Ex Parte Mai et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 23, 201411454910 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/454,910 06/19/2006 Khanh Mai 151874 8762 7590 05/27/2014 ANDREWS KURTH LLP Intellectual Property Department Suite 1100 1350 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 EXAMINER BENGZON, GREG C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2444 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/27/2014 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte KHANH MAI, ROLAND NOLL, TOM GRIMES, and TOM DONG _____________ Appeal 2011-005617 Application 11/454,910 Technology Center 2400 ______________ Before, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and JEAN R. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1 through 39. We reverse. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method which enables receipt of multicast content at non-multicast enabled devices. Abstract of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. A method of virtual multicasting (VMC) multicast content on non-multicast enabled networks, comprising the steps of: Appeal 2011-005617 Application 11/454,910 2 determining if an attached network is multicast enabled, wherein the network includes client computers that have unicast addresses; if the attached network is not multicast enabled, querying for virtual multicast requests for the multicast content from non-multicast enabled client computers; listening for virtual multicast requests, wherein at least one virtual multicast request includes a unicast address identifying a client computer of the network and a requested method of delivery for the multicast content; determining, based on the virtual multicast requests, which client computers request the multicast content, from the unicast addresses, and the requested methods of delivery for the multicast content; and transmitting the multicast content from a virtual router to client computers requesting the multicast content, wherein the transmitting includes the virtual router transmitting the multicast content as unicast content to non-multicast enabled client computers and as multicast content to multicast enabled client computers, wherein the virtual router maintains an original multicast content sender IP address in the unicast content. REJECTION AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McCanne (US 6,611,872 B1), Nurenberg (US 6,181,697 B1 and Pearce (US 7,079,495 B1). Answer 4-6.1 ISSUE Appellants argue on pages 10 through 12 of the Appeal Brief the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 13, and 25 is in error. The dispositive issue presented by these arguments is - did the Examiner err in 1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed May 5, 2010, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed on August 31, 2011. Appeal 2011-005617 Application 11/454,910 3 finding the combination of McCanne, Nurenberg, and Pearce teaches a virtual router transmitting multicast content as unicast content to non- multicast enabled devices and transmitting multicast content to multicast enabled devices? ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We agree with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of McCanne, Nurenberg, and Pearce teaches a virtual router transmitting multicast content as unicast content to non- multicast enabled devices and transmitting multicast content to multicast enabled devices, as recited in each of the independent claims 1, 13, and 25. The Examiner in response to Appellants arguments cites to a passage in column 9 of Pierce to demonstrate that this feature was known. Answer 14- 15. We have reviewed the disclosures of Pierce and disagree with the Examiner. We agree with Appellants that Pierce teaches a device (multicast intermediary, item 28 in Figure 4), which transmits multicast to a non- multicast enabled device. Pierce, however, does not teach this device also delivers multicast information to the multicast enabled devices. Brief 11. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 13, and 25 or the rejection of deepened claims 2 through 12, 14 through 24, and 26 through 39. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 39 is reversed. Appeal 2011-005617 Application 11/454,910 4 REVERSED kis Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation