Appeal No. 2002-1527 Page 9
Application No. 08/885,817
server storing encryption keys," (id. at 7), and "Aziz does not teach or suggest a
'domain name server' with records that store a public key. . . ." (Id. at 8.)
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the claims in question to determine their scope. Second, we
determine whether the construed claims would have been obvious.
1. Claim Construction
Claim 2 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "said public key is
obtained from a domain name server." Similarly, claim 11 recites in pertinent part the
following limitations: "[a] domain name server comprising . . . a memory storing . . . a
corresponding public key. . . ." Claim 15 recites in pertinent part limitations similar to
those of claim 11. Giving claims 2, 11, and 15 their broadest, reasonable construction,
the limitations require storing a public key on a domain name server and obtaining a
public key therefrom.
Claim 25 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "installing the public
key for the multicast on a domain name sever [sic] or on a certification authority."
Claim 34 recites similar limitations. Giving claims 25 and 34 their broadest, reasonable
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007