`
`
`
`Paper No. __
`
`Filed on behalf of Patent Owner by:
`Gerald B. Hrycyszyn, Reg. No. 50,474
`Richard F. Giunta, Reg. No. 36,149
`Jason Balich, Reg No. 67,110
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210
`(617) 646-8000 Phone
`(617) 646-8646 Fax
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LITL LLC,
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00681
`Patent No. 8,289,688
`_____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`A. The Petition Is Procedurally Improper ........................................................ 1
`B. The Petition’s Grounds Fail on the Merits .................................................. 3
`II. LITL’S ’688 PATENT ...................................................................................... 3
`A. Disputed Claims .......................................................................................... 4
`B. The Disputed Claims Cover LiTL’s Webbook ........................................... 5
`C. Claimed Aspects of LiTL’s Webbook Received Contemporaneous
`Praise............................................................................................................ 7
`III. THE PETITION FAILED TO IDENTIFY WITH PARTICULARITY
`HOW THE PRIOR ART IS ALLEGED TO MEET THE DISPUTED
`CLAIMS ............................................................................................................ 8
`A. The Petition’s Conclusory Analysis Improperly Relied On a Web
`of Nested Cross-References ........................................................................ 8
`B. The Web of Nested Cross-References Improperly Shifts the Burden
`of Deciphering Petitioner’s Arguments onto Patent Owner and the
`Board.......................................................................................................... 13
`IV. LENOVO’S EXPERT TESTIMONY CANNOT SAVE THE
`PETITION ....................................................................................................... 15
`A. The Testimony Merely Parroted the Petition ............................................ 15
`B. The Declaration and Exhibits Cited Therein Cannot Be
`Incorporated by Reference into the Petition .............................................. 16
`V. LENOVO CIRCUMVENTED THE WORD COUNT LIMIT ....................... 17
`A. 700+ Words in Images ............................................................................... 17
`B. The Petition Improperly Moved Arguments to an “Exhibit” .................... 18
`C. The Petition Impermissibly Used Atypical Spacing Techniques .............. 18
`VI. THE PETITION FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE
`UNPATENTABILITY OF ANY DISPUTED CLAIM .................................. 18
`A. Claim Construction .................................................................................... 18
`1. Display Orientation Module (claims 3-5, 11, 13-14, 16, 19 and
`25) ........................................................................................................ 18
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`2. Other Constructions ............................................................................. 24
`B. The Board Should Not Conduct a Trial on this Facially Deficient
`Petition ....................................................................................................... 24
`C. Ground 1 Fails for Claims 1-7 ................................................................... 25
`1. Independent Reason 1: Lenovo Failed to Establish that a
`Computer with a Single-Axis Hinge that Supports Easel Mode
`Would Have Been Obvious over Shimura and Hisano ....................... 25
`a. Lenovo Failed to Establish that Hisano’s Single-Axis
`Hinge Was a “Design Choice” for Shimura’s Computer
`Having an Easel Mode ................................................................ 27
`b. Lenovo Failed to Establish that the Shimura-Hisano
`Combination Meets All Claim 1’s Elements .............................. 29
`2. Independent Reason 2: Lenovo Failed to Establish that the
`Shimura-Hisano Combination Meets Limitation [1c]’s
`Requirement that the Hinge Assembly Be at Least Partially
`Housed Within the Base and Display Components ............................ 32
`3. Independent Reason 3: Lenovo Failed to Even Allege that the
`Hinge Assembly in the Shimura-Hisano Combination Defines a
`“Longitudinal Axis Running Along an Interface” .............................. 34
`D. Ground 1 Fails for Claim 19 ...................................................................... 37
`1. Independent Reason 1: Lenovo Failed to Establish the Cited
`Prior Art Discloses the Claimed “Display Orientation Module” ........ 37
`2. Independent Reason 2: Lenovo Failed to Establish that the
`Cited Prior Art Discloses a “Frame Mode” ......................................... 38
`a. Frame Mode ................................................................................ 38
`b. Tablet Mode ................................................................................ 39
`c. Lenovo Mischaracterized Shimura’s Tablet Mode as
`Frame Mode ................................................................................ 42
`d. The Petition’s Obviousness Arguments Fail Because They
`Are Based on Shimura’s Teaching of Tablet Mode ................... 44
`e. Lenovo Failed to Establish that the Shimura-Hisano
`Combination’s Hinge Assembly Supports Frame Mode ............ 46
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`3. Independent Reason 3: Lenovo Failed to Demonstrate [19c]’s
`“Orientation Sensor” Is Met by the Shimura-Hisano
`Combination ........................................................................................ 48
`a. The Petition Failed to Identify How or Why Limitation
`[19c]’s Orientation Sensor Is Met ............................................... 48
`b. The Petition Cannot Meet the Claimed “Orientation
`Sensor” by Implication ................................................................ 48
`E. Ground 1 for Claims 29-32 ........................................................................ 49
`1. Claim 29 .............................................................................................. 49
`2. Claims 30-32 ....................................................................................... 49
`F. Ground 2 Fails ........................................................................................... 50
`1. Independent Reason 1: Lenovo Failed to Establish that
`Shimura And Tsuji Render Obvious a Computer with
`“Integrated Navigation Hardware Control that Would Be
`Accessible in Each of the Plurality of Modes” ................................... 51
`a. Lenovo Failed to Establish Shimura’s Display Reverse
`Switch is “Navigation Hardware” as Claimed ............................ 52
`b. Lenovo’s Reliance on Tsuji’s Buttons Fails ............................... 52
`i. Shimura’s Laptop ................................................................ 53
`ii. Tsuji’s PDA ........................................................................ 53
`iii. Lenovo Failed to Establish a POSA Would Have Put
`Tsuji’s Buttons on Shimura’s Laptop ................................. 55
`iv. Lenovo Failed to Establish that Buttons on the Back
`of Shimura’s Laptop Would Be Accessible in Laptop
`Mode ................................................................................... 60
`c. Lenovo’s Reliance on Tsuji’s Touch Screen Fails ..................... 62
`i. Lenovo Failed to Establish a Reason for Its
`Modification to Shimura’s Laptop ..................................... 62
`ii. Lenovo Failed to Establish that Tsuji’s Touch Screen
`Meets [12f] .......................................................................... 62
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`2. Independent Reason 2: Lenovo Failed to Map Limitation
`[12c2] to the Shimura-Tsuji Combination .......................................... 64
`G. Ground 3 Fails ........................................................................................... 64
`H. Ground 4 Fails ........................................................................................... 66
`1. Independent Reason 1: Lenovo Failed to Establish Limitations
`[17b]-[17d] Are Met ............................................................................ 66
`a. Lenovo Failed to Map [17b]-[17c] to the Prior Art .................... 66
`b. Lenovo Failed to Map [17d] to the Prior Art .............................. 67
`c. Failure to Map [17b]-[17d] to the Prior Art Is Fatal ................... 68
`d. Lenovo Failed to Address What “Detecting a Degree of
`Rotation” Requires ...................................................................... 68
`2. Independent Reason 2: Lenovo Failed to Map All the
`Requirements of Limitation [17a] to the Shimura-Hisano-
`Shigeo Combination ............................................................................ 71
`I. Ground 5 Fails ........................................................................................... 72
`1. Independent Reason 1: Lenovo Failed to Establish the
`Combination Meets [11d]’s “Display Orientation Module” ............... 72
`a. Lenovo’s Construction Failed ..................................................... 72
`b. The Petition Failed to Apply Its Own Construction of the
`Function of the Alleged Means-Plus-Function Limitation ......... 73
`2. Independent Reason 2: Lenovo Failed to Establish that a POSA
`Following the Teachings of Shimura, Hisano, Shigeo and Choi
`Would Have Been Led to a Computer that Meets [11c]’s Means
`for Rotation .......................................................................................... 74
`a. Lenovo Failed to Establish that a POSA Would Have Used
`the Single-Axis Hinge Assembly of Hisano or Choi in
`Shimura’s Computer that Is Configurable in Easel Mode .......... 75
`b. Lenovo Failed to Establish the Shimura-Hisano-Shigeo-
`Choi Combination Meets [11c]’s Function ................................ 77
`c. Lenovo Failed to Establish that the Shimura-Hisano-
`Shigeo-Choi Combination Has the Specification’s
`Corresponding Structure for [11c] or an Equivalent .................. 78
`VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 81
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`CASES
`Apple v. Contentguard Holdings,
`IPR2015-00442, Paper 9 (PTAB July 13, 2015) .......................................... passim
`Apple v. Ziilabs,
`IPR2015-00963, Paper 8 (PTAB Oct. 1, 2015) ............................................. 13, 35
`Arctic Cat v. Polaris Indus.,
`IPR2017-00433, Paper 11 (PTAB May 31, 2017) ............................................... 17
`Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys.,
`IPR2015-00976, Paper 9 (PTAB Oct. 19, 2015) .................................................. 21
`Aristocrat Techs. Australia v. Int'l Game Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................................................................... 22, 23
`Askeladden v. Digital Verification Sys.,
`IPR2018-00745, Paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2018) ................................................ 23
`Ayla Pharma v. Novartis,
`IPR2020-00295, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 6, 2020) ................................................ 55
`Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc.,
`296 F.3d 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 21
`CiscoSys. v. C-Cation Techs.,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) ................................... 2, 14, 16
`Deeper v. Vexilar,
`IPR2018-01310, Paper 7 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) .................................................. 24
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 59
`Duo Security Inc. v. StrikeForce Technologies, Inc.,
`IPR2017-01064, Paper 7 (PTAB October 16, 2017) ........................................... 20
`EMC Corp. v. Intell. Ventures,
`IPR2017-00429, Paper 11 (PTAB July 5, 2017) .................................................. 18
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group,
`523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 23
`Fitbit v. Koninklijke Philips,
`IPR2020-00774, Paper 13 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2020) ................................................ 16
`Garmin Int'l. v. LoganTree,
`825 F. App’x 894 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ................................................................ 36, 49
`Gen. Elec. Co. v. Raytheon Techs. Corp.,
`983 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................ 49
`Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Holdings v. Cipla,
`IPR2020-00369, Paper 7 (PTAB July 31, 2020) .................................................. 13
`Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC,
`938 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 20
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 55
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 20
`Initiative for Med., Access & Knowledge (I-Mak) v. Gilead Pharmasset,
`IPR2018-00122, Paper 10 (PTAB May 21, 2018) ............................................... 16
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 44, 62
`Live Power Intel. v. Genscape Intangible Holding,
`IPR2019-00169, Paper 7 (PTAB June 7, 2019) ................................................... 23
`Micro-Tech (Nanjing) v. Bos. Sci. Scimed.,
`IPR2020-00185, Paper 11 (PTAB May 4, 2020) ................................................. 16
`Nautilus Hyosung, Inc. v. Diebold, Inc.,
`IPR2016-00580, Paper 15 (PTAB Jan. 31, 2017) ......................................... 20, 61
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 19
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`One World Techs. v. Chervon,
`IPR2020-00885, Paper 21 (PTAB Nov. 6, 2020) ................................................ 15
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 41
`Rain Computing v. Samsung Elecs. Am.,
`989 F.3d 1002 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................ 23
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Cellect,
`IPR2020-00559, Paper 14 (PTAB July 21, 2020) ................................................ 23
`St. Jude Med. v. Snyders Heart Valve,
`IPR2018-00105, Paper 7 (PTAB Jan. 12, 2018) ........................................... 17, 18
`Tesla v. Nikola,
`IPR2019-01646, Paper 7 (PTAB Mar. 27, 2020) ................................................. 15
`
`Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Servs.,
`290 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................... 37, 73, 78
`Unigene Lab'ys v. Apotex,
`655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ......................................................... 29, 31, 32, 34
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 55
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 20
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ....................................................................................... passim
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 16
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ................................................................................................... 20
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) .......................................................................................... 36
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) .......................................................................................... 36
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ....................................................................... 19, 20, 22, 71
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .................................................................................. passim
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) .................................................................................. passim
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) .................................................................................... passim
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(2) ............................................................................................ 17
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) ................................................................................. 16, 18, 31
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`Exhibit Description
`2001
`[No Author Listed], The Litl webbook. European Consumers Choice.
`URL=https://www.europeanconsumerschoice.org/hi-tech/litl-
`webbook-computer-test-and-reviews/ [last accessed June 25, 2021]
`[No Author Listed], Litl Webbook Beats ChromeOS, Becomes First
`Cloud Computer. CoolThings. November 16, 2009.
`URL:https://www.coolthings.com/litl-webbook-beats-chromeos-
`becomes-first-cloud-computer/ [last accessed June 25, 2021]
`Noe, The Litl Webbook: A more social computing device. November
`5, 2009. Corr77. URL:https://www.core77.com/posts/15122/The-Litl-
`Webbook-A-more-social-computing-device [last accessed June 25,
`2021]
`Saxena, CES 2010: All New Litl Webbook Makes Its Debut
`Appearance. Elite Choice. URL:https://elitechoice.org/luxury/ces-
`2010-all-new-litl-webbook-makes-its-debut-appearance [last accessed
`June 25, 2021]
`McDonald, LiTL Webbook Review. Little Tech Girl. August 31, 2010.
`URL:https://littletechgirl.com/2010/08/31/litl-webbook-review/ [last
`accessed June 25, 2021]
`Strauss, Litl Webbook Re-Defines Computing. ABC News. December
`14, 2009. URL:https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GadgetGuide/litl-
`webbook-defines-computing/story?id=9311095 [last accessed June 25,
`2021]
`Scinto, Introducing The Litl WebBook. The Gadgeteer. November 19,
`2009. URL:https://the-gadgeteer.com/2009/11/19/introducing-the-litl-
`webbook/ [last accessed June 25, 2021]
`[No Author Listed], All-New Litl Webbook Debuts at 2010 CES.
`Cision. January 5, 2010. URL:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-
`releases/all-new-litl-webbook-debuts-at-2010-ces-80716797.html [last
`accessed June 25, 2021]
`Disclaimer in Patent Under 37 CFR 1.321(a)
`U.S. Patent 6,771,494
`U.S. Patent 6,266,236
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`2010
`2011
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Lenovo’s Petition is fatally flawed procedurally and substantively.
`
`Institution should be denied.
`
`A. The Petition Is Procedurally Improper
`The Petition’s five Grounds purported to demonstrate how all limitations in
`
`each of thirty-one challenged claims are met by the prior art. For more than 75%
`
`of the limitations addressed, the Petition’s entire explanation was a conclusory
`
`statement—e.g., “Shimura discloses [1g]” (Pet., 56)—supported by cross-
`
`reference(s) to elsewhere in the Petition. Many of the Petition’s cross-referenced
`
`sections do nothing more than make a different conclusory statement supported by
`
`cross-reference(s) to yet other sections. The Petition’s nested cross-references
`
`often require review of voluminous (e.g., 70+) pages of cross-referenced material
`
`to even attempt to determine how or why Lenovo alleges a single claim limitation
`
`is met by a single ground.
`
`Institution should be denied because the Petition’s “web of internal cross-
`
`references” “improperly shifts the burden of deciphering Petitioner’s arguments
`
`onto Patent Owner and the Board” and results in the Petition failing to meet the
`
`requirements imposed by the statute and the rules to establish with particularity
`
`how the prior art allegedly meets the challenged claims. Apple v. Contentguard
`
`Holdings, IPR2015-00442, Paper 9, 7-10 (PTAB July 13, 2015) (“Contentguard”),
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`citing CiscoSys. v. C-Cation Techs., IPR2014-00454, Paper 12, 10 (PTAB Aug. 29,
`
`2014) (informative) (“Cisco”); 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2),
`
`42.104(b)(4)-(5).
`
`Compounding the problem, the laborious process of tracing through the
`
`Petition’s cross-references often fails to lead to any discussion where the Petition
`
`mapped the claim language to the prior art. Indeed, for some claim elements, the
`
`Petition referred back only to sections that never even discussed the claim
`
`language, let alone explain how or why the claim element is allegedly met by the
`
`prior art.
`
`The Petition failed to meet the most fundamental requirements imposed by
`
`the statute and the rules to state the grounds “with particularity” and to demonstrate
`
`how every element of each challenged claim is met by the prior art.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The Petition also failed to comply with the word count limit because Lenovo used
`
`multiple tactics the Board has found improper attempts to circumvent the word
`
`count limit as discussed in § V below.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`The Petition’s Grounds Fail on the Merits
`The inventions described and claimed in U.S. Patent No. 8,289,688 (“the
`
`’688 Patent”) was groundbreaking in 2008. They earned substantial
`
`contemporaneous praise and have become industry standards that are ubiquitous
`
`today. They were anything but ubiquitous in the timeframe relevant to this
`
`proceeding.
`
`Lenovo could not find a single prior art reference disclosing the combination
`
`of features in any challenged claim. All Grounds were based on alleged
`
`obviousness. Yet, Lenovo ignored substantial objective evidence of non-
`
`obviousness. None of Lenovo’s hindsight-driven combinations establish
`
`obviousness of a single challenged claim. All five Grounds fail on the merits for
`
`the reasons detailed below.
`
`II. LITL’S ’688 PATENT
`Before the LiTL Webbook, “home computers were essentially the same as
`
`office computers,” and home users “struggle[d] with complex interfaces designed
`
`in pre-web times.” Ex. 2001, 1. LiTL worked for years to develop its Webbook.
`
`LiTL recruited leading user experience design (“UXD”) experts and worked
`
`closely with some of the world’s leading technology and UXD consultancies. Id.,
`
`1-2.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`This design effort led to the filing of provisional application no. 61/041,365
`
`on April 1, 2008, to which the ’688 Patent claims priority. Ex. 1001, 1. The
`
`named inventors all worked for Fuseproject, one of the world’s leading design
`
`firms. Ex. 2001, 2.
`
`The ’688 Patent discloses and claims a portable computer configurable
`
`between a plurality of display modes (e.g., “a laptop mode, an easel mode, a frame
`
`mode, and a flat mode”). Pet., 4. In some embodiments, a sensor detects what
`
`mode the computer is in and adjusts the display accordingly. Id., 7. In other
`
`embodiments, integrated navigation hardware allows a user to manipulate
`
`displayed content regardless of the mode. Id., 8.
`
`A. Disputed Claims
`The Petition challenged claims 1-9 and 11-32 of the ’688 Patent, including
`
`independent claims 1, 11, 12, 17, 19, and 29. Claim 29 has been disclaimed (see
`
`Ex. 2009) and is not at issue in this proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) (“No inter
`
`partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.”).
`
`Claims 1-9, 11-28 and 30-32 are at issue in this proceeding and are referred
`
`to herein as the “Disputed Claims.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`The Disputed Claims Cover LiTL’s Webbook
`LiTL launched its Webbook in November 2009. Ex. 2002, 1 (“Litl
`
`Webbook Beats ChromeOS, Becomes First Cloud Computer”). The LiTL
`
`Webbook is nearly indistinguishable from the figures in the ’688 Patent:
`
`LiTL Webbook
`
`’688 Patent Figures 1 & 4
`
`Ex. 2001, 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`The Disputed Claims read on the LiTL Webbook. This is demonstrated below
`
`using claim 1 as an example and adopting the Petition’s claim limitation labels:
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`[1c1]: a hinge assembly at
`
`[1c2]: a single
`
`least partially housed
`
`longitudinal axis
`
`[1pre]: A portable computer
`configurable between a plurality
`0f display modes
`
`within the base and the
`display component
`configured to pivotably
`couple the display
`
`component to the base \
`
`
`running along an
`interface between the
`display component and
`the base
`
`2
`
`
` (a
`longitudinal axis
`
`[1a]: a single display component including a display screen
`
`[1b]: a base including a keyboard
`
`[1C3]: the display
`
`component and the base are
`
`rotatable about the single
`
`[1g]:
`
`in the easel mode [the
`
`display] is oriented facing the
`
`operator with the keyboard
`
`oriented away from the
`operator
`
`.— -‘- '
`
`I _——.—- .
`
`[1pre]: a closed mode
`
`[1pre]: an easel mode
`
`[1pre]: a laptop mode
`
`[1d]: the display screen is
`
`[1f]: rotating
`
`[the display]
`
`[1e]: the single display
`
`disposed substantially
`
`beyond approximately 180
`
`component is oriented
`
`against the base
`
`degrees
`
`configures the
`
`towards the operator and
`
`computer into the easel
`
`the keyboard is oriented to
`
`mode
`
`receive input from the
`operator
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 2003, 2; see also Ex. 1012 (claim listing).2
`
`C. Claimed Aspects of LiTL’s Webbook Received Contemporaneous
`Praise
`Industry publications lavished praise on aspects of the LiTL Webbook
`
`claimed by the ’688 Patent, including integrated navigation controls and the ability
`
`to convert between notebook and easel modes. For example, an article covering
`
`the 2010 Consumer Electronics Show stated, “[t]he all new webbook boasts of a
`
`highly innovative convertible design that allows for the display to be flipped over
`
`and viewed as a standalone screen.” Ex. 2004, 1.3 A November 2009 article
`
`stated, “[p]hysically, it looks exciting, toting a 12.1-inch display that can open past
`
`180 degrees, allowing you to prop it on a table like an overpowered LCD frame.”
`
`Ex. 2002, 2. An August 2010 product review touted the LiTL Webbook’s
`
`“[p]atented hinge to convert to easel mode,” its “[b]uilt-in scroll wheel for easy
`
`navigation,” and its “[f]ull-sized keyboard.” Ex. 2005, 4. A December 2009 ABC
`
`News report titled “Litl Webbook Re-Defines Computing” highlighted “two
`
`interesting display options that set it apart from traditional laptops” including one
`
`in which the “screen flips around into easel mode allowing the full 12-inch screen
`
`
`2 Words in images on pages 6 and 10 have been counted in certifying compliance
`
`with this paper’s word count limit.
`
`3 Emphasis is added unless noted otherwise.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`to display … anything … while hiding the keyboard.” Ex. 2006, 3. Other 2009-
`
`2010 articles also recognized the innovative claimed features of the LiTL
`
`Webbook. Ex. 2001, 1; Ex. 2003, 1, 3; Ex. 2007, 2; Ex. 2008, 1.
`
`III. THE PETITION FAILED TO IDENTIFY WITH PARTICULARITY
`HOW THE PRIOR ART IS ALLEGED TO MEET THE DISPUTED
`CLAIMS
`The Petition failed to meet the requirements for institution because it failed
`
`to point out “with particularity” how the prior art discloses the limitations of the
`
`Disputed Claims. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); see also 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) (the
`
`petition “must include … a detailed explanation of the significance of the
`
`evidence”) and 42.104(b)(5) (the petition “must” identify “specific portions of the
`
`evidence that support the challenge”).
`
`A. The Petition’s Conclusory Analysis Improperly Relied
`On a Web of Nested Cross-References
`Ground 1 began with a section alleging reasons to combine Shimura and
`
`Hisano to form the “Shimura-Hisano combination.” Pet., 37-49 (§ VII.B.1). Next,
`
`the Petition purported to map the Shimura-Hisano combination to claim 1
`
`limitation-by-limitation. Id., 49-56 (§ VII.B.2). When it reached limitation [1c2]
`
`(id., 54), instead of identifying with particularity how and why the Shimura-Hisano
`
`combination allegedly meets it, the Petition’s only explanation was a single
`
`conclusory sentence stating:
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`[t]he Shimura-Hisano combination discloses [1c2] and renders
`
`it obvious. See VII.B.1 (discussing single-axis hinge
`
`assembly); EX-1010, ¶178.
`
`If Section VII.B.1 had mapped the language of [1c2] to the Shimura-Hisano
`
`combination, a cross-reference to that section would have been appropriate. But
`
`Section VII.B.1 never even mentions the limitations of claim 1.
`
`Section VII.B.1 includes internal cross-references to two other sections
`
`(VII.A.1 and VII.A.2) spanning ten pages. Pet., 17-26. Those sections do not help
`
`Lenovo because they also fail to map the language of [1c2] to the Shimura-Hisano
`
`combination.
`
`Nowhere in the thirteen pages of Section VII.B.1, or in the ten pages of the
`
`other sections it cross-references, is the language of [1c2] ever mapped to the
`
`Shimura-Hisano combination. Thus, the Petition’s single conclusory sentence for
`
`limitation [1c2] spawns a search through twenty-three pages of the Petition to
`
`understand how or why Lenovo alleged the Shimura-Hisano combination meets
`
`limitation [1c2], and that search yields no such explanation.
`
`Limitation [25b] is an even worse example. The Petition made the
`
`conclusory assertions that “[t]he Shimura-Hisano combination discloses [25b] and
`
`renders it obvious” because it “discloses the function and corresponding structure
`
`of [25b].” Pet., 91. No analysis supports those conclusory assertions. Instead, the
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition relied entirely on a string-cite of no fewer than nine cross-references. Id.
`
`(citing “VI.C; VII.B.1; Claim 3; [4a]; [4b]; Claim 5; [19e]-[19g]”). The nine
`
`cross-referenced sections—totaling twenty-four pages—in turn cross-reference
`
`fifteen sections (including eight circular references) as illustrated below.
`
`
`
`Following the web of nested cross-references requires reviewing thirty pages of
`
`the Petition—all to support the Petition’s conclusory assertion that limitation [25b]
`
`is met. Worse yet, nowhere in those thirty pages did the Petition map the language
`
`in limitation [25b] to the Shimura-Hisano combination.
`
`Lenovo’s expert Declaration largely parroted the Petition and thus also
`
`repeatedly made a conclusory statement that the prior art meets a particular claim
`
`limitation and “supported” that conclusion only by cross-reference(s) to elsewhere
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`in the Declaration. For example, the Declaration’s allegation in ¶¶ 297-298 that
`
`the Shimura-Hisano combination meets limitation [25b] is verbatim the same as in
`
`the Petition, except the cross-references are within the Declaration rather than
`
`within the Petition:
`
`
`
`The Shimura-Hisano combination discloses [25b] and renders it obvious.
`
`See VI.C; VII.B.1See ¶¶123, 124, 150-169; Claim 3; [4a]; [4b]; Claim 5; [19e]-
`
`[19g]; EX-1010, ¶297.].
`
`
`
`The Shimura-Hisano combination discloses the function and
`
`corresponding structure of [25b]. See VI.C;See [19d]-[19g]; EX-1010, ¶298.].
`
`
`
`The Declaration cited no evidence to support the assertion that [25b] is met,
`
`and instead cross-referenced other paragraphs and “analysis” collectively spanning
`
`twenty-six pages. But it did not stop there. The directly cross-referenced
`
`Declaration paragraphs in turn cross-referenced twenty-three other Declaration
`
`sections (including circular cross-references). All told, to support the two
`
`conclusory statements in ¶¶ 297-298, the Declaration cross-referenced or cited
`
`fifty-nine pages of the Declaration and never mapped the words in limitation [25b]
`
`to the prior art.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`The Petition (and its supporting Declaration) employed this same
`
`approach—where the only analysis “supporting” a conclusory statement alleging a
`
`claim limitation is met was a cross-reference to other sections—for more than 75%
`
`(65 of 86) of the claim limitations the Petition addressed as illustrated below.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ground
`
`Petition Only Provided Cross-References
`
`22 of 35 claim elements
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`[1c2], [1c3], [1e], [1g], [2], [4b], [5], [6], [7], [19pre], [19a], [19b],
`[19c], [19d], [29pre], [29b], [29c], [29d], [29e], [29f], [30], and [31]
`
`10 of 12 claim elements
`
`[12pre], [12a], [12b], [12c1], [12c2], [12d], [12e], [13a], [13b], and
`[24]
`
`12 of 14 claim elements
`
`[9a], [9b], [14a], [14b], [15a], [15b], [16a], [16b], [20], [23], [25a],
`and [25b]
`
`17 of 19 claim elements
`
`[17pre], [17a], [17b], [17c], [17d], [17e], [17f], [17g], [17h], [17i],
`[17j], [18a], [18b], [