Appeal No. 2001-2291 Page 7
Application No. 08/743,049
integrity monitor for the repeater and not for the physical
devices as claimed. The examiner notes, however, that the “state
machine” in Liu meets the carrier integrity monitor of claim 14.
Specifically, the examiner finds that Liu teaches that a data
handler state machine for the repeater MII monitors carrier
activity to see whether the carrier is present on all the ports.
The examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the artisan
to modify the physical device to include a carrier integrity
monitor [answer, pages 4-5].
Appellants argue that the carrier integrity monitor of Liu
is located in the repeater core and not in the physical device as
claimed. Appellants argue that there is no evidence from the
prior art to support the obviousness of duplicating the same CIM
from the repeater core to the PHY [brief, page 8].
The examiner responds that the data handler state machine of
the MII in Liu constitutes a carrier integrity monitor because it
monitors carrier activity on the ports and that this data handler
state machine is located in the MII (PHY) [answer, pages 6-7].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 14.
Although Liu discloses a carrier integrity monitor for the
repeater core, Liu also discloses that the MIIs (PHY devices)
contain a state machine to ensure that all the carriers are
available on the physical ports before transmitting data out
[column 18, lines 23-26]. We understand the examiner’s rejection
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007