Appeal No. 2002-1527 Page 19
Application No. 08/885,817
request-to-join, we are persuaded that teachings from the prior art would have
suggested storing an indication of an owner of a multicast. Therefore, we affirm the
rejection of claim 12.
H. CLAIM 13
Recognizing Aziz "does not explicitly disclose that an indication of whether the
multicast is public or private is included in the records," (Supp. Examiner's Answer at 8),
the examiner takes official notice that "[i]t is old and well known within the computer arts
to store such information in distributed databases using standard crosslinking methods
to identify linked files." (Id.) He asserts, "it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to store the records in a distributed
database and to include an indication in each record denoting the multicast group(s)
that the record was a part of [sic]." (Id.) The examiner explains, "[o]ne would have
been motivated to include such an indication in order to provide more efficient use of
the memory storage space by precluding the need to have duplicate copies of the
record in every public and/or private multicast group to which it belongs." (Id. at 8-9.)
The appellants argue, "Aziz has no teaching or suggestion . . . of 'records that include
an indication distinguishing whether a multicast is public or private'. . . ." (Supp. Appeal
Br. at 7.)
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007