Appeal No. 2001-2291 Page 6
Application No. 08/743,049
argue that the integration proposed by the examiner would destroy
the flexibility of the MAC/bridge combinations specifically
desired by Liu [brief, pages 4-7].
The examiner responds by repeating his position that it
would have been obvious to share the transmit channels for the
same reason that Liu shares the receive channels [answer, page
6]. The examiner does not address appellants’ argument as to why
the integration in Liu proposed by the examiner would defeat the
flexibility desired in Liu.
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
The examiner’s taking of “official notice” that the concept and
advantages of the integrated circuit were well known in the art
is not, by itself, sufficient to establish obviousness in all
cases. We agree with appellants that the integration proposed by
the examiner would destroy the flexibility of the MAC/bridge
combinations specifically desired by Liu. Since appellants’
argument provides a logical basis why the artisan would not have
been motivated to make the modification proposed by the examiner,
and since the examiner has not responded to this argument, we
find that it would not have been obvious to the artisan to
integrate both PHY devices of Liu on the same semiconductor
device as claimed.
With respect to claim 14, the examiner finds that Liu
teaches the claimed invention except that Liu teaches a carrier
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007