Electronic AcknowledgementReceipt
`
`Application Number:
`
`90014965
`
`International Application Number:
`
`Confirmation Number:
`
`3442
`
`Title of Invention:
`
`Portable Computer with Multiple Display Configurations
`
`
`
`ee
`
`a
`
`Paymentinformation:
`
`Submitted with Payment
`
`File Listing:
`
`
`
`Pages
`Multi
`File Size(Bytes)/
`DocumentDescription
`Document
`
`
`
`Number Message Digest|Part/.zip|P (if appl.)
`1244535
`
`1
`
`L203970001US10-RESP-GBH.
`pdf
`
`9cfaff5fe6806fe1893c4531a1b3f0545140b7
`41
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3571
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3571
`
`

`

`Multipart Description/PDF files in .zip description
`
`Transmittal letter filing of a response in a reexam
`
`Responseafter non-final action-owner timely
`
`Reexam Certificate of Service
`
`Reexam Miscellaneous Incoming Letter
`
`L203970001US10-EX_A-GBH.
`pdf
`
`499f7aa6bf8051c4681 1a218cb46430dfe63}
`1bbb
`
`1247957
`
`Reexam Miscellaneous Incoming Letter
`
`L203970001US10-EX_B-GBH.
`pdf
`
`9812753 1483e1 6cbf9f43533187efcb03fbe|
`6eb3
`
`2856033
`
`Information:
`
`Information:
`
`Information:
`
`the application.
`
`New Applications Under 35 U.S.C. 111
`If a new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary componentsfora filing date (see 37 CFR
`1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP 506), a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date shownonthis
`AcknowledgementReceiptwill establish the filing date of the application.
`National Stage of an International Application under 35 U.S.C. 371
`If a timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions of 35
`U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCT/DO/EO/903indicating acceptanceof the application as a
`national stage submission under35 U.S.C. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt, in due course.
`New International Application Filed with the USPTO as a Receiving Office
`If a new international application is being filed and the international application includes the necessary components for
`an international filing date (see PCT Article 11 and MPEP 1810), a Notification of the International Application Number
`and of the International Filing Date (Form PCT/RO/105)will be issued in due course, subject to prescriptions concerning
`national security, and the date shownon this AcknowledgementReceiptwill establish the international filing date of
`
`This AcknowledgementReceipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTO ofthe indicated documents,
`characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable.It serves as evidence of receipt similar to a
`Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3572
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3572
`
`

`

`www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`90/014,965
`
`02/25/2022
`
`8624844
`
`3442
`
`WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`600 ATLANTIC AVENUE
`BOSTON, MA 02210-2206
`
`LEUNG, CHRISTINA Y
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3991
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`12/08/2022
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`Thetime period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3573
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3573
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)
`
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`121 SW SALMON STREET
`SUITE 1600
`
`PORTLAND, OR 97204
`
`EX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/074,965.
`
`PATENT UNDER REEXAMINATION 8624844 .
`
`ART UNIT 3997 .
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the aboveidentified exparte reexamination proceeding (87 CFR 1.550(f)).
`
`Wherethis copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the timefor filing a
`reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the evparfe reexamination requester will be
`acknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).
`
`PTOL-465 (Rev.07-04)
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3574
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3574
`
`

