Appeal No. 97-2476 Page 7
Application No. 07/696,079
that Artz fails to teach or suggest the checking or comparing
of instructions as specified in claims 7 and 8, respectively.
Regarding the Perry and Scardina references, we find that
the references fail to teach or suggest the claimed passing on
or retransmitting of only logically accurate instructions.
Claim 7 specifies in pertinent part that the invention
“retransmits the instructions to said aircraft if logically
accurate, but, if not logically accurate, sends an error
signal back to the human air traffic controller instead ....”
(Appeal Br., § 10.) Claim 8 similarly recites in pertinent
part “if no contradiction, passing said instructions on to the
aircraft, or ... if contradictory, not passing said
instructions on and alerting an operator.” (Id.) In short,
the claimed invention prescreens instructions from an air
traffic controller for contradictory conditions before the
instructions are sent to an aircraft. Contradictory
instructions are never sent to the aircraft. Only those
instructions consistent with ground and air conditions are
sent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007