Appeal No. 97-1265
Application 07/981,274
of Cree, the collective teachings would still not meet all the
limitations recited in claim 1. The examiner has attempted to
find steps of selecting, assigning and transmitting as recited
in claim 1 within the applied references, but the examiner has
failed to consider all the recitations making up these steps.
The selecting step taught by Cree does not relate to a
multicast address and would not have suggested that Perlman’s
multicast address be selected in this manner. Since the
selection of the multicast address would not be suggested by
Perlman and Cree, the claimed steps of assigning the selected
multicast address and transmitting the assigned multicast
address would also not be suggested by the combined teachings
of Perlman and Cree.
For all the reasons just discussed, the invention of
independent claim 1 is not suggested by the collective
teachings of Perlman and Cree. Consequently, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 1 or of claims 2-4 which depend
therefrom.
Independent claims 11, 19 and 26 recite a system for
transmitting a data stream over a computer network in which
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007