Appeal No. 2002-1527 Page 20
Application No. 08/885,817
1. Claim Construction
Claim 13 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "said records include
an indication distinguishing whether a multicast is public or private." Giving the claim its
broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require storing an indication to
distinguish 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.
Because permission must be obtained to join the secure multicast, we find that the
multicast is "private." Conversely, we find that a multicast that requires no such
permission to join is public.
Once established, the group key must be stored for reference. We find that
storing the key for private multicasts distinguishes such multicasts from those public
multicasts for which no key is needed. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 13.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007