Appeal No. 2006-0323
Application No. 10/088,727
opportunity to respond to the points raised in the
examiner’s answer [Remand, page 5].
The examiner, unfortunately, has essentially responded to this remand by
observing that the consideration of these questions is not relevant to the issues
on appeal. The examiner now admits that Jost teaches only a virtual image being
made at a surface, but the examiner argues that Kleinschmidt provides motivation
for either using a surface of Jost that is capable of producing a real image as is to
display a real image or to modify Jost to have a surface that is capable of
producing a real image as taught by Kleinschmidt [supplemental answer, pages 6-
7]. Therefore, in response to the remand, the examiner has essentially reiterated
the arguments that were already of record in this case.
Appellants responded to the remand and the examiner’s position by noting
that since Jost only teaches the generation of a virtual image, an observer at the
windshield 1 looking at the mirror 11 in Jost would also only see a virtual image.
Appellants assert, therefore, that a real image is not generated upon either surface
1 or 11 of Jost. With respect to Kleinschmidt, appellants argue that it only teaches
a rear projection and there is no teaching of how to front project a real image
using a projection unit situated at the roof of a vehicle. Appellants assert that the
combination of references only suggests front projection for a virtual image and
not a real image [replacement reply brief].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejections of the claims on
appeal for essentially the reasons argued by appellants in the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007