`

`Control No.
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`90/014,965
`Ex Parte Reexamination Interview Summary Vammer
`
`8624844
`
`Art Unit
`
`AIA (FITF) Status
`
`Christina Y Leung
`
`3991
`
`No
`
`All participants (USPTO personnel, patent owner, patent owner's representative):
`
`(1) Christina Leung
`
`(primary
`
`examiner
`
`(3) Gerald Hrycyszyn; Rich Giunta (attorneys for PO)
`
`(2) Rachna Desai; SPE Timothy Speer (conferees)
`
`(4) Eric Bear (technical expert for PO)
`
`Date of Interview: 30 November 2022
`
`Type: a)() Telephonic b)) Video Conference
`c) (J Personal (copy givento: 1)() patentowner
`
`2) () patent owners representative)
`
`Exhibit shown or demonstration conducted:
`If Yes, brief description:
`
`d)C) Yes
`
`e)@M
`
`No.
`
`was not reached. h)L) N/A.
`g)
`Agreement with respect to the claims f)(J was reached.
`Any other agreemenit(s) are set forth below under "Description of the general nature of what was agreedto...”
`
`Claim(s) discussed: 10 and 16 .
`
`Identification of prior art discussed: Ledbetter .
`
`Description of the general nature of what was agreedto if an agreement was reached, or any other comments:
`See Continuation Sheet .
`
`(A fuller description, if necessary, and a copy of the amendments which the examiner agreed would render the
`claims patentable, if available, must be attached. Also, where no copy of the amendments that would render the
`claims patentable is available, a summary thereof must be attached.)
`
`A FORMAL WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE LAST OFFICE ACTION MUST INCLUDE PATENT OWNER'S
`STATEMENT OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE INTERVIEW.(See MPEP § 2281). IF A RESPONSE TO THE
`LAST OFFICE ACTION HAS ALREADY BEEN FILED, THEN PATENT OWNER IS GIVEN ONE MONTH FROM
`THIS INTERVIEW DATE TO PROVIDE THE MANDATORY STATEMENT OF THE SUBSTANCEOF THE
`INTERVIEW
`(37 CFR 1.560(b)). THE REQUIREMENT FOR PATENT OWNERS STATEMENT CAN NOTBE WAIVED.
`EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY37 CFR 1.550(c).
`
`3991 cc: Requester (if third party requester)
`
`/CHRISTINA Y. LEUNG/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3991
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`TIMOTHY M SPEER/
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit
`
`PTOL-474 (Rev. 04-01)
`
`£x Parte Reexamination Interview Summary
`
`Paper No. 20221130
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3575
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3575
`
`

`

`Continuation Sheet (PTOL-474)
`
`Reexam Control No.
`
`90/014,965
`
`Continuation of Description of the general nature of what was agreedto if an agreement was reached, or
`any other comments: Patent Owner's representatives (PO) argued that Ledbetter does not teach displaying
`the "content modes"recited in the claims. PO argued that 844 Patent discloses that "content mode"is not
`the content organized within the mode and doesnot merely refer to a type of content. Rather,it is a visual
`representation of the grouping of content within the mode in a hierarchical interface, e.g., elements 172a-e
`shownin Figures 11, 12, and 17 of 844 Patent. Examiners acknowledged that the term "content mode"is
`associated with element 172 but did not necessarily agree that 844 Patentlimits the term "content mode"to
`PO's interpretation without also meaning a type of content more generally. Agreement was not reached on
`the claims, but Examinerswill fully consider PO's arguments presented in the next response.
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3576
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3576
`
`

`

`Application No.: 90/014,965
`
`1
`
`Docket No.: L2039.70001US10
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`First Named Inventor:
`Application No.:
`Confirmation No.:
`Filed:
`For:
`
`Examiner:
`Art Unit:
`
`Yves Behar
`90/014,965
`3442
`February 25, 2022
`PORTABLE COMPUTER WITH MULTIPLE DISPLAY
`CONFIGURATIONS
`C. Y. Leung
`3991
`
`INTERVIEW AGENDA
`
`Patent Owner, LiTL, thanks Examiner Leung and the Conferees for scheduling a video
`
`conference interview on November30, 2022 at 1 pm Eastern to discuss the outstanding Office
`
`Action (dated October 12, 2022) in the above-referenced reexamination of Patent No. 8,624,844
`
`(“the ’844 Patent”). The arguments and evidenceto be discussed during the interview are
`
`summarized below.
`
`L
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Third Party Requester, Lenovo (United States) Inc. (“Lenovo”)filed its Request for Ex Parte
`
`Reexamination (“Request”) seeking a second bite at the apple afterits petition seeking inter partes
`
`review (IPR) of the ’844 Patent was denied because Lenovofailed to show any claim unpatentable.
`
`The Grounds in Lenovo’s reexamination request fared no better and failed to establish
`
`unpatentability of a single challenged claim. The Office Action adopts a single one of the Request’s
`
`grounds and makes a single rejection — claims 10 and 16 are rejected as allegedly being obvious
`
`over Lane and Ledbetter.
`
`Asexplained in more detail below, the Office Action (“OA”) relies on Ledbetter to
`
`purportedly disclose a laptop mode “configured to display to a user on the main display component
`
`10208775.5
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3577
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3577
`
`

