Appeal No. 95-2980
Application 08/048,343
8 to 11, 14 and 16 to 18, with the addition of Ybarra as to
claims 6, 12 and 19.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse both rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The subject matter of each independent claim 1, 9 and 14
on appeal in part relates directly to the logic set forth in
the flow diagram of Fig. 2 beginning at element 17 and the
enablement of a suppression means associated with the Traffic
Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) disclosed. The
steps further include the interrogation only of the plane’s
own transponder (except for claim 1) and further logical
decisions once a reply is received after the interrogation is
sent to analyze whether this enable suppression means
functions properly or does not function at all.
The examiner considers Stelling to teach self testing of
TCAS systems generally to determine if they are performing
appropriately. The examiner recognizes, however, that
Stelling does not show testing of the suppression signal means
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007