and to display hyperlink overlays in
conjunction with the video stream. The overlays are designed having
backgrounds of a pre-determined value which are used as a color key in
receiving equipment. Specifically, the receiving equipment is configured to
render video only in display areas that are set to the color key value. Thus,
the video stream is rendered “behind” the hyperlink overlays, such that the
backgrounds of the overlays appear transparent. Control data is provided
with the HTML files to indicate when the overlays should be rendered and to
provide other instructions on how the HTML files should be handled by the
receiving equipment (Abstract).
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method comprising the following steps:
transmitting a video stream;
formatting supplemental data files in a graphical markup language,
each supplemental data file having instructions for rendering a hyperlink
overlay on the video stream, wherein formatting comprises setting
transparent areas of each hyperlink overlay to a key color;
Appeal 2009-005954
Application 08/902,005

3
transmitting the supplemental data files along with the video stream.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:2
Adams WO 96/10888 Apr. 11, 1996
Kikinis US 5,929,849 Jul. 27, 1999
(filed May 2, 1996)
Claims 15 and 32 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter.3
Claims 1-43 and 45-50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kikinis in view of Adams.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Appeal Brief (filed February 10, 2006), the Reply
Brief (filed June 5, 2006), the supplemental Reply Brief (filed November 10,
2006), and the revised Examiner’s Answer (mailed October 20, 2006) for
their respective details.

ISSUES
Appellants contend that whether a particular combination would result
in a flexible or more efficient system is not the standard that is to be used to
make out a prima facie case of obviousness (App. Br. 13). Appellants
contend that Kikinis does not disclose a supplemental data file having
instructions for rendering a hyperlink overlay on the video stream that was
transmitted in the transmitting step (App. Br. 20). Appellants contend that
the Dynamic URL is simply an URL that is “presented on the Internet” to

2 The Lyons reference was retracted by the Examiner in the revised
Examiner’s Answer dated October 20, 2006.
3 The Examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 15
and 32 (Ans. 3).
Appeal 2009-005954
Application 08/902,005

4
download a web page (App. Br. 21). Adams does not disclose or suggest the
use of key color or a color keying video hardware (App. Br. 23, 28).
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s motivation for making the
combination is too general and lacking in the type of particularity that is
required to make out a prima facie case of obviousness (App. Br. 23).
The Examiner finds that Kikinis discloses Dynamic URL control
routines that are transmitted along with a video stream, wherein the
Dynamic URL control routines serve as supplemental data files having
instructions (Ans. 4). The Examiner finds that Adams clearly discloses
instructions for rendering/overlaid objects/images by setting specific screen
background color of the object to be transparent (set to a key color) on the
video stream display in a synchronization manner (Ans. 5). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to modify Kikinis with Adams’s object
oriented instruction set so as to enable a content programmer to be able to
create a video stream display screen from a programming studio and to
flexibly control the area around the video stream display including the
definition and placement of objects/text/images over the video stream
display (Ans. 5).
Appellants’ contentions present us with the following three issues:
1. Does Kikinis disclose a supplemental data file having instructions
for rendering a hyperlink overlay on the video stream that was transmitted in
the transmitting step?
2. Does Adams disclose instructions for rendering/overlaid
objects/images by setting specific screen background color of the object to
Appeal 2009-005954
Application 08/902,005

5
be transparent on the video stream display in a synchronization manner
(using a key color or a color keying video hardware)?
3. Would it have been obvious to modify Kikinis in view of Adams to
achieve the advantage of creating a video stream display screen from a
programming studio and to flexibly control the area around the video stream
display including the definition and placement of objects, text, and images
over the video stream display, as Adams suggests?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. According to Appellants, the invention concerns a video
broadcast system and method that includes a broadcast source that
broadcasts a video stream and provides accompanying supplemental data
files. Each supplemental data file is an HTML file having instructions for
rendering a hyperlink overlay on the video stream. A receiver is configured
to receive the video stream and accompanying supplemental data files and to
display hyperlink overlays in conjunction with the video stream. The
overlays are designed having backgrounds of a pre-determined value which
is used as a color key in receiving equipment. Specifically, the receiving
equipment is configured to render video only in display areas that are set to
the color key value. Thus, the video stream is rendered “behind” the
hyperlink overlays, such that the backgrounds of the overlays appear
transparent. Control data is provided with the HTML files to indicate when
Appeal 2009-005954
Application 08/902,005

6
the overlays should be rendered and to provide other instructions on how the
HTML files should be handled by the receiving equipment (Abstract).
2. The display hardware includes bit-mapped graphics capabilities
for displaying static bit-mapped images in conjunction with conventional
application programs. PC 14 includes video color keying hardware that can
be configured to display video only in display areas that are set to a key
color (Spec. 7:22–8:2).
3. PC 14 includes a video subsystem 66, known and manufactured
by numerous companies, that couples to monitor 68 for the purpose of being
configured to overwrite only those areas of the bit-mapped display image
that are set to a predetermined color or chroma key value, thereby
establishing that the bit-mapped image includes “transparent” areas or
regions set to the color key value (Fig. 2; Spec. 10:22–11:10).
Kikinis
4. Kikinis discloses a display system that receives a data stream
having successive image frame data in frame regions and Internet Universal
Resource Locator (URL) data and association data in data regions between
frame regions, and displays on a display monitor successive frames derived
from the image frame data. The association data associates one or more
image entities in successive frames with one or more URLs, and a viewer,
by selecting an associated image entity in the display, causes the system to
access the Internet, to connect to a source on the Internet associated with the
URL, to download a WEB page from the source, and to display the WEB
page in the display. The viewer may interact with the displayed WEB page
to access further related information. Entities may be enhanced in the
display to indicate association with a hidden URL (Abstract).
Appeal 2009-005954
Application 08/902,005

7
5. Kikinis discloses that data stream 59 includes a video stream of
first and second frames (61 and 65) interspersed with supplemental data in
data regions 63 and 67 defining a Dynamic URL, such as a BMW emblem
that serves as a hyperlink to the related Web-pages (Fig. 2B; col. 7, ll. 18-
27).
6. Kikinis discloses that after the user activates the BMW emblem
defined by the data regions 63 and 67, a window 71 is displayed over the
video streamed display defined by the TV frames, 61 and 65 (Fig. 2C; col. 8,
ll. 5-17).
7. Kikinis discloses the process used by an apparatus in
conjunction with the data stream containing a dynamic URL in the display
system. In step 83, the data stream is received bearing entity data and one or
more dynamic URLs in a data region separate from image frame data. In
step 85, the interframe data corresponding to the dynamic URL control
routines is stripped away from the video stream to be executed by the CPU
in step 87 (Fig. 3A; col. 9, ll. 24-40).
Adams
8. Adams discloses an interactive video system that processes a
video data stream and an associated data stream corresponding to the video
data stream. The interactive video system displays a video image defined by
the video data stream on a display device 50 and performs interactive
command functions specified by the associated data stream. The interactive
command functions may include commands that specify the placement of a
video display window 40, commands that specify parameters of graphical
objects 44 associated with the video image and commands that specify pixel
Appeal 2009-005954
Application 08/902,005

8
data or graphics description for the graphical object and commands for
placement of selection windows 42 (Abstract).
9. Adams discloses a packetized digital data stream that includes a
video packet 80, an audio packet 82, and an associated data packet 84 having
an associated time-stamp (Fig. 5; 19:11-22).
10. Adams discloses that the associated data packet 84 is carried
using a chrominance key which is a sideband transmission or an audio sub-
carrier. The command protocol contains commands that perform the
function defining the screen background color or, in the alternative, an
object oriented command set may be used to define the background of the
displayed image to be transparent, solid in color, or a repeated object/pattern
(20:15-25; 21:11-25).
11. Adams discloses that the computer system 10 extracts
associated data for the incoming video signal and decodes the extracted
associated data which specifies the parameters for the information display
window 46 and the video window 40 (Fig. 1; 14:5-14). A processor 52
reads the incoming associated data packets from the associated data queue
74 and performs the video command and control functions specified in the
incoming associated data packets (Fig. 3; 18:14-17). Specifically, the
associated data packets from the associated data queue 74 include
commands that specify the placement of graphic objects on the display
device 12 and commands for the placement and sizing of the video window
40 on the display surface 50 (Figs. 2, 3; 23:15–24:10).

Appeal 2009-005954
Application 08/902,005

9
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
On the issue of obviousness pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Supreme
Court has stated that “[t]he obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a
formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Further, the Court
stated, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
Id. at 416. “One of the ways in which a patent’s subject matter can be
proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of invention a
known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the
patent’s claims.” Id. at 419-20.
The determination of obviousness must consider, inter alia, whether a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the
prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have
been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Where the teachings of two or more prior art references conflict, the
Examiner must weigh the power of each reference to suggest solutions to
one of ordinary skill in the art, considering the degree to which one
reference might accurately discredit another. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). If the proposed modification would render the prior
art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then
there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In
re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Further, our reviewing court
has held that “[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of
ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from
Appeal 2009-005954
Application 08/902,005

10
following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction
divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27
F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also Para-Ordnance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS
Imps. Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, and 10-15
Independent claim 1 recites a method comprising
transmitting a video stream;
formatting supplemental data files in a graphical markup
language, each supplemental data file having instructions for
rendering a hyperlink overlay on the video stream, wherein
formatting comprises setting transparent areas of each hyperlink
overlay to a key color; [and]
transmitting the supplemental data files along with the
video stream.
Appellants contend that whether a particular combination would result
in a flexible or more efficient system is not the standard that is to be used to
make out a prima facie case of obviousness (App. Br. 13). Appellants
contend that Kikinis does not disclose a supplemental data file having
instructions for rendering a hyperlink overlay on the video stream that was
transmitted in the transmitting step (App. Br. 20). Appellants contend that
the Dynamic URL is simply a URL that is “presented on the Internet” to
download a web page (App. Br. 21). Adams does not disclose or suggest the
use of key color (App. Br. 23). Finally, Appellants contend that the
Examiner’s motivation for making the combination is too general and
lacking in the type of particularity that is required to make out a prima facie
case of obviousness (App. Br. 23).
Appeal 2009-005954
Application 08/902,005

11
The Examiner finds that Kikinis discloses Dynamic URL control
routines that are transmitted along with a video stream, wherein the
Dynamic URL control routines serve as supplemental data files having
instructions (Ans. 4; FF 5, 7). The Examiner finds that the control routine of
the Dynamic URL is notoriously well known in the computer art to be files
with CGI extension or scripts with coded syntax in different format, i.e.,
HTML, DHTML (Dynamic HTML), and XTML (Extensible HTML) in
which Kikinis’s system must be formatted at the server/headend (Ans. 21).
The Examiner finds that Adams discloses an interactive TV system in
which the receiver receives video stream and accompanying associated data
stream of associated data packet 84 that includes an associated data payload
that specifies interactive video command and control functions that perform
functions such as placement of graphic objects on the display 12, rendering
graphic objects on the display by setting specific screen background color of
the object to be transparent (set to a key color) (Ans. 4-5; FF 8-10). Hence,
the Examiner finds that Adams clearly discloses instructions for
rendering/overlaid objects/images by setting the screen background color of
the object to be transparent (set to a key color) on the video stream display in
a synchronized manner (Ans. 5; FF 8-10).
The Examiner concludes that the motivation to combine the teachings
of Kikinis with the teachings of Adams is that one of ordinary skill in the art
would modify Kikinis with Adams’s object oriented instruction set so as to
enable a content programmer to flexibly control the area around the video
stream display including the definition and placement of objects/text/images
over the video stream display (Ans. 5).
Appeal 2009-005954
Application 08/902,005

12
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Kikinis teaches transmitting a video stream with a
supplemental data file having instructions for rendering a hyperlink overlay
on the video stream, since Kikinis discloses in Figure 3A that a data stream
bearing image frame data and a dynamic URL are received in step 83 (Ans.
4; FF 7). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the control routine of
the Dynamic URL is notoriously well known in the computer art to be files
with CGI extension or scripts with coded syntax in different format, i.e.,
HTML, DHTML (Dynamic HTML), and XTML (Extensible HTML) in
which Kikinis’s system must be formatted at the server/headend (Ans. 21).
We agree with the Examiner that Adams discloses the use of key color since
the command protocol contains commands that perform the function of
defining the background screen color to be transparent or solid (FF 10). We
find that the Examiner’s motivation of designing a flexible or more efficient
system is sufficiently supported to make out a prima facie case of
obviousness.
We therefore find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and that of depending claims 4, 6, 8, and 10-15 not
separately argued.
Claim 2
As noted supra, we sustained the rejection of claim 1 from which
claim 2 depends. In addition, as noted supra, we agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Kikinis teaches a supplemental data file having instructions for
rendering a hyperlink overlay on the video stream that was transmitted in the
transmitting step (Ans. 4; FF 7).
Appeal 2009-005954
Application 08/902,005

13
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 under 35
U.S.C. § 103, for the same reasons expressed with respect to the § 103
rejection of parent claim 1, supra.
Claim 3
Appellants contend that Adams does not disclose transmitting timing
specifications associated with the supplemental data files (App. Br. 26).
The Examiner finds that Adams discloses that a timing specification
(time stamp) transmitted with associated data packets (supplemental data
files) includes a time stamp, i.e., time synchronization with the video stream
when the graphical object is overlaid on the video stream at specific location
of the screen (Ans. 6; FF 8-9).
As noted supra, we sustained the rejection of claim 1 from which
claim 3 depends. In addition, as noted supra, we agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Kikinis teaches a supplemental data file having instructions for
rendering a hyperlink overlay on the video stream that was transmitted in the
transmitting step (FF 4-5). We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Adams discloses transmitting time stamp information within the packetized
data stream that includes a video stream transmitted along with supplemental
data file information (FF 8-9).
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 under 35
U.S.C. § 103, for the same reasons expressed with respect to the § 103
rejection of parent claim 1, supra.
Claim 5
Appellants contend that since Kikinis does not disclose supplemental
data files, it is virtually impossible for the references to disclose receiving
Appeal 2009-005954
Application 08/902,005

