a projection unit arranged at least one of on a vehicle
roof and on an inside mirror of the vehicle; and
a display surface, which is outside the projection
unit, onto which a real image is generated by the projection
unit.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Jost et al. (Jost) 4,919,517 Apr. 24, 1990
Hwang et al. (Hwang) 6,317,170 Nov. 13, 2001
Kleinschmidt 6,750,832 June 15, 2004
(filed June 21, 1999)
Claims 16-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of
obviousness the examiner offers Jost in view of Kleinschmidt with respect to
claims 16-26 and 31-42, and Hwang is added to this combination with respect to
claims 27-30.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the examiner, we make
reference to the briefs and the answers for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into 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 answers.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the examiner’s
rejections of the claims on appeal are not supported by the evidence on this
record. Accordingly, we reverse.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007