Ex Parte Bowers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 26, 2013

10439417 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RICHARD D. BOWERS, DONALD J. VIOLA, and
KEVIN D. HUTLER
____________

Appeal 2011-001904
Application 10/439,417
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and MIRIAM L. QUINN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

Appeal 2011-001904
Application 10/439,417

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates generally to multicasting into computer
networks that restrict multicast broadcasts. Spec. 1, ll. 5-6. Details of the
appealed subject matter are recited in representative claims 1 and 4,
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief:
1. A system for sending a multicast broadcast through
a localized computer network that restricts multicast broadcasts,
comprising:
a first internal multicast client configured as a dynamic multicast
slave and located within the localized computer network;

a multicast broadcast block connected to the localized
computer network that is operable to block multicast
broadcasts within the localized computer network;
wherein the dynamic multicast slave is configured to receive a
data stream broadcast through the multicast broadcast block
via a point-to-point connection;
a multicast socket connected to the dynamic multicast slave
located within the localized computer network, the multicast
socket being operable to transmit a multicast data stream
within the localized computer network based on the data
stream received by the multicast slave; and
a second internal multicast client located within the localized
computer network, configured to receive the multicast data
stream from the dynamic multicast slave.
4. The system as in claim 1, further comprising delay logic
located in the multicast slave and the delay logic is configured
to delay the transmission of the multicast data stream within
the localized computer network until a query is received by at
least one internal multicast client.
Appeal 2011-001904
Application 10/439,417

3

As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the
Examiner relies on the following references at pages 3 to 11 of the Answer:
Liu US 5,530,703 June 25, 1996
Malkin US 5,940,391 Aug. 17, 1999
Garrec US 2005/0044142 A1 Feb. 24, 2005
The Examiner provides the following ground of rejection, of which
Appellants seek review: claims 1-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garrec, Liu, and Malkin (Ans. 3-11).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contention. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to
Appellants’ arguments.
Appellants raise various arguments on appeal. The first four
arguments are directed to the findings and conclusions of the Examiner in
connection with the rejection of independent claim 1.1 The final argument is
directed to the findings of the Examiner concerning the limitations recited in
dependent claim 4 (and commensurately recited in dependent claims 16 and
23). We analyze each of these arguments in turn.

1 Appellants’ argument for independent claims 11, 20, 22, and 24 and
dependent claims 2, 3, 5-10, 12-15, 17-19, 21, and 25 merely reference the
arguments for independent claim 1. Therefore, except for our ultimate
decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011).
Appeal 2011-001904
Application 10/439,417

4

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 1 OVER GARREC, LIU,
AND MALKIN
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 based on
the following arguments:
a) Garrec teaches away from using point-to-point connections (App.
Br. 8);
b) Liu’s teachings are of little relevance to the claimed subject matter
because in Liu all data would be blocked (App. Br. 9-10);
c) Malkin’s teachings are of little relevance to the “dynamic multicast
slave” recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 10-11); and
d) A person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to
combine Garrec, Liu, and Malkin to achieve the claimed subject
matter (App. Br. 11-12).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
Whether Garrec Teaches Away
Claim 1 recites that “the dynamic multicast slave is configured to
receive a data stream broadcast through the multicast broadcast block via a
point-to-point connection.” Appellants contend that although Garrec
discloses the use of “point-to-point connections” between multicast routers
and multicast clients, Garrec teaches away from such use because it
discloses the use of a DVB broadcast network that avoids the use of point-
to-point connections. App. Br. 8. In response to Appellants’ argument, the
Examiner points out that Garrec teaches the point-to-point connection
between the multicast server and the multicast manager, but that downstream
of the multicast clients, the transmission is a data stream (Ans. 12), i.e., not a
Appeal 2011-001904
Application 10/439,417

5

point-to-point communication. Indeed, the Garrec system teaches using two
types of communications: (1) the point-to-point connection via the Internet
and up to the multicast router and multicast manager (Garrec, figs. 1-2, 4, ¶
42 (multicast data communicated from multicast server 7 to the IP/DVB
gateway 6)); and (2) the DVB broadcast communication via the DVB
network, shown in Figure 3, to broadcast multicast data to the multicast
clients (Garrec, fig.3, ¶ 42 (multicast clients 9 in the area of the transmitter
network 10 are served by that gateway 6 to receive the multicast session at
the corresponding multicast address), claim 1). Based on this disclosure, we
do not agree that a person or ordinary skill in the art would be led away from
using a point-to-point connection up to the multicast router/gateway merely
because Garrec teaches the contemporaneous use of a DVB broadcast from
the router/gateway to the clients. The Examiner has not erred, therefore, in
concluding that Garrec teaches, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, the
claimed “point-to-point connection,” ergo, that Garrec does not teach away
from the claimed subject matter.
Liu’s Teachings
Appellants next contend that the passage in Liu that the Examiner
relies on has little relevance to the recited “multicast broadcast block.” App.
Br. 9. We do not agree with Appellants’ contention. The Examiner relies on
Liu’s teaching of a filter as described in column 2, lines 29-40 and as
depicted in Figure 2. Ans. 4. Liu’s filter is logic that automatically allows
certain multicast packets to pass through to the remote node, while blocking
other multicast packets. Liu, Fig. 2, col. 2, ll. 33-35, 41-44. Liu’s teaching
of a filter for blocking multicast packets is, therefore, relevant to the
Appeal 2011-001904
Application 10/439,417

