Appeal No. 97-1265
Application 07/981,274
since addresses are not dynamically assigned by Perlman, this
feature of independent claims 11, 19 and 26 is not taught or
suggested by the collective teachings of Perlman and Cree.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of these
independent claims or any of the claims which depend
therefrom.
Remaining independent claims 5 and 25 are directed to
a method for assigning a multicast address by a server
computer and include the step of generating a list of
unassigned multicast addresses that are not being used by any
computer on the network. For reasons provided by appellant
and discussed above, the teachings of Cree do not suggest this
feature of independent claims 5 and 25. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of independent claims 5 and 25 or of
claims 7-10 which depend from claim 5.
In summary, the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5 and
7-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed for the reasons
indicated by appellant in the brief and the reply brief. The
examiner has failed to respond to each of appellant’s
arguments, and we remain
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007