UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`HP INC., DELL INC., DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC., ASUS GLOBAL PTE. LTