Appeal No. 2006-0323
Application 10/088,727
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the record in this case has not been sufficiently developed
in order for us to render an opinion on the merits of the
rejection. Accordingly, we remand this application to the
examiner for a development of the issues discussed below.
We consider first the rejection of claims 16-26 and 31-42
based on Jost and Kleinschmidt. The examiner essentially finds
that Jost teaches a projection unit (5) and a display surface
(11) as claimed except that Jost does not teach what kind of
image is generated on the display surface. The examiner cites
Kleinschmidt as teaching the display of real images and virtual
images within a vehicle. The examiner finds that it would have
been obvious to the artisan to modify Jost to display a real
image on the display surface by a projection unit as taught by
Kleinschmidt [answer, pages 4-6].
Appellants argue that the references relied upon do not
disclose or suggest the projection of a real image.
Specifically, appellants argue that Jost produces a virtual image
on the windshield via a mirror. Appellants further argue that a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007