Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844
`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
`__________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §311 ET SEQ. AND 37 C.F.R. §42.100 ET SEQ.
`(CLAIMS 1-16 and 18-22 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,624,844)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`DESCRIPTION
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,624,844 ("the '844 Patent")
`
`Prosecution History of the '844 Patent
`
`JP 1994-242853 to Shimura
`
`Certified English translation of JP 1994-242853 ("Shimura")
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0062715 to Tsuji et al. ("Tsuji")
`
`Windows XP Home Edition: The Missing Manual, 2nd Edition
`("Pogue")
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,724,365 to Escamilla et al. ("Escamilla")
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,396,419 to Yeh ("Yeh")
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0013682 to Lin et al. ("Lin")
`
`Declaration of Jean Renard Ward
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Jean Ward
`
`Claim Listing
`
`Family Diagram of Modified Shimura Computers
`
`U.S. Pub. No. US 2005/0122318 to Tonouchi ("Tonouchi")
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,061,472 ("'472 Schweizer")
`
`Panasonic-CF-19-laptop_manual (CF-19)
`
`Dell Latitude XT Tablet
`
`Hardy, Lenovo ThinkPad X61 Tablet PC Review (2007)
`("Lenovo")
`
`EXHIBIT
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844
`
`EXHIBIT
`1019
`
`DESCRIPTION
`Clifford & Gomez, Measuring Tilt with Low-g Accelerometers
`(2005) ("Freescale")
`
`1020
`1021
`1022
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`1027
`1028
`1029
`1030
`1031
`1032
`1033
`1034
`1035
`1036
`1037
`1038
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0034042 to Hisano et al. ("Hisano")
`
`JP 2002-258982 to Kiyoyuki
`
`Certified English translation of JP 2002-258982 ("Kiyoyuki ")
`
`JP 1996-179851 to Shigeo
`
`Certified English translation of JP 1996-179851 ("Shigeo")
`
`DE 1031455A1 to Schweizer
`
`Certified English translation of DE 1031455A1 ("Schweizer")
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,493,216 to Lin ("Lin")
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,151,105 to Park et al. ("Park")
`
`Ride, MIT's $100 Laptop (2005) ("MIT")
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,559,670 to Flint et al. ("Flint")
`
`Panasonic CF-T8 Operating Instructions
`
`Motion Computing M1400 Tablet PC User Guide
`
`Motion Computing M1400 Tablet PC Addendum
`
`HP Compaq Tablet PC TC1100 QuickSpecs ("Compaq")
`
`Sony Vaio VGN-UX280P (UX Series MicroPC) Spec Sheet
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0082554 to Caine et al. ("Caine")
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,436,954 to Nishiyama et al. ("Nishiyama")
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0013674 to Woolley ("Woolley ")
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`JP 2001-298514 to Toba
`
`USPTO English translation of JP 2001-298514 ("USPTO Toba")
`
`EPO English translation of JP 2001-298514 ("EPO Toba")
`
`Intentionally left blank
`
`Intentionally left blank
`
`Intentionally left blank
`
`Intentionally left blank
`
`Intentionally left blank
`
`ThinkPad X61 Tablet Service and Troubleshooting Guide
`("Lenovo Service Guide")
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary Fifth Edition ("Microsoft
`Dictionary")
`
`Dell Latitude XT Quick Reference Guide ("Dell Quick
`Reference")
`
`Dell Latitude XT User's Guide ("Dell User's Guide")
`
`Declaration of Michael Hopkins
`
`Declaration of Liliana Nunez
`
`EXHIBIT
`1039
`1040
`1041
`1042
`1043
`1044
`1045
`1046
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1050
`1051
`1052
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8 .................................... 1
`A.
`Real Parties-In-Interest (§42.8 (b)(1)) ................................................... 1
`B.
`Related Matters (§42.8 (b)(2)) .............................................................. 2
`C.
`Lead and Backup Counsel (§42.8 (b)(3)) .............................................. 2
`D.
`Service Information (§42.8 (b)(4)) ........................................................ 2
`FEE FOR IPR (37 C.F.R. §42.15(a) and §42.103) ......................................... 3
`III.
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104 ............................. 3
`A. Grounds for Standing (§42.104(a)) ....................................................... 3
`B.
`Identification of Challenged Claims (§42.104(b)(1)) ........................... 3
`C.
`Grounds of Challenge (§42.104(b)(2)) ................................................. 3
`PROPOSED GROUNDS SHOULD NOT BE DENIED
`INSTITUTION ON ANY DISCRETIONARY GROUND ............................ 4
`A.
`The Six References Were Not "Presented to the Office" ...................... 5
`B.
`Even If a Reference Was "Presented to the Office," the Office
`Made a Material Error by Overlooking Its Impact................................ 7
`VI. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE '844 PATENT ........... 8
`A. Overview of the '844 Patent .................................................................. 8
`B.
`Prosecution History of the '844 Patent ................................................ 14
`C.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 15
`D.
`Claim Listing ....................................................................................... 16
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF CONTENT MODE—37 C.F.R.
`§42.104 (b)(3) ................................................................................................16
`VIII. PRECISE REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ....................................18
`A.
`Summary of the Prior Art Applied in This Petition ............................ 18
`1.
`Overview of Shimura ................................................................ 18
`2.
`Overview of Tsuji ..................................................................... 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`B.
`
`2.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844
`Overview of Pogue.................................................................... 27
`3.
`Overview of Escamilla .............................................................. 34
`4.
`Overview of Yeh ....................................................................... 36
`5.
`Overview of Lin ........................................................................ 38
`6.
`Family Diagram ........................................................................ 39
`7.
`Ground 1: Shimura in view of Tsuji and Pogue renders Claims
`1, 3-5, 7-10, and 13-16 obvious. ......................................................... 40
`1.
`Combination of Shimura and Tsuji (hereafter "Shimura-
`Tsuji combination") .................................................................. 40
`Combination of Shimura, Tsuji, and Pogue (hereafter
`"Shimura-Tsuji-Pogue combination") ...................................... 50
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 57
`3.
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 70
`4.
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 71
`5.
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 73
`6.
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 77
`7.
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 78
`8.
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 80
`9.
`10. Claim 10 .................................................................................... 80
`11. Claim 13 .................................................................................... 88
`12. Claim 14 .................................................................................... 90
`13. Claim 15 .................................................................................... 90
`14. Claim 16 .................................................................................... 91
`Ground 2: Shimura in view of Tsuji, Pogue, and Escamilla
`renders Claim 6 obvious. ..................................................................... 91
`1.
`Combination of Shimura, Tsuji, Pogue, and Escamilla
`(hereafter "Shimura-Tsuji-Pogue-Escamilla
`combination") ............................................................................ 91
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 94
`2.
`D. Ground 3: Shimura in view of Tsuji, Pogue, Escamilla, and Yeh
`renders Claim 2 obvious. ..................................................................... 95
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844
`Combination of Shimura, Tsuji, Pogue, Escamilla, and
`Yeh (hereafter "Shimura-Tsuji-Pogue-Escamilla-Yeh
`combination") ............................................................................ 95
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 97
`2.
`Ground 4: Shimura in view of Tsuji, Pogue, and Lin renders
`Claims 18 and 22 obvious. .................................................................. 97
`1.
`Combination of Shimura, Tsuji, Pogue, and Lin
`(hereafter "Shimura-Tsuji-Pogue-Lin combination") ............... 97
`Claim 18 .................................................................................. 101
`2.
`Claim 22 .................................................................................. 103
`3.
`Ground 5: Shimura in view of Tsuji, Pogue, Escamilla, and Lin
`renders Claims 11, 12, 19, and 21 obvious. ...................................... 103
`1.
`Combination of Shimura, Tsuji, Pogue, Escamilla, and
`Lin (hereafter "Shimura-Tsuji-Pogue-Escamilla-Lin
`combination") .......................................................................... 103
`Claim 11 .................................................................................. 105
`2.
`Claim 12 .................................................................................. 105
`3.
`Claim 19 .................................................................................. 106
`4.
`Claim 21 .................................................................................. 107
`5.
`G. Ground 6: Shimura in view of Tsuji, Pogue, Escamilla, Lin, and
`Yeh renders Claim 20 obvious. ......................................................... 107
`1.
`Combination of Shimura, Tsuji, Pogue, Escamilla, Lin,
`and Yeh (hereafter "Shimura-Tsuji-Pogue-Escamilla-Lin-
`Yeh combination") .................................................................. 107
`Claim 20 .................................................................................. 109
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Federal Cases
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VB Assets, LLC
`IPR2020-01346, slip op. (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2021) ........................................ 4, 7, 8
`Cellco P'ship v. Huawei Device Co., Ltd.
