BEIJING LENOVO SOFTWARE LTD. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 12, 2020

14217753 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2020)

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.
14/217,753 03/18/2014 Fenglang LI 30912-LEN 4645
23389 7590 05/12/2020
SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC
400 GARDEN CITY PLAZA
SUITE 300
GARDEN CITY, NY 11530
EXAMINER
LOUIS, VINNCELAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2474
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/12/2020 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):
Docket@SSMP.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FENGLANG LI, XIANGYING ZHANG,
RUN YANG, and NING WANG
Appeal 2019-001259
Application 14/217,753
Technology Center 2400
BEFORE JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
ADAM J. PYONIN Administrative Patent Judges.
HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 seeks review of the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–26, all of the pending claims in the
application. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real parties in interest as Beijing Lenovo
Software Ltd. and Lenovo (Beijing) Ltd. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001259
Application 14/217,753

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention is directed to “a method and an electronic
device for processing information . . . in a first electronic device, wherein
there is a first correspondence relation between the first electronic device
and N second electronic devices.” Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for processing information for use in a first
electronic device, wherein there is a first correspondence
relation between the first electronic device and N second
electronic devices, where N is an integer greater than or equal
to 1, the method comprising:
detecting to acquire a first operation for the first
electronic device;
judging whether the first operation meets a first preset
condition; and
generating, by the first electronic device, a first prompt
effect for the first operation and controlling each of the N
second electronic devices to generate the first prompt effect
when the first operation meets the first preset condition,
wherein the first prompt effect comprises at least one of a
mode of the first electronic device and the N second electronic
devices emitting light with the same intensity or frequency, a
mode of prompting with sounds and a mode of prompting with
text.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Li US 2008/0195706 A1 Aug. 14, 2008
O’Donnell US 2014/0049636 A1 Feb. 20, 2014
Davis US 2014/0070922 A1 Mar. 13, 2014

Appeal 2019-001259
Application 14/217,753

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Li,
O’Donnell, and Davis. Final Act. 15–27.
Claims 23–26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
O’Donnell and Davis. Final Act. 27–31.
OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellant’s
arguments for the reasons discussed below, and reverse the Examiner’s
rejections of the challenged claims. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 1 recites a method comprising, inter alia, “generating, by a first
electronic device, a first prompt effect” and controlling at least one of “N
second electronic devices to generate the first prompt effect,” where the first
prompt effect can include “the first electronic device and the N second
electronic devices emitting light with the same intensity or frequency.”
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims Appx.). Claim 12 recites an electronic device
comprising, inter alia, a generating module that performs the generating and
controlling steps of claim 1. Id. at 19. The Examiner finds Li does not
expressly disclose these limitations, and therefore relies solely on O’Donnell
for their disclosure. See Final Act 16–17; Ans. 5–6.
Claim 23 recites a method comprising, inter alia, “determining a first
prompt effect” that includes “the first electronic device and the N [sic, L]
second electronic devices emitting light with the same intensity or
Appeal 2019-001259
Application 14/217,753

4
frequency,” and “generating and outputting the first prompt effect.” Appeal
Br. 23–24 (Claims Appx.). Claim 25 recites an electronic device
comprising, inter alia, a first determining module that performs the
determining step and a first generating module that performs the generating
step of claim 23. Id. at 24–25. The Examiner finds O’Donnell discloses
these limitations. See Final Act 28–29.
O’Donnell discloses a point-of-view (POV) camera “configured for
remote image acquisition control and viewing.” O’Donnell ¶ 1. Figure 34
of O’Donnell illustrates the camera’s “manual lighting level and color
settings adjustment procedure.” Id. ¶ 55. The procedure allows a user of
remote viewer/controller 510 to observe a quick succession of photographs
taken by the camera and to “alter lighting level and color settings . . . until
the user is satisfied with the lighting level and color displayed.” Id. ¶ 149.
Figure 36 of O’Donnell illustrates using a “remote device . . . to pair two
cameras in which neither camera has a screen” and both cameras are “aimed
at a common [color] chart 530.” Id. ¶¶ 57, 152. The first or “Master
Camera 1 analyzes photographs from Slave Camera 2 and adjusts settings to
match the alignment and settings of Master Camera 1.” Id. The remote
device or viewer/controller 510 displays side-by-side images taken from
Master Camera 1 and Slave Camera 2, thereby showing “the comparative
relationship between the position and color matching [of cameras 1 and 2],
respectively, before and after correction.” Id. ¶ 153. Figure 37 of
O’Donnell illustrates remote viewer/controller 510 controlling Camera 2 via
intermediary Camera 1. Id. ¶¶ 58, 155. Camera 2 takes a series of
photographs and transmits them to “Camera 1 for pass-through transmission
to [remote] device 510 for display.” Id. ¶ 155. Remote device 510 adjusts
Appeal 2019-001259
Application 14/217,753

