Appeal No. 2002-1527 Page 16
Application No. 08/885,817
F. CLAIMS 7-10, 19, 20, 28, and 29
The examiner asserts, "Aziz discloses . . . [a] processor which sends a private
multicast join request (col 14, lines 25-26) comprising a first information and an
encrypted first information (col 14, lines 50-55)." (Supp. Examiner's Answer at 6.) The
appellants argue, "[a]s set forth in column 14, lines 50-55, the actual IP multicast
address for which a join request is submitted is sent. It is either sent in the clear or
encrypted, but not both." (Supp. Appeal Br. at 8.)
1. Claim Construction
Claim 7 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "said processor
configured to send a private multicast join request comprising first information and
encrypted first information." Claims 19 and 28 recite similar limitations. Giving
claims 7, 19, and 28 their broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require that
a private multicast join request include a datum in both unencrypted form and encrypted
form.
2. Anticipation and Obviousness Determinations
"[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element negates anticipation."
Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84 (Fed.
Cir. 1986). Here, the passages of Aziz cited by the examiner describe "[t]he packet
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007