Ex Parte Rokui

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 2, 2013

11130171 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/130,171 05/17/2005 Reza Mohammad Rokui ALC 3176 1393
7590 07/03/2013
KRAMER & AMADO, P.C.
Suite 240
1725 Duke Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
DECKER, CASSANDRA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/03/2013 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 REZA MOHAMMAD ROKUI
____________

Appeal 2010-011956
Application 11/130,171
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before DENISE M. POTHIER, DAVID C. MCKONE, and
GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a system and method for providing
both static and dynamic Internet Protocol (IP) multicasting. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is reproduced below with certain limitations emphasized:
Appeal 2010-011956
Application 11/130,171

2
1. A method of implementing Internet Protocol (IP) Multicasting in a
communication network, the method comprising:
defining a multicast Static-Range, being a set of Class D IP
addresses that do not use a Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM)
protocol and do not overlap with the existing Source Specific
Multicast (SSM) IP address range;
reserving each IP address within the multicast Static-Range for
static IP multicasting;
establishing in the communication network at least one dynamic IP
multicasting group, the at least one dynamic multicasting group
having a respective IP address lying outside the multicast Static-
Range;
establishing in the communication network at least one static
multicasting group for which both PIM - Source Specific Mode (PIM-
SSM) messaging and PIM -Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) messaging are
ignored, the at least one static multicasting group having a respective
IP address lying within the multicast Static-Range;
establishing multicast connections for all upstream routers toward
a source;
after all upstream connections are established, building a
connection between a downstream outgoing interface (OIF) leading to
a host and an upstream ingoing interface (IIF) leading to the source
when the host joins a static multicasting group; and
tearing down the connection between the OIF and IIF when the
host leaves the static multicasting group.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Magnuski US 2004/0071098 A1 Apr. 15, 2004
Torres US 2004/0132448 A1 July 8, 2004
Lee US 7,107,606 B2 Sept. 12, 2006
(filed Aug. 30, 2001)
Adams US 2006/0274720 A1 Dec. 7, 2006
(filed Nov. 9, 2005 and
claiming priority to
Provisional App. No.
60/626,816, filed Nov.
9, 2004)

Appeal 2010-011956
Application 11/130,171

3
B. Cain et al., Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3, Request for
Comments: 3376, THE INTERNET SOCIETY, pp. 1-8 (2002) available at
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc3376/ (“RFC”).

The Rejections
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Magnuski and Torres. Ans. 5-7.
Claims 2, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Torres, Magnuski, and RFC. Ans. 7-10.
Claims 3, 4, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee, Magnuski, and Adams. Ans. 10-14.

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER MAGNUSKI AND TORRES
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Magnuski
teaches all the limitations, except for establishing a dynamic IP multicasting
group, for which Torres is cited. Ans. 5-7.
Appellant argues that Magnuski fails to teach defining a multicast
static-range that does not overlap with the existing SSM IP address range.
App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4-5. Specifically, Appellant contends that “static” is a
term of art meaning manually configuring a multicast tree at each router, but
not that the tree is permanent or otherwise unchangeable. See App. Br. 9-10.
Appellant also contends that Magnuski does not show both types of
multicasting (App. Br. 9) and Torres fails to cure this alleged deficiency
(App. Br. 10). Appellant further asserts that Magnuski fails to teach
ignoring or discarding PIM-SSM and PIM-SM messaging in an established
communication network for a static multicasting group. App. Br. 10-11.

Appeal 2010-011956
Application 11/130,171

4
ISSUES
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Magnuski and Torres collectively would have taught or suggested:
(1) defining a multicast Static-Range that is a set of Class D IP
addresses that do not overlap with the existing SSM IP address range and
(2) establishing in the communication network a static multicasting
group for which both PIM-SSM messaging and PIM-SM messaging are
ignored?

ANALYSIS
We begin by construing key disputed limitations in claim 1, “defining
a multicast Static-Range” and “establishing . . . one static multicasting
group.” Appellant argues that “[a]s will be apparent to those of skill in the
art, ‘static’ refers to manually performing configuration of the multicast tree
at each router, not that the tree is ‘permanent’ or otherwise unchangeable.”
App. Br. 9-10. Yet, when construing “static multicasting” in light of the
disclosure, the phrase is not limited to manually configuring the multicast
tree. Appellant describes “[i]n static multicast, the multicast protocol is not
responsible for establishing and propagating the multicast tree. Rather,
establishment of the multicast tree is effected by other means such as
network management or through configuration.” Spec. ¶ 02 (emphasis
added). Static multicasting is thus not restricted to manually configuring the
multicast trees and can include other means.
Appellant further states “[s]tatic multicast also requires that OIFs and
IIFs be reserved for [shortest path tree] SPT trees, even if there are no hosts
currently receiving multicast content over the SPT tree.” Spec. ¶ 10. While
Appeal 2010-011956
Application 11/130,171

5
not mentioned by the Examiner, Torres further explains that “multicast
participation” can be “static” or predetermined and does not require a change
in the distribution mechanism during a multicast connection. Torres, ¶¶
0048, 0096. We find that these discussions indicate that an ordinarily skilled
artisan would find that there is some permanency in the static multicasting
environment. Thus, contrary to Appellant’s assertion (App. Br. 9-10; Reply
Br. 5), static multicasting involves and can be “equate[d]” with permanent
assignments and the Examiner’s claim interpretation is not unreasonable.
Turning to Magnuski, the Examiner finds that this reference teaches
selecting certain IP addresses within the Class D IP addresses for certain
groups. See Ans. 5, 14-15 (citing ¶¶ 0009, 0012, 0014, 0016, 0023). In
particular, Magnuski discusses an improvement over reserving the entire
address band in the dynamic multicast environment (referred to as Class D
addresses), in which a certain subset of the Class D addresses are
administratively scoped and permanently assigned for a specific geographic
area, including a corporation or buildings. See ¶¶ 0009, 0012. Magnuski
further discusses using this technique to configure or reserve Class D
addresses that operate using specific permanent multicast addresses for
conferences and communities. See ¶ 0014. Magnuski indicates there can be
several permanent multicast channels1 for operation. See ¶ 0016. This is
also consistent with Appellant’s statement that “static multicasting is linked
to reservations of IP addresses . . . .” Reply Br. 4.

1 Torres explains a “channel” is “a group of one or more hosts that is
identified by a single Class D IP destination address and a source host IP
address.” ¶ 0038.

Appeal 2010-011956
Application 11/130,171

6
Additionally, the Examiner cites to paragraph 0023 in Magnuski,
which refers to Figure 4. See ¶ 0023. Figure 4A further shows that various
IP addresses can be manually preset or configured. See, e.g., V Primary and
V Secondary addresses in Fig. 4A, A Primary and A Secondary addresses in
Fig. 4B, and G Primary and G Secondary addresses in Fig. 4C (indicating IP
addresses can be “manually preset for a given IP address.”). Magnuski thus
teaches defining a multicast static-range by selecting multicast addresses of
those reserved Class D addresses. We also do not find a conflict between
creating the permanent assignments in Magnuski and manually configuring
the assignments. See App. Br. 9. That is, one can manually configure the
multicast IP address, which is then permanently assigned.
As the Examiner also notes (Ans. 5, 15-16), an ordinarily skilled
artisan would have recognized that these permanent sets of multicast
addresses (e.g., a multicast static-range) are distinct from the other Class D
addresses used in the dynamic multicast environment. See Magnuski
¶¶ 0009, 0012, 0014, 0016. We therefore disagree that Magnuski follows
the “conventional technique” of using a single band of addresses for all
multicasting. App. Br. 10. Contrary to Appellant’s assertions (App. Br. 11-
12), we conclude that Magnuski reserves an independent multicast Static-
Range (e.g., permanent addresses for communities or buildings) that differs
from and does not overlap with the multicasting address range used for
dynamic multicasting in Magnuski, including the SSM IP address range, as
recited.
Moreover, claim 1 does not recite defining a range of addresses that
are “‘outside the multicast Static-Range.’” See Reply Br. 5 (emphasis
omitted). In any event, we disagree that the Examiner’s finding concerning
Appeal 2010-011956
Application 11/130,171

7
Magnuski reserving addresses for specific groups (see Ans. 15) fails to
define those addresses outside the multicast Static-Range. See id. That is,
those specific subset of Class D addresses that have not been reserved and
administratively scoped for a specific geographic area (Magnuski ¶¶ 0009,
0012, 0014) would have been recognized by an ordinarily skilled artisan for
other types multicasting.
Also, Torres is not being relied upon to teach the recited static range
(see App. Br. 10) but rather to teach a known multicasting system that has
both static and dynamic multicasting and establishing a dynamic IP
multicasting group as recited. See Ans. 6-7, 15-16. Thus, combining Torres
with Magnuski does not result in multicasting using only a single range of
Class D addresses and does not create overlapping addresses between static
and dynamic multicasting. See App. Br. 11. Moreover, unlike Appellant’s
conclusion (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 5-6), both Magnuski, as discussed above,
and Torres (citing ¶ 0036-38) teach more than a mere possibility that static
and dynamic multicasting coexists. See Ans. 6-7, 15-16.
Given that Magnuski purportedly fails to distinguish static
multicasting addresses from dynamic multicasting addresses, Appellant also
argues Magnuski fails to teach establishing a static multicasting group for
which PIM-SSM and PIM-SM messaging are ignored as recited. App. Br.
10-11. We are not persuaded. As explained above, Magnuski teaches
creating static multicast groups using a configuration other than a
multicasting protocol and creates permanent multicasting channels. See
¶¶ 0009, 0012, 0014, 0016, 0023. Also, given that we conclude that there is
a distinction in Magnuski between the IP addresses for static and dynamic
multicasting group, we agree with the Examiner that multicast channels
Appeal 2010-011956
Application 11/130,171

8
using the reserved address range (i.e., the static multicasting groups with
permanent channels) would ignore any PIM-SSM and PIM-SM messaging
reserved for dynamic multicasting. See Ans. 16-17.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the rejection of independent claim 1.

