Adobe Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 23, 2021

2019006170 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 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.
14/484,939 09/12/2014 Jue Wang AD01.4372US01 7771
111003 7590 04/23/2021
Adobe / Finch & Maloney PLLC
50 Commercial Street
Manchester, NH 03101
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, KATHLEEN V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/23/2021 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):
docketing@finchmaloney.com
nmaloney@finchmaloney.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUE WANG, YAN WANG, and SUNGHYUN CHO
Appeal 2019-006170
Application 14/484,939
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOYCE CRAIG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–5, 7–10, 15, and 17–24. See Final
Act. 1. Claims 6, 11–14, and 16 are canceled. Id. at 2. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Adobe Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-006170
Application 14/484,939

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention, according to Appellant, generally relates to
“techniques for collaborative and synchronized photography across multiple
users and devices.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented digital image processing method
comprising:
receiving a registration request from a first camera device,
the registration request including a machine-readable code
representing a group identifier (ID);
joining, in response to receiving the registration request,
the first camera device to a group corresponding to the group ID,
the group including at least a second camera device that is
different than the first camera device;
receiving, subsequent to joining the first camera device to
the group, a plurality of viewfinder images from each of the
camera devices in the group, at least two of the viewfinder
images including an overlapping field of view and excluding the
machine-readable code;
combining, by a processor, each of the viewfinder images
together to form a panoramic image based on the overlapping
field of view; and
causing each of the camera devices in the group to display,
in a user interface, the panoramic image, the viewfinder images
from at least two different camera devices separately from the
panoramic image, and a visualization overlaid on the panoramic
image, the visualization including bounding boxes, each
bounding box surrounding a portion of the panoramic image
corresponding to a respective one of the separately displayed
viewfinder images.
Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-006170
Application 14/484,939

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–5 and 7–10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as
failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Baudisch et al. (US 2007/0025723 A1,
published Feb. 1, 2007) (“Baudisch”), Kim et al. (US 2011/0102548 A1,
published May 5, 2011) (“Kim”), and Sharma et al. (US 2014/0045472 A1,
published Feb. 13, 2014) (“Sharma”).2
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combination of Baudisch, Kim, Sharma, and Wu (US 2014/0015920 A1,
published Jan. 16, 2014).
Claims 4, 9, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Baudisch, Kim, Sharma, and Arai et
al. (US 2012/0120188 A1, published May 17, 2012) (“Arai”).
Claims 8, 10, 18, 20, 21, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the combination of Baudisch, Kim, Sharma, and
Bratton et al. (US 2010/0304731 A1, published Dec. 2, 2010) (“Bratton”).
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combination of Baudisch, Kim, Sharma, and D’Amico (US
2003/0071724 A1, published Apr. 17, 2003).
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combination of Baudisch, Kim, Sharma, Wu, and D’Amico.

2 Although the Examiner’s statement of the rejection includes Wu (US
2014/0015920 A1, published Jan. 16, 2014) (Final Act. 6–7), Wu is not
actually relied upon in the reasons for rejection (id. at 7–23), and therefore,
we omit it here.
Appeal 2019-006170
Application 14/484,939

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the §§ 112 and 103 rejections of claims 1–5, 7–10,
15, and 17–24 in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We
have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have made, but
chose not to make, in the Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of error. We agree with and
adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of facts and conclusions as set
forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken. We
provide the following explanation for emphasis.
Written Description
Claims 1–5 and 7–10
Appellant contends the Specification, including the drawings,
provides written description support for the limitation “excluding the
machine-readable code,” as recited in claims 1 and 5. Appeal Br. 8–12. In
particular, Appellant points to Figures 1, 4A, and 4B and the accompanying
descriptions in the Specification to argue that “after a group is initially
formed using the machine-readable code,” “the machine-readable code is not
displayed with the viewfinder images, such as shown in FIGS. 4A and 4B.”
See Appeal Br. 9–11; see also Reply Br. 3–4.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. The written description
requirement is satisfied when “the description ‘clearly allow[s] persons of
ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is
claimed.’” Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir.
1991)). “In particular, ‘[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported
Appeal 2019-006170
Application 14/484,939

5
when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant
limitation.’” Id. (quoting Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344,
1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). The Specification may provide a reason to exclude
“by properly describing alternative features of the patented invention.” Id. at
1356. But in this case, Appellant’s Specification does not describe an
alternative embodiment excluding a machine-readable code from received or
obtained images, as recited in independent claims 1 and 5, respectively.
While no code appears with the displayed images in Appellant’s
Figures 4A or 4B, the mere display of images does not show the exclusion of
a machine-readable code in received or obtained images. The broadest
reasonable interpretation of “machine-readable code representing a group
identifier (ID),” as recited in claims 1 and 5, encompasses data that could be
included with an image, for example, as metadata, as the Specification does
not limit what can be a machine-readable code. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 16
(describing use of “a barcode 116 (e.g., a QR or Quick Response code) or
other machine-readable code”) (emphasis added). The Specification does
not describe excluding such non-displayed metadata that could be useful as a
group ID for identifying a camera device group. Rather, in describing the
transmission of viewfinder images, the Specification is silent as to whether a
machine-readable code is included or excluded. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 18
(“Subsequent to registration, the client processing module 116 streams
viewfinder image data 206 to the central processing module 122.”).
One of ordinary skill in the art, reading Appellant’s Specification,
might have considered the possibilities and advantages of either including or
excluding a machine-readable code in viewfinder images—e.g., including
the machine-readable code to associate viewfinder images with a particular
Appeal 2019-006170
Application 14/484,939

6
camera device group; excluding the code to reduce the amount of data
transmitted. Appellant, however, has not clearly shown which alternative
they invented, or provided a reason for excluding a machine-readable code.
Thus, Appellant’s disclosure is broader than would permit one to claim the
specific negative limitation of “excluding the machine-readable code.”
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 112(a) rejection of claims
1–5 and 7–10.
Obviousness
Claims 1–5, 7–10, 15, 17–21, and 24
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant contends the
combination of Baudisch, Kim, and Sharma does not teach or suggest
“receiving, subsequent to joining the first camera device to the group, a
plurality of viewfinder images from each of the camera devices in the group,
at least two of the viewfinder images including an overlapping field of
view,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 15–18. In particular, Appellant
argues that “Baudisch fails to disclose any techniques for registering and
joining multiple camera devices to a group, as claimed.” Id. at 15. Appellant
further argues that “Sharma is silent with respect to ‘receiving, subsequent to
joining the first camera device to the group, a plurality of viewfinder images
from each of the camera devices in the group, at least two of the viewfinder
images including an overlapping field of view . . . .’” Id. at 16.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding the proposed
combination fails to teach the disputed limitation. Appellant attacks
Baudisch and Sharma individually, even though the Examiner relied on the
combination of Baudisch, Kim, and Sharma in rejecting claim 1. In re
Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d
Appeal 2019-006170
Application 14/484,939

7
413, 425 (CCPA 1981)) (“[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary
skill in the art.”). The Examiner found Baudisch teaches “receiving . . . a
plurality of viewfinder images from each of the camera devices in the group,
at least two of the viewfinder images including an overlapping field of
view.” Final Act. 7 (citing Baudisch ¶¶ 50, 97, 109, 111). The Examiner
found Sharma teaches receiving information “subsequent to joining the first
camera device to the group.” Id. at 10 (citing Sharma ¶¶ 30, 56, 78, 80).
Appellant highlights (Appeal Br. 16) the Examiner’s statement, in the
rationale for combining the references, that “[i]t would have been obvious
. . . to use the method, as disclosed by Baudis[c]h and Kim, and further
incorporate . . . receiving, subsequent to joining the first camera device to
the group, communication information from each of the camera devices in
the group, as taught by Sharma” (Final Act. 10–11). Appellant then argues
that “claim 1 does not recite ‘receiving . . . communication information from
each of the camera devices in the group,’” that “the Examiner is interpreting
‘communication information’ to mean ‘a plurality of viewfinder images
from each of the camera devices,’” and that “Sharma does not lead one of
ordinary skill to substitute ‘viewfinder images’ for ‘communication
information,’ as suggested by the Examiner.” Appeal Br. 16–17; see also
Reply Br. 5.
These arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error because, in
stating the proposed combination, the Examiner further explained “wherein
the [communication information] can include a plurality of viewfinder
images of Baudis[c]h.” Final Act. 11. Here, it is clear the Examiner relied on
Baudisch for teaching viewfinder images and on Sharma for teaching the
Appeal 2019-006170
Application 14/484,939

8
joining of a camera device to a group, where the combination of these
references results in receiving viewfinder images after a camera device joins
a group. See Ans. 7–8. Appellant’s argument that the Examiner improperly
relied on common sense for teaching viewfinder images is similarly not
persuasive. See Appeal Br. 17–18.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that, “[a]t best, the Examiner’s
proposed combination of Baudis[c]h and Sharma suggests receiving
viewfinder images from a group of cameras (Baudis[c]h) and using a QR
code to join a camera to a group (Sharma),” but “the Examiner has not
provided any reason how one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the
claimed sequence.” Reply Br. 5–6. Appellant, however, forfeited this line of
argument by not presenting it in the Appeal Brief. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2) (“Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised
in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the
examiner’s answer . . . will not be considered by the Board for purposes of
the present appeal, unless good cause is shown.”).
Appellant next argues that the Examiner erred because one of ordinary
skill in the art would not have had the proper level of skill necessary to make
the proposed combination. Appeal Br. 18–19. In particular, Appellant argues
“Baudis[c]h fails to disclose any techniques for registering and joining
multiple camera devices to a group” and “[t]he type of problem encountered
by Baudis[c]h (creating panoramic images) is entirely different from the
problem encountered by Sharma (establishing group communications), and
there is no discussion in Baudis[c]h regarding the problem of grouping
computers together.” Appeal Br. 19. Appellant further argues that one of
ordinary skill in the art “would not necessarily possess the level of skill
Appeal 2019-006170
Application 14/484,939

9
needed to combine the group communication techniques of Sharma with the
image processing techniques of Baudish.” Id.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding one of
ordinary skill in the art would have made the proposed combination.
Appellant’s argument that Baudisch fails to teach joining multiple camera
devices to a group (Appeal Br. 19) simply reprises the unpersuasive attack
on the individual references discussed above. Appellant’s further argument
that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have had the necessary skill to
combine Sharma with Baudish (id.) is also unpersuasive.
Sharma’s entire system for “group communication sessions without
(i.e., ‘free of’) operator-controlled or operator-assisted provisioning”
(Sharma ¶ 3) need not “be bodily incorporated into the structure of”
Baudisch. Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. “Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.” Id. Here, the Examiner relied on Sharma for teaching the use of a
bar code for organizing a group of communication devices, such as
smartphones with cameras. See Final Act. 9–10. Appellant has not shown
that applying Sharma’s bar code technique for smartphones to Baudisch
would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill
in the art.” Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157,
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In fact, Baudisch describes using “a simplified
computing device coupled to a digital camera” “such as cell phones and
PDA’s, etc.” Baudisch ¶ 53. One of ordinary skill in the art would have
reasonably expected success in forming groups from multiple cell phones or
PDAs in Baudisch (see id. ¶ 53) just the same as with Sharma’s smartphones
(see Sharma ¶ 53).
Appeal 2019-006170
Application 14/484,939

10
We note that Appellant has not specifically explained why one of
ordinary skill in the art would lack motivation to implement Baudisch’s
technique for creating panoramic images in an embodiment with multiple
camera devices after those devices formed a group as per Sharma, and so we
do not address that issue here.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
independent claims 5 and 15, and dependent claims 2–4, 7–10, 17–21, and
24, not argued separately with particularity. See Appeal. Br. 13–19, 22–23.
Claims 22 and 23
With respect to dependent claims 22 and 23, Appellant contends
D’Amico is non-analogous art. Appeal Br. 19–22. In particular, Appellant
argues that D’Amico is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed
invention, nor is D’Amico reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the
inventor. Id. at 20–22 (citing In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in relying on D’Amico
for rejecting claims 22 and 23. We agree with the Examiner that D’Amico is
within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, namely, “image
processing.” Final Act. 31, 33. D’Amico describes a security system that
includes a camera that “can be a surveillance video camera that is activated
when an alarm condition exists, takes surveillance ‘snapshots,’ allows live
person-to-person, (e.g., face-to-face) communication between the
homeowner and remotely located security personnel, or other similar
functions.” D’Amico ¶ 20.
Appellant’s argument that “D’Amico is clearly in a different field of
endeavor from the claimed invention because controlling and monitoring
Appeal 2019-006170
Application 14/484,939

11
security systems involves different technological skills and solutions than
collaborative and synchronized photography” (Appeal Br. 20) is unavailing.
Both synchronized panoramic photography and security systems share
technical aspects related to image processing, because both involve using
cameras to capture images. Wu, on which the Examiner relies for rejecting
claim 23 (Final Act. 31–33), is evidence of this. For example, Wu discloses
the following: “As the availability of monitoring devices increase, more and
more people are installing monitoring devices to protect their safety and
their property. To achieve complete monitoring coverage, panoramic camera
devices have been proposed.” Wu ¶ 5. Wu further discloses “a virtual
perspective image synthesizing system including a computing device and a
plurality of panoramic camera devices.” Id. ¶ 8. Wu’s combination of
synchronized panoramic photography with a security system shows that
D’Amico and the claimed invention are both part of the broader field of
image processing.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of dependent
claims 22 and 23.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–5, 7–10, 15,
and 17–24.
Appeal 2019-006170
Application 14/484,939

12
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–10 112(a) Written Description 1–5, 7–10
1, 2, 5, 7, 15,
17
103 Baudisch, Kim,
Sharma
1, 2, 5, 7, 15,
17

3 103 Baudisch, Kim,
Sharma, Wu
3
4, 9, 19 103 Baudisch, Kim,
Sharma, Arai
4, 9, 19
8, 10, 18, 20,
21, 24
103 Baudisch, Kim,
Sharma, Bratton
8, 10, 18, 20,
21, 24

22 103 Baudisch, Kim,
Sharma, D’Amico
22
23 103 Baudisch, Kim,
Sharma, Wu,
D’Amico
23
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7–10,
15, 17–24

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED