Appeal No. 2006-2763
Application 09/785,385
In determining the subject matter encompassed by claim 1, we agree with the
Examiner that the claim merely requires “to distribute the messages based upon the
content” without specifying codes or any multicast receive address list. We also
remain unconvinced by Appellant’s argument (Br. 3-4 and oral hearing) that
sending messages based on the media type may be distinguished over the prior art
which sends the messages based on the content since the content relates to and is
determined according to the type of media selected. In that regard, we find that the
multicast capable IP routers in DeSimone distribute the messages to the clients
based on the media type (DeSimone, col. 5, ll. 24-41), which actually determines
the content.
We also note that all claim 1 requires is that the network routers distribute
the messages based upon the content, not that routers use specific code or logic, as
Appellant would have urged us to believe (Br. 3). Claims will be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitation
appearing in the specification are not to be read into the claims. In re Etter, 756
F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Therefore, considering the
broadest claim interpretation, the type of logic or code used by the routers is
irrelevant to the recited distribution of messages “based upon the content.” In
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013