14
any such video stream and accompanying data files to display the hyperlink
overlays in conjunction with the video stream (App. Br. 27).
The Examiner finds that Kikinis discloses receiving the video stream
along with the accompanying supplemental data files to display the
hyperlink overlays in conjunction with the video stream (Ans. 6; FF 4-7).
As noted supra, we sustained the rejection of claim 1 from which
claim 5 depends. In addition, as noted supra, we agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Kikinis teaches a supplemental data file having instructions for
rendering a hyperlink overlay on the video stream that was transmitted in the
transmitting step (FF 4-5). Further, we agree with the Examiner that Kikinis
discloses receiving the video stream along with the supplemental data files
of the Dynamic URL for the purpose of displaying the hyperlink overlays
over the video display (FF 6).
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 under 35
U.S.C. § 103, for the same reasons expressed with respect to the § 103
rejection of parent claim 1, supra.
Claim 7
Appellants argue that Adams does not disclose displaying the video
stream only in the areas of the hyperlink overlays that are set to a key color
(App. Br. 28).
The Examiner finds that Adams discloses displaying the video steam
only in the areas of the hyperlink overlays that are set to a key color (App.
Br. 7; FF 10).
As noted supra, we sustained the rejection of claim 5 from which
claim 7 depends. In addition, as noted supra, we agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Adams discloses the use of key color (FF 10). Further, we agree
Appeal 2009-005954
Application 08/902,005

15
with the Examiner that Adams discloses displaying the video stream only in
the areas of the hyperlink overlays that are set to a key color since Adams
discloses setting the background to a color key of transparent (FF 10).
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 under 35
U.S.C. § 103, for the same reasons expressed with respect to the § 103
rejection of parent claims 1 and 5, supra.
Claims 16-23
Independent claim 16 recites a method including the steps of
formatting HTML files having instructions for rendering
hyperlink pages on a video stream, the hyperlink pages having
transparent areas that are set to a key color;
associating the HTML files with the video stream;
displaying the hyperlink pages on a display; [and]
displaying the video stream on the display in areas of
displayed hyperlink pages that are set to a key color.
Appellants argue that claims 1, 5, and 7 contain language that is
different from the specific language recited in claim 16 but contend that
claim 16 is allowable for the same reasons given for claims 1, 5, and 7 (App.
Br. 30).
As noted supra, we sustained the rejections of claims 1, 5, and 7. As
noted with respect to claim 1 supra, we agree with the Examiner’s finding
that Adams formats the supplemental data files, wherein transparent areas of
each hyperlink overlay is set to a key color (FF 8-10). We also agree with
the Examiner’s finding that Kikinis teaches a supplemental data file having
instructions for rendering a hyperlink overlay on the video stream that was
transmitted in the transmitting step as noted with respect to claim 5 supra.
Further, we agree with the Examiner that Kikinis discloses receiving the
Appeal 2009-005954
Application 08/902,005

16
video stream along with the supplemental data files of the Dynamic URL for
the purpose of displaying the hyperlink overlays over the video display (FF
6-7).
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
16 and that of dependent claims 17-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for the same
reasons expressed with respect to the § 103 rejection of claims 1, 5, and 7,
supra.
Claims 24-39
Independent claims 24 and 32 recite the steps of
associating one or more hyperlink pages with the video
stream, the hyperlink pages having transparent areas that are set
to a key color;
displaying the hyperlink pages on a display; [and]
displaying the video stream on the display in areas of
displayed hyperlink pages that are set to a key color.
Appellants merely contend that “for all of the reasons set forth above”
independent claims 24 and 32 should be allowable (App. Br. 31-32). As
noted with respect to claim 1 supra, we agree with the Examiner’s finding
that Adams formats the supplemental data files, wherein transparent areas of
each hyperlink overlay are set to a key color (FF 8-10). We also agree with
the Examiner’s finding that Kikinis teaches a supplemental data file having
instructions for rendering a hyperlink overlay on the video stream that was
transmitted in the transmitting step as noted with respect to claim 5 supra.
Further, we agree with the Examiner that Kikinis discloses receiving the
video stream along with the supplemental data files of the Dynamic URL for
the purpose of displaying the hyperlink overlays over the video display (FF
6-7).
Appeal 2009-005954
Application 08/902,005

17
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims
24 and 32 and that of respective dependent claims 25-31 and 33-39 under 35
U.S.C. § 103, for the same reasons expressed with respect to the § 103
rejection of claim 16, supra.
Claims 9, 40-43, and 45-50
Claim 9 recites “the displaying step comprises displaying the
hyperlink overlay and using color keying video hardware that displays video
only in display areas that are set to a key color.”
Independent claim 40 recites “wherein the receiver comprises color
keying hardware that displays video only in display areas that are set to a
key color.”
Independent claim 45 recites “the display hardware including color
keying hardware that displays video in display areas that are set to a key
color.”
Appellants contend that Adams does not disclose color keying video
hardware (App. Br. 28, 34-35). Appellants merely contend that “for the
same reasons set forth above” claims 40-43 and 45-50 should be allowable
(App. Br. 33, 35).
The Examiner finds that Adams discloses displaying the graphic/text
items overlay and using color keying hardware 56 that displays video only in
the display areas that are set to a key color (Ans. 9; FF 10-11).
As noted supra, we sustained the rejection of claim 5 from which
claim 9 depends. In addition, as noted supra, we agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Adams discloses the use of key color (FF 10).
Appeal 2009-005954
Application 08/902,005

18
Our rules require that the Appeal Brief contain:
For each independent claim involved in the appeal and for each
dependent claim argued separately under the provisions of
paragraph (c)(l)(vii) of this section, every means plus function
and step plus function as permitted by 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, must be identified and the structure, material, or acts
described in the specification as corresponding to each claimed
function must be set forth with reference to the specification by
page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference
characters.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(v). Thus, we consult Appellants’ Summary of the
Claimed Subject Matter in the Appeal Brief to assess whether the
Specification describes structure, material, or acts corresponding to the
functions recited in claims 9, 40, and 45.
Appellants cite to page 7, line 22, to page 8, line 2, of their
Specification, as describing the “color keying hardware” (App. Br. 5).
When we look to the Specification to find the corresponding structure, we
find a reference to personal computer (PC) 14 which includes “video color
keying hardware” (FF 2). When we review Figure 2, however, which
discloses the hardware components of PC 14, we see no reference to a
“video color keying hardware.”
We do find, however, that the Specification does make reference to
video subsystem 66, known and manufactured by numerous companies, that
couples to monitor 68 for the purpose of being configured to overwrite only
those areas of the bit-mapped display image that are set to a predetermined
color or chroma key value, thereby establishing that the bit-mapped image
includes “transparent” areas or regions set to the color key value (FF 3).
Accordingly, we find that Adams discloses that the computer system 10
extracts associated data for the incoming video signal and decodes the
Appeal 2009-005954
Application 08/902,005

19
extracted associated data which specifies the parameters for the information
display window 46 and the video window 40 (FF 11). We find that
processor 52 reads the incoming associated data packets from the associated
data queue 74 and performs the video command and control functions
specified in the incoming associated data packets (FF 11). Specifically, the
associated data packets from the associated data queue 74 include
commands that specify the placement of graphic objects on the display
device 12 and commands for the placement and sizing of the video window
40 on the display surface 50 (FF 11). Since the object oriented command set
may include parameters that set the background to transparent, it is apparent
from the disclosure of Adams that “video color keying hardware” includes
computer system 10, processor 52, associated data queue 74, and display
device 12. We, therefore, agree with the Examiner’s finding that Adams
discloses “video color keying hardware” that displays video only in display
areas that are set to a key color, wherein the hyperlink overlays have
transparent areas that are set to a key color.
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 40, and 45
and that of dependent claims 41-43 and 46-50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for the
reason expressed above and for the same reasons expressed with respect to
the § 103 rejection of parent claims 1 and 5, supra.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Kikinis discloses a supplemental data file having instructions for
rendering a hyperlink overlay on the video stream that was transmitted in the
transmitting step.
Appeal 2009-005954
Application 08/902,005

20
Adams discloses instructions for rendering/overlaid objects/images by
setting specific screen background color of the object to be transparent on
the video stream display in a synchronization manner (using a key color or a
color keying video hardware).
It would have been obvious to modify Kikinis in view of Adams to
achieve the advantage of creating a video stream display screen from a
programming studio and to flexibly control the area around the video stream
display including the definition and placement of objects, text, and images
over the video stream display, as Adams suggests.

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-43 and 45-50 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

babc

LEE & HAYES, PLLC
601 W. Riverside Avenue
Suite 1400
Spokane, WA 99201