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. IPR2020-00821
`U.S. Patent No. 8,612,888
`__________
`
`DECLARATION OF JEAN RENARD WARD IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 311 ET SEQ. AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`(CLAIMS 1-9, 15-22, AND 24-27 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,612,888)
`
`Lenovo EX-1012, Page 001
`IPR2021-00821 (Lenovo Inc. v. LiTL LLC.)
`
`
`__________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`LITL LLC
`Patent Owner
`__________
`IPR Case No. IPR2020-00821
`U.S. Patent No. 8,612,888
`__________
`
`DECLARATION OF JEAN RENARD WARD IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 311 ET SEQ. AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`(CLAIMS 1-9, 15-22, AND 24-27 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,612,888)
`
`Lenovo EX-1012, Page 001
`IPR2021-00821 (Lenovo Inc. v. LiTL LLC.)
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`My name is Jean Renard Ward. I have been retained as a technical
`
`expert on behalf of Lenovo (United States) Inc. to provide assistance in the above-
`
`captioned matter. I understand that Lenovo (United States) Inc. is the Petitioner in
`
`this proceeding. I have no financial interest in or affiliation with the Petitioner or
`
`the Patent Owner, which I understand is LiTL LLC. My compensation does not
`
`depend upon the outcome of, or the specifics of my testimony in, this inter partes
`
`review proceeding or any litigation proceedings.
`
`2.
`
`I have reviewed each of the following documents, regarding which I
`
`am informed that some are also identified in the Petition.
`
`EXHIBIT
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`
`DESCRIPTION
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,612,888 ("the '888 Patent")
`
`Prosecution History of the '888 Patent
`
`JP 1994-242853 to Shimura ("Shimura")
`
`Certified English translation of JP 1994-242853 ("Shimura")
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0062715 to Tsuji et al. ("Tsuji")
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0265390 to Aldrich et al. ("Aldrich")
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0172451 to Biggs et al. ("Biggs")
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,970,240 to Chao et al. ("Chao")
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0189694 to Kurtz et al. ("Kurtz")
`
`Lenovo EX-1012, Page 002
`IPR2021-00821 (Lenovo Inc. v. LiTL LLC.)
`
`
`
`1010
`1011
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`1024
`
`1025
`1026
`1027
`1028
`
`1029
`1030
`1031
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,778,973 to Choi et al. ("Choi")
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,243,079 to Manolis et al. ("Manolis")
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Jean Ward
`
`Claim Listing
`Family Diagram of Modified Shimura Computers
`
`U.S. Pub. No. US 2005/0122318 ("Tonouchi")
`
`JP 2002-258982 to Kiyoyuki
`
`Certified English translation of JP 2002-258982 ("Kiyoyuki ")
`
`DE 1031455A1 to Schweizer
`
`Certified English translation of DE 1031455A1 ("Schweizer")
`
`Windows XP Home Edition: The Missing Manual, 2nd Edition
`("Pogue")
`Schwartz, Organizing and Editing Your Photos with Picasa
`("Picasa")
`U.S. Pub. No. US 2009/0019383 ("Riley")
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary 5th Edition ("Microsoft
`Dictionary")
`Microsoft Windows Internals 4th Edition ("Microsoft Windows")
`
`Wikipedia, Windows Special Folder ("Windows Special Folder")
`
`Wikipedia, Environment Variable ("Environment Variable")
`
`Microsoft Digital Image Suite User's Manual ("Microsoft Digital
`Image Suite")
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,760,721 to Chasen et al. ("Chasen")
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0007503 to Nakamura ("Nakamura ")
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0110880 to Parulski et al. ("Parulski ")
`
`Lenovo EX-1012, Page 003
`IPR2021-00821 (Lenovo Inc. v. LiTL LLC.)
`
`
`
`1032
`
`1033
`1034
`1035
`
`The Internet Society, HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest
`Access Authentication ("HTTP Authentication")
`U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0230663 to Ackerman ("Ackerman")
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2007/011852 to Svendsen ("Svendsen ")
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,903,723 to Beck et al. ("Beck")
`
`Lenovo EX-1012, Page 004
`IPR2021-00821 (Lenovo Inc. v. LiTL LLC.)
`
`
`
`3.
`
`I understand that the application leading to U.S. Patent No. 8,612,888
`
`("the '888 Patent") was filed as U.S. Application No. 12/611,282 on November 3,
`
`2009. I also understand that this application claims priority to a U.S. Provisional
`
`Application No. 61/041,365, filed April 1, 2008, which I have been asked to treat
`
`as the effective filing or priority date of the '888 Patent (also referred hereafter as
`
`the "Critical Date").
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`EX-1013 is a copy of my current curriculum vitae ("CV").
`
`I provide consulting services doing business as Rueters-Ward Services
`
`(http://ruetersward.com/). My place of business is located at 33 Forest Street,
`
`Watertown MA 02472.
`
`6.
`
`I received an SBEE degree (combined program in Electrical
`
`Engineering and Computer Science) from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
`
`as a member of the class of 1973.
`
`7.
`
`I am a practicing engineer. For a number of years, I have primarily
`
`been doing consulting projects and contract development work under the business
`
`name of Rueters-Ward Services. I have worked professionally in the general field of
`
`software engineering and relevant hardware for approximately 45 years, primarily in
`
`pen/touch computing, applications of public-key cryptography, and web
`
`1
`
`Lenovo EX-1012, Page 005
`IPR2021-00821 (Lenovo Inc. v. LiTL LLC.)
`
`
`
`development. Many of my major projects have concerned pen/touch computing: also
`
`referred to simply as pen computing. Pen computing refers to computing that makes
`
`use of a pen, stylus (including a finger), or other touch-sensitive tool, and a tablet or
`
`touchscreen. This is contrasted with computing that makes use of devices such as a
`
`physical keyboard or physical mouse.
`
`8.
`
`During and immediately after my university studies, from 1973 to
`
`1977, I worked at Data General Corporation on compilers and source-level
`
`emulation tools for a number of programming languages.
`
`9.
`
`For the next approximately 17 years, I worked primarily on many
`
`aspects of pen computing, both software and hardware, at a number of development
`
`companies. From 1977 to 1987, I was heavily involved in the development of base
`
`technology (handwriting recognition algorithms, operating firmware, user-interface
`
`techniques and applications, physical display configurations, and hardware tablet
`
`sensors) and three generations of pen-computing products of Pencept Inc., a
`
`pioneering commercial company for pen-computing technology that I co-founded.
`
`Pencept filed for and was granted a number of patents for my work during that time.
`
`My contributions included developing novel techniques for gesture and handwriting
`
`recognition, new paradigms for pen- and stylus-based user interfaces, two
`
`generations of an applicative computer language for gesture and handwriting
`
`2
`
`Lenovo EX-1012, Page 006
`IPR2021-00821 (Lenovo Inc. v. LiTL LLC.)
`
`
`
`recognition, and engineering solutions to problems with touchscreens and digitizing
`
`tablets.
`
`10. While at Pencept, I participated in the re-engineering of off-the-shelf
`
`commercial tablets that detected touch from an electronic stylus; the engineering
`
`evaluation of off-the-shelf tablet technologies, including at least one having
`
`transparent touchscreen sensors that responded both to finger touches and to touch
`
`by a specialized stylus; and the design of a custom electronic tablet responsive to an
`
`electromagnetic stylus.
`
`11. During that time and in the years following, I authored or co-authored a
`
`number of peer-reviewed articles concerning pen-computing, generative models for
`
`handwriting variability, and digitizer/touchscreen technologies and error behaviors.
`
`12. These articles are listed in my CV, EX-1013 to this declaration. I was
`
`an invited speaker at an international research conference on handwriting
`
`recognition in Montreal, Canada. I also made presentations concerning gesture input
`
`for Pencept and its competitors to the Graphical Kernel System (GKS) and
`
`Programmer's Hierarchical Interactive Graphics System (PHIGS) standardization
`
`committees for computer graphics systems, and organized and chaired a panel
`
`discussion concerning real-world problems of handwriting recognition technology at
`
`another academic conference. I was also invited to visit and speak to the research
`
`3
`
`Lenovo EX-1012, Page 007
`IPR2021-00821 (Lenovo Inc. v. LiTL LLC.)
`
`
`
`groups in pen computing at a number of major computer technology companies,
`
`including IBM in the United States and the AEG-Telefunken Research Center in
`
`Germany.
`
`13.
`
`In 1989, I joined the Freestyle development group at Wang
`
`Laboratories as a Software Architect. Freestyle was a direct-manipulation pen-
`
`computing system that integrated stylus- and voice-input and annotations. During
`
`my tenure there, Wang filed for and later was granted U.S. and international patents
`
`for my work on simulating virtual keyboard and mouse input from stylus user input
`
`on a touch-sensitive tablet portable computer. In addition, I was the lead engineer for
`
`Wang on a joint hardware project for a low-power, touchscreen technology using a
`
`capacitive stylus for a line of highly-portable handheld computers.
`
`14.
`
`In 1991, at the end of Freestyle development, I joined Slate
`
`Corporation, a company formed to develop pen-centric applications for both the new
`
`Pen-Point (GO Corporation) and Pen Windows (Microsoft) operating systems. Both
`
`of these operating systems ran on pen/tablet computers, and "convertible" tablet
`
`computers that could be converted between laptop and tablet modes. In addition to
`
`supporting tablet and laptop modes, the operating systems and the applications
`
`supported rotation and inversion of the system display images to match the physical
`
`4
`
`Lenovo EX-1012, Page 008
`IPR2021-00821 (Lenovo Inc. v. LiTL LLC.)
`
`
`
`orientation of the display e.g. portrait/landscape/inverted This included changes to
`
`the user interface presented to the user according to the display mode.
`
`15. During that time, I was Slate's representative and the co-chair of a
`
`number of meetings involving GO Corporation, Microsoft, and other companies
`
`concerning the JOT cross-platform storage-level standard for compressed electronic
`
`ink data, and was the primary author of the first draft for that standard. I made
`
`presentations regarding the history of pen computing to technical groups interested
`
`in the topic. I also conducted tutorials on touchscreen/pen interfaces and
`
`hardware/software technology at two annual meetings of the Society for Information
`
`Display, the leading engineering society for display technologies.
`
`16. From approximately 1993 onward, my professional work has been
`
`primarily as an independent developer and consultant in the areas of pen/touch
`
`computing, applications of public-key cryptography and computer security.
`
`17. Since the late 1980s, I have maintained and updated an extensive
`
`library of references relating to pen-computing, touchscreens, and related technical
`
`subjects. I have continually published a working annotated bibliography of these
`
`references on the internet for more than 20 years. The annotated bibliography
`
`currently contains well over 9,000 references I have read or studied in my fields of
`
`interest or encountered during my professional career. A number of the references
`
`5
`
`Lenovo EX-1012, Page 009
`IPR2021-00821 (Lenovo Inc. v. LiTL LLC.)
`
`
`
`cited in this declaration, I took from my files of the references in the bibliography.
`
`My annotated bibliography can be accessed here:
`
`http://www.ruetersward.com/biblio.html
`
`18. When the Internet became available, it was frequent that technical
`
`professionals in computer-related fields began publishing their technical materials
`
`on the Internet as a service to each other. As a service to those with an interest in the
`
`field, I began posting my bibliography with its annotations online in about the early
`
`1990s, along with some additional material. In more recent years, because of my
`
`professional work and because of the relation to many touchscreen applications, the
`
`bibliography also includes references related to computer security, cryptography,
`
`and DRM digital rights management.
`
`19. The bibliography is available on my professional web site at
`
`www.ruetersward.com, and on a number of mirrors. It has been my usual practice to
`
`update the bibliography at irregular periods several times a year or more often, as is
`
`convenient. The bibliography has been cited in refereed technical papers by others,
`
`by the USPTO, and in academic degree theses such as at M.I.T.
`
`20.
`
`I obtained copies of many of the publications and references in the
`
`course of the projects I have worked on throughout my career, others through my
`
`independent reading and study. I have read the references in my bibliography
`
`6
`
`Lenovo EX-1012, Page 010
`IPR2021-00821 (Lenovo Inc. v. LiTL LLC.)
`
`
`
`because of my professional work, my intellectual interest, to keep up to date with
`
`developments in the field, and/or to record the history of the field.
`
`21.
`
`I also have a personal collection of touch screen and touch tablet
`
`devices that I have acquired over the years. These include equipment from past
`
`projects I have worked on, as well as other items I considered of note, including a
`
`very early model portable phone with an integrated touch screen and display, a very
`
`early calculator that used a mechanical touchpad for handwritten entry of arithmetic,
`
`at least one model of a very early PDA with an integrated touch screen and display
`
`with handwriting recognition, and various models from the early 1990's of portable
`
`touchscreen computers running one or another complete touchscreen operating
`
`system, including "convertible" portable computers of various designs with
`
`tablet/laptop configurations and modes.
`
`22. A copy of my curriculum vitae with descriptions of my education,
`
`professional achievements, and qualifications is attached to this declaration as EX-
`
`1013. It includes a listing of relevant industry experience, publications, and
`
`presentations.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS AND BACKGROUND
`
`23.
`
`I am not an attorney. My knowledge of patent law is that of a lay
`
`person. Accordingly, I do not offer any legal opinions. I have been informed by
`
`7
`
`Lenovo EX-1012, Page 011
`IPR2021-00821 (Lenovo Inc. v. LiTL LLC.)
`
`
`
`counsel of several legal standards that govern my analysis, including those
`
`discussed below. For example, a proper validity analysis includes resolving the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, determining the scope and content of the
`
`prior art, and ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the
`
`prior art. I also understand that whether a reference was or was not among the body
`
`of references described as the prior art as of a patent's priority date is a legal
`
`question, so I have relied on Petitioner's attorneys to inform me as to whether or
`
`not a reference is in the prior art. I address all of these factors in my declaration
`
`below.
`
`A.
`
`24.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I have been advised that the claims of a patent are reviewed from the
`
`perspective of a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art as of the Critical
`
`Date of the '888 Patent ("POSITA"). The "art" is the field of technology to which a
`
`patent is related, which, in this case, is user interfaces for portable computing
`
`devices, including the user interface employed and displayed by the operating
`
`system and its organization of content and functionality. I understand that the
`
`purpose of using the viewpoint of the POSITA is for objectivity.
`
`25. To determine the characteristics of the POSITA, I have considered the
`
`prior art and the various approaches in the prior art, the types of problems
`
`8
`
`Lenovo EX-1012, Page 012
`IPR2021-00821 (Lenovo Inc. v. LiTL LLC.)
`
`
`
`encountered, the solutions to those problems, the problems encountered by the
`
`inventor, and the rapidity with which innovations were made. I also considered the
`
`sophistication of the technology involved and the educational background and
`
`experience of those actively working in the relevant field at the Critical Date. I
`
`placed myself back at the Critical Date and considered the technology available at
`
`the Critical Date. Based on my experience, I have an understanding of the
`
`capabilities, sophistication, and ordinary creative abilities of a POSITA in the
`
`relevant field. I have supervised, directed, and provided guidance to a number of
`
`such persons over the course of my career.
`
`26. Based on those considerations, the POSITA as of the Critical Date of
`
`the '888 Patent would have had at least a Bachelor's degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Computer Science, plus two to three years
`
`of work experience in designing hardware and/or software aspects of user
`
`interfaces for portable computing devices, including the user interface employed
`
`and displayed by the operating system and its organization of content and
`
`functionality, and Web applications programming and technologies. Alternatively,
`
`the POSITA could have received a graduate degree such as a Master's degree in the
`
`same field with at least one year of work experience related to hardware and/or
`
`software design aspects of the user interfaces for portable computing devices,
`
`9
`
`Lenovo EX-1012, Page 013
`IPR2021-00821 (Lenovo Inc. v. LiTL LLC.)
`
`
`
`including the user interface employed and displayed by the operating system and
`
`its organization of content and functionality, and Web applications programming
`
`and technologies.
`
`27.
`
`In view of my education and experience, as summarized above and in
`
`my curriculum vitae (EX-1013), I meet and exceed this definition of the POSITA,
`
`and I did so at the time of the Critical Date.
`
`28.
`
`In arriving at my opinions and conclusions in this declaration, I have
`
`considered the issues from the point of view of a POSITA at the Critical Date,
`
`unless I explicitly state otherwise.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`29. Lenovo's Counsel has told me that terms should be given the meaning
`
`that the term would have to a POSITA in question at the Critical Date in an inter
`
`partes review proceeding.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that the appropriate context in which to read a claim term
`
`includes both the specification and the claim language itself. I understand that a
`
`patent may include two types of claims, independent claims and dependent claims.
`
`I understand that an independent claim stands alone and includes only the
`
`limitations it recites. I understand that a dependent claim depends from an
`
`independent claim or another dependent claim. I understand that a dependent claim
`
`10
`
`Lenovo EX-1012, Page 014
`IPR2021-00821 (Lenovo Inc. v. LiTL LLC.)
`
`
`
`includes all the limitations that it recites in addition to the limitations recited in the
`
`claim (or claims) from which it depends.
