Appeal No. 2002-1527 Page 26
Application No. 08/885,817
Answer at 18.) The appellants argue, "Aziz does not partition a multicast address
space at all." (Supp. Appeal Br. at 8.)
1. Claim Construction
Claim 18 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "providing a multicast
address space having a subspace for public multicasts and a subspace for private
multicasts." Claim 26 recites similar limitations. Giving claims 18 and 26 their broadest,
reasonable construction, the limitations require partitioning a multicast address space
into a subspace for public multicasts and a subspace for private multicasts.
2. Anticipation and Obviousness Determinations
"To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence 'must make clear that the missing
descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and
that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.'" In re Robertson, 169 F.3d
743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Continental Can Co. v.
Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991))
"Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact
that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient." In re
Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981) (citing Hansgirg v.
Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214, 40 USPQ 665, 667 (1939)).
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007