Randy Gaston et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 17, 2019

14837511 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/837,511 08/27/2015 Randy Gaston 014.9144 2931
15846 7590 07/17/2019
LKGLOBAL (GD-Gulfstream)
7010 East Cochise Road
Scottsdale, AZ 85253
EXAMINER
RILEY, MARCUS T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2677
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/17/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
generaldynamics@lkglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
___________________

Ex parte RANDY GASTON and JAMES WARD
____________________

Appeal 2018-007735
Application 14/837,511
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JAMESON LEE, JONI Y. CHANG, and
BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1 and 3–20.3 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part.

1 Our Decision references the Appellants’ Brief filed February 13, 2018
(“Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 22, 2018 (“Ans.”), and the
Final Action mailed September 5, 2017 (“Final Act.”). No reply brief was
filed.
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Gulfstream Aerospace
Corporation. Br. 1.
3 Claim 2 has been cancelled. Br. 18.
Appeal 2018-007735
Application 14/837,511

2
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to aircraft, instrumentation, and controllers for
voice transcription and identification of commonly communicated data in air
traffic control communication. Spec. ¶ 3.
The Written Description
The Specification indicates that, during flight operations, the flight
crew must understand and read back voice communications received from
Air Traffic Control (“ATC”). Id. To assist the flight crew, an electronic text
transcript of ATC verbal communications is provided to provide a
“persistent reference” of the information during flight. Id. ¶¶ 4, 15. Figure 1
is set forth below.

Figure 1 shows aircraft 100 and an aircraft instrumentation system
having controller 102, display device 104, and radio device 106. Id. ¶ 16.
Display device 104 is configured to present information to a flight crew of
aircraft 100. Id. Radio device 106 is configured to receive voice
communications from ATC, other aircraft, or both. Id.
Controller 102 is configured to generate an electronic transcript of
voice communication received by radio device 106. Id. ¶ 18. For example,
controller 102 may include a speech recognition engine that converts speech
Appeal 2018-007735
Application 14/837,511

3
received by radio device 106 to a text transcript in electronic format. Id.
The electronic transcript then is displayed on display device 104. Id. ¶ 19.
Controller 102 also is “configured to replace spoken word waypoints,
spelled out phonetic alphabet waypoints, and combinations thereof in the
voice communications with waypoint identifiers in the display[ed]”
transcript. Id. ¶ 20. As an example, controller 102 may “use[] standard
phraseology as listed in FAA Order 7110-65P as a basis” for the standard
waypoint identifiers displayed. Id. ¶ 21.
The Claims
Claims 1, 14, and 18 are independent claims that are directed to an
aircraft instrumentation system, an aircraft, and a controller for an aircraft,
respectively. The independent claims are illustrative of the claimed subject
matter at issue and reproduced below:
1. An aircraft instrumentation system, comprising:
a radio device;
a display device for displaying information to a flight
crew of an aircraft; and
a controller communicatively coupled with the radio
device and the display device, the controller configured to:
monitor the radio device;
recognize a voice communication received over
the radio device;
generate an electronic transcript of the voice
communication;
replace spoken word waypoints, spelled out
phonetic alphabet waypoints, and combinations thereof
in the electronic transcript with standardized waypoint
identifiers; and
Appeal 2018-007735
Application 14/837,511

4
control the display device to display a transcript of
the voice communication.
Br. 18 (Claims App’x) (emphasis added).
14. An aircraft, comprising:
a radio device;
a display device; and
a controller communicatively coupled with the radio
device and the display device, the controller configured to:
monitor the radio device;
recognize a voice communication received over
the radio device;
generate an electronic transcript of the voice
communication;
identify at least one of airways, waypoints,
navigation aids, and airports within the voice
communication; and
control the display device to display a transcript of
the voice communication.
Id. at 20 (emphasis added).
18. A controller for an aircraft, the controller
comprising:
a processor; and
an electronic memory unit communicatively coupled
with the processor, the electronic memory unit storing
instructions that when executed by the processor enable the
controller to:
monitor a voice communication from a radio
device;
generate an electronic transcript of the voice
communication;
Appeal 2018-007735
Application 14/837,511

5
identify a call sign based on one of an abbreviated
call sign, a variation on the call sign, an end portion of
the call sign, and combinations thereof and
generate a signal that causes a display device to
visually present the electronic transcript.
Br. 21 (emphasis added).
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The Examiner relied on the following prior art in the rejections on
appeal.
Inventor4 U.S. Publication No. Relevant Dates
Ferro US 2011/0298648 A1 published Dec. 8, 2011
Prus US 2014/0122070 Al issued May 1, 2014;
filed Oct. 30, 2012
Kar US 2015/0100311 A1 published Apr. 9, 2015;
filed Oct. 7, 2013
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 3, 5–9, 13–15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the combination of Kar and Ferro. Final Act. 5–11.5
Claims 4, 10–12, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Kar, Ferro, and Prus. Id. at 11–13.
Claims 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combination of Kar and Prus. Id. at 13–16.

