Appeal No. 2006-0323
Application No. 10/088,727
Appellants respond that this case should be remanded to the examiner so that
appellants are given a full and fair opportunity to respond to the new references
and definitions cited by the examiner. Appellants reiterate their position that Jost
fails to teach the generation of a real image onto a display surface on the
instrument panel of the vehicle via a projection unit arranged on the vehicle roof
as claimed. Appellants substantially repeat the arguments made in the main brief
[reply brief].
When this application was previously on appeal before us, we determined
that a remand of this application to the examiner was appropriate. In particular,
the remand stated the following:
We will remand this application to the examiner as requested
by appellants. The patentability of the claims on appeal
cannot be determined without a clear definition of what
is meant by the term “real image.” The definition of this
term in Wikipedia could possibly suggest that a real
image is present at mirror 11 or windshield 1 of Jost. An
additional question would then arise as to whether either
of these surfaces can be considered to be “a display
surface” within the meaning of the claims on appeal.
These questions need to be argued by appellants and the
examiner in order for us to have an appropriate record to
decide this appeal. The answer to these questions could
eliminate the need to rely on Kleinschmidt to teach the
generation of real images. Therefore, we remand this
application to the examiner for a consideration of
whether a real image within the meaning of the claims is
generated upon surfaces 1 or 11 of Jost and whether
surfaces 1 or 11 of Jost can meet the recitation of a
“display surface” in the claims.
The examiner should address these questions in the form of a
supplemental examiner’s answer which fully elaborates
on these questions. Appellants will be given the usual
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007