Appeal No. 2006-0323
Application No. 10/088,727
briefs. Although the examiner cites Kleinschmidt as teaching the
advantages of generating a real image and a virtual image,
Kleinschmidt fails to teach the generation of the real image in
the manner recited in the claimed invention. In other words,
there is no suggestion in Kleinschmidt to generate a real image
using a display surface outside a projection unit as claimed.
Our remand was based on the possibility that a real image might
be generated on the surface 1 or 11 of Jost based on its
definition cited by the examiner. Since the examiner insists,
however, that Jost only generates a virtual image, and since
appellants have responded to the remand by arguing that a real
image is not generated upon surfaces 1 or 11 of Jost, we are
forced to reverse the examiner’s rejections based on this record.
In summary, we have not sustained either of the examiner’s
rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of
the examiner rejecting claims 16-42 is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007