Ex Parte Mai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 23, 2014

11454910 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2014)

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