4 For clarity and ease of reference, we only list the first named inventor.
5 All rejections were made under the first inventor to file provisions of The
Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011)
(“AIA”). Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2018-007735
Application 14/837,511

6
ANALYSIS
Obviousness of Claims 1, 3, 5–9, 13–15, and 17
over Kar and Ferro
Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 3, 5–9, and 13
Regarding the aircraft instrumentation system recited in independent
claim 1, the Examiner determines that Kar teaches many of the recited
limitations. Final Act. 5–7; Ans. 3–6. Kar describes “recognizing speech on
board an aircraft that compensates for different regional dialects” in various
geographical regions over which the aircraft flies. Kar, Abstract.
Specifically, the Examiner relies on Kar’s com radio 200 for the
recited radio device, Kar’s display device 208 for the recited display device,
and Kar’s processor 202 for the recited controller communicatively coupled
with the radio device and the display device. Final Act. 5; Ans. 3–4; see Kar
¶¶ 26–31, Fig. 2. Kar describes com radio 200 as receiving an ATC voice
feed and processor 202 as performing “an adaptive voice recognition process
on the received voice.” Kar ¶ 26; Final Act. 5 (citing Kar ¶ 26); Ans. 4. The
received ATC voice is displayed as text on cockpit display 208. Kar ¶ 26
(describing displaying the ATC voice as text on cockpit display), ¶ 32
(displaying speech), Fig. 3 (Step 332); Final Act. 6 (citing Kar ¶ 32, Fig. 3);
Ans. 4.
To increase the accuracy of translating spoken words to text, Kar uses
acoustic models and associated phonetic dictionaries. Kar ¶¶ 20–21.
Acoustic models are “created by making audio recordings of speech and its
textual transitions using software to create statistical representations of the
sounds that make up each word.” Id. ¶ 20. “A phonetic dictionary that
permits words to be located by the ‘way they sound’; i.e. a dictionary that
Appeal 2018-007735
Application 14/837,511

7
matches common or phonetic misspellings with the correct spelling of each
word.” Id. “Such a dictionary uses pronunciation respelling to aid in the
search for or recognition of a word.” Id.
The Examiner acknowledges that, although Kar describes replacing
misspellings with the correct spelling of words, Kar does not disclose
“replac[ing] spoken word waypoints, spelled out phonetic alphabet
waypoints, and combinations thereof in the electronic transcript with
standardized waypoint identifiers,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 6;
Ans. 5. For this feature, the Examiner additionally relies on Ferro. Final
Act. 6 (citing Ferro ¶¶ 8, 13–22); Ans. 5. The Examiner reasons that
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art to modify the speech system as taught by Kar . . . by adding
replacing spoken word waypoints, spelled out phonetic alphabet
waypoints, and combinations thereof in the electronic transcript
with standardized waypoint identifiers as taught by Ferro . . . .
Final Act. 7; see Ans. 5. The Examiner further reasons that “[t]he
motivation for doing so would have been advantageous because it would
help the pilot manage a situation resulting from a lack of air control. This
would facilitate the estimate of the risk of conflict between aircraft in a
flying area, and to enable aircraft separation.” Final Act. 7; see Ans. 5.
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred because Ferro does not
teach “replacing spoken word waypoints, spelled out phonetic alphabet
waypoints, and combinations thereof in the electronic transcript with
standardized waypoint identifiers,” as required by claim 1. Br. 6.
We agree with the Appellants. Ferro describes techniques “for
providing pilot assistance to an aircraft in the lack of air control airspace.”
Ferro, Abstract. Ferro explains that some parts of the world lack air traffic
Appeal 2018-007735
Application 14/837,511

