CHECK POINT SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 2, 2021

2019006273 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 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.
14/881,180 10/13/2015 ODED VANUNU 1893/209 5278
44696 7590 04/02/2021
Dr. Mark M. Friedman
Moshe Aviv Tower, 54th floor
7 Jabotinsky St.
Ramat Gan, 5252007
ISRAEL
EXAMINER
JACKSON, JENISE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2021 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):
friedpat.uspto@gmail.com
patents@friedpat.com
rivka_f@friedpat.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ODED VANUNU and LIAD MIZRACHI

____________

Appeal 2019-006273
Application 14/881,180
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–5, 7–13, and 15–18, which are all pending claims.
Appeal Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Check Point Software Technologies Ltd.
as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-006273
Application 14/881,180

2
BACKGROUND
A. The Invention
Appellant’s invention is directed to “detect[ing] unauthorized and
potentially malicious, as well as malicious records, typically in the form of
electronic forms, such as those where users input information (into input
blocks or fields).” Abstract. Claims 1, 13, and 18 are independent; claim 1
is representative and reproduced below:
1. A method for detecting unauthorized electronic forms,
comprising:
analyzing a rendered uniform resource locator (URL) to
determine whether the URL includes form data for an obtained
electronic form from a user, the obtained electronic form
including at least one input field; and,
if it is determined that the URL includes form data for the
user obtained electronic form including at least one input field:
analyzing the user obtained electronic form against
a record of a corresponding and existing authorized electronic
form associated with the URL, by comparing input fields of the
user obtained electronic form with input fields of the authorized
electronic form for correlations; and,
taking protective action in accordance with the
correlations between the input fields of the user obtained
electronic form and the authorized electronic form.

Appeal Br. 21 (Claims Appendix).
B. The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 7–9, 13, and 15–18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Satish (US 9,230,105 B1; Jan. 5, 2016) and
Sesek (US 2002/0103827 A1; Aug. 1, 2002). Final Act. 4.
The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Satish, Sesek, and Klein (US 2011/0239300 A1; Sept. 29,
2011). Final Act. 10.
Appeal 2019-006273
Application 14/881,180

3
The Examiner rejects claims 10–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Satish, Sesek, and Gangadharan (US 9,178,904 B1;
Nov. 3, 2015). Final Act. 11.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
A. Obviousness Rejection of Claim 1
Appellant argues that in Sesek’s system, “a user inputs data about
himself, which becomes a form profile 173,” and “[s]hould the data about
the user in the form profile 173 be changed, the system will update the form,
in the corresponding form data field, with the changed data.” Appeal Br. 17,
citing Sesek ¶ 56. Appellant contends that
the “form profiles” of Sesek [] have nothing to do with forms,
and accordingly, have nothing to do with, “analyzing the
obtained electronic form against a record of a corresponding
and existing authorized electronic form associated with the
URL by comparing input fields of the obtained electronic form
with input fields of the authorized electronic form for
correlations,” as recited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 17.
We agree. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Satish teaches or
suggests the claimed “analyzing a rendered uniform resource locator (URL)
to determine whether the URL includes form data for an obtained electronic
form” from a user, because Satish’s system includes “parsing the URL to
identify the fields in the form.” Final Act. 4, citing Satish 5:39–47
(emphasis omitted). However, regarding Sesek, the Examiner finds that
Appeal 2019-006273
Application 14/881,180

4
Sesek discloses the existing authorized electronic form
associated with the URL, because Sesek discloses John may
access the form profile through a browser of a client on the[]
on-line site of the [doctor’s] office []. Thus, the Examiner
asserts the existing form that is stored in the form profile
database is associated with a URL.

Ans. 4, citing Sesek ¶ 33. The Examiner also finds that “the prior stored
form profile” is “the authorized electronic form.” Ans. 4, citing Sesek ¶ 56,
Fig. 9 #359.
In the Examiner’s mapping, Sesek’s “form profile” is “associated with
a URL” and the “prior stored form profile” is the “authorized electronic
form.” This mapping appears logically inconsistent with the Examiner’s
mapping of the claimed “analyzing a rendered uniform resource locator
(URL) to determine whether the URL includes form data for an obtained
electronic form from a user, the obtained electronic form including at least
one input field” to Satish, because the claim requires determining whether
the “URL includes form data.” While Satish appears to teach or suggest
this limitation, in Sesek the URL is a pointer to the form profile, and the
Examiner provides no explanation regarding how or why one skilled in the
art would bridge the gap.
“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Absent an
explanation bridging the gap, the rejection fails to provide the necessary
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning.
Appeal 2019-006273
Application 14/881,180

5
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, as well as independent claims
13 and 18 commensurate in scope, and all dependent claims.

CONCLUSION
In summary:

REVERSED

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 7–9,
13, 15–
18
103 Satish, Sesek 1–3, 7–9, 13,
15–18
4, 5 103 Satish, Sesek,
Klein
4, 5
10–12 103 Satish, Sesek,
Gangadharan
10–12
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7–13, 15–
18