`
`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.
`_____________
`
`IPR Case No. IPR2021-00786
`U.S. Patent No. 9,880,715
`_____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. LITL’S ’715 PATENT ...................................................................................... 3
`A. The Challenged Claims ............................................................................... 4
`B. The Challenged Claims Cover LiTL’s Webbook ....................................... 4
`C. The ’715 Patent Improved the User Experience by Providing
`Different “Views” for Different Modes ...................................................... 7
`III. LENOVO’S EXPERT TESTIMONY IS ENTITLED TO NO WEIGHT ...... 13
`IV. THE DECLARATION AND NUMEROUS EXHIBITS CITED ONLY
`THEREIN CANNOT BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO
`THE PETITION ............................................................................................... 14
`V. THE PETITION FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE
`UNPATENTABILITY OF ANY CHALLENGED CLAIM .......................... 15
`A. Claim Construction .................................................................................... 15
`B. Grounds 1-2 Both Fail for Three Reasons Common to Both
`Grounds ..................................................................................................... 15
`1. Independent Reason 1: The Petition Failed to Establish the
`Shimura-Tsuji Combination Meets the Claimed “Execution
`Component” Under the Petition’s Means-Plus-Function
`Analysis ............................................................................................... 16
`a. Alleged Means-Plus-Function Limitations ................................. 16
`b. Lenovo Bears the Burden to Prove Its Case ............................... 18
`c. The Petition’s Failure to Identify All Corresponding
`Structure for Each Alleged Means-Term Is Contrary to
`Law .............................................................................................. 19
`d. The Petition’s Failure to Identify an Algorithm Performed
`By the Software “Program(s)” the Petition Identifies as
`Corresponding Structure for Its Alleged Means-Plus-
`Function Limitations is Contrary to Law .................................... 21
`e. Conclusion On Lenovo’s Failure to Properly Construe
`Alleged Means-Plus-Function Limitations ................................. 23
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`2. Independent Reason 2: All Grounds Fail Because the Petition
`Fails to Establish the Shimura-Tsuji Computer Has a “Plurality
`of Views” as Claimed .......................................................................... 24
`a. Lenovo Implicitly Interpreted “Plurality of Views”
`(Claims 1, 17, and 20) as Two Orientations of the Same
`Organization of Displayed Content ............................................ 26
`b. The Specification Confirms a “View” Is an Organization
`of Displayed Content – Not the Displayed Content’s
`Orientation ................................................................................... 28
`i. All Examples of Different Views Have Different
`Organization of Displayed Content and/or Different
`Content ................................................................................ 29
`ii. Different Orientations Are Described as Distinct
`from Different Views .......................................................... 31
`iii. Treating Different Orientations as Different Views Is
`Inconsistent with the Specification’s Explanation of
`the Benefits Different Views Provide ................................. 33
`iv. Lenovo’s Construction Is Wrong Because It Is
`Inconsistent with the Specification ..................................... 38
`c. The Claims Use “Plurality of Views” Consistent with the
`Specification’s Usage .................................................................. 42
`d. Conclusion – The Petition’s Reliance on Different
`Orientations of the Same Displayed Content as Being
`Different Views Fails .................................................................. 44
`3. Independent Reason 3: The Petition Failed to Establish a POSA
`Would Have Arrived at the Shimura-Tsuji Computer (Ground
`1) or the Shimura-Tsuji-Pogue Computer (Ground 2) ........................ 45
`a. Grounds 1 and 2 Both Rely on a “Computer” Having the
`Features of the “Shimura-Tsuji Computer” ................................ 47
`b. The Petition Alleges a POSA Would Have Incorporated
`Tsuji’s Gravity Sensor into Shimura’s Laptop Only to
`Distinguish Between Easel and Frame Modes ........................... 48
`c. Lenovo Failed to Establish Shimura Has a Frame Mode ........... 50
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`i. Frame Mode ........................................................................ 50
`ii. Tablet Mode ........................................................................ 51
`iii. The Petition Mischaracterizes Shimura’s Tablet
`Mode as Frame Mode ......................................................... 54
`iv. The Petition’s Rationale Relies Repeatedly on
`Shimura Having an Alleged Frame Mode .......................... 55
`d. Conclusion – Petition Failed to Prove a Reason to Make
`the Combinations Relied on in Grounds 1-2 .............................. 59
`C. Ground 2 Fails for Additional Reasons ..................................................... 59
`1. The Petition Fails to Map All Limitations in Dependent Claims
`2-16 to the Shimura-Tsuji-Pogue Computer ....................................... 60
`2. Independent Claim 17 and its Dependent Claims 18-19 ..................... 62
`3. Lenovo Failed to Show a POSA Would Have Formed the
`Shimura-Tsuji-Pogue Computer with a Reasonable Expectation
`of Success ............................................................................................ 65
`a. The Petition Provides No Supportable Reason to Use
`Windows XP in the Shimura-Tsuji Computer ............................ 65
`b. Citation to Its Expert Cannot Save Lenovo ................................ 68
`c. Pogue’s 2004 Windows XP OS Does Not Accept Pen
`Input that Shimura’s Tablet Mode Requires Which Is Fatal
`to Lenovo’s Combination ........................................................... 69
`d. Lenovo Never Explains Why a POSA Would Have
`Selected Pogue’s Windows XP as a Suitable Operating
`System for the Shimura-Tsuji Computer .................................... 71
`e. Lenovo Never Explains how the Shimura-Tsuji-Pogue
`Combination Meets the Hardware Requirements to Run
`XP ................................................................................................ 72
`f. Conclusion – The Petition Failed to Establish a POSA
`Would Have Arrived at the Shimura-Tsuji-Pogue
`Computer ..................................................................................... 73
`VI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 74
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Polaris Industries, Inc.,
`795 Fed. Appx. 827 (Fed. Cir. 2019 ..................................................................... 58
`Arista Networks Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`908 F.3d 792 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................................. 41
`Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00976, Paper 9 (PTAB Oct. 19, 2015) .................................................. 20
`Aristocrat Technologies v. International Game Technology,
`521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 22
`Askeladden LLC v. Digital Verification Systems LLC,
`IPR2018-00745, Paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2018) ................................................ 22
`Bell Atlantic Network Services, Inc. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 41
`Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc.,
`296 F.3d 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 20
`Cisco Systems Inc. v. C-Cation Technologies,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) .............................................. 14
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................... 67, 68, 70
`Duo Security Inc. v. StrikeForce Technologies, Inc.,
`IPR2017-01064, Paper 7 (PTAB October 16, 2017) ........................................... 18
`Eli Lilly and Company v. Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`471 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 71
`Finisar Corporation v. DirecTV Group, Inc.,
`523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 22
`Fitbit Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V.,
`IPR2020-00774, Paper 13 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2020) ................................................ 13
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC,
`938 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 18
`Horizon Pharma, Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc.,
`839 F. App’x 500 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ....................................................................... 39
`In re Gordon,
`733 F. 2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ............................................................................. 69
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 57
`In re Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 18, 58
`In re Power Integrations, Inc.,
`884 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 40
`Kaken Pharmaceutical Co. v. Iancu,
`952 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................ 39
`KEYnetik, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
`837 F. App’x 786 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ....................................................................... 40
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Blue Sky Medical Group, Inc.,
`554 F.3d 1010 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 38
`KSR International Company v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................................ 46, 59, 68
`Live Power Intelligence Company v. Genscape Intangible Holding, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00169, Paper 7 (PTAB June 7, 2019) ................................................... 23
`Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corporation,
`401 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 40
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,
` 347 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................... 28, 38
`Microsoft Corporation v. Multi-Tech Systems, Inc.,
`357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 41
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Nautilus Hyosung, Inc. v. Diebold, Inc.,
`IPR2016-00580, Paper 15 (PTAB Jan. 31, 2017) ......................................... 18, 57
`Nidec Motor Corporation v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Company Matal,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 17
`Nystrom v. TREX Co.,
`424 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 38
`On Demand Machine Corporation v. Ingram Industries, Inc.,
`442 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 40
`One World Technologies, Inc. v. Chervon,
`IPR2020-00885, Paper 21 (PTAB Nov. 6, 2020) ................................................ 13
`Phillips v. AWH Corporation,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ......................................... 28, 38, 40, 53
`Rain Computing Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America Inc.,
`989 F.3d 1002 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................ 22
`Synqor, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc.,
`2010 WL 2991037 (E.D. Tex. July 26, 2010), aff'd, 709 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir.
`2013) ..................................................................................................................... 39
`Tesla Inc. v. Nikola Corporation,
`IPR2019-01646, Paper 7 (PTAB Mar. 27, 2020) ................................................. 13
`
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 69
`Unigene Laboratories, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 71
`Wells Fargo Bank NA v. United Services Automobile Association,
`IPR2019-01082, Paper 41 (PTAB Nov. 24, 2020) .............................................. 58
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 18
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ............................................................................................... 14
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ................................................................................................... 18
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`REGULATIONS
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ................................................................................... 17, 21
`37 CAFR. § 42.104(b)(3) esccsssssssssssesssssssssssssssssssseessssssssssssssssssesssssssssssssssaseseees 17, 21
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) .......................................................................................... 14
`37 CAFR. § 42.104(b)(5) .essssssssssssssssssseessssssssssssssssssvesssssssssssssssssssvssssssssssssssssssaseeeess 14
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ............................................................................................ 14
`37 CAFR. § 42.22(a)(2) sescsssssssssssssssvevsssssssssssssssssssessssssssssssssssssseussssssssssssssssssaseeeess 14
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) .............................................................................................. 14
`37 CAFR. § 42.6(a)(3) soessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssvesssssssssssssssssnsesstssssssssssssssssaseeeees 14
`
`
`
`vii
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`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]
`RESERVED
`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]
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`U.S. Patent 6,771,494
`U.S. Patent 6,266,236
`U.S. Patent 8,289,688
`
`2004
`2005
`
`2006
`2007
`2008
`2009
`2010
`2011
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Lenovo’s Petition is fatally flawed and fails to demonstrate a reasonable
`
`likelihood of demonstrating any claim unpatentable. Institution must be denied.
`
`The inventions described and claimed in U.S. Patent 9,880,715 (“the ’715
`
`Patent”) were groundbreaking in 2008. Lenovo could not find a single prior art
`
`reference disclosing the combination of features in any challenged claim. Both of
`
`the Petition’s Grounds are based on allegedly obvious combinations of multiple
`
`references. But neither of Lenovo’s hindsight-driven combinations establishes
`
`obviousness of a single challenged claim.
`
`The Petition presents two Grounds. Ground 1 alleges obviousness of
`
`independent claims 1 and 20 over Shimura and Tsuji, and Ground 2 alleges
`
`obviousness of claims 2-16 (that depend from claim 1), independent claim 17 and
`
`claims 18-19 (that depend from claim 17) over Ground 1’s Shimura-Tsuji
`
`combination further in view of Pogue.
`
`Ground 1 is fatally flawed for three independent reasons and Ground 2
`
`inherits those flaws. Thus, both Grounds fail for three independent reasons.
`
`First, the Petition alleges that every Challenged Claim includes a means-
`
`plus-function limitation, but fails to properly apply black letter law for construing a
`
`means-plus-function limitation. The law requires identifying all the corresponding
`
`structure in the specification for an alleged means-plus-function limitation but the
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition admits it did not even attempt to identify all the corresponding structure in
`
`the specification. Additionally, the Petition alleges a software “program” is
`
`included in the corresponding structure, but fails to identify an algorithm
`
`performed by that software program as the law requires.
`
`Second, every Challenged Claim requires a “plurality of views.” The
`
`intrinsic evidence makes clear different “views” are different ways of organizing
`
`displayed content, and that this is different from the known concept of re-orienting
`
`or “inverting” or “flipping” the same organization of displayed content to ensure it
`
`is right-side-up. The Grounds allege that re-orienting or “inverting” the same
`
`organization of displayed content to make it right-side-up meets the claimed
`
`plurality of views. It manifestly does not.
`
`Third, both Grounds rely on an alleged “Shimura-Tsuji Computer,” but the
`
`Petition fails to establish a POSA would have had any reason to make this
`
`“Shimura-Tsuji Computer.” The Petition alleges a POSA would have been
`
`motivated to incorporate Tsuji’s gravity sensor into Shimura’s computer for a
`
`singular reason – to enable the computer to distinguish between an easel mode and
`
`an alleged “frame mode.” But the Petition’s assertion that Shimura has a frame
`
`mode is demonstrably wrong. Thus, the only “reason” Lenovo offered for
`
`modifying Shimura to incorporate Tsuji’s gravity sensor fails. That is fatal to both
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Grounds because they both map limitations of Challenged Claims to a “Shimura-
`
`Tsuji Computer” the Petition fails to establish a POSA had any reason to make.
`
`Ground 2 (alleging claims 2-19 are rendered obvious by Shimura, Tsuji and
`
`Pogue) also fails for additional reasons. Among them, the Petition failed to
`
`establish a POSA would have combined Shimura, Tsuji and Pogue with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success because: (1) the Petition provides no supportable
`
`reason to use Pogue’s Windows XP operating system (“OS”) in the Shimura-Tsuji
`
`Computer; (2) Pogue’s Windows XP OS would render Shimura’s use of pen/stylus
`
`input inoperable because pen/stylus input was not supported by Pogue’s OS; and
`
`(3) the Petition fails to establish the Shimura-Tsuji Computer had the hardware
`
`required to run Pogue’s Windows XP OS.
`
`II. LITL’S ’715 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 the application that eventually issued as
`
`the ’715 Patent. Ex. 1001, 1. Many of the named inventors worked for
`
`Fuseproject, one of the world’s leading design firms. Ex. 2001, 2.
`
`The ’715 Patent discloses and claims a customized user interface to display
`
`computer content on a display of a computer system that is configurable between a
`
`plurality of different modes (e.g., “a closed mode, a laptop mode, an easel mode, a
`
`flat mode and a frame mode,” Ex. 1001, 11:40-42). The user interface has a
`
`plurality of ways of organizing displayed content (what the ’715 Patent calls a
`
`plurality of “views”) and selects one of the plurality of views for display in
`
`response to the mode in which the computer system is configured (claims 1 and
`
`20), automatically in response to a sensor (claim 17) that is indicative of the
`
`computer system’s configuration, or in response to user input (claim 17).
`
`A. The Challenged Claims
`The Petition challenged claims 1-20 (the “Challenged Claims”) of the ’715
`
`Patent, including independent claims 1, 17 and 20.
`
`B.
`The Challenged 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 ’715 Patent:
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`LiTL Webbook
`
`’715 Patent Figures 4 & 17
`
`Ex. 2001, 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`The Challenged Claims read on the LiTL Webbook. This is demonstrated below
`
`using claim 1 as an example and adopting the Petition’s claim limitation labels:1
`
`
`1 Words in the above image have been counted in certifying compliance with this
`
`paper’s word count limit.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 2003, 2; see also Ex. 1009 (claim listing).
`
`
`C. The ’715 Patent Improved the User Experience
`by Providing Different “Views” for Different
`Modes
`Prior art computers could reorient displayed content to make it right-side-up
`
`when the computer moved between different configurations. For example, Tsuji
`
`does this automatically. Ex. 1005, [0036] (“The automatic image rotating function
`
`is used to align the orientation of the image with a correct one relative to the force
`
`of gravity.”). As another example, Shimura2 has a manual “display reverse switch”
`
`that can be used to flip the displayed content “upside down” (or not) and suggests
`
`this supports various modes like laptop and easel mode. Ex. 1004, [0012].
`
`The ’715 Patent recognized that for a computer with different modes (e.g.,
`
`laptop, frame, and easel modes), the way the user interacts with the computer can
`
`vary between modes (e.g., different I/O devices may be available – or not—to the
`
`user in different modes), so the user experience could be improved by doing more
`
`than merely reorienting the same displayed content to ensure it is right-side up.
`
`Ex. 1001, 25:21-31; id., 2:30-58. Instead, the ’715 Patent created different “views”
`
`of how the content is presented, with at least one view being well-suited for use
`
`with each of the computer system’s different modes:
`
`
`2 Shimura is cited on the face of the ’715 Patent.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`[disclosing] a graphical user interface that organizes interface
`elements into modes of content for presentation to a user. Different
`views of the modes of content are used to present the user with an
`interface that is responsive to configurations of the device and
`responsive to activity being performed by the user . . . The different
`views present different organizations of the interface elements . . .
`
`Id., 2:45-55.3 The ’715 Patent further explains:
`
`Further complicating the user’s interaction with computer devices and
`provided services is the inflexibility of the [prior art] devices being
`used and their accompanying interfaces. It is realized that a device
`that can provide a user with a flexible portal into electronic content,
`that is, one that can be configured dynamically improves the user
`experience. . . . Further, user interfaces that are responsive to the
`user’s dynamic configurations improve the user’s ability to interact
`with the electronic content, from the machine itself, the internet, and
`even from both sources.
`
`Id., 2:30-44.
`
`The ’715 Patent discloses a computer with laptop, easel, frame, and flat
`
`modes. Id., 11:39-12:8, Figs. 1, 4, 26, 27 (showing the respective operating
`
`modes). The different modes have different “I/O profiles.” Id., 18:17-29 (e.g.,
`
`easel mode and laptop mode have different I/O profiles). For example, the I/O
`
`profile of the laptop mode reflects availability of a keyboard because the keyboard
`
`
`3 Emphasis added and internal citations omitted unless otherwise noted.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`faces—and is easily-accessible to—the user in laptop mode. Id., 27:6-47, Fig. 17
`
`(reproduced below). Conversely, the keyboard is not part of the I/O profile for the
`
`easel mode because the keyboard faces away from, and thus is not easily-
`
`accessible to the user in easel mode. Id., 26:55-65, Fig. 4 (reproduced below).
`
`Laptop Mode
`
`
`
`Easel Mode
`
`
`The inventors of the ’715 Patent recognized that a change in configuration of
`
`the device between different modes will “impact the user’s interaction with the
`
`device itself and any content displayed on the device.” Id., 25:28-31. Thus, the
`
`’715 Patent provides different “views” for display of content that are used when
`
`the computer system is in different modes to “improve the user’s ability to interact
`
`with the electronic content.” Id., 2:41-44.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`As an example of assigning different views to different modes based on the
`
`mode’s I/O profile, the ’715 Patent discloses the “portable computer in laptop
`
`mode may display a home view” as shown in Fig. 2 (reproduced below), whereas a
`
`computer configured in easel mode may display a “Channel View” shown in Fig.
`
`23 (reproduced below). Id., 31:18-23.
`
`Home View for Laptop Mode
`
`Channel View for Easel Mode
`
`
`Choosing home view for laptop mode and channel view for easel mode
`
`
`
`
`
`improves user interaction in each respective mode. Home view, for example, “is
`
`configured to manage and organize cards” in a grid pattern 202-216 and has a
`
`search bar 254 at the top of the display. Id., 35:1-5, 33:6-11, 33:33-25, Fig. 2. The
`
`I/O profile of laptop mode reflects the availability of a keyboard (Id., 27:6-47, Fig.
`
`17), and home view is designed to leverage benefits of the keyboard which
`
`facilitates user interaction with the cards 202-216 and search bar 254.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Conversely, the I/O profile for easel mode reflects that the keyboard is not
`
`available to the user. Id., 26:55-65, Fig. 4. Thus, home view would not be well-
`
`suited to easel mode because the absence of a keyboard would make it challenging
`
`for the user to interact with the cards 202-216 and search bar 254. Conversely,
`
`channel view is well-suited for easel mode because channel view provides “high
`
`level navigation options to a user” and presents a “streamline[d] view” that
`
`organizes different types of content into channel cards that can be flipped through
`
`like a “rolodex,” so that only one type of content is displayed at a time. Id., 53:44-
`
`54:19; Fig. 23 (reproduced below). In easel mode, the user can navigate through
`
`different channel cards (like flipping through a rolodex) to access different types of
`
`content by, for example, actuating a scroll wheel on the computer system. Id.,
`
`54:7-17.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`“Home view” selected for laptop mode and “channel view” selected for
`
`easel mode are different ways of organizing the displayed content. Id., 2:45-55
`
`(describing “a graphical user interface that organizes interface elements into
`
`modes of content for presentation to a user. Different views of the modes of
`
`content are used to present the user with an interface that is responsive to
`
`configurations of the device and responsive to activity being performed by the user
`
`. . . . The different views present different organizations of the interface elements
`
`. . . .”). Thus, one of the ’715 Patent’s improvements over the prior art was
`
`organizing display content into different “views” that were well-suited to different
`
`modes to improve user interaction with displayed content for each of the different
`
`modes. See e.g., id., 56:40-43 (selecting a “lean back viewing mode” that
`
`corresponds to easel mode “triggers the streamlined device to transition to a
`
`content display that improves user interaction” in easel mode).
`
`In addition to organizing content into different views, the ’715 Patent also
`
`employs the known technique of ensuring the content (regardless of how it is
`
`organized) is right-side-up. See e.g., id., 20:10-20; see also id., 23:59-24:1.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`As explained further below, all Challenged Claims are directed to the
`
`inventive concept of creating different “views” that organize the displayed content
`
`differently. Changing the orientation of the view—e.g., to make it right-side-up—
`
`does not change the way displayed content is organized and does not constitute a
`
`different view as the Petition erroneously alleges.
`
`III. LENOVO’S EXPERT TESTIMONY IS ENTITLED TO NO WEIGHT
`As detailed below, in numerous circumstances where the Petition is
`
`deficient, Lenovo’s expert Declaration (Ex. 1007) did nothing more than parrot the
`
`Petition, so it has the same failings.
`
`In addition, given that Mr. Ward’s “analysis” did little more than parrot the
`
`Petition, his testimony should be given no weight. See e.g. Tesla Inc. v. Nikola
`
`Corporation, IPR2019-01646, Paper 7, 19 (PTAB Mar. 27, 2020) (denying
`
`institution, holding “Mr. Baker’s testimony simply repeats the conclusions
`
`articulated in the Petition” which “is entitled to little or no weight.”); One World
`
`Technologies, Inc. v. Chervon, IPR2020-00885, Paper 21, 29 (PTAB Nov. 6, 2020)
`
`(similar); Fitbit Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., IPR2020-00774, Paper 13, 25
`
`(PTAB Oct. 16, 2020) (similar).
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`IV. THE DECLARATION AND NUMEROUS EXHIBITS CITED ONLY
`THEREIN CANNOT BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO
`THE PETITION
`The Petition (see Pet., 10) block-cites a large portion of the Declaration’s
`
`“State of the Art” section (¶¶ 65-81) which is over twenty pages long and cites
`
`fifteen exhibits nowhere cited in the Petition (Exs. 1011-1018, 1020-1022, 1024,
`
`1026, 1031, 1038). The fifteen exhibits not cited in the Petition cannot be
`
`considered because the Petition must identify the evidence needed to support the
`
`requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5). In addition, the Petition must provide a
`
`detailed explanation of how the cited evidence supports the requested relief, and
`
`the Petition provides no explanation of these exhibits at all. 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`312(a)(3), 314(a); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b)(5).
`
`None of the block-cited material can be incorporated by reference into the
`
`Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); Cisco Systems Inc. v. C-Cation Technologies,
`
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12, 10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014)) (informative) (“It is
`
`improper to incorporate by reference arguments from one document into another
`
`document. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). . . . [W]e will not consider arguments that are
`
`not made in the Petition, but are instead incorporated by reference to the cited
`
`paragraphs… of [the] Declaration.”).
`
`The above example is just one of numerous instances where the Petition
`
`block-cites large portions of the Declaration—Pet., 42 (citing Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 165-
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`180), Pet., 56, 59 (citing Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 196-202), Pet., 60 (citing Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 181-
`
`206), Pet., 62 (citing Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 207-214), Pet., 63 (citing Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 95-117),
`
`Pet., 92 (citing Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 265-274), Pet., 94 (citing Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 273-279), Pet.,
`
`95 (citing Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 273-281), Pet., 102 (citing Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 293-301). None of
`
`those block-cited sections of the Declaration can be incorporated by reference into
`
`the Petition.
`
`V. THE PETITION FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE
`UNPATENTABILITY OF ANY CHALLENGED CLAIM
`A. Claim Construction
`For the purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner does not
`
`challenge Petitioner’s claim construction of “content mode” (Pet., Section VII.B)
`
`because the Petition fails even if that construction is adopted. Patent Owner does
`
`challenge Petitioner’s means-plus-function cons