Appeal No. 2006-0323
Application 10/088,727
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 opportunity to
respond to the points raised in the examiner’s answer.
This application, by virtue of its “special” status,
requires immediate action, see MPEP § 708.01 (Eighth Edition,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007