Appeal No. 2002-1527 Page 17
Application No. 08/885,817
formats for the GIK request/response. . . ." Col. 14, ll. 34-35. Therein, "[t]he first field
specifies the version of this protocol, which is 1. Following this field is the actual IP
multicast address for which the GIK is being requested." Id. at ll. 49-51. Although "[t]he
request packet . . . may optionally be encrypted," id. at l. 53, we are unpersuaded that
the request packet may include a datum in both unencrypted form and encrypted form.
To the contrary, we agree with the appellants that the packet "is either sent in the clear
or encrypted, but not both." (Supp. Appeal Br. at 8.) Therefore, we reverse the
rejection of claim 7; of claim 8, which depends therefrom; of claim 19; and of claim 28.
Furthermore, the examiner does not allege, let alone show, that the addition of
Herz or Henrion cures the aforementioned deficiency of Aziz. Therefore, we reverse
the rejections of claims 9 and 10, which depend from claim 7; of claim 20, which
depends from claim 19; and of claim 29, which depends from claim 28.
G. CLAIM 12
Observing that "Aziz further discloses sending and receiving information from a
(multicast) group owner (col 14, lines 4-17)," (Supp. Examiner's Answer at 8), the
examiner "infers that the group owner's address and the multicast address (col 14,
line 12) has been previously stored in the memory." (Id.) The appellants argue, "Aziz
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007