Appeal No. 97-2476 Page 6
Application No. 07/696,079
We find that neither the Artz, Perry, nor Scardina
references, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the
claimed invention. We address the failure of Artz
individually and the failure of Perry and Scardina
collectively.
Regarding Artz, we find that the reference fails to teach
or suggest the checking or comparing of instructions as
claimed. Claim 7 specifies in pertinent part “checking the
instructions against a data base of known conditions on the
ground and in the air for logical accuracy ... to detect
logical inaccuracy or inconsistency in the instructions
because of contradictory conditions.” (Appeal Br., § 10.)
Claim 8 similarly recites in pertinent part “compar[ing] such
instructions with known conditions on the ground and in the
air for possible contradiction therebetween ....” (Id.)
The examiner admits that the reference neither teaches
nor suggests “a feature of recognizing ‘wrong’ message[s].”
(Examiner’s Answer at 4.) The “feature” refers to the claimed
checking or comparing of instructions. Therefore, we find
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007