Adobe Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 25, 2021

2020002037 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 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.
15/219,432 07/26/2016 SHILPI AGGARWAL 058083-1009867 (P6195) 2188
72058 7590 06/25/2021
Adobe / Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, ANH-VINH THI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2672
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2021 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):
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SHILPI AGGARWAL, SOURABH GOEL, and
SUNANDINI BASU
_____________________

Appeal 2020-002037
Application 15/219,4321
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MARC S. HOFF, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ invention is a system and method for capturing an image
within the context of a document. A computing device identifies an image
field within a document displayed in a user interface (UI). The image field
displays live input received from a camera. In response to a first user input,

1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is Adobe Inc. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-002037
Application 15/219,432

2
the UI displays the live input from the camera within the image field of the
document in the context of other portions of the document. Controls are
provided with which the user can adjust various live image input
characteristics. In response to a second user input, the computing device
captures the image from the live input displayed within the image field of
the document. Abstract.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method for capturing an image within a context of a
document, the method comprising:
identifying an image field within the document displayed
in a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computing device, the
image field operable to display live image input received from a
camera accessible by the computing device, wherein the
document comprises a portable document format, an extensible
markup language format, or a word processing format;
in response to receiving a first input from a user selecting
the image field of the document, displaying, within the GUI of
the computing device, the live image input from the camera
within the image field of the document in the context of other
portions of the document displayed outside of the image field;
displaying, within the GUI of the computing device,
controls with which the user can adjust scaling of the live image
input from the camera displayed within the document; and
in response to receiving a second input from the user,
capturing by the camera and storing, within a memory of the
computing device, the image from the live image input
displayed within the image field of the document, wherein the
image is stored as a component part of the document.

Appeal 2020-002037
Application 15/219,432

3
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Johnson US 9,747,622 Bl Aug. 29, 2017
Van Os US 2016/0224973 Al Aug. 4, 2016

Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Johnson and Van Os. Final Act. 7.

Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed Aug. 8, 2019), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Jan.
17, 2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Nov. 18, 2019) for
their respective details.

ISSUES
Does the combination of Johnson and Van Os teach or suggest
identifying an image field with a document displayed in a graphical user
interface of a computing device, the image field operable to display live
image input received from a camera accessible by the computing device?

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, identifying an image
field within the document displayed in a graphical user interface (GUI) of a
computing device, the image field operable to display live image input
received from a camera accessible by the computing device. Independent
claim 10 recites a program for capturing an image within a context of a
document, including code that identifies an image field within the document
displayed in a user interface of a computing device. Independent claim 15
Appeal 2020-002037
Application 15/219,432

4
recites a computing device, comprising inter alia a processor for executing
computer-implemented instructions causing the computing device to identify
an image field within the document displayed in a user interface of the
computing device.
The Examiner finds that Johnson teaches identifying an image field
within the document displayed in a user interface of the computing device.
Final Act. 10; Johnson col. 10:22–59, Fig. 3. The Examiner further finds that
Johnson Figure 3 has a frame for inputting a live image and different fields
for the user to enter different information. Ans. 10. The Examiner finds that
Johnson teaches an interface on its display to facilitate the capture of listing
content in discrete data components. After capture, the discrete data
components for a single listing may be automatically associated together
such that it is unnecessary for a user to manually associate them. Ans. 13;
Johnson col. 18:15–28.
The Examiner further finds that interface 98 is not a document, but
that the listing displayed on display 26 is a document, due to the fact that the
user creates a listing and not an interface. Ans. 13; Johnson col. 10:51–59.
The Examiner finds that “when the ‘New Listing’ button 108 is
selected by the user, the interface 98 has to identify the image capture frame
100 for the live feed camera 34 to display a live feed image.” Ans. 14. We
do not agree with this finding by the Examiner.
First, the claim requires “identifying an image field in a document that
is displayed within a graphical user interface” (emphasis added). Appellant
argues, and the Examiner agrees, that the interface 98, and the content
included therein, cannot be considered a document from which an image
Appeal 2020-002037
Application 15/219,432

5
field is identified. Reply Br. 4; Final Act. 4; Ans. 13. Figure 3 of Johnson is
reproduced below:

Figure 3 of Johnson is a diagram of the mobile device of Johnson’s
invention, configured to capture listing content through an interface. Johnson
col. 3:32–34.
We agree with Appellant that interface 98 appears to be an interface
populated with the same layout every time a new listing is generated.
Appeal 2020-002037
Application 15/219,432

6
Interface 98 is generated at the mobile device 24 and is not provided in a
web page provided by the listing server 12. Johnson col. 10:14–15. Interface
98 facilitates capturing listing content as discrete data components, such as
image data, text data, and audio data. Johnson col. 14:19–21.
As such, we agree with Appellant that the step of “identifying” is not
suggested in Johnson because such a step would not provide any value to the
subject matter described in Johnson. Reply Br. 4–5. In Johnson’s invention,
there is no need to “identify” the image capture frame, because the interface
is static and the position of the image capture frame is always known.
Second, the specification gives examples of the meaning of
“identification” of image fields within a document:
In some instances, the locations of image fields are specified
within the document, for example with a markup tag or other
identifier within an XML document. In other instances, the
method 900 recognizes the image fields within a document based
on detecting ‘frames’ of quadrilaterals or other shapes within the
document meeting a size threshold, detecting keywords or
objects in a region of the document (e.g., ‘photo’ or a camera
image in the region), [or] input from the user . . . specifying a
desired location of one or more image fields within the
document.
Spec. ¶ 28.
The Examiner has not identified teachings in Johnson of any such
process of “identification” of an image field within a listing (the “document”
of Johnson, according to the Examiner) corresponding to the examples given
in Appellant’s Specification.
We therefore find that the Examiner has not set forth the prima facie
obviousness of the independent claims over the combination of Johnson and
Van Os. We do not sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 1–20.
Appeal 2020-002037
Application 15/219,432

7

CONCLUSION
The combination of Johnson and Van Os does not teach or suggest
identifying an image field with a document displayed in a graphical user
interface of a computing device, the image field operable to display live
image input received from a camera accessible by the computing device.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Johnson, Van Os 1–20

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 is reversed.

REVERSED