Appeal No. 2002-1527 Page 22
Application No. 08/885,817
at 18.) He adds, "[s]ince some multicast groups are private (closed) and some are
public (open) in Aziz, once the identity of the multicast group was determined, it follows
that the type of group would also be known." (Id. at 17.) The appellants argue, "[a]ny
routers implicit in Aziz do not distinguish between public and private multicasts. . . ."
(Supp. Appeal Br. at 7.)
1. Claim Construction
Claim 14 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "at least one routing
element, connecting at least two sub-networks, configured to distinguish between public
and private multicasts." Giving the representative claim its broadest, reasonable
construction, the limitations require that at least one routing element distinguish
between public and private multicasts.
Claim 22 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "determining whether
the request relates to a public or private multicast." Claim 32 recites similar limitations.
Giving claims 22 and 32 their broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require
determining whether a join request relates to a public or private multicast.
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007