8
control and rely on procedures by aircraft pilots to minimize risk of
collision. Ferro ¶¶ 3–4. In general, as an aircraft moves along “an airway”
and “passes through reference waypoints,” the pilot makes a voice broadcast
on a specified radio frequency for a particular geographic region at
predefined time intervals and “at aircraft waypoints or altitude changes.” Id.
¶¶ 8, 60. A pilot in another aircraft interprets information broadcast by other
pilots on the same radio frequency to understand the approximate positions
of nearby aircraft to minimize risk of collision. Id. ¶¶ 9–11.
Ferro describes techniques to assist pilots in such a context. In
general, the pilot inputs data from the received broadcast messages into a
computer onboard the aircraft. Id. ¶ 74. The onboard computer also
receives position information—latitude, longitude, flight level—of the
aircraft from navigation computers. Id. ¶ 76. The onboard computer
interpolates the position information of each nearby aircraft previously input
by the pilot. Id. ¶ 77. The onboard computer then presents “calculated
positions of the different aircraft in the neighborhood and their predicted
trajectories on a screen in the cockpit.” Id. ¶ 77.
Ferro describes in detail two items of equipment—equipment
providing assistance for inputting the path of an aircraft in the neighborhood
(¶¶ 103–117) and equipment providing assistance for updating data for an
aircraft in the neighborhood (¶¶ 118–122). Id. ¶¶ 103–122.
The equipment providing assistance for inputting the path of an
aircraft in the neighborhood first provides “a displayed list of available
airways.” Id. ¶ 104. “Once the route of the aircraft in the neighborhood to
be recorded is known, the pilot must select the waypoint along the route in
which he is interested.” Id. ¶ 108. “The device . . . proposes a list of
Appeal 2018-007735
Application 14/837,511

9
waypoints on the said route.” Id.; see Ferro ¶¶ 108–113 (describing logic
used by equipment to select the waypoint to be displayed). Ferro explains
advantages of a displayed list on input equipment. Ferro ¶¶ 114–116. First,
the “pilot is not obliged to type the characters of the waypoint name.” Id.
¶ 115. Second, the “pilot may have forgotten the name of the waypoint that
he heard on the dedicated frequency [from pilots of nearby aircraft], or he
may not have heard it correctly, or he may have a doubt about how to spell
it.” Id. ¶ 116.
Appellants acknowledge that Ferro teaches that the pilot does not need
to type the characters of the waypoint name when selecting a waypoint
displayed by the onboard computer. Br. 6 (citing Ferro ¶ 115). We agree
with the Examiner’s finding that Ferro teaches standardized waypoint
identifiers because Ferro’s description of the onboard computer displaying
waypoint identifiers from which a pilot may selecting at least suggests using
standardized waypoint identifiers. See Final Act. 7 (concluding Ferro
teaches “replacing spoken word waypoints, spelled out phonetic alphabet
waypoints, and combinations thereof in the electronic transcript with
standardized waypoint identifiers”); Ans. 5. We agree with Appellants,
however, that Ferro’s description of selecting nearby waypoints without
typing does not “replac[e] elements in an electronic transcript with different
elements,” as required by claim 1. Br. 6.
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner maintains that
Ferro discloses “replac[ing] spoken word waypoints, spelled out phonetic
alphabet waypoints, and combinations thereof in the electronic transcript
with standardized waypoint identifiers,” as required by claim 1, because
Appeal 2018-007735
Application 14/837,511

10
each pilot makes a voice broadcast of information at predefined
time intervals and at aircraft waypoints or altitude changes. The
pilot must select the waypoint along the route in which he is
interested. The device proposes a list of waypoints on the said
route. The device displays two lists: the list of waypoints.
Ans. 15. The Examiner explains how Ferro’s system would operate as the
aircraft continues its flight. Id. The pilot can correct or confirm the
displayed extrapolated data about other nearby aircraft. Id. “The symbol
displayed on the navigation screen representing the aircraft in the
neighborhood will be displayed differently depending on whether the
position of this aircraft is derived from extrapolated information or if it is
confirmed by a message from the pilot of this aircraft.” Id. at 15–16.
Even so, Ferro does not describe an electronic transcript, much less
replacing spoken word waypoints (or spelled out phonetic alphabetic
waypoints) in an electronic transcript with standardized waypoint identifiers,
as required by claim 1. See generally Ferro ¶¶ 103–122.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 and its dependent claims (claims 3, 5–9, and 13) as obvious over Kar
and Ferro.
Independent Claim 14 and Dependent Claims 15 and 17
The Examiner finds the combination of Kar and Ferro teaches the
limitations recited in independent claim 14, relying on Ferro only for
teaching an aircraft. Final Act. 10; Ans. 9. Of particular relevance,
independent claim 14 recites “identify[ing] at least one of airways,
waypoints, navigation aids, and airports within the voice communication.”
The Examiner finds Kar’s description of initializing the adaptive voice
recognition system based on the present position and present geographic
Appeal 2018-007735
Application 14/837,511

