Appeal No. 2002-1527 Page 27
Application No. 08/885,817
Here, although Aziz creates a closed multicast group "[w]hen secure multicasting
to a multicast address M is required," col. 14, ll. 11-12, we are unpersuaded that such
creation necessitates or would have suggested partitioning a multicast address space
into a subspace for public multicasts and a subspace for private multicasts. Therefore,
we reverse the rejections of claim 18, of claim 26, and of claim 27, which depends from
the latter.
L. CLAIMS 23 AND 24
The examiner makes the following findings.
Aziz discloses a method and apparatus for transmitting and receiving
multicasts, comprising a router (node) with: a.[i]Input and output ports
(col 6, lines 28-34); and b. [a] processor for controlling the routing by:
(1) obtaining a public key (col 11, lines 1-5); (2) decoding an encrypted
portion of the multicast join request received from a user (col 11, lines 7-
9); and (3) verifying that the user is authorized to join the multicast (col 14,
lines 19-32).
(Supp. Examiner's Answer at 5.) The appellants argue, "Aziz does not teach or suggest
using a public key or decryption at a router as required by claims 23 and 24." (Supp.
Appeal Br. at 8.)
1. Claim Construction
“Generally, . . . the preamble does not limit the claims.” DeGeorge v. Bernier,
768 F.2d 1318, 1322 n.3, 226 USPQ 758, 761 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In particular,
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007