`
`
`
`Paper No. __
`
`Filed on behalf of Patent Owner by:
`Gerald B. Hrycyszyn, Reg. No. 50,474
`Richard F. Giunta, Reg. No. 36,149
`Curtis R. Powell, Reg No. 73,995
`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. IPR2021-00822
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844
`_____________
`
`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 ’844 PATENT ...................................................................................... 4
`A. Challenged Claims ....................................................................................... 5
`B. The Challenged Claims Cover LiTL’s Webbook ....................................... 5
`C. Claimed Aspects of LiTL’s Webbook Received Contemporaneous
`Praise............................................................................................................ 8
`III. THE PETITION FAILED TO IDENTIFY WITH PARTICULARITY
`HOW THE PRIOR ART IS ALLEGED TO MEET THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ................................................................................ 9
`A. The Petition’s Conclusory Analysis Improperly Relied on a Web of
`Nested Cross-References ............................................................................. 9
`B. The Web of Nested Cross-References Improperly Shifts the Burden
`of Deciphering Petitioner’s Arguments onto Patent Owner and the
`Board.......................................................................................................... 15
`C. The Petition Fails to Map the Language of the Challenged Claims
`to Its Prior Art Combinations .................................................................... 17
`1. A Mismatch Between Claim Element Labels in the Petition and
`Claim Listing Results in the Petition Failing to Align Its Prior
`Art Allegations with Claims 1-9 ......................................................... 18
`2. The Board Should Reject the Petition’s Invitation to Launch an
`Archaeological Expedition Simply to Ascertain How Petitioner
`Alleges the Claims Are Mapped to Its Prior Art Combinations ......... 19
`IV. LENOVO’S EXPERT TESTIMONY CANNOT SAVE THE
`PETITION ....................................................................................................... 20
`A. The Testimony Merely Parrots the Petition .............................................. 20
`B. The Declaration Cannot Be Incorporated by Reference into the
`Petition ....................................................................................................... 21
`C. Exhibits Cannot Be Incorporated by Reference into the Petition ............. 22
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`V. THE PETITION IMPROPERLY MOVED ARGUMENT TO AN
`EXHIBIT ......................................................................................................... 22
`VI. THE PETITION FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE
`UNPATENTABILITY OF ANY CHALLENGED CLAIM .......................... 23
`A. Ground 1 Fails for Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-9................................................. 23
`1. Independent Reason 1: Lenovo Failed to Establish that the
`Cited Prior Art Discloses a Frame Mode ............................................ 23
`a. Frame Mode ................................................................................ 24
`b. Tablet Mode ................................................................................ 24
`c. Lenovo Mischaracterized Shimura’s Tablet Mode as a
`Frame Mode ................................................................................ 27
`d. The Petition’s Obviousness Arguments Fail Because They
`Are Based on Shimura’s Teaching of Tablet Mode ................... 29
`e. Lenovo Failed to Establish that the Alleged Shimura-Tsuji
`Computer’s Hinge Supports Frame Mode .................................. 31
`2. Independent Reason 2: Lenovo Failed to Show that a POSA
`Would Have Formed the Alleged Shimura-Tsuji Computer
`Relied upon in Every Ground .............................................................. 33
`a. Tsuji’s Push Buttons Support Thumb Typing on a
`Handheld Device ......................................................................... 34
`b. The Petition Fails to Establish that a POSA Would Have
`Put Tsuji’s Buttons on Shimura’s Laptop ................................... 35
`i. Lenovo’s Assertion that Shimura and Tsuji Are in the
`Same Field Is Factually Wrong and Legally
`Irrelevant ............................................................................. 36
`ii. The Petition’s Assertion that Tsuji Motivates Adding
`Tsuji’s Buttons to Shimura Ignores Disclosures in
`Tsuji and Shimura ............................................................... 36
`iii. Tsuji Buttons Would Not Improve Shimura
`Operability in Easel Mode .................................................. 39
`iv. The Petition Identifies No Supportable Reason to
`Combine Tsuji with Shimura in the Manner the
`Petition Alleged .................................................................. 40
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`(1) The Petition Never Identifies a Reason a POSA
`Would Have Looked to Tsuji to Modify
`Shimura ....................................................................... 40
`(2) The Shimura-Tsuji Computer Is Not a
`Combination of Elements According to Known
`Methods ...................................................................... 42
`(3) The Federal Circuit Rejects Conclusory “build
`something better” as Motivation to Combine ............ 42
`c. Without the Shimura-Tsuji Computer All Grounds Fail ............ 43
`3. Independent Reason 3: Lenovo Failed to Show that a POSA
`Would Have Formed the Shimura-Tsuji-Pogue Computer with
`a Reasonable Expectation of Success ................................................. 44
`a. The Petition Provides No Supportable Reason to Use
`Windows XP in the Shimura-Tsuji Computer ............................ 45
`b. Citation To Its Expert Cannot Save Lenovo ............................... 48
`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 ........................................................... 48
`d. Lenovo Never Explains Why a POSA Would Have
`Selected Pogue’s Windows XP as a Suitable Operating
`System for the Shimura-Tsuji Computer .................................... 50
`e. Lenovo Never Explains How the Shimura-Tsuji-Pogue
`Computer Meets the Hardware Requirements to Run XP .......... 51
`f. Conclusion ................................................................................... 53
`4. Independent Reason 4: Lenovo Failed to Establish that the Prior
`Art Discloses a Portable Computer Having a Rotatable
`Navigation Control .............................................................................. 53
`i. The Navigation Control Must Be Rotatable Relative
`to the Base ........................................................................... 54
`ii. The Trackpad, Keyboard Start Menu Button,
`Keyboard Arrow Keys, and the R and L Buttons of
`the Shimura-Tsuji-Pogue Computer Are Not
`Rotatable Navigation Controls ........................................... 56
`B. Ground 1 Fails for Claims 10 and 13-16 ................................................... 57
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`1. Independent Reason 1: Lenovo Failed to Establish that the
`Cited Prior Art Discloses a Frame Mode ............................................ 57
`2. Independent Reason 2: Lenovo Failed to Show that a POSA
`Would Have Made the Shimura-Tsuji Computer ............................... 58
`3. Independent Reason 3: Lenovo Failed to Show a POSA Would
`Have Made the Shimura-Tsuji-Pogue Computer with a
`Reasonable Expectation of Success .................................................... 58
`C. Ground 2 Fails ........................................................................................... 59
`D. Ground 3 Fails ........................................................................................... 59
`E. Ground 4 Fails ........................................................................................... 60
`1. Independent Reason 1: Lenovo Failed to Establish that the
`Cited Prior Art Discloses a Frame Mode ............................................ 62
`2. Independent Reason 2: Lenovo Failed to Show that a POSA
`Would Have Made the Shimura-Tsuji Computer upon Which
`Ground 4 Relies ................................................................................... 62
`3. Independent Reason 3: Lenovo Failed to Show that a POSA
`Would Have Made the Shimura-Tsuji-Pogue Computer on
`which Ground 4 Relies with a Reasonable Expectation of
`Success ................................................................................................ 63
`F. Ground 5 Fails ........................................................................................... 64
`G. Ground 6 Fails ........................................................................................... 65
`VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 65
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................... 42, 43
`Apple Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00442, Paper 9 (PTAB July 13, 2015) ....................................... 1, 16, 19
`Apple Inc. v. ZiiLabs Inc., Ltd.,
`IPR2015-00963, Paper 8 (PTAB Oct. 1, 2015) ............................................. 15, 19
`Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd. v. International Game Technology,
`709 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 54
`Ayla Pharma LLC v. Novartis AG,
`IPR2020-00295, Paper 12 (Aug. 6, 2020) ............................................................ 36
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Company,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 56
`Cisco Systems Inc v. C-Cation Technologies, IPR2014-00454,
`Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) ......................................................... 2, 16, 19, 21
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ......................................................... 40, 42, 46, 50
`Eli Lilly and Company v. Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`471 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..................................................................... 41, 50
`Fitbit v. Koninklijke Philips,
`IPR2020-00774, Paper 13 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2020) ................................................ 20
`Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Holdings LLC v. Cipla Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00369, Paper 7 (PTAB July 31, 2020) .................................................. 15
`Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .......................................................................................... 17, 47
`In re Antle,
`444 F.2d 1168 (CCPA 1971) ................................................................................ 39
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`In re Gordon,
`733 F. 2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ............................................................................. 49
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ....................................................................... 36, 43
`In re Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 44
`In re Van Os,
`844 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 43
`Initiative for Med., Access & Knowledge (I-Mak) v. Gilead Pharmasset,
`IPR2018-00122, Paper 10 (PTAB May 21, 2018) ............................................... 20
`KSR International Company v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .......................................................................... 17, 30, 43, 47
`Micro-Tech (Nanjing) v. Bos. Sci. Scimed.,
`IPR2020-00185, Paper 11 (PTAB May 4, 2020) ................................................. 20
`Monarch Knitting Machinery Corporation v. Sulzer Morat GmbH,
`139 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .............................................................................. 39
`
`Monroe Auto Equipment Company v. Heckethorn Manufacturing & Supply
`Company,
`332 F.2d 406 (6th Cir. 1964) ................................................................................ 47
`Nautilus Hyosung, Inc. v. Diebold, Inc.,
`IPR2016-00580, Paper 15 (PTAB Jan. 31, 2017) ................................................ 44
`One World Techs. v. Chervon,
`IPR2020-00885, Paper 21 (PTAB Nov. 6, 2020) ................................................ 20
`SNF S.A. v. Solenis Technologies, L.P.,
`IPR2020-01730, Paper 10 (PTAB Sep. 30, 2020) ............................................... 22
`Tesla v. Nikola,
`IPR2019-01646, Paper 7 (PTAB Mar. 27, 2020) ................................................. 20
`
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 48
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Unigene Laboratories, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................... 41, 50
`Wyers v. Master Lock Company,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 36
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ........................................................................................................ 20
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ....................................................................................... passim
`35 U.S.C. § 322 ........................................................................................................ 23
`35 U.S.C. §314(a) .................................................................................................... 45
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ......................................................................... 2, 16, 18, 20
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) ............................................................................................ 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) .................................................................................... passim
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) ....................................................................................... 22, 23
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ................................................................................................. 21
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`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]
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,771,494
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,266,236
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`2010
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Lenovo’s Petition is fatally flawed both procedurally and substantively.
`
`Institution should be denied.
`
`A. The Petition Is Procedurally Improper
`The Petition’s six Grounds purport to demonstrate how all limitations in
`
`
`
`each of twenty-one challenged claims are met by the prior art. For nearly half of
`
`the limitations addressed, the Petition’s entire explanation is a conclusory
`
`statement—e.g., “Shimura discloses [18c1]” (Pet., 101)—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., 50+) pages of cross-referenced material
`
`to even attempt to determine how or why Petitioner 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 statute and the rules to establish with particularity how
`
`the prior art allegedly meets the challenged claims. Apple Inc. v. Contentguard
`
`Holdings, Inc., IPR2015-00442, Paper 9, 7-10 (PTAB July 13, 2015)
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`(“Contentguard”) (citing Cisco Systems Inc v. C-Cation Technologies, 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 place where the Petition maps
`
`the claim language to the prior art. Indeed, for some claim elements, the Petition
`
`refers back only to sections that never even discuss the claim language, let alone
`
`explain how or why the claim element is allegedly met by the prior art.
`
`The Petition also facially fails for nearly half (i.e., claims 1-9) the
`
`Challenged Claims for another reason. The Petition refers to portions of claim
`
`language as “elements” identified only by labels purportedly explained in a “claim
`
`listing” (Ex. 1012). But for claim 1 there is a mismatch. The claim listing
`
`subdivides claim 1 into nine claim elements but the Petition references ten,
`
`including claim element “[1b3]” which is not in the claim listing. Given this, the
`
`Petition facially fails to explain how and why Ground 1’s combination allegedly
`
`maps to all claim 1’s language. This alone results in the Petition being facially
`
`deficient for nearly half the Challenged Claims.
`
`
`
`The Petition failed to meet the most fundamental requirements imposed by
`
`statute and the rules to state the grounds “with particularity” and demonstrate how
`
`every element of each challenged claim is met by the prior art.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`The Petition’s Grounds Fail on the Merits
`The invention described and claimed in U.S. Patent 8,624,844 (“the ’844
`
`Patent”) were groundbreaking in 2008. It earned substantial contemporaneous
`
`praise and has the become industry standard that is ubiquitous today. It was
`
`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 establishes
`
`obviousness of a single challenged claim. All six Grounds fail on the merits for at
`
`least two independent reasons.
`
`First, none of the portable computers that result from the asserted prior art
`
`combinations is configurable into “frame mode” – a requirement of every
`
`challenged claim.
`
`Second, all Grounds rely on (at least) an alleged “Shimura-Tsuji-Pogue
`
`Computer” a POSA never would have made. The “Shimura-Tsuji-Pogue
`
`Computer” takes buttons from Tsuji’s handheld PDA that are used to facilitate
`
`thumb typing, and adds them to the back of Shimura’s laptop with a full-sized ten-
`
`finger keyboard. The Petition establishes no reason a POSA would have done this.
`
`Additionally, the Petition never explains why a POSA would have combined
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Pogue’s Windows XP operating system with Shimura and Tsuji. Indeed, the
`
`Petition’s evidence makes clear a POSA would not have combined Pogue with
`
`Shimura-Tsuji in the manner the Petition alleges.
`
`II. LITL’S ’844 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.
`
`This design effort led to the filing of provisional application no. 61/041,365
`
`on April 1, 2008, to which the ’844 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 ’844 Patent discloses and claims a portable computer configurable
`
`between a plurality of display modes (e.g., “a closed mode, a laptop mode, an easel
`
`mode, a flat mode and a frame mode.”). Ex. 1001, 2:19-22. In some
`
`embodiments, a sensor detects the computer’s mode and adjusts the display
`
`accordingly. Pet., 11-12. In other embodiments, integrated navigation hardware
`
`allows a user to manipulate displayed content regardless of the mode. Id., 12.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`A. Challenged Claims
`The Petition challenged claims 1-16 and 18-22 (“Challenged Claims”) of the
`
`’844 Patent, including independent claims 1, 10 and 18.
`
`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 ’844 Patent:
`
`LiTL Webbook
`
`Ex. 2001, 1.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`’844 Patent Figures 1 & 4
`
`
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims read on the LiTL Webbook. This is demonstrated below1
`
`using claim 1 as an example and adopting the Petition’s claim limitation labels:
`
`
`
`
`1 Words in this image have been counted in certifying compliance with the word
`
`count limit.
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`[1 pre]: A portable
`computer configurable
`between a plurality of
`display modes
`
`[1e1]: a navigation control
`disposed at least partially
`within the base and
`rotatable about the
`
`longitudinal axis, the
`navigation control
`configured to permit a
`user to control at least one
`
`[1 b1]: a main display component
`
`6/
`
`[1 b2]: the main display component including the single
`display screen
`
`[1 b1]: [the] main display component [is] rotatably
`coupled to the base such that the main display
`component and the base are rotatable with respect
`to one another about a longitudinal axis running
`along an interface between the main display
`component and the base
`
`a
`of operating parameters of
`[1a]' a base including a
`’&,
`the portable computer and
`content displayed on the I—I keyboard
`smgle display screen
`
`[1 pre]: transitions between the plurality of display
`
`modes allows an operatorto interact with a single
`displayed content without interacting with the
`display screen in each of the plurality ofdisplay modes .
`
`
`keyboard
`wherein the transition between the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[1 d2]: the portable computer is operable in the
`easel mode to enable the user to interactwith
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Wiimmnmww
`
`laptop mode and the easel mode
`/ allows the operatorto operate the
`/
`portable computer while viewing
`the single display screen
`
`[1 pre]: a laptop mode
`
`[1 pre]: an easel mode
`
`[1c]: with the main display component
`oriented towards the user and the
`keyboard oriented to receive input from
`the user
`
`[1d1]: with the main display
`component oriented towards
`the user and the keyboard
`oriented away form the user
`
`[1 e2]: a frame mode in which the
`main display component is oriented
`towards the Operator, the base
`contacts a substantially horizontal
`surface, and the keyboard faces the
`substantially horizontal surface
`
`[1 c]: the laptop mode is configured to
`display to a user on the main display
`component a first content mode having a
`first content display orientation
`
`[1 d1]: the easel mode is configured to display to the user
`on the main display component a second content mode
`having a second content display orientation
`
`[1 d1]: the first and
`second content
`
`relative to each other
`
`display orientations
`are 180 degrees
`
`
`
`See e.g., Ex. 2003, 2; see also Ex. 1012 (claim listing).
`See e. g., EX. 2003, 2; see also EX. 1012 (claim listing).
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`C. Claimed Aspects of LiTL’s Webbook Received Contemporaneous
`Praise
`Industry publications lavished praise on aspects of the LiTL Webbook
`
`claimed by the ’844 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, 1.2 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
`
`to display … anything … while hiding the keyboard.” Ex. 2006, 2. Other 2009-
`
`2010 articles also recognized the innovative claimed features of the LiTL
`
`Webbook. Ex. 2001, 1; Ex. 2003, 1, 3; Ex. 2007, 1-2; Ex. 2008, 1.
`
`
`2 Emphasis is added unless noted otherwise.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`III. THE PETITION FAILED TO IDENTIFY WITH PARTICULARITY
`HOW THE PRIOR ART IS ALLEGED TO MEET THE
`CHALLENGED 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
`
`Challenged 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
`For nearly half (23 of 53) the claim limitations the Petition addressed
`
`(identified in the table below), the Petition’s mapping of the limitation to the
`
`combination alleged to render the claim obvious is nothing more than a conclusory
`
`assertion that the limitation is met “supported” by a string of nested cross-reference
`
`to other sections of the Petition.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Ground
`
`Petition Only Provided Cross-References
`
`10 of 35 claim elements
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`[10pre], [10a], [10b], [10c2], [10c3], [10d1], [10d2], [10e2], [14a],
`[14b]
`
`[2]
`
`0 of 1 claim elements
`
`1 of 1 claim elements
`
`10 of 11 claim elements
`
`[18pre], [18a], [18b], [18c1], [18c2], [18d], [18e1], [18e2], [18f2],
`[22]
`
`1 of 4 claim elements
`
`1 of 1 claim elements
`
`[21]
`
`[20]
`
`Limitation [18c1] is an example. Ground 4 begins with alleging reasons to
`
`combine Shimura, Tsuji, Pogue, and Lin to form the “Shimura-Tsuji-Pogue-Lin
`
`Computer.” Pet., 97-100 (§ VIII.E.1). Next, the Petition purportedly maps the
`
`Shimura-Tsuji-Pogue-Lin Computer to claim 18 limitation-by-limitation. Id., 101-
`
`102 (§ VIII.E.2). For limitation [18c1] (id., 101), instead of identifying with
`
`particularity how and why the Shimura-Tsuji-Pogue-Lin Computer allegedly meets
`
`it, the Petition’s only explanation is a single conclusory sentence stating: “Shimura
`
`discloses [18c1]. See VIII.A.1; VIII.B.3.c; VIII.B.10.d; EX-1010, ¶328.”
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`If any one of §§ VIII.A.1, VIII.B.3.c, VIII.B.10.d had mapped the
`
`language of [18c1] to the Shimura-Tsuji-Pogue-Lin Computer (or even to
`
`Shimura alone), a cross-reference to these sections may have been
`
`appropriate. But none of §§ VIII.A.1, VIII.B.3.c, VIII.B.10.d even mention
`
`the limitations of claim 18.
`
`§ VIII.B.10.d further cross-references § VIII.B.3.a (Pet., 82), which in
`
`turn further cross-references § VIII.B.1.a. Pet., 57. Neither §§ VIII.B.1.a
`
`nor VIII.B.3.a helps Lenovo, because they also fail to map the language of
`
`[18c1] to Shimura or the Shimura-Tsuji-Pogue-Lin Computer.
`
`Nowhere in the ten pages of §§ VIII.A.1, VIII.B.3.c, and VIII.B.10.d,
`
`or in the six pages of §§ VIII.B.1.a and VIII.B.3.a cross-referenced thereby,
`
`is the language of [18c1] ever mapped to Shimura or the Shimura-Tsuji-
`
`Pogue-Lin Computer. Thus, the Petition’s single conclusory sentence for
`
`limitation [18c1] spawns a search through sixteen pages of the Petition to
`
`understand how or why Lenovo alleged the Shimura-Tsuji-Pogue-Lin
`
`Computer meets limitation [18c1], and that search yielded no such
`
`explanation.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Limitation [22] is another example. The Petition made the
`
`conclusory assertion that “[t]he Shimura-Tsuji-Pogue combination discloses
`
`the additional limitation of this claim [22], and the Shimura-Tsuji-Pogue-Lin
`
`combination renders the claim obvious.” Pet., 103. No analysis supports
`
`this conclusory assertion. Instead, the Petition relied entirely on a string-cite
`
`of no fewer than ten cross-references. Id. (citing “VIII.A.1; VIII.B.1.a-
`
`VIII.B.1.b; VIII.B.2; VIII.B.4-VIII.B.5.b; VIII.B.6.a-VIII.B.6.c”). The ten
`
`cross-referenced sections—totaling twenty-five pages—in turn cross-
`
`reference sixteen sections (including nine circular references) as illustrated
`
`below.3
`
`
`
`
`3 Words in this image were counted in certifying compliance with the word count
`
`limit.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Following the web of nested cross-references requires reviewing fifty-one
`
`pages of the Petition—all to support the Petition’s conclusory assertion that
`
`limitation [22] is met.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`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 “supported” only by cross-reference(s) to
`
`elsewhere in the Declaration. For example, the Declaration’s allegation in ¶
`
`337 that the Shimura-Tsuji-Pogue-Lin Computer meets limitation [22] is
`
`verbatim the same as in the Petition, except the cross-references are within
`
`the Declaration rather than within the Petition:
`
`
`
`The Shimura-Tsuji-Pogue combination discloses the additional
`
`limitation of this claim, and the Shimura-Tsuji-Pogue-Lin combination renders
`
`the claim obvious. See VIII.A.1; VIII.B.1.a-VIII.B.1.b; VIII.B.2; VIII.B.4-
`
`VIII.B.5.b; VIII.B.6.a-VIII.B.6.c; EX-1010, ¶337 VI.C; VII.B.1 VII.A;
`
`VIII.A.1.a; VIII.A.1.b; VIII.A.2; Claim 3; [4a]; [4b]; [5a]; [5b]; [5c].
`
`
`
`The Declaration cited no evidence to support the assertion that [22] is met,
`
`and instead cross-referenced other paragraphs and “analysis” collectively spanning
`
`twenty-nine pages. But it did not stop there. The directly cross-refer