Claim 5
Regarding dependent claim 5, the Examiner finds that the PIM
messaging is not used in static multicasting and does not pertain to
Magnuski’s reserved addresses and channels. See Ans. 7 (citing ¶ 0030), 17.
Appellant argues that claim 5 is not necessarily limited to static multicasting
and that the Examiner’s conclusion is flawed. App. Br. 12. We are not
persuaded.
Claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, recites “establishing multicast
connections for all upstream routers toward a source.” However, neither
claim 1 nor claim 5 restricts these “multicast connections” to a particular
type (e.g., static, dynamic, or both static and dynamic multicast
connections). As such, we find a broad, but reasonable interpretation of
claim 5 includes an embodiment where the recited “multicast connections”
are the static multicast connections and thus “all upstream routers” relates to
those for the static multicast connections.
Given this understanding, we find the Examiner’s position (see Ans.
7, 17) is reasonable. That is, in the static multicast connections taught by
Magnuski and because these connections are permanent, no PIM JOIN
messages will be used for upstream routers. See id. Notably, Appellant
Appeal 2010-011956
Application 11/130,171

9
does not challenge the Examiner’s position that static multicasting does not
use PIM messaging. See App. Br. 12.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the rejection of claim 5.

Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, the Examiner similarly finds that Magnuski
teaches not using a PIM message when tearing down a connection. See Ans.
7, 17. Appellant repeats for claim 6 that this claim is not tied to static
multicasting. App. Br. 12-13. We disagree. Claim 1, from which claim 6
depends, recites, “building a connection . . . when the host joins a static
multicasting group[,]” and claim 6 recites “tearing down the connection . . .”
(emphasis added). We additionally refer to our above discussion of claim 5.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 6.

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER TORRES, MAGNUSKI, AND RFC
Regarding independent claim 2, the Examiner finds that Torres
teaches many of the limitations, except for those concerning storing a
multicast Static-Range in memory and establishing and removing a
connection between an OIF and an IFF for a static multicasting group, for
which Magnuski and RFC are cited. See Ans. 7-10.
Appellant argues that RFC does not cure the deficiencies of Torres
and Magnuski, including neither provides two mutually exclusive ranges of
Class D addresses or permits for the coexistence of static and dynamic
multicasting. App. Br. 14. We disagree for the above-noted reasons and
need not address whether RFC cures such deficiencies.
Appeal 2010-011956
Application 11/130,171

10
Dependent claims 7 and 8 are similar in scope to claims 5 and 6.
Appellant repeats the arguments presented for claims 5 and 6 (App. Br. 15-
16), for which we are not persuaded. We refer to our previous discussion.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the rejection of claims 2, 7, and 8.

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER LEE, MAGNUSKI, AND ADAMS
Regarding independent claim 3, the Examiner finds that Lee teaches
many of the limitations, except for those concerning a host configured to
determine whether a message pertains to a static multicasting group and to
establish and remove a connection between an OIF and an IFF for a static
multicasting group, for which Magnuski and Adams are cited. See
Ans. 10-13.
Appellant argues that Adams does not cure the deficiencies of Lee and
Magnuski, including neither provides two mutually exclusive ranges of
Class D addresses or permits for the coexistence of static and dynamic
multicasting. App. Br. 16. We disagree for the above-noted reasons and
need not address whether Adams cures such deficiencies. Additionally,
claim 3 fails to recite a dynamic multicasting environment or group. At best,
claim 3 recites “IP multicast traffic” and “multicast connections,” but there
is no restriction that this traffic be dynamic or both static and dynamic
multicast traffic. Thus, despite Appellant’s comment (App. Br. 11, 16),
neither Lee nor any other cited references needs to teach this purported
dynamic multicasting feature. Nonetheless, even assuming such a limitation
is found in claim 3, both Magnuski, as discussed above, and Lee (see Figs.
3-4C) teach and suggest such a recitation.
Appeal 2010-011956
Application 11/130,171

11
Concerning dependent claim 4, Appellant quotes the claim language
and urges that the references fail to teach the recited subject matter. See
App. Br. 17. However, merely pointing out what claim 4 recites and then
asserting that the recited references fail to teach this limitation (see id.) is not
considered a separate argument for patentability. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d
1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Dependent claims 9 and 10 are similar in scope to claims 5 and 6.
Appellant repeats the arguments presented for claims 5 and 6 (App. Br. 17-
18), for which we are not persuaded. We refer to our above analysis.
For the previous reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the rejection of claims 3, 4, 9, and 10.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-10 under § 103.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-10 is affirmed.
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

gvw