`IPR2020-01117, slip op. (PTAB Feb. 3, 2021) .................................................... 7
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................. 49, 56, 93, 96, 100, 104, 109
`Oticon Medical AB v. Cochlear Limited
`IPR2019-00975, slip op. (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2019) .............................................. 6
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 16
`Solvay USA Inc. v. WorldSource Enterprises
`LLC, PGR2019-00046, slip op. (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 2019) .................................. 5
`Zip Top, LLC v. Stasher, Inc.
`IPR2018-01216, slip op. (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 2019) ............................................... 5
`Docketed Cases
`LiTL LLC v. Lenovo (United States), Inc. and Lenovo (Beijing) Limited.
`Case No. 1:20-cv-00689 (D. Del.) ........................................................................ 2
`Federal: Statutes, Rules, Regulations, Constitutional Provisions
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(a) ................................................................................ 18, 23, 27, 34, 36, 38
`§ 102(b) ................................................................................ 18, 23, 27, 34, 36, 38
`§ 102(e) ............................................................................................. 23, 34, 36, 38
`§ 325(d) ..................................................................................................... 4, 5, 7, 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vii-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844
`
`37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.8(b)(1) ........................................................................................................... 1
`§ 42.8(b)(2) ........................................................................................................... 2
`§ 42.100 ....................................................................................................... 16, 112
`83 Fed. Reg. No. 197, 51340 (Oct. 11, 2018) .................................................... 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-viii-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The 21 challenged claims are directed to a portable computer with multiple
`
`display modes and related features, all of which were well-known before the
`
`priority date. This portable computer is configurable between various display
`
`modes, including a laptop, easel, and frame mode. But these modes, and portable
`
`computers configurable to transition between them, were all well-known before the
`
`priority date. Related claimed features include a plurality of content modes, a
`
`navigation control configured to control an operating parameter and displayed
`
`content, a hinge assembly, detection of the display mode based on a rotation
`
`sensor, and automatic rotation of displayed content based on a detected display
`
`mode. But likewise, these and other claimed features were also all well-known
`
`before the priority date.
`
`As explained below, five prior art references—Shimura, Tsuji, Pogue,
`
`Escamilla, Yeh, and Lin—in various combinations render obvious all 21
`
`challenged claims. This petition requests that the Board find unpatentable and
`
`cancel all challenged claims.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest (§42.8 (b)(1))
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Lenovo (United States) Inc.
`
`("Petitioner") is a real party-in-interest. Petitioner is an indirect wholly-owned
`
`subsidiary of Lenovo Group Limited. Because Lenovo (Beijing) Limited has been
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844
`named as a defendant in the "related matter" identified pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.8(b)(2) (i.e., LiTL LLC v. Lenovo (United States), Inc. and Lenovo (Beijing)
`
`Limited., Case No. 1:20-cv-00689 (D. Del.)), Lenovo (Beijing) Limited is also a
`
`real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters (§42.8 (b)(2))
`The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844 ("'844 Patent"), is the subject
`
`of the following district court proceeding: LiTL LLC v. Lenovo (United States) Inc.
`
`and Lenovo (Beijing) Limited, Case No. 1:20-cv-00689 (D. Del.).
`
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel (§42.8 (b)(3))
`Petitioner appoints Martin Bader (Reg. No. 54,736) of Sheppard, Mullin,
`
`Richter & Hampton LLP as Lead Counsel, and appoints Nam Kim (Reg. No.
`
`64,160), Mike Kim (Reg. No. 72,867), and Michael Hopkins (Reg. No. 75,019) of
`
`the same firm as Back-Up Counsel. An appropriate Power of Attorney is filed
`
`concurrently herewith.
`
`Service Information (§42.8 (b)(4))
`D.
`Service of any documents to Counsel can be made via hand delivery to
`
`Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, 12275 El Camino Real, Suite 100, San
`
`Diego, California 92130. Petitioner consents to service by e-mail at LegalTm-
`
`LNV-LTL@sheppardmullin.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844
`III. FEE FOR IPR (37 C.F.R. §42.15(a) and §42.103)
`Petitioner has paid the required fees. The Office is authorized to charge any
`
`fee deficiency, or credit any overpayment, to Deposit Account No. 50-4561.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing (§42.104(a))
`Petitioner certifies that the '844 Patent is available for IPR and that the
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the claims of
`
`the '844 Patent.
`
`Identification of Challenged Claims (§42.104(b)(1))
`B.
