Appeal No. 97-2476 Page 5
Application No. 07/696,079
admits that Artz neither teaches nor suggests “a feature of
recognizing ‘wrong’ message[s].” (Examiner’s Answer at 4.)
The examiner notes that Perry mentions problems inherent
in voice communications between an air traffic controller and
an aircraft. He opines that the reference discloses a ground-
based computer to “digitize the controller’s communication and
verify the communication message to eliminate error.” (Id.)
The examiner further observes that Scardina teaches an
“AI system,” (id.), which the examiner opines is for “training
aircraft controller[s] to evaluate logical accuracy or
consistency.” (Id.) He concludes as follows.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to employ such a AI system as taught by
Scardina et al to produce the claimed invention
since Artz reference recognizes there is a problem
sending a ‘wrong’ message and/or inconsistent
information being received/send. Thus, it would
have been obvious to one skilled artisan to
recognize the problem as recognized by Artz to
employ a device (e.g., AI system as disclosed by
Scardina et al) to check/verify and warn either air-
traffic controller or pilot of contradictory
conditions. (Examiner’s Answer at 4.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007