Appeal No. 2006-0323
Application No. 10/088,727
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 mirror
surface, as taught by Jost, is not suitable for generating a real image. Appellants
assert that nothing in the Kleinschmidt reference suggests the projection of a real
image as claimed. Finally, appellants argue that the examiner’s rejection is based
on conclusory hindsight, reconstruction and speculation [brief, pages 9-13].
The examiner responds by providing definitions of the terms “real image”
and “virtual image” taken from Wikipedia. The examiner notes that these
definitions contradict appellants’ assertion that a mirror cannot be used to
generate a real image. The examiner reiterates that since Kleinschmidt teaches
the desirability of real images in vehicles, it would have been obvious to the
artisan to combine Jost with Kleinschmidt to achieve the claimed invention
[answer, pages 11-14].
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007