`This Petition challenges the validity of claims 1-16 and 18-22 of the '844
`
`Patent ("Challenged Claims").
`
`C. Grounds of Challenge (§42.104(b)(2))
`The Grounds of unpatentability presented in this Petition are as follows.
`
`2
`
`3
`
`References
`Ground Basis
`1
`§103 Obvious over Shimura in view of Tsuji,
`in further view of Pogue
`§103 Obvious over Shimura in view of Tsuji
`and Pogue, in further view of Escamilla
`§103 Obvious over Shimura in view of Tsuji
`and Pogue, in further view of Escamilla
`and Yeh
`§103 Obvious over Shimura in view of Tsuji
`and Pogue, in further view of Lin
`§103 Obvious over Shimura in view of Tsuji
`and Pogue, in further view of Escamilla
`and Lin
`
`4
`
`5
`
`Challenged Claim
`1, 3-5, 7-10, and
`13-16
`6
`
`2
`
`18 and 22
`
`11, 12, 19, and 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`6
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844
`§103 Obvious over Shimura in view of Tsuji
`20
`Pogue, Escamilla, and Lin, in further
`view of Yeh
`The '844 Patent issued from U.S. Application No. 12/170,951, filed July 10,
`
`2008, and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/041,365, filed
`
`April 1, 2008. Without conceding valid priority entitlement, for purposes of this
`
`Petition only, it is assumed that April 1, 2008 marks the earliest effective priority
`
`date (the "Critical Date") of the '844 Patent.
`
`V.
`
`PROPOSED GROUNDS SHOULD NOT BE DENIED INSTITUTION
`ON ANY DISCRETIONARY GROUND
`The Board should decline to exercise its discretion to deny institution under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d). The Section 325(d) analysis follows a two-part framework.
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VB Assets, LLC, IPR2020-01346, slip op. at 6-7 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Feb. 4, 2021) (Paper 7). The Board first determines "whether the art or arguments
`
`presented in the Petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously
`
`presented to the Office." Id. If the answer is no, the inquiry ends there. But if the
`
`answer is yes, the Board then determines "whether the petitioner has demonstrated
`
`a material error by the Office in its prior consideration of that art or arguments."
`
`Id. Here, none of the six references relied upon were previously "presented to the
`
`Office." And even if any of them were, the Office would have made a "material
`
`error" by failing to consider the impact of its teachings on the patentability of the
`
`claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844
`A. The Six References Were Not "Presented to the Office"
`Of the six references relied upon in Petitioner's grounds for unpatentability,
`
`five were neither cited during prosecution nor relied upon or discussed by the
`
`Examiner in any Office Action. Therefore, those five references were not
`
`"presented to the Office" under Section 325(d).
`
`Nor was the remaining reference, Shimura, "presented to the Office." This
`
`reference was merely cited in an information disclosure statement ("IDS") and not
`
`relied upon or substantively considered by the Examiner in any way. EX-1002,
`
`112. The PTAB has "consistently held that a reference that was neither applied
`
`against the claims nor discussed by the Examiner does not weigh in favor of
`
`exercising our discretion under § 325(d)." Solvay USA Inc. v. WorldSource
`
`Enterprises, LLC, PGR2019-00046, slip op. at 14 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 2019) (Paper
`
`7). This includes "[m]ere citation in an IDS." Id. In particular, "mere citation to a
`
`reference by the Examiner does not establish that the Examiner substantively
`
`considered the merits of" the reference. Zip Top, LLC v. Stasher, Inc., IPR2018-
`
`01216, slip op. at 35 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 2019) (Paper 14) (collecting cases).
`
`Additionally, the Shimura-Tsuji Combination, which is part of all six
`
`Grounds in this Petition, is not cumulative of the art relied upon by the Examiner.