6

“multicast broadcast block . . . that is operable to block multicast broadcasts
within the localized computer network.” Arguments that a data stream must
be broadcast through the multicast broadcast block via a point-to-point
connection, according to claim 1 (App. Br. 10), are misplaced. First, the
arguments do not address the Examiner’s rejection, which relies on Garrec,
not Liu, as teaching the data stream communications. Second, the
arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim, which does not
require a “broadcast through the multicast broadcast block.” Based on the
foregoing, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred as Appellants
argue.
Malkin’s Teachings
Appellants next contend that the passage in Malkin relied on by the
Examiner to reject claim 1 is of little relevance to claim 1. App. Br. 10-11.
The Examiner relies on Malkin as teaching a “dynamic multicast client”
because it discloses a dynamic multimedia stream distribution network that
enables multicast source nodes to enter and leave the Internet environment
dynamically and simultaneously multicast their contents to multicast
receiving nodes. Ans. 5; Malkin, col. 3, ll. 12-16 (emphasis added).
Notwithstanding the disclosure of “dynamic” activity of multicast nodes,
Appellants focus their arguments on Malkin’s MDNs “transformations,”
thus failing to address the Examiner’s findings regarding the dynamic nodes.
Furthermore, Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive because they focus on
claim limitations that the Examiner finds are met by Garrec, not Malkin. See
App. Br. at 11 (emphasizing “via a point-to-point connection” and
Appeal 2011-001904
Application 10/439,417

7

“multicast data stream based on the data stream received by the multicast
slave via the point-to-point connection”).
Motivation to Combine
The final argument regarding claim 1 concerns whether the Examiner
erred in combining the teachings of Garrec, Liu, and Malkin. Appellants
contend that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not achieve the
claimed subject matter because Garrec teaches that a point-to-point
connection duplicates transmission of data packets. App. Br. 11. This
duplication is, according to Appellants, contrary to the claimed multicast
data stream produced based on the point-to-point connection. Id.
Appellants also repeat the argument that Garrec’s teaching of a DVB
broadcast network results in avoidance of the point-to-point connections. Id.
We are not persuaded by these arguments. As stated supra, Garrec’s system
contemplates using both types of communications—point-to-point
connections and a DVB broadcast stream. We have found that Garrec does
not teach away from the claim invention, and, therefore, Appellants’
arguments to the contrary are not persuasive.
Appellants’ additional argument—that Liu “would completely block
unneeded data” (App. Br. 12)—is also not persuasive. We have addressed
this argument in finding that Liu teaches allowing certain multicast packets
to pass, supra in the section regarding Liu’s teachings.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s articulated reasoning of a
motivation to combine the references, stated in pages 4 and 5 of the Answer,
and Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner’s
rationale is in error.
Appeal 2011-001904
Application 10/439,417

8

In summary, and based on the foregoing analysis, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 as being obvious over Garrec, Liu, and Malkin.
OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 4, 16, AND 23 OVER GARREC, LIU,
AND MALKIN
Claim 4 recites a “delay logic . . . configured to delay the transmission
of the multicast data stream . . . until a query is received . . . .” Claims 16
and 23 recite a similar limitation. Appellants contend that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 4 because Garrec does not teach a delay in
transmission of the multicast data stream. App. Br. 12-13. In response to
Appellants’ argument, the Examiner states that in Garrec “multicasting is
halted till at least it is verified that the user station is receiving the query.”
Ans. 12. The Examiner relies on paragraph 28 of Garrec as supporting the
stated finding. Id. We do not agree with the Examiner. Garrec teaches
implementing a query message to interrogate the user stations, but those
interrogations occur during the multicast session (Garrec, ¶ 28), i.e.,
transmission of the session is under way, hence no delay of the transmission
is disclosed.
Because Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
finding concerning claims 4, 16, and 23, we do not sustain the rejection of
these claims.
CONCLUSION
We conclude that Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions that the combination of Garrec, Liu, and Malkin is
Appeal 2011-001904
Application 10/439,417

9

proper and renders obvious the subject matter of claim 1. Therefore, we
sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We group
independent claims 11, 20, 22, and 24, and dependent claims 2, 3, 5-10, 12-
15, 17-19, 21, and 25, with independent claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We further conclude that Appellants have shown error in the
Examiner’s findings that the combination of Garrec, Liu, and Malkin teaches
the limitations recited in claims 4, 16, and 23. Therefore, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 4, 16, and 23.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-15, 17-22,
24, and 25.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 4, 16, and 23.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

ke