Appeal No. 2002-1527 Page 12
Application No. 08/885,817
17. Aziz explains that this "action will be taken by the group owner." Id. at ll. 17-18.
Accordingly, "[n]odes wishing to transmit/receive encrypted datagrams to multicast
address M," id. at ll. 23-24, must "send[] an encrypted/authenticated request-to-join
primitive to the group owner." Id. at ll. 25-26. We find that the group owner decrypts,
i.e., decodes, the encrypted request-to-join primitive to determine "[i]f the requesting
node's address is part of the group's authorized membership list. . . ." Id. at ll. 26-28.
If the address is part of the list, the group owner routes "the GIK Kg, algorithm identifier,
associated lifetime information and key-change policy in an encrypted packet. . . ." Id.
at ll. 28-32. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 4.
D. CLAIM 5
The examiner finds, "Aziz discusses establishing and joining closed (private)
multicast groups (subspaces)." (Supp. Examiner's Answer at 7.) The appellants argue,
"[i]n the claim, there are separate address spaces for private and public multicasts, Aziz
does not teach a separate address space for private multicasts." (Supp. Appeal Br.
at 7.)
1. Claim Construction
"[L]imitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification." In re Van
Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007