`

`Application No.: 90/014,965
`
`2
`
`Docket No.: L2039.70001US10
`
`a first content mode” and an easel mode “configured to display to the user on the main display
`
`component a second content mode”as required by claims 10 and 16.' OA at 6-7. The Office Action
`
`alleges that the claimed content modes are met by Ledbetter’s various “software operating modes”
`
`(“media consumption mode,” “tablet mode,” “walk-up mode” and “workstation mode”) that
`
`correspond to different physical configurations of Ledbetter’s computer monitor. Even if these
`
`software operating modes were content modes (which Patent Owner does not concede), none of
`
`them is “display[ed] to the user.” Thus, the Lane/Ledbetter combination fails to disclose a computer
`
`configured to “display to a user” a content mode as claimed.
`
`I.
`
`°844 PATENT
`
`Before the LiTL Webbook commercialized an embodimentof the ‘844 Patent, home
`
`computers wereessentially the same as office computers and homeusers struggled with complex
`
`interfaces designed in pre-web times. LiTL worked for years to develop its Webbook, recruited
`
`leading user experience design (“UXD”) experts and worked closely with some of the world’s
`
`leading technology and UXD consultancies. 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 inventions described and claimed in the ’844 Patent were groundbreaking in 2008. They
`
`earned substantial contemporaneous praise and have become industry standards that are ubiquitous
`
`today. They were anything but in the timeframerelevant to this reexamination.
`
`' Emphasis added throughoutunless otherwise noted.
`
`10208775.5
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3578
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3578
`
`

`

`Application No.: 90/014,965
`
`3
`
`Docket No.: L2039.70001US10
`
`A.
`
`Embodiments
`
`1.
`
`Physical Configuration Modes
`
`The ’844 Patent describes, and challenged claims 10 and 16 require, a “portable computer
`
`configurable betweena plurality of display modes including a laptop mode and an easel mode.”
`
`844 Patent, claim 10. Laptop and easel are just two of several display modesthe specification
`
`discloses, including: a “tablet mode”(id., 1:35), “a closed mode, a laptop mode, an easel mode, a
`
`flat mode and a frame mode”(id., 2:20-23). Someofthese are illustrated in the figures reproduced
`
`below. The “portable computer has a conventional laptop appearance”in the “laptop mode,”
`
`whereasin the “easel mode” the “base of the computer andits display component stand upright
`
`forming an inverted ‘V.’” /d., 1:61-64. “The portable computer may include integrated
`
`‘navigation’ hardware” such as “a scroll wheel 132 that allows a user to control, adjust and/or select
`
`various functionality of the portable computer” or navigate “through information, such as menus,
`
`icons, etc., displayed on the display screen 110, as discussed ... with reference to FIG. 17.” /d.,
`
`10:54-65.
`
`10208775.5
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3579
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3579
`
`

`

`Application No.: 90/014,965
`
`Docket No.: L2039.70001US10
`
`Closed Mode
`
`Laptop Mode
`
`ms
`
`i&ég
`
`FIG. 2
`
`%weeObweet
`
`Easel Mode
`
`Smtai
`
`<<©th
`
`sz=—=fai
`
`vo
`
`FIG. 27
`
`vo
`
`sz2©mM2gRLh.
`
`10208775.5
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3580
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3580
`
`
`
`

`

`Application No.: 90/014,965
`
`5
`
`Docket No.: L2039.70001US10
`
`2.
`
`Streamlined GUI Supporting Hierarchical “Map” Navigation
`
`The ’844 Patent describes a “streamlined graphical user interface [GUI] that supports ‘map’
`
`navigation. The map userinterface provides a clear overview ofthe entire computing environment
`
`and searching capability within the environment that may be accessed using”the scroll wheel 132
`
`and/or navigation buttons 166, 168 on the computer’s base (see Fig. 17 below). /d., 11:10-19.
`
`“[T]he map mode of navigation is a hierarchical mode that reduces the numberof items to select
`
`amongst at any stage of navigation, thereby facilitating user access with the scroll wheel 132, and
`
`optionally, the navigation button(s) 166, 168.” /d., 11:19-24. This “streamlined” GUIis
`
`advantageous whenthe laptop is in a mode(e.g., easel mode) where the keyboardis not readily
`
`accessible to the user because the streamlined GUIfacilitates navigation using other hardware(e.g.,
`
`scroll wheel 32).
`
`
`
`3.
`
`“Content Modes” Support Hierarchical Navigation
`
`The above-discussed hierarchical navigation mode is achieved by using “content modes.”
`
`“Using the map userinterface, information, programs, features, functions, applications may be
`
`groupedinto [] various modes of content 172.” Id., 11:37-40. Figure 11 showsa userinterface
`
`10208775.5
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3581
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3581
`
`

