Appeal No. 2002-1527 Page 18
Application No. 08/885,817
has no teaching or suggestion of a domain name server that has 'records [that] include
an indication of an owner of a multicast'. . . ." (Supp. Appeal Br. at 7.)
1. Claim Construction
Claim 12 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "records include an
indication of an owner of a multicast." Giving the claim its broadest, reasonable
construction, the limitations require storing an indication of an owner of a multicast and
storing an indication distinguishing whether a multicast is public or private.
2. Obviousness Determination
As mentioned regarding claim 4, Aziz discloses that "[w]hen secure multicasting
to a multicast address M is required, a group membership creation primitive will
establish the group key Kg and the membership list of addresses that are allowed to
transmit and receive encrypted multicast datagrams to and from group address M."
Col. 14, ll. 11-17. This "action will be taken by the group owner." Id. at ll. 17-18. Once
the group key and membership list are established, "[n]odes wishing to transmit/receive
encrypted datagrams to multicast address M," id. at ll. 23-24, "send[] an encrypted/
authenticated request-to-join primitive to the group owner." Id. at ll. 25-26. Because
storing an indication of the respective owners of multicasts would have enabled a node
wishing to participate in a specific multicast to identify which owner to whom to send a
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007