`
`31.
`
`In comparing the Challenged Claim to the prior art, I have carefully
`
`considered the patent and its prosecution history in light of the understanding of
`
`the POSITA at the Critical Date.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that to determine how the POSITA would have
`
`understood a claim term, one should look to sources available at the Critical Date
`
`that show what the POSITA would have understood claim language to mean. It is
`
`my understanding that this may include what is called "intrinsic" evidence as well
`
`as "extrinsic" evidence.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that, in construing a claim term, one should primarily
`
`rely on intrinsic patent evidence, which includes the words of the claims
`
`themselves, the remainder of the patent specification, and the prosecution history. I
`
`understand that extrinsic evidence, which is evidence external to the patent and the
`
`prosecution history, may also be useful in interpreting patent claims when the
`
`intrinsic evidence itself is insufficient. I understand that extrinsic evidence may
`
`include principles, concepts, terms, and other resources available to the POSITA at
`
`the Critical Date.
`
`C. Validity
`
`11
`
`Lenovo EX-1012, Page 015
`IPR2021-00821 (Lenovo Inc. v. LiTL LLC.)
`
`
`
`34.
`
`I understand that the Petitioner bears the burden of proving the
`
`instituted grounds of invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence. I understand
`
`that "preponderance" means "more likely than not." I understand that general and
`
`conclusory assertions, without underlying factual evidence, may not support a
`
`conclusion that something is "more likely than not."
`
`35. Rather, the "preponderance of the evidence" standard requires that a
`
`reasonable finder of fact be convinced that the existence of a specific material fact
`
`is more probable than the non-existence of that fact. The preponderance of the
`
`evidence standard does not support speculation regarding specific facts and is
`
`instead focused on whether the evidence more likely than not demonstrates the
`
`existence or non-existence of specific material facts. Here, I understand that the
`
`Petitioner has argued that the claims at issue (e.g., Challenged Claims) are
`
`rendered obvious by certain prior-art references.
`
`36.
`
`I have been informed that a reference may qualify as prior art to a
`
`patent if the reference was known or used by others in this country, or patented or
`
`described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention
`
`by the patent holder. I have also been informed that a reference may qualify as
`
`prior art to a patent if the invention was patented or described in a printed
`
`publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country,
`
`12
`
`Lenovo EX-1012, Page 016
`IPR2021-00821 (Lenovo Inc. v. LiTL LLC.)
`
`
`
`more than one year before the effective filing date of the patent. For a printed
`
`publication to qualify as prior art, I understand that the Petitioner must demonstrate
`
`that the publication was disseminated or otherwise sufficiently accessible to the
`
`public.
`
`37.
`
`I have further been informed that a reference may qualify as prior art
`
`to a patent if the invention was described in a published application for a patent
`
`filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant of the challenged
`
`patent.
`
`D. Obviousness
`
`38.
`
`I understand that a patent claim may be found unpatentable as obvious
`
`if the Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that, as of the
`
`priority date, the subject matter of the claim, considered as a whole, would have
`
`been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the field of the technology (the
`
`"art") to which the claimed subject matter belongs.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that the analysis of whether a claim is obvious depends
`
`upon a number of factual inquiries, for example, (1) the scope and content of the
`
`prior art; (2) the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of non-
`
`obviousness.
`
`13
`
`Lenovo EX-1012, Page 017
`IPR2021-00821 (Lenovo Inc. v. LiTL LLC.)
`
`
`
`40.
`
`I have also been informed that the claimed invention must be
`
`considered as a whole in analyzing obviousness or non-obviousness. In
`
`determining the differences between the prior art and the Challenged Claim, the
`
`question under the obviousness inquiry is not whether the differences themselves
`
`would have been obvious, but whether the claimed invention as a whole would
`
`have been obvious.
`
`41. On this point, I understand that it might be appropriate to consider
`
`whether there is evidence of a "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" to combine the
`
`teachings in the prior art, the nature of the problem, or the knowledge of a
`
`POSITA. For example, I understand that the combination of familiar elements
`
`according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than
`
`yield predictable results.
`
`42.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a prior-art reference
`
`inherently discloses a limitation if the reference must necessarily function in
`
`accordance with, or include, the limitation in the context of the patented
`
`technology.
`
`43.
`
`I understand that one indicator of non-obviousness is when prior art
`
`"teaches away" from combining certain known elements. For example, a prior art
`
`reference teaches away from the patent's particular combination if it leads in a
`
`14
`
`Lenovo EX-1012, Page 018
`IPR2021-00821 (Lenovo Inc. v. LiTL LLC.)
`
`
`
`different direction or discourages that combination, recommends steps that would
`
`not likely lead to the patent's result, or otherwise indicates that a seemingly
`
`inoperative device would be produced.
`
`44.
`
`I further understand that certain objective indicia can be important
`
`evidence regarding whether a patent is obvious or nonobvious, including the
`
`existence of a long-felt but unsolved need, unexpected results, commercial success,
`
`copying, and industry acceptance or praise.
`
`E. Means-Plus-Function Limitation
`
`45.
`
`I understand that the presence of the word "means" in a claim element
`
`creates a rebuttable presumption that the limitation should be construed as a
`
`means-plus-function limitation. I have been informed that the essential inquiry for
`
`a mean-plus function limitation is not the presence or absence of the word "means"
`
`but whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in
`
`the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure. I
`
`understand that a means-plus-function limitation is construed to cover the
`
`corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and
`
`equivalents thereof.
`
`46.
`
`In the situation where means-plus-function claims are directed to
`
`computer-implemented functionality, the specification is required to disclose an
`
`15
`
`Lenovo EX-1012, Page 019
`IPR2021-00821 (Lenovo Inc. v. LiTL LLC.)
`
`
`
`algorithm corresponding to the claimed function. I have been informed by counsel
`
`that the specification can express the algorithm in any understandable terms such
`
`as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that
`
`provides sufficient structure.
`
`IV. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE '888 PATENT
`
`A. Overview of the '888 Patent
`
`47. The '888 Patent is directed to a "streamlined computer device …
`
`includ[ing] a plurality [of] selectable I/O profiles." EX-1001, Abstract. The
`
`streamlined computer device is configurable into the plurality of display modes,
`
`e.g., FIGs. 1 (laptop mode) and 22 (easel mode), based on a hinge assembly
`
`rotatably coupling the display component 102 to the base 104 of the computer 100.
`
`Id., 15:12-21, 36:41-50.
`
`
`
`16
`
`Lenovo EX-1012, Page 020
`IPR2021-00821 (Lenovo Inc. v. LiTL LLC.)
`
`
`
`
`48. Each display mode may be associated with a corresponding I/O
`
`profile (e.g., an easel mode is associated with a first I/O profile and a laptop mode
`
`is associated with a second I/O profile). Id., 38:44-56. "The first I/O profile in
`
`easel mode may consist of a scroll wheel and a selector button." Id., 37:19-21.
`
`The second I/O profile in the laptop mode may include a keyboard. Id., 38:51-52.
`
`In different I/O profiles, the displayed content can be rotated by 180° so that the
`
`displayed content is properly oriented for an intended user. Id., 37:29-41, 39:18-
`
`41. The 180° rotation of the displayed content may be manual or automated. Id.,
`
`39:26-41.
`
`17
`
`Lenovo EX-1012, Page 021
`IPR2021-00821 (Lenovo Inc. v. LiTL LLC.)
`
`
`
`49. With respect to the displayed content, the '888 Patent discloses "a
`
`graphical user interface that organizes interface elements into views of computer
`
`content for presentation to a user." Id., 2:48-50, FIG. 5.
`
`
`"Various views of digital media content permits users to easily and
`
`50.
`
`efficiently access various digital media content. Different views are used to
`
`provide an interface that is responsive to configurations of the device and
`
`responsive to activity being performed by the user." Id., 2:50-54. The computer
`
`content includes photos. Id., 20:31-35. Some of the photos may be stored
`
`remotely. Id. "For example, digital content items added to the user's account with
`
`any online hosting service (e.g., FLICKR, SHUTTERFLY, etc.) the user has
`
`registered with the portable computer 100 may be automatically added to the user's
`
`18
`
`Lenovo EX-1012, Page 022
`IPR2021-00821 (Lenovo Inc. v. LiTL LLC.)
`
`
`
`digital media library." Id., 20:44-49. These remotely stored photos may be "a
`
`visual representation of digital content stored in the cloud, rather than a locally
`
`stored digital content item." Id., 26:25-26.
`
`51.
`
`In the interface of FIG. 5 above, "in the album view, the albums 510
`
`are displayed as a list in the body portion 550, with a scroll bar 515 that allows the
`
`user to scroll down to see additional albums that do not fit within the page view."
`
`Id., 21:38-42. "Each photograph in the album may be displayed as a thumbnail
`
`545." Id., 21:59-60. "User selectable 'buttons' 560, 565 … allow the user to select
`
`between the time view and the album view." Id., 21:60-62.
`
`52. Challenged Claim 1 (reproduced below) is representative.
`
`19
`
`Lenovo EX-1012, Page 023
`IPR2021-00821 (Lenovo Inc. v. LiTL LLC.)
`
`
`
`Id., 47:54-48:28. As shown below, however, at the Critical Date, portable
`
`streamlined computers with user interfaces displaying digital content items that
`
`were configurable into a plurality of I/O profiles, were known in the art.
`
`
`
`20
`
`Lenovo EX-1012, Page 024
`IPR2021-00821 (Lenovo Inc. v. LiTL LLC.)
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the '888 Patent
`
`53. The '888 Patent was allowed after a preliminary amendment, terminal
`
`disclaimer, and an examiner's amendment. EX-1002, throughout. The Examiner's
`
`amendments, dated April 29, 2013, are shown below:
`
`21
`
`Lenovo EX-1012, Page 025
`IPR2021-00821 (Lenovo Inc. v. LiTL LLC.)
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`Lenovo EX-1012, Page 026
`IPR2021-00821 (Lenovo Inc. v. LiTL LLC.)
`
`
`
`EX-1002, 81-82. Other amendments were made to the other independent claims
`
`that led to allowance, and the amendments to those independent claims are
`
`generally related to the following claim limitations:
`
`(1)
`
`transitioning the display to a view based on a selection of an I/O
`
`profile, and
`
`(2)
`
`rotating a display component into
`
`(a)
`
`a laptop mode with
`
`(i)
`
`a first physical orientation,
`
`(ii) a first physical configuration, and
`
`(iii) a first default view, and
`
`(b)
`
`another display mode with
`
`(i)
`
`a second physical orientation,
`
`(ii) a second physical configuration, and
`
`(iii) a second default view.
`
`Id., 83-85. The Notice of Allowance also notes that these claim limitations
`
`distinguished the independent claims from the closest prior art, U.S. Publication
`
`No. 2009/0019383 to Riley. Id., 86.
`
`23
`
`Lenovo EX-1012, Page 027
`IPR2021-00821 (Lenovo Inc. v. LiTL LLC.)
`
`
`
`54. However, as demonstrated below, all of these limitations (along with
`
`the rest of the limitations in the Challenged Claims) were squarely within the prior
`
`art, including the prior art relied upon in the Petition.
`
`V.
`
`STATE OF THE ART OF RELEVANT CLAIM FEATURES
`
`55. The '888 Patent describes and claims streamlined computing devices
`
`having one or more of the following features:
`
`1 Streamlined computing devices that could be configured into multiple
`
`display modes with corresponding selectable input/output (I/O) profiles i.e.,
`
`"multi-display-mode streamlined computing devices");
`
`2 A GUI comprising a plurality of views of digital media content;
`
`3 A view of digital media content provided in response to the act of executing
`
`an association between a visual representation and the digital media content;
`
`and
`
`4 A view of the digital media content with user digital media content and
`
`referenced digital media content
`
`
`56. Portable computers having these features were well known in the art
`
`before the Critical Date, as amply demonstrated in the prior art discussed below.
`
`24
`
`Lenovo EX-1012, Page 028
`IPR2021-00821 (Lenovo Inc. v. LiTL LLC.)
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Streamlined computing devices that could be configured into
`
`multiple display modes with corresponding selectable I/O profiles
`
`were well known.
`
`57. Multi-display-mode streamlined computing devices were well-known
`
`in the art before the Critical Date, as demonstrated by the prior art discussed
`
`below.
`
`1.
`
`Shimura1
`
`58. Shimura discloses a multi-display-mode streamlined computing
`
`device that can be configured into various display modes, including:
`
`1 A first display mode (Figure 1 below) corresponding to the laptop mode of
`
`the '888 Patent, where the display component is rotated to a first physical
`
`orientation that configures the streamlined computing device into a first
`
`physical configuration of the display component and the base, with one of
`
`the plurality of views as a default display and having a first I/O profile (e.g.,
`
`including at least a keyboard); EX-1004, ¶11;
`
`2 A second display mode (
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