`

`Application No.: 90/014,965
`
`6
`
`Docket No.: L2039.70001US10
`
`homescreen 170 that “displays a plurality of modes of content 172.” /d., 11:30. “Someorall of the
`
`modesof content 172 mayaccess, retrieve and/or store information on the Internet 174.” /d., 12:4-
`
`5. Five content modes are shown in FIG. 11: “media 172a, connect 172b, web 172c, applications
`
`172d, and channels 172e.” /d., 11:37-38.
`
`“[M]edia content mode 172a may provide access to a medial player to play, view, search
`
`and organize media such as music, video, photos, etc.” /d., 11:44-46.
`
`“‘[C]onnect mode 172b may provide access to features such as, for example, email, voice-
`
`over-IP instant messaging, etc.” /d., 11:46-48.
`
`“[W]eb mode 172c may provideaccess to internet browsing and searching.” J/d., 11:49-50.
`
`“[A]pplication mode 172d may provideaccess to, for example, computer applications or
`
`programs, such as word processor, spreadsheet, calculator, etc.” which may be “web-based services
`
`rather than programs or applications. /d., 11:50-55.
`
`“[C]hannels mode 172e may provide access to different functionality of the portable
`
`computer, with the different functions or features defined as different channels,” examples of which
`
`include “an alarm clock channel” that displays a clock and can be programmedto set an alarm, a
`
`“photo frame channel” that can display one or more preselected images, and a “television channel”
`
`configured to stream Internet television. /d., 11:55-67).
`
`FIGs. 12 and 17 show thosefive content modes “displayed as a series of bars across the
`
`display screen.” /d., 12:6-7.
`
`10208775.5
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3582
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3582
`
`

`

`Application No.: 90/014,965
`
`7
`
`Docket No.: L2039.70001US10
`
` aywey
`
`sy
`
`ing~
`
` crest How channel
`Vragiots aksswis
`
`
`
`Scroll wheel 132 and navigation buttons 166, 168 “may be usedto navigate the user
`
`interface. ... scrolling the scroll wheel may sequentially highlight different ones of the modes of
`
`content 172. ... A highlighted mode 172 maybe selected by pressing the scroll wheel, thereby
`
`bringing up a new “page’ or screen on the user interface corresponding to the selected mode. Once
`
`within a selected mode of content 172, the scroll wheel may similarly be usedto select particular
`
`functions, features or applications within that mode.” /d., 12:22-35. For example, if the user
`
`initially selected the connect mode 172b, the user can then use the scroll wheel to select among
`
`“features such as, for example, email, voice-over-IP instant messaging, etc.” /d., 11:46-48. While
`
`10208775.5
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3583
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3583
`
`

`

`Application No.: 90/014,965
`
`8
`
`Docket No.: L2039.70001US10
`
`FIGs. 12 and 17 display the different modes of content as a series of bars, other display
`
`configurations(e.g., desktop and icon configuration, a dashboard configuration) are possible. /d.,
`
`12:6-21.
`
`B.
`
`The Challenged Claims All Require a Computer Configured To Display First
`and Second Content Modes
`
`Claims 10 and 16 (like every other claim in the ’844 Patent) require a “portable computer
`
`configurable betweena plurality of display modes including a laptop mode and an easel mode...
`
`wherein the laptop modeis configured to display to a user... a first content mode ... [and] the
`
`easel modeis configured to display to the user ... a second content mode.”
`
`Thus, every claim requires that the portable computer be configured to groupits
`
`“information, programs, features, functions, [and] applications”into at least a first and a second
`
`content mode, and to display to the user as information on the computer’s display componentthe
`
`first content mode (when the computeris in laptop mode) and the second content mode (whenthe
`
`computer is in easel mode). /d., 10:62-64, 11:27-40, 12:22-35. The Lane/Ledbetter combination
`
`fails to meet these requirements.
`
`Il.
`
`The Lane/Ledbetter Combination Fails to Meet Any Challenged Claim
`
`A.
`
`Ledbetter’s Alleged Content Modes Are Never Displayed to the User
`
`The Office Action alleges that Ledbetter “teaches different content modes displayed in
`
`different display modes,” citing Ledbetter [0023], [0026], and [0057]. OA at 6. The cited Ledbetter
`
`paragraphsteach that the computer’s monitor arm can be configured in different physical “usage
`
`modes” where the monitor arm is positioned in different physical positions. Ledbetter, [0026].
`
`Ledbetter discloses that “the computer providing the content to display can change software
`
`operating modes to match the corresponding monitorposition.” /d., [0055]. The operating system
`
`10208775.5
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3584
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3584
`
`

