Appeal No. 2006-0323
Application 10/088,727
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].
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].
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007