5
Camera 2’s “lighting level and color settings by causing transmission to
Camera 1a [sic, 1 a] New Settings command signal for pass-through
transmission to Camera 2, which responds by changing its lighting and color
settings.” Id.
The Examiner identifies O’Donnell’s remote viewer/controller 510
(e.g., an iPhone) as a first electronic device, and O’Donnell’s camera 10
(Fig. 34) or cameras 1 and 2 (Fig. 36) as N second electronic devices, where
N is greater than or equal to one. See Final Act. 16–17; Ans. 8, 10–11. The
Examiner interprets the first prompt effect to include the first and second
electronic devices emitting light with the same intensity or frequency. See
Final Act. 17; Ans. 10. The Examiner finds O’Donnell’s Figure 36 teaches a
first electronic device generating a first prompt effect and controlling N
second electronic devices to generate the first prompt effect by “showing
two illustrations of . . . a display screen of controller 510 of an iPhone
showing side-by-side images produced by cameras 1 and 2 before and after
color correction.” Ans. 8. The Examiner finds this teaches that “[w]hen the
lighting level and color level is adjusted at the camera, the lighting level and
color setting is also chang[ed] at the IPhone.” Id. Moreover, because “the
light emit[ed] by the IPhone is the acquired/obtained light level
corresponding to [the] camera . . . the light emit[ed] by the IPhone and the
camera is the same.” Id. at 10. Thus, “when the camera adjust[s] its light
according to the new settings [sent by the iPhone], the phone screen also
adjusts and both go from a first intensity to a second intensity, which is the
same.” Id. at 11.
Appellant admits that “O’Donnell teaches that during the [camera
lighting] adjustment, new setting command signals are transmitted to both
Appeal 2019-001259
Application 14/217,753

6
the master camera and the slave camera, which respond by changing their
respective lighting and color settings.” Appeal Br. 11. However, Appellant
argues, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 12, 23, and 25 because
“[t]he mere disclosure that the iPhone controls the adjustment of the lighting
settings of the cameras does not justify a teaching or suggestion that the
iPhone and the cameras emit light with the same intensity or frequency.” Id.
We agree with Appellant. As discussed above, the Examiner
identifies the iPhone as the first electronic device, and cameras 1 and 2 as N
second electronic devices controlled by the iPhone to generate the first
prompt effect, where the first prompt effect is the first electronic device
(iPhone) and the N second electronic devices (cameras 1 and 2) emitting
light with the same intensity or frequency. See Final Act. 17, 28–29; Ans. 8,
10–11. However, the Examiner fails to demonstrate that either camera 1 or
camera 2 emits light with the same intensity or frequency as the iPhone.
O’Donnell teaches the remote device (iPhone) shown in Figure 36
“pair[s] two cameras in which neither camera has a screen.” O’Donnell
¶ 152. Thus, although iPhone 510 sends signals to cameras 1 and 2 that
instruct the cameras to adjust their lighting and color settings (e.g., to adjust
the amounts and frequencies (colors) of light the cameras receive from the
environment to generate the images they send to iPhone 510), cameras 1 or 2
do not emit any light to display the images, let alone light of the same
intensity emitted by iPhone 510 to display the images. Moreover, even if
cameras 1 and 2 did have screens that emitted light to display an image
captured by the cameras, O’Donnell teaches iPhone 510 sends signals to
adjust the amount of light the cameras collect when capturing the image, not
Appeal 2019-001259
Application 14/217,753

7
the amount of light the cameras would subsequently emit to display the
image once captured.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 12, 23, and 25, and of their respective
dependent claims 2–11, 13–22, 24, and 26.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–22 as obvious over Li,
O’Donnell, and Davis is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 23–26 as obvious over O’Donnell
and Davis is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–22 103(a) Li, O’Donnell, Davis 1–22
23–26 103(a) O’Donnell, Davis 23–26
Overall
Outcome
1–26
REVERSED