Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper: 6
`Entered: October 21, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________
`
`LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LITL LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`IPR2021-00822
`Patent 8,624,844 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, GARTH D. BAER, and
`BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00822
`Patent 8,624,844 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Lenovo (United States) Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1,
`“Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–16 and 18–22 of U.S.
`Patent No. 8,624,844 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’844 patent”). LiTL LLC (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 5 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The
`standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that
`an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`claims challenged in the petition.” As discussed below, we determine that
`Petitioner does not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect
`to the challenged claims. Accordingly, we deny institution of an inter partes
`review.
`
`II.
`BACKGROUND
`Related Matters
`A.
`The parties identify the following as a related matter: LiTL LLC v.
`
`Lenovo (United States), Inc. and Lenovo (Beijing) Limited, 1:20-cv-00689-
`RGA (D. Del.). Pet. 2; Paper 4, 1. Patent Owner also identifies the following
`as related matters: IPR2021-00681, IPR2021-00786, IPR2021-00800, and
`IPR2021-00821. Paper 4, 2.
`B.
`The ’844 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’844 patent is titled “Portable Computer with Multiple Display
`Configurations.” Ex. 1001, code (54). The computer system of the ’844
`patent describes different profiles to customize the graphical user interface
`in different modes, including a laptop mode in which the portable computer
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00822
`Patent 8,624,844 B2
`
`has a conventional laptop appearance, with the display inclined at a viewing
`angle from the base (id. at 6:26–28); an easel mode in which the base of the
`computer and its display stand upright forming an inverted “V,” and the
`display and keyboard are on opposite sides (id. at 7:48–61); and a frame
`mode in which the display and base are at a similar orientation and angle as
`in easel mode, but with the base lying flat on a surface and the keyboard
`facing down (id. at 16:3–13).
`Figure 17 of the ’844 patent, reproduced below, illustrates a portable
`computer in laptop mode. Id. at 5:13–15.
`
`
`Figure 4 of the ’844 patent, reproduced below, illustrates the portable
`computer in easel mode. Id. at 4:47–48.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00822
`Patent 8,624,844 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 26 of the ’844 patent, reproduced below, illustrates the portable
`computer configured into frame mode. Id. at 5:35–37.
`
`
`
`
`The ’844 patent explains that the display’s orientation can change
`based on the different modes or in response to a user’s input. Id. at 2:42–44.
`C.
`Challenged Claims
`Among challenged claims 1–16 and 18–22, claims 1, 10, and 18 are
`
`independent. Claim 1 is exemplary of the claimed subject matter and is
`reproduced as follows:
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00822
`Patent 8,624,844 B2
`
`
`1. A portable computer configurable between a plurality of
`display modes including a laptop mode and an easel mode
`wherein transitions between the plurality of display modes
`allows an operator to interact with a single display screen in
`each of the plurality of display modes, the portable computer
`comprising:
`a base including a keyboard;
`a main display component 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
`to transition between at least the laptop mode and the easel
`mode, the main display component including the single display
`screen, wherein the transition between the laptop mode and the
`easel mode allows the operator to operate the portable computer
`while viewing the single display screen in each of the plurality
`of display modes, wherein
`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 with the main display component oriented
`towards the user and the keyboard oriented to receive input
`from the user;
`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 with the main display component
`oriented towards the user and the keyboard oriented away from
`the user, wherein the first and second content display
`orientations are 180 degrees relative to each other, and wherein
`the portable computer is operable in the easel mode to enable
`the user to interact with displayed content without interacting
`with the keyboard; and
`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 of operating
`parameters of the portable computer and content displayed on
`the single display screen wherein the plurality of modes
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00822
`Patent 8,624,844 B2
`
`
`includes a frame [mode1] 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.
`Ex. 1001, 17:9–51.
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`D.
`Petitioner asserts the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. §2
`1, 3–5, 7–10, 13–16
`103
`6
`103
`
`2
`18, 22
`
`103
`103
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Shimura,3 Tsuji,4 Pogue5
`Shimura, Tsuji, Pogue,
`Escamilla6
`Shimura, Tsuji, Pogue,
`Escamilla, Yeh7
`Shimura, Tsuji, Pogue, Lin8
`
`
`1 Original claim 1 recites a “frame” not a “frame mode.” Ex. 1001, 17:47.
`On April 1, 2014, the Office issued a Certificate of Correction that inserts
`the word “mode” after the word “frame” in claim 1. Id. at Certificate of
`Correction.
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) amended 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`See Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 285–88 (2011). As the application
`that issued as the ’844 patent was filed before the effective date of the
`relevant amendments, the pre-AIA version of § 103 applies.
`3 JP1994-242853 (H6-242853), published September 2, 1994 (Ex. 1003).
`We refer to the Certified English translation (Ex. 1004, “Shimura”).
`4 US 2005/0062715 A1, published Mar. 24, 2005 (Ex. 1005, “Tsuji”).
`5 Windows XP Home Edition: The Missing Manual (2d ed.) (David Pogue,
`Pogue Press, LLC & O’Reilly Media, Inc. 2004) (Ex. 1006, “Pogue”).
`6 US 6,724,365 B1, Apr. 20, 2004 (Ex. 1007, “Escamilla”).
`7 US 6,396,419 B1, May 28, 2002 (Ex. 1008, “Yeh”).
`8 US 2007/0013682 A1, published Jan. 18, 2007 (Ex. 1009, “Lin”).
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00822
`Patent 8,624,844 B2
`
`
`Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. §2
`11, 12, 19, 21
`103
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Shimura, Tsuji, Pogue,
`Escamilla, Lin
`
`Pet. 3–4. Petitioner supports the asserted grounds with the Declaration of
`Jean Renard Ward. Ex. 1010.
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A.
`Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`(“POSITA”)
`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 the User Interface (UI) for portable
`computing devices; the POSITA would also be familiar with
`designs of the user interface employed and displayed by the
`operating system and
`its organization of content and
`functionality. Alternatively, the POSITA would have received a
`graduate degree such as a Master’s or PhD degree with at least
`one year of work experience related to hardware and/or software
`design aspects of the UI for portable computing devices; the
`POSITA would also be familiar with designs of the user interface
`employed and displayed by the operating system and its
`organization of content and functionality.
`Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 26).
`Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary
`skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp.
`We find, based on the current record, that Petitioner’s contention is
`reasonable. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the level of ordinary
`skill in the art Petitioner proposes.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00822
`Patent 8,624,844 B2
`
`
`Claim Construction
`B.
`Petitioner proposes a claim construction for “content mode,” as well
`as several related terms, i.e., “first content mode,” “second content mode,”
`and “mode(s) of content.” Pet. 16–18. We determine we need not explicitly
`construe those terms to determine whether to institute an inter partes review.
`See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d
`1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in
`controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”
`(quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
`(Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`We determine, however, that construction is necessary for “frame
`mode.” Claim 1 recites, among other things, “[a] portable computer
`configurable between a plurality of display modes . . . wherein the plurality
`of modes includes a frame mode in which the main display component is
`orientated towards the operator, the base contacts a substantially horizontal
`surface, and the keyboard faces the substantially horizontal surface.”
`Ex. 1001, 17:9–51; see id. at Certificate of Correction. Independent claims
`10 and 18 have similar “frame mode” limitations. Id. at 18:65–19:2, 20:25–
`29. The ’844 patent explains that frame mode is “illustrated in FIG. 26.” Id.
`at 16:2–3. Figure 26 is reproduced below.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00822
`Patent 8,624,844 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 26 and the accompanying text characterize frame mode as having the
`keyboard face down on a surface with the screen face up, and the base and
`display components forming a non-zero angle 134, similar to easel mode’s
`inverted “V.” See id. at 16:6–13.
`Frame mode is distinct from “tablet mode,” which the ’844 patent
`acknowledges was known in the art. See id. at 1:32–55 (citing U.S. Patent
`Nos. 6,771,494 (Ex. 2009) and 6,266,236 (“the ’236 patent”) (Ex. 2010)). In
`tablet mode, the display is “rotated and folded against the base.” Id. at 1:43–
`46. Tablet mode is depicted, for example, in the ’236 patent’s Figure 2,
`which is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00822
`Patent 8,624,844 B2
`
`
`“[T]he specification is always highly relevant to the claim
`construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to
`the meaning of a disputed term.” Philips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Consistent with the ’844 patent’s specification, for
`purposes of this Decision, we construe “frame mode” as having the
`keyboard face down on a surface with the screen face up, and the base and
`display components forming a non-zero angle. Frame mode is distinct from
`“tablet mode,” where the display is flush against the base.
`C.
`Analysis
`Overview of Shimura (Exs. 1003 and 1004)
`1.
`All grounds rely on Shimura. Shimura is a Japanese patent application
`publication (Ex. 1003), for which Petitioner provided a certified English
`translation (Ex. 1004). Shimura relates to a personal computer that “can
`adopt a mode suitable for a user environment centered on a pen input
`operation and a mouse input operation while retaining a mode which can use
`a keyboard.” Ex. 1004, code (57). Figure 1 of Shimura, reproduced below,
`illustrates an example of the personal computer. Id.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00822
`Patent 8,624,844 B2
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1, the personal computer includes main part 101
`provided with keyboard 104 on the front; cover part 102 provided with
`display 105 on the front; and coupling mechanism 103, which enables the
`opening and closing of computer parts 101 and 102 and is used to couple
`one end of main part 101 and one end of cover part 102 with display 105
`such that cover part 102 faces main part 101. Id. Coupling mechanism 103 is
`structured so that it can also open cover part 102 so that the orientation of
`cover part 102 exceeds 180° relative to main part 101. Id. Figure 4 of
`Shimura, reproduced below, shows an inclined view of the personal
`computer, with main part 101 rotated nearly 360° with respect to cover part
`102. Id. ¶¶ 16–17, Fig. 4.
`
`As shown in Figure 4, coupling mechanism 103 enables the rotation of cover
`part 102 with respect to main part 101. Id. ¶¶ 12–13. Coupling mechanism
`103 is fastened by hinges to main part 101 and cover part 102. Id. ¶ 12.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00822
`Patent 8,624,844 B2
`
`
`Obviousness Analysis
`2.
`Based on the present record, Petitioner does not demonstrate a
`reasonable likelihood of showing the asserted prior art would have rendered
`obvious the subject matter of challenged claims 1–16 and 18–22.
`Independent claims 1, 10, and 18 require 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.” Ex. 1001, 17:47–51, 18:66–19:2, 20:27–30, Certificate
`of Correction. For all of its asserted grounds, Petitioner relies on Shimura’s
`Figure 4 for teaching the claimed “frame mode.” Pet. 57, 87, 102. We agree
`with Patent Owner that Shimura’s Figure 4 does not disclose or suggest a
`frame mode. See Prelim. Resp. 27–32.
`Shimura’s Figure 4 (reproduced below, left) depicts the device’s
`display folded against the base—i.e., tablet mode—rather than in a frame
`mode where the base and display components form a non-zero angle similar
`to easel mode’s inverted “V,” as depicted in the ’844 patent’s Figure 26
`(reproduced below, right).
`
`Although, as Petitioner notes, Shimura teaches that its computer can be
`configured to any angle between 0° to 360°, see Pet. 22 n.1 (citing Ex. 1004
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00822
`Patent 8,624,844 B2
`
`¶¶ 8, 10, 17), that too does not disclose frame mode. This is so because, as
`Patent Owner explains, beyond the required opening angle, frame mode
`additionally requires a hinge that “must support the display to prevent it
`from collapsing into tablet mode.” Prelim. Resp. 31. Petitioner points to
`nothing in Shimura that would indicate its hinge could support the display in
`frame mode. See Pet. 22, 41–42, 46–47, 53, 57, 59, 70. Thus, on the current
`record, Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing that the asserted
`combinations of Shimura and other references teach or suggest the claimed
`plurality of modes including a “frame mode” as required in all the
`challenged claims.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons above, we determine that Petitioner has not
`established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that at
`least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.
`V. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and we do not institute an inter
`partes review of any claim of the ’844 patent based on a ground asserted in
`the Petition.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00822
`Patent 8,624,844 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Martin Bader
`Nam Kim
`Mike Kim
`Michael Hopkins
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`mbader@sheppardmullin.com
`nkim@sheppardmullin.com
`mskim@sheppardmullin.com
`mhopkins@sheppardmullin.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Gerald Hrycyszyn
`Richard Giunta
`Curtis Powell
`WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`ghrycyszyn-ptab@wolfgreenfield.com
`rgiunta-ptab@wolfgreenfield.com
`cpowell-ptab@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`