`

`Application No.: 90/014,965
`
`9
`
`Docket No.: L2039.70001US10
`
`“loads a corresponding shell user interface and/or other program or programs (e.g., 13861) as
`
`necessary to configure the computer system user interface display 1388 and running programs to
`
`match the current mode.” Ledbetter, [0056].
`
`Ledbetter describes four operating modes: (1) a “media consumption mode[in which]
`
`media player software may be loaded and automatically executed”; (2) a “tablet mode [in which]
`
`tablet operating system components such as including handwriting recognition software may be
`
`loaded and automatically executed”; (3) a “walk-up mode[in which ] a touch-screen shell program
`
`configured to provide convenient access to walk-up types of information (e.g., weather, messages,
`
`the internet and so forth)” is loaded; and (4) a “workstation mode[in which] typical shortcuts and
`
`other information used for working/productivity or other computer usage (e.g., gaming) may be
`
`displayed.” Ledbetter, [0057].
`
`Thus, Ledbetter discloses that when the computer arm is in different physical configurations
`
`(“usage modes”), the computer enters different “software operating modes”(id., [0055]) where
`
`different programs may be run and/or different information displayed on the display.
`
`The Request alleged that Ledbetter’s software operating modes“constitute the claimed
`
`content modes.” Request, 98-99. The Office Action adopts this mapping of the claimed content
`
`modes to Ledbetter, alleging that “Ledbetter further teaches different content modes displayed in
`
`different display modes,” where the Office Action identifies — via italics — the “media consumption
`99 6.
`
`mode,” “tablet mode,”
`
`“walkup mode” and “workstation mode” as meeting the claimed content
`
`modes. OAat 6 (emphasis original).
`
`Even if Ledbetter’s “software operating modes” could be considered content modes (which
`
`Patent Owner does not concede), the computer being configured to run different software operating
`
`10208775.5
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3585
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3585
`
`

`

`Application No.: 90/014,965
`
`10
`
`Docket No.: L2039.70001US10
`
`modes does not meet the claimed requirement that the computer be configured to display first and
`
`second content modes. The specification makes clear that “information, programs, features,
`
`functions, [and] applications may be groupedinto [] various modes of content 172” (id., 11:37-40),
`
`and that the content modes can be “displayed as a series of bars across the display screen”(id., 12:6-
`
`7) as shown in FIGs. 12 and 17. After a desired content modeis selected from the display, the
`
`“particularfunctions, features or applications within” that content mode can be displayed and a
`
`desired function, feature or application can be selected. /d., 12:22-35. Thus, displaying a content
`
`moderequires displaying some “information, such as menus,icons, etc. ... on the display screen
`
`110” (844 Patent, 10:54-65) that represents the content mode, not merely displaying one or more
`
`functions, features or applications grouped into a content mode.
`
`Thus, the Lane/Ledbetter combination is not “configured to display to a user” the things —
`
`software operating modes — the Office Action alleges are first and second content modes. Thus, the
`
`Lane/Ledbetter combination does not meet any challenged claim, because the claims do not simply
`
`require first and second content modes, they require that the computer be configured to “display to a
`
`user” those content modes.
`
`B.
`
`Displaying Functions, Features and/or Applications When Leadbetter’s
`Computer Is In One of Its Software Operating Modes Does Not Meet The
`Claims
`
`The only things in Ledbetter that the Office Action alleges are displayed to the user are
`
`particular functions, features and/or applications that are displayed when the computeris in a
`
`particular software operating modes. Specifically, the Office action identifies “media player
`
`software [] loaded and automatically executed” in media consumption mode, “handwriting
`
`recognition software [] loaded and automatically executed” in tablet mode, “walk-up types of
`
`10208775.5
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3586
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3586
`
`

`

`Application No.: 90/014,965
`
`11
`
`Docket No.: L2039.70001US10
`
`information (e.g., weather, messages, the internet and so forth) may be loaded” in walk-up mode,
`
`and “typical shortcuts and other information used for working/productivity ... may be displayed”in
`
`workstation mode. OA at 6. The ‘844 Patent specification refers to these as “particularfunctions,
`
`features or applications” that may be grouped within a content mode (‘844 Patent, 12:22-35), and
`
`makesclear that displaying the “particular functions, features or applications within” a content
`
`modeis not the same thing as displaying the content modeitself. /d., 11:37-40, 12:6-7, 12:22-35.
`
`Thus, to the extent the Office Action suggests that functions, features and/or applications displayed
`
`by Ledbetter whenin its display modes could meet the claimed content modes, that would be
`
`inconsistent with the specification of the ‘844 Patent.
`
`1.
`
`Claim Interpretation — Content Mode Cannot Be Interpreted More
`Broadly Than The WayIt is Used in the Specification
`
`Despite having already filed (and lost) an IPR petition challenging the 844 patent andfiling
`
`a 176-page Request challenging just two claims, Lenovo never acknowledged where the
`
`specification describes what “content modes”are, and Lenovocited no evidence of any useofthis
`
`term in the art that differs from the meaning the specification gives to this term that is coined
`
`therein. Like the Request, the Office Action did not affirmatively construe “content mode.”
`
`“[T]he best source for determining the meaning of a claim term” under the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard “is the specification.” MPEP § 2111.01. A claim
`
`interpretation under BRI “cannot be divorced from the specification and the record evidence.” /n re
`
`NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The interpretation “must be consistent with the
`
`one that those skilled in the art would reach.” Jn re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1999). Indeed, the claims must be interpreted “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted
`
`10208775.5
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3587
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3587
`
`

`

`Application No.: 90/014,965
`
`12
`
`Docket No.: L2039.70001US10
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art.” MPEP § 2111 (quoting Jn re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367
`
`F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
`
`As a matter of law, when “terms have noplain or established meaning to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art,” “they ordinarily cannot be construed broader than the disclosure in the
`
`specification.” Indacon, Inc. vy. Facebook, Inc., 824 F.3d 1352, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2016); /rdeto
`
`Access, Inc. vy. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[A]bsent such an
`
`accepted meaning[in the art], we construe a claim term only as broadly as provided for by the
`
`patent itself.”). In such circumstances, the specification must be used to ascertain the meaning and
`
`scope of the claim term, even whenit is not expressly defined. /rdeto, 383 F.3d at 1300 (“Even
`
`when guidance is not provided in explicit definitional format, ‘the specification may define claim
`
`terms “by implication’” such that the meaning may be ‘found in or ascertained by a reading of the
`
`patent documents.’”).
`
`Because the Office Action established no accepted meaningin the art for the term “content
`
`mode,” the specification’s meaning controls and this term cannot be interpreted more broadly than
`
`the specification’s disclosure. Jn re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`(“The broadest-construction rubric ... does not give the PTO an unfettered license to interpret
`
`claims to embrace anything remotely related to the claimed invention. Rather, claims should always
`
`be read in light of the specification and teachingsin the underlying patent.”); Jn re NTP, 654 F.3d at
`
`1288 (Even underthe “broadest reasonable construction, the construction cannot be divorced from
`
`the specification and the record evidence.”); MPEP § 2111 (“The broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`does not mean the broadest possible interpretation.” Rather, it “must be consistent with the use of
`
`the claim term in the specification”).
`
`10208775.5
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3588
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3588
`
`

`

`Application No.: 90/014,965
`
`13
`
`Docket No.: L2039.70001US10
`
`2.
`
`Displaying Functions, Features and/or Applications Grouped Within a
`Content Modeis Different than Displaying the Content Mode
`
`The ’844 Patent could not be clearer that there is a difference between a content mode and
`
`“the content organized within that mode.” °844 Patent, 11:40-43. A content modeis displayed with
`
`other content modes as shown in Figs. 12 and 17. /d., 12:6-8 (the different modes of content 172
`
`may be displayed... as illustrated in Fig. 12”). The content modes support “hierarchical”
`
`navigation (’844 Patent, 11:19-24) not only because they group together “information, programs,
`
`features, functions, [and] applications” (/d., 37-40), but because the content groups are displayed to
`
`the user. “[T]he different modes of content 172 may be displayedas a series of bars across the
`
`display screen 110, as illustrated in Fig. 12.” ’844 Patent, 12:6-8; see also Fig. 17.
`
`Matis Rayer
`Winds, Showost
`
`
`sH8F
`
` 7a
`
`
`
`rowan shared
`RG
`
`10208775.5
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3589
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3589
`
`

`

`Application No.: 90/014,965
`
`14
`
`Docket No.: L2039.70001US10
`
`
`
`eee
`FRTS
`
`The user may “navigate” a user interface that displays one or more content modes, and in
`
`one embodiment may “select” a particular content mode by pressing the scroll wheel when the
`
`desired content modeis highlighted. /d., 12:23-29. In one embodiment,after the user has selected a
`
`particular content mode on the userinterface, “a new ‘page’ or screen on the userinterface
`
`corresponding to the selected mode”is brought up that displays to the user the “ particular
`
`functions, features or applications within that [previously-selected content] mode”so that the user
`
`mayselect a desired function, feature or application. /d., 12:32-35. Thus, according to the
`
`specification, displaying a content mode meansdisplaying some “information, such as menus,
`
`icons, etc. ... on the display screen 110”(id., 10:54-65) that represents the content mode, andis
`
`distinct from displaying any functions, features and/or applications grouped within that content
`
`mode.
`
`As noted above, the Office Action relies on Ledbetter’s disclosure of “media player software
`
`[] loaded and automatically executed” in media consumption mode, “handwriting recognition
`
`software [] loaded and automatically executed” in tablet mode, “walk-up types of information(e.g.,
`
`weather, messages, the internet and so forth) may be loaded” in walk-up mode, and “typical
`
`10208775.5
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3590
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3590
`
`

`

`Application No.: 90/014,965
`
`15
`
`Docket No.: L2039.70001US10
`
`shortcuts and other information used for working/productivity ... may be displayed” in workstation
`
`mode. OA at 6. The ‘844 Patent specification refers to these as “particularfunctions, features or
`
`applications” that may be grouped within a content mode (‘844 Patent, 12:22-35), and makesclear
`
`that displaying the “particular functions, features or applications within” a content mode is not the
`
`same thing as displaying the content modeitself. /d., 11:37-40, 12:6-7, 12:22-35; see also e.g., Fig.
`
`11 (the LiTL media playeris an application program that is displayed separately from the “Media”
`
`content mode 172a displayed on Figs. 12 and 17).
`
`IV.
`
`Conclusion
`
`LiTl appreciates the examiner’s consideration of this interview agenda andlooks forward to
`
`discussing these and any other issues the examiners would like to address during the interview.
`
`Dated: November 18, 2022
`
`/ Gerald B. Hrycyszyn/
`Edward J. Russavage, Reg. No. 43,069
`Richard F. Giunta, Reg. No. 36,149
`Gerald B. Hrycyszyn, Reg. No. 50,474
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2206
`617.646.8000
`
`10208775.5
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3591
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3591
`
`

`

`Application No.: 90/014,965
`
`16
`
`Docket No.: L2039.70001US10
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §1.248 and §1.550(f), the undersigned herebycertifies that a copy of
`
`this INTERVIEW AGENDAIN EX PARTE RE-EXAMINATION,in Reexamination No.:
`
`90/014,965, including all attachments, exhibits, and documentsfiled therewith, will be served by
`
`first-class mail upon:
`
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN,LLP
`121 SW SALMON STREET
`SUITE 1600
`PORTLAND,OR 97204
`
`Dated: November 18, 2022
`
`/ Gerald B. Hrycyszyn/
`Gerald B. Hrycyszyn
`Reg. No. 50,474
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2206
`617.646.8000
`
`10208775.5
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3592
`
`HP Inc. - Exhibit 1005 - Page 3592
`
`

`

`Doc Code: ECOMM.AUTH/ECOMM.WTDW
`Doc Description: Internet Communications Authorized/Internet Communications Authorization Withdrawal
`
`PTO/SB/439 (11-15)
`
`AUTHORIZATION FOR INTERNET
`
`COMMUNICATIONS IN A PATENT
`
`APPLICATION OR REQUEST TO
`WITHDRAW AUTHORIZATION FOR
`
`INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`1. To authorize permission for Internet Communications.
`
`Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, | hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate
`with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject
`matter of this application via video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. | understand that a copy of
`these communications will be made of record in the application file. (MPEP 502.03)
`
`Il. To withdraw authorization for Internet Communications.
`
`[| The authorization given on , to the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and
`
`any practitioner in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application
`via Internet communica