`
`E.g., the Examiner relies on U.S. Pat. No. 7,061,472 ("Schweizer") as disclosure of
`
`the various display modes recited in the '844 Patent's independent claims. EX-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844
`1002, 593-598. However, the Examiner later states that "none of cited reference
`
`teaches" the "frame mode" limitation from each independent claim. Id., 37. The
`
`Shimura-Tsuji combination does disclose this "frame mode" by utilizing a different
`
`structure for a different purpose than Schweizer. Schweizer discloses a portable
`
`device usable in a "presentation" mode (Fig. 2, below) that allows each user to
`
`view one of the two display screens:
`
`
`
`EX-1015, Abstract, 2:1-22. Nowhere does Schweizer disclose placing its device in
`
`manner where the keyboard is facing the surface on which it rests in a "frame
`
`mode" (as disclosed in the Shimura-Tsuji Combination) because the keyboard,
`
`which is necessary for operation in the presentation mode, is detached from the
`
`display when in the presentation mode, rendering a "frame mode" configuration
`
`impossible. Id. The Shimura-Tsuji combination, on the other hand, can be placed
`
`in such a "frame mode" where a single user or multiple users view the same screen
`
`while the keyboard faces the surface. See VIII.B.3.j; VIII.B.10.j; VIII.E.2.j. For at
`
`least this reason, the Shimura-Tsuji Combination is not cumulative of Schweizer,
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844
`because "it is solving a problem that is closer to that of the '[844] Patent" using
`
`"different structures that serve different purposes." Oticon Medical AB v. Cochlear
`
`Limited, IPR2019-00975, slip op. at 15-16 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2019) (Precedential)
`
`(Paper 15).
`
`B.
`
`Even If a Reference Was "Presented to the Office," the Office
`Made a Material Error by Overlooking Its Impact
`Even if the Board finds that Shimura was previously "presented to the
`
`Office" under Section 325(d) (it was not), the Board should still decline to exercise
`
`its discretion to deny institution. This is because the Examiner overlooked specific
`
`Shimura's teachings as well as the Shimura-Tsuji combination that disclosed the
`
`"frame mode." The foregoing would constitute a "material error" by the Patent
`
`Office, even assuming that Shimura was "presented to the Office."
`
`Where "the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously
`
`presented to the Office," the Board must then consider "'whether the petitioner has
`
`demonstrated a material error by the Office' in its prior consideration of that art or
`
`arguments." Amazon.com, at 7 (Paper 7) (citation omitted). This "material error
`
`may include misapprehending or overlooking specific teachings of the relevant
`
`prior art where those teachings impact patentability of the challenged claims."
`
`Cellco P'ship v. Huawei Device Co., Ltd., IPR2020-01117, slip op. at 12 (PTAB
`
`Feb. 3, 2021) (Paper 10). Here, Shimura was merely cited in an IDS during
`
`prosecution, and was not relied upon or substantively considered by the Examiner
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844
`in any way. Thus, the Examiner overlooked Shimura's specific teachings that
`
`impact the patentability of the claims challenged in this Petition. Id. Moreover,
`
`Shimura was not the basis for any rejection. The "fact that [the references in the
`
`Petition were] not the basis of rejection weighs strongly against exercising [the
`
`Board's] discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)." Id.
`
`Furthermore, the Examiner did not consider at least the Shimura-Tsuji
`
`combination. Id. at 14 (declining to exercise discretion under Section 325(d) to
`
`deny petition where "[reference] [is] cited and discussed during prosecution" but
`
`"the combination of [that reference and another reference] as asserted in the
`
`Petition has not been substantively evaluated by the Office"); Amazon.com, at 9
`
`(Paper 7). As explained above, this combination discloses the very "frame mode"
`
`the Examiner believed the art not to disclose.
`
`VI. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE '844 PATENT
`A. Overview of the '844 Patent
`The '844 Patent is directed to a "portable computer that is configurable
`
`between a plurality of display modes including a laptop mode (in which the
`
`portable computer has a conventional laptop appearance) and an easel mode in
`
`which the base of the computer and its display component stand vertically forming
`
`an inverted 'V.'" EX-1001, Abstract. The portable computer 100 is configurable
`
`into the plurality of display modes (e.g., FIGs. 1, 4, and 26, below, corresponding
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844
`to a laptop mode, an easel mode, and a frame mode) based on a hinge assembly
`
`(e.g., FIGs. 7B and 10 below) rotatably coupling the display component 102 to the
`
`base 104 of the computer 100. Id., Abstract.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844
`
`
`
`
`The displayed content of the portable computer of the '844 Patent can be
`
`rotated by 180° so that the displayed content is oriented properly for an intended
`
`user. Id., 8:7-16, 16:27-50. The 180° rotation of the displayed content may be
`
`manual or automated. Id., 16:27-50. E.g., in an embodiment where the rotation is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844
`automated, the portable computer uses an orientation (or mode) sensor that detects
`
`whether the portable computer is in a laptop mode or an easel mode and adjusts the
`
`display accordingly. Id., 8:17-20. The orientation (or mode) sensor may be
`
`located in the hinge assembly 138 and "may be used to determine a precise relative
`
`orientation[, such as an angle,] of the base component 104 with respect to the
`
`display component 102 . . . to determine [a given display mode.]" Id., 8:26-31, 58-
`
`61. In some embodiments, the orientation sensor may be located in a display
`
`component 102 or base 104 and may include an accelerometer "whose output is fed
`
`to the computer operating system (or to dedicated logic circuitry) which then
`
`triggers a display inversion as appropriate between the two modes." Id., 8:31-34.
`
`The '844 Patent also discloses "software and/or hardware protection . . .
`
`provided for the keyboard to prevent keys from being pressed (or to prevent the
`
`portable computer from responding to pressed keys) when the portable computer is
`
`in the frame mode." Id., 16:14-17.
`
`Moreover, the '844 Patent discloses integrated navigation hardware that
`
`"allows a user to easily and comfortable [sic] control various features and functions
`
`of the portable computer, and to manipulate content displayed on the portable
`
`computer." Id., 10:55-58. The navigation hardware may include a scroll wheel,
`
`navigation buttons 166, 168, or conventional tools (e.g., touchpad 108, track ball,
`
`mouse, or other peripherals) to "control, adjust and/or select various functionality
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844
`of the portable computer." Id., 10:60-61, 11:2-10, 15-19, 22-24, 40-44, 12:17-21.
`
`Navigation button 166 may be implemented on a side of the base, and navigation
`
`button 168 may be implemented as part of the keyboard 106, as illustrated in FIG.
`
`17 of the '844 Patent below.
`
`
`In one example, navigation hardware is used to control operating parameters
`
`of the portable computer and content displayed on the display screen by
`
`"permit[ting] the user to adjust a volume of sound produced by the portable
`
`computer. In another example, the screen is configured to display at least one of a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844
`plurality of modes of content, and the scroll wheel is configured to permit the user
`
`to select a mode of content for display by the portable computer." Id., 3:36-41.
`
`The '844 Patent also describes content modes ("the modes of content") that
`
`include media 172a, connect 172b, web 172c, and applications 172d. Id., 11:35-
`
`38. "[T]he media mode 172a may provide access to a medial [sic] player to play,
`
`view, search and organize media, such as music, video, photos, etc." Id., 44-46.
`
`"The connect mode 172b may provide access to features such as, for example,
`
`email, Voice-over-IP instant messaging, etc." Id., 46-48. "[T]he web mode 172c
`
`may provide access to internet browsing and searching." Id., 49-50. "The
`
`application mode 172d may provide access to, for example, computer applications
`
`or programs, such as word processor, spreadsheet, calculator, etc." Id., 50-52.
`
`Challenged Claim 1 is representative. Id., 17:10-38. As shown below,
`
`however, at the Critical Date, portable computers that used a navigation control
`
`and were configurable into a plurality of display modes, including the laptop, easel,
`
`and frame modes, were well-known in the art. EX-1010, ¶54.
`
`Prosecution History of the '844 Patent
`B.
`The '844 Patent was allowed after several Office Actions and claim
`
`amendments. EX-1002, passim. In the last Office Action before allowance, dated
`
`June 7, 2012, the Examiner rejected all pending independent claims as being
`
`unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 7,061,472 to Schweizer in view of U.S. Pat. No.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844
`5,436,954 to Nishiyama. Id., 593-602. Applicant made amendments to the
`
`independent claims that led to allowance, and the amendments to the independent
`
`claims are generally related to the following claim features: (1) the laptop mode,
`
`(2) the easel mode, (3) interacting with the displayed content in the easel mode
`
`without interacting with the keyboard, (4) interacting with the single display
`
`screen, and (5) the navigation control. Id., 73-76.
`
`Additionally, the Examiner provided final amendments to the independent
`
`claims. Id., 36. These amendments that led to allowance generally relate to the
`
`frame mode. Id.
`
`However, as demonstrated below, all of these features (along with the rest of
`
`the features in the Challenged Claims) were squarely within the prior art, including
`
`the prior art relied upon in this Petition.
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844
`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. EX-1010, ¶26.
`
`D. Claim Listing
`EX-1012 is a claim listing that enumerates each claim element.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF CONTENT MODE—37 C.F.R. §42.104
`(b)(3)
`The claim construction standard defined in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) applies to this proceeding. 83 Fed. Reg. No. 197, 5134