11
region of the aircraft teaches the identifying limitation recited in independent
claim 14. Final Act. 10 (citing Kar ¶ 31, Fig. 3 (steps 302, 304, 306, 308,
310, 312, 314)); Ans. 8–9, 19.
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred because the cited portions
of Kar relate to loading the acoustical model for the relevant geographical
airspace of the aircraft and not to identifying particular types of elements in
the radio communication. Br. 12 (discussing Kar ¶ 31, Fig. 3). Appellants
further contend that the “acoustical model is only related to matching sounds
with the words the sounds are intended to represent” and do not “identify”
the recited elements as required by the claim. Br. 12.
In response, the Examiner indicates that “identify” is not defined in
the Specification and so is interpreted to have “its ordinary dictionary
definition meaning, which is ‘to establish or indicate who or what (someone
or something) is.’” Ans. 18. The Examiner explains that “[b]ecause the
system includes receiving present position data and present [geographic
region] data at steps 306 & 308, it is not unreasonable to conclude that
Kar . . . discloses identifying at least one of airways, waypoints, navigation
aids, and airports within the voice communication.” Id. at 19.
We disagree with the Examiner that Kar’s description of initializing
the adaptive voice recognition system with present position and geographic
region of the aircraft is sufficient to teach or suggest “identifying at least one
of airways, waypoints, navigation aids, and airports within the voice
communication” received over the radio device, as required by claim 14.
The voice communication recited in independent claim 14 is received over
the radio device. The Examiner does not explain sufficiently how
initializing the adaptive voice recognition system identifies any element
Appeal 2018-007735
Application 14/837,511

12
within a voice communication received over the radio device. The
initialization process receives present position data (step 306) and
geographic data (step 308), not voice communication. See Kar ¶ 31, Fig. 3
(steps 306, 308). Moreover, the initialization of the system does not, on its
face, teach or suggest identifying one of the particular elements recited in
claim 14— airways, waypoints, navigation aids, and airports—and not
within a voice communication received over the radio.
In the response to Appellants’ arguments (Ans. 19), the Examiner
appears to be suggesting that at some point in some communication received
over the radio an airway, waypoint, navigation aid, or airport might be
mentioned and, if so, then Kar’s system in transcribing the radio
communication of airway, waypoint, navigation aid, or airport to text would
identify the element. Id. (“Because the system includes receiving present
position data and present [geographic region] data at steps 306 & 308, it is
not unreasonable to conclude Kar . . . discloses identifying at least one of
airways, waypoints, navigation aids, and airports within the voice
communication.”). Such a conclusion without further explanation or
connection to Kar’s initialization description on which the Examiner relies
amounts to speculation and does not provide rational underpinning to
support a legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be
sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness” (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006)).
Appeal 2018-007735
Application 14/837,511

13
We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 14
and its dependent claims (claims 15 and 17) as obvious over Kar and Ferro.
Obviousness of Claims 4, 10–12, and 16
over Kar, Ferro, and Prus
Claims 4 and 10–12 depend from independent claim 1, and claim 16
depends from independent claim 14. The Examiner relies on Prus for
additional limitations reciting call signs and an originator of the voice
communication. Final Act. 11–13; Ans. 10–11.
For the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 4, 10–12, and 16, which are rejected on the same or substantially
similar bases as independent claims 1 and 14. See Final Act. 11 (rejecting
claims 4, 10–12, and 16 as obvious over Kar and Ferro (as applied
previously) and Prus); Ans. 10.
Obviousness of Claims 18–20 over Kar and Prus
Claims 18 and 20
For independent claim 18, the Examiner finds that a combination of
Kar and Prus teaches the recited limitations. Final Act. 13–15; Ans. 12–13.
Appellants dispute that Prus discloses “identify a call sign based on one of
an abbreviated call sign, a variation on the call sign, an end portion of the
call sign, and combinations thereof,” as recited by claim 18. Br. 14; see
Final Act. 14 (citing Prus ¶¶ 26, 38, 39 for the identifying limitation); Ans.
13.
Prus generally describes techniques “for converting audible air traffic
control instructions for pilots . . . to textual format.” Prus, Abstract.
Specifically, Prus describes “language converting functionality 132 which
Appeal 2018-007735
Application 14/837,511

