Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 27, 2021

2020002008 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2021)

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.
15/449,699 03/03/2017 Aaron T. EMIGH HW728115-S 2365
77399 7590 05/27/2021
Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd
(for Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd)
Two Prudential Plaza Suite 4900
180 North Stetson Avenue
Chicago, IL 60601
EXAMINER
MCCOY, RICHARD ANTHONY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2431
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2021 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
Chgpatent@leydig.com
aipatent@huawei.com
hwpatent@leydig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________

Ex parte AARON T. EMIGH and JAMES A. ROSKIND
_______________

Appeal 2020-002008
Application 15/449,699
Technology Center 2400
_______________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8–11, 13, 15, 16, and 18–20. Claims 2, 4, 7, 12, 14, and 17

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). “The word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers
to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a
patent as provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (Appeal
Br. 1).
Appeal 2020-002008
Application 15/449,699

2
have been canceled (see Appeal Br. 11–13). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

DISCLOSED AND CLAIMED INVENTION
According to Appellant, the disclosed invention “relates generally the
area of computer security. More specifically, techniques for protecting
elements of a document are disclosed” (Spec. ¶ 2). To protect users from
electronic fraud, Appellant discloses and claims a method and system for
providing computer security by determining whether or not to traverse links
(see Spec. ¶ 25) (“A link refers herein to an element of a document with an
associated URL, for example an element of an HTML document associated
with a URL”) based on a determination of whether or not the links are
allowable using Universal Record Locator (URL) pattern matching (see
Spec. ¶¶ 20–27; claims 1, 11, 20). Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 recite
commensurate limitations regarding providing computer security by
determining if links are allowable by examining URLs for link validation
information. Exemplary independent claim 1 recites a method for computer
security, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, and is reproduced
below:
l. A method for computer security, comprising:
displaying, by a programmable computing device
executing instructions, an electronic document;
detecting, by the computing device, a request to traverse a
link, wherein the link is associated with an element of the
document;
[A] determining, by the computing device, whether the
link is an allowable link [A1] by determining whether a URL
associated with the link is contained in or matches a pattern
Appeal 2020-002008
Application 15/449,699

3
specified in link validation information, [A2] wherein the link
validation information is contained within the document; and
[B] determining, by the computing device, whether to
traverse the link based on a result of the determining whether the
link is an allowable link,
[C] wherein the document is an HTML document and the
validation information is contained in a head section of the
HTML document.

Appeal Br. 11, Claims Appendix (bracketed lettering and emphases added).
The Examiner’s Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 6, 8–11, 13, 16, and 18–20 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Toomey (US 2004/0078422
A1; published April 22, 2004), Kougiouris et al. (US 2004/0039993 A1;
published Feb. 26, 2004) (hereinafter, “Kougiouris”), and
https://web.archive.org/web/200312160l0927/http://www.w3schools.com:80
/js/js_whereto.asp (a Dec 16, 2003 archive of
http://www.w3schools.com:80/js/js_whereto.asp) (hereinafter, “NPL”).2
Final Act. 4–8.
(2) The Examiner rejected dependent claims 5 and 15 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Toomey, Kougiouris, NPL, and

2 Appellant presents general arguments as to claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 5–10;
Reply Br. 1–2), and relies on those arguments for the patentability of
remaining claims 3, 5, 6, 8–11, 13, 15, 16, and 18–20 (see Appeal Br. 5–10;
Reply Br. 1–3). Claims 11 and 20 are independent and recite limitations
commensurate in scope with limitations A–C of claim 1. Based on
Appellant’s arguments, we select claim 1 as representative of the group of
claims consisting of claims 1, 3, 6, 8–11, 13, 16, and 18–20. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2020-002008
Application 15/449,699

4
Kanungo et al. (US 2005/01202012 A1; published June 2, 2005)
(hereinafter, “Kanungo”).3 Final Act. 9.
Principal Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 5–
10) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1–3), the following principal issue is
presented on appeal:
Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 5, 6,
8–11, 13, 15, 16, and 18–20 as being obvious over the base combination of
Toomey, Kouriouris, and NPL because the base combination fails to teach or
suggest limitations A (including limitations A1 and A2), B, and C, as recited
in representative claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 4–9) in light
of Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 5–10) and the
Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1–2) that the Examiner has erred. We have also
reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the
Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3–7). We disagree with Appellant’s contentions,
which address the teachings of Toomey, Kougiouris, and NPL individually,
and fail to address the Examiner’s reliance on the combination of references
as teaching or suggesting the disputed limitations (see e.g., limitations A,
A1, A2, B, and C in claim 1 supra).

3 With regard to dependent claims 5 and 15 rejected under § 103(a) over
Toomey, Kougiouris, NPL, and Kanungo, Appellant relies on the arguments
presented as to claims 1 and 11 (see Appeal Br. 10). Therefore, we will
decide the outcome of claims 5 and 15 on the same basis as claims 1 and 11
from which claims 5 and 15 respectively depend.
Appeal 2020-002008
Application 15/449,699

5
With regard to representative claim 1, we adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action
from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 4–7), and (2) the reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3–7) in response to
Appellant’s Appeal Brief. The Examiner finds (see Final Act. 4–7; Ans. 3–
7), and we agree, that (i) Toomey teaches limitations A, A1, and B; (ii)
Kougiouris teaches limitation A2; and (iii) NPL teaches limitation C.
In general, Appellant’s arguments address the individual shortcomings
of Toomey and Kougiouris, are conclusory, and do not address the collective
teachings and suggestions of the references. Appellant has not shown that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 over the base combination of
Toomey, Kougiouris, and NPL.
We note that each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not
in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as
a whole. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(finding one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references).
Here, Appellant generally argues that neither Toomey nor Kougiouris
individually discloses (i) limitations A, A1, A2, B, and C recited in claim 1
(see Appeal Br. 5–10; Reply Br. 1–2). However, these conclusory
statements are not persuasive to show the Examiner erred in relying on the
combination of references in teaching or suggesting the disputed limitations.
Instead, as to claim 1, we find the Examiner’s findings (see Final Act. 4–7),
reasoning (id.), and response to Appellant’s arguments (see Ans. 2–7) to be
reasonable. And, as to claim 1, Appellant has not disputed the Examiner’s
finding that NPL teaches limitation C, namely putting validation information
Appeal 2020-002008
Application 15/449,699

6
in a head section of an HTML document using JavaScript (see Final Act. 6;
Ans. 6).
In this light, Appellant’s arguments as to claim 1 concerning the
individual shortcomings in the teachings of Toomey and Kougiouris are not
persuasive, and are not convincing of the non-obviousness of the claimed
invention set forth in claim 1.
Appellant’s contentions (see Appeal Br. 8–10) that there is no
motivation to combine Toomey and Kougiouris are also not persuasive. The
Examiner determines (see Final Act. 6–7; Ans. 7), and we agree, that it
would have been obvious to modify Toomey’s URL pattern matching and
allowable link determinations with Kougiouris’ use of link validation
information in HTML pages. This is especially reasonable in light of
Toomey’s (see Toomey claim 36) and Kougiouris’ (see Kougiouris ¶ 9) use
of JavaScript to validate information. Notably, NPL also employs
JavaScript (in the head section of HTML documents, see NPL p. 1).
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of representative
claim 1 as being obvious over the base combination of Toomey, Kougiouris,
and NPL, as well as the corresponding claims grouped respectively
therewith. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 5 and 15 for
the reasons provided as to claims 1 and 11, from which these claims
respectively depend.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has not adequately shown the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8–11, 13, 15, 16, and 18–20 over the base combination of
Appeal 2020-002008
Application 15/449,699

7
Toomey, Kougiouris, and NPL. As a result, the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8–11, 13, 15, 16, and 18–20 are affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 6, 8–
11, 13, 16,
18–20
103(a) Toomey,
Kougiouris, NPL
1, 3, 6, 8–11,
13, 16, 18–
20

5, 15 103(a) Toomey,
Kougiouris, NPL,
Kanungo
5, 15
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 5, 6, 8–
11, 13, 15,
16, 18–20

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