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, GARTHD. BAER,and
`BRIAN D. RANGE,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BAER,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`DenyingInstitution ofInter Partes Review
`35 US.C. §$ 314
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1004 - Page 1
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1004 - Page 1
`
`

`

`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.”).
`
`Wehaveauthority to determine whetherto 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 providesthat
`
`an inter partes review maynotbeinstituted unless “there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respectto 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 denyinstitution of an inter partes
`
`review.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Related Matters
`
`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 Owneralso identifies the following
`
`as related matters: IPR2021-00681, IPR2021-00786, IPR2021-00800, and
`
`IPR2021-00821. Paper4, 2.
`
`B.
`
`The ’844 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The 844 patentis 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 whichthe portable computer
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1004 - Page 2
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1004 - Page 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 whichthe base of the
`
`computer andits display stand upright forming an inverted “V,”and the
`
`display and keyboardare on opposite sides (id. at 7:48-61); and a frame
`
`mode in which the display and baseare 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. /d. at 5:13—15.
`
`FIG. 17
`
`Figure 4 of the ’844 patent, reproduced below,illustrates the portable
`
`computerin easel mode. /d. at 4:47-48.
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1004 - Page 3
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1004 - Page 3
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00822
`Patent 8,624,844 B2
`
`
`
`FIG. 4
`
`Figure 26 of the ’844 patent, reproduced below,illustrates the portable
`
`computer configured into frame mode. /d. at 5:35—37.
`
`Screen facing out
`
`
`
`Keyboard facing down
`into surface
`
`FIG. 26
`
`The ’844 patent explains that the display’s orientation can change
`
`based on the different modesor in response to a user’s input. /d. at 2:42—-44.
`
`C.
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Among challenged claims 1-16 and 18-22,claims1, 10, and 18 are
`
`independent. Claim 1 is exemplary of the claimed subject matter and is
`
`reproduced as follows:
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1004 - Page 4
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1004 - Page 4
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00822
`Patent 8,624,844 B2
`
`1. A portable computer configurable between a plurality of
`display modesincluding 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 ofthe plurality of display modes, the portable computer
`comprising:
`
`a base including a keyboard;
`
`a main display componentrotatably 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 modeandthe easel
`mode, the main display componentincludingthe single display
`screen, wherein the transition between the laptop mode and the
`easel modeallows 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 componenta first content mode havinga first content
`display orientation with the main display component oriented
`towardsthe 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 degreesrelative 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
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1004 - Page 5
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1004 - Page 5
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00822
`Patent 8,624,844 B2
`
`includes 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, 17:9-51.
`
`D._—Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`
`Claim(s) Challenged|35 U.S.C. §” Reference(s)/Basis
`
`1, 3-5, 7-10, 13-16
`103
`Shimura,? Tsuji,* Pogue?
`Shimura, Tsuji, Pogue,
`Escamilla®
`Shimura, Tsuji, Pogue,
`Escamilla, Yeh’
`Shimura, Tsuji, Pogue, Lin®
`
`
`
`18, 22
`
`103
`
`' 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. /d. at Certificate of
`Correction.
`
`* 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).
`Werefer to the Certified English translation (Ex. 1004, “Shimura’’).
`4 US 2005/0062715 Al, published Mar. 24, 2005 (Ex. 1005, “Tsuji”).
`> Windows XP HomeEdition: The Missing Manual(2d ed.) (David Pogue,
`Pogue Press, LLC & O’Reilly Media, Inc. 2004) (Ex. 1006, “Pogue’’).
`® US 6,724,365 B1, Apr. 20, 2004 (Ex. 1007, “Escamilla”).
`TUS 6,396,419 B1, May 28, 2002 (Ex. 1008, “Ych”).
`8 US 2007/0013682 A1, published Jan. 18, 2007 (Ex. 1009, “Lin”).
`
`6
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1004 - Page 6
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1004 - Page 6
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00822
`Patent 8,624,844 B2
`
`
`Claim(s) Challenged|35 U.S.C. §? Reference(s)/Basis
`Shimura, Tsuji, Pogue,
`IT, 12, 19, 21
`103
`Escamilla, Lin
`
`
`
`
`
`Pet. 3-4. Petitioner supports the asserted grounds with the Declaration of
`
`Jean Renard Ward. Ex. 1010.
`
`Il. DISCUSSION
`
`A.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”)
`
`least a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical
`would have had at
`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 ofthe 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.
`
`Wefind, based on the current record, that Petitioner’s contention is
`
`reasonable. For purposesof this Decision, we adopt the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art Petitioner proposes.
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1004 - Page 7
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1004 - Page 7
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00822
`Patent 8,624,844 B2
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Petitioner proposes a claim construction for “content mode,” as well
`99 66
`
`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 whetherto 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))).
`
`Wedetermine, however, that construction is necessary for “frame
`
`mode.” Claim 1 recites, among otherthings,“[a] portable computer
`
`configurable betweena plurality of display modes. .
`
`. wherein the plurality
`
`of modesincludes a frame mode in which the main display componentis
`
`orientated towardsthe 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. Jd. at 18:65—19:2, 20:25—
`
`29. The ’844 patent explains that frame modeis “illustrated in FIG. 26.” Id.
`
`at 16:2—3. Figure 26 is reproduced below.
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1004 - Page 8
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1004 - Page 8
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00822
`Patent 8,624,844 B2
`
` Screen facing out
`
`Keyboard facing down
`into surface
`
`
`
`
`FIG. 26
`
`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 modeis distinct from “tablet mode,” which the *844 patent
`
`acknowledges was knownin 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.” /d. at 1:43-—
`
`46. Tablet modeis depicted, for example, in the ’236 patent’s Figure 2,
`
`which is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 2
`
`9
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1004 - Page 9
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1004 - Page 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
`
`purposesof 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 modeis distinct from
`
`“tablet mode,” where the display is flush against the base.
`
`C.
`
`Analysis
`
`1,
`
`Overview ofShimura (Exs. 1003 and 1004)
`
`All grounds rely on Shimura. Shimurais 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 modesuitable 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.Jd.
`(Figure1)
`oermeans
`
`105: FeRHh
`(
`
`120,121 display 120 ena
`example
`121: Faster
`
`102: BiksB
`
`
`
`
`104: $-#-F
`
`
`
`101: A488|101 main part
`104 keyboard
`
`10
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1004 - Page 10
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1004 - Page 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 andis used to couple
`
`one end of main part 101 and one endof cover part 102 with display 105
`
`such that cover part 102 faces main part 101. /d. 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. /d. Figure 4 of
`
`Shimura, reproduced below, showsan inclined view of the personal
`
`computer, with main part 101 rotated nearly 360° with respect to cover part
`
`102. Id. §[§| 16-17, Fig. 4.
`
`[Figure 4]
`
`[4
`
`:
`
`Pay
`
`105 display means |
`
`101: Kabse
`101 main part
`
`
`
`lpera
`PpATEN T
`
`ih 102 cover part
`102: B4kep
`
`
`
`103:4538
`103 coupling part
`
`106 display reverse switch
`
`As shown in Figure 4, coupling mechanism 103 enablesthe rotation of cover
`
`part 102 with respect to main part 101. Jd. 79 12-13. Coupling mechanism
`
`103 is fastened by hinges to main part 101 and coverpart 102. /d. {| 12.
`
`11
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1004 - Page 11
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1004 - Page 11
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00822
`Patent 8,624,844 B2
`
`2.
`
`Obviousness Analysis
`
`Based on the present record, Petitioner does not demonstrate a
`
`reasonablelikelihood of showing the asserted prior art would have rendered
`
`obvious the subject matter of challenged claims 1—16 and 18—22.
`
`Independentclaims 1, 10, and 18 require a “frame mode in which the main
`
`display componentis oriented towardsthe 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. Forall 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 Ownerthat 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—ratherthan in a frame
`
`mode wherethe 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).
`
`[Figure 4]
`
`105 display means
`105: RRS
`
`fi20 display example ]
`120: Fear
`
`4 .
`p
`
`102
`
`\
`
`Screen facing out
`
`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
`
`FIG. 26
`
`12
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1004 - Page 12
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1004 - Page 12
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00822
`Patent 8,624,844 B2
`
`{| 8, 10, 17), that too does not disclose frame mode. This is so because,as
`
`Patent Ownerexplains, beyond the required opening angle, frame mode
`
`additionally requires a hinge that “must support the display to preventit
`
`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 Shimuraandother references teach or suggest the claimed
`
`plurality of modes including a “frame mode”as required inall the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons above, we determine that Petitioner has not
`
`established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showingthatat
`
`least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.
`
`V. ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing,it is hereby:
`
`ORDEREDthatthe Petition is denied, and wedo notinstitute an inter
`
`partes review of any claim of the ’844 patent based on a ground asserted in
`
`the Petition.
`
`13
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1004 - Page 13
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1004 - Page 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
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1004 - Page 14
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1004 - Page 14
`
`