14
stores and can recognize traffic control nomenclature and can convert or
translate traffic control nomenclature to other forms.” Id. ¶ 26; see Prus,
Abstract (indicating “language converting functionality . . . can recognize
traffic control nomenclature and display messages accordingly”).
“Examples of traffic control nomenclature include for example an
alphanumeric aircraft call sign, and conventional expansions of letters and
numbers.” Id. ¶ 26. Prus explains that to eliminate confusion about what
letter is meant, “a speaker may elect to speak a widely used, immediately
recognizable word having the selected letter as the initial letter of the
recognizable word.” Id. ¶ 26. For example, Prus describes recognizing
“N 927” from an ATC transmission that voices “November 927.” Id. ¶ 29;
Br. 15 (describing Prus ¶ 29). Prus also indicates that “[t]he reverse of
expansion is also possible” in which an alphabetic expansion of a letter to a
word is reversed to “its initial letter when spoken.” Id. ¶ 27.
Prus also describes that “[d]isplayed text may be limited to
information intended for a specific aircraft” by “restricting displayed
incoming ATC system information to that directed to a designated call sign.”
Id. at Abstract, ¶ 37. To do so, for example, “[t]he selected call sign may be
held in memory within the processor 20.” Id. ¶ 38. Prus indicates that “the
language conversion functionality 132 may be used to enable the system 100
to recognize a call sign spoken by an ATC source” to limit inputs to the
display screen. Id. ¶ 40.
Appellants dispute the Examiner’s finding that “Prus ’070 discloses
identifying a call sign based on one of an abbreviated call sign, a variation
on the call sign, an end portion of the call sign, and combinations thereof”
(Final Act. 14 (citing Prus ¶¶ 26, 38, 39)). Br. 15–16. Appellants recognize
Appeal 2018-007735
Application 14/837,511

15
that Prus describes techniques for converting and expanding letters and
numbers in call signs and that a call sign is recognized from a voiced
expansion of the call sign. Br. 15 (“Prus teaches a system 100 that ‘can
recognize traffic control nomenclature, and can convert or translate traffic
control nomenclature to other forms.’ Prus at [0026]. The traffic control
nomenclature of Prus is an ‘alphanumeric aircraft call sign’ or ‘conventional
expansions of letters and numbers.’ Prus at [0026]. Prus explains such
conversion or translation as being able to recognize ‘N 927’ from an ATC
transmission that voices ‘November 927.’ Prus at [0029].”).
Despite such recognition, Appellants argue that Prus system does not
“identif[y] a call sign based on . . . a variation on the call sign” because “it is
the call sign itself that is the subject of the . . . variation, . . . rather than the
letters and numbers.” Br. 15. We are not persuaded by Appellants’
contention that “November 927” is not a “variation” on the call sign
“N 927.” Id. at 15–16; see id. 16 (“For example, changing ‘November’ to
‘N’ is not a variation of the call sign itself, but is instead a way to convey
‘N’ with less chance of mistaking the verbal communication to mean ‘M.’”).
Although we agree with Appellants that the purpose of using the variation
“November 927” for “N 927” is to improve accuracy (see Prus ¶ 26), on its
face “November 927” is a variation on the call sign “N 927.”
We see no error in the Examiner’s finding that Prus’ description of
recognizing a variation on a call sign and restricting display of ATC
messages based on a particular call sign discloses or suggests the recited
“identify[ing] a call sign based on . . . a variation [of] the call sign,” as
required by the identifying limitation. See Final Act. 14 (citing Prus ¶¶ 26,
38, 39 for the identifying limitation). Notably, the “identifying” limitation
Appeal 2018-007735
Application 14/837,511

16
expressly requires only “one of an abbreviated call sign, a variation on the
call sign, an end portion of the call sign, and combinations thereof.”
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of error and sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 18 and its dependent claim 20,
not argued separately with particularity. See Br. 14 (“Claim 20 is not argued
separately.”).
Claim 19
Claim 19 depends from independent claim 18 and further recites
“wherein the controller is further configured to identify at least one of an
airway, a waypoint, a navigation aid, and an airport within the voice
communication based on at least one of a flight plan and a current location
of the aircraft in which the controller is located.” Br. 21.
The Examiner finds that Kar teaches the limitation for the same
reasons discussed above with respect to independent claim 14. Final Act. 15
(relying on Kar ¶ 31, Fig. 3 (steps 306, 308)); Ans. 14. Appellants argue
claim 19 with independent claim 14. Br. 11–14.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 14,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 19.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3–17, and
19.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 18 and 20.
Appeal 2018-007735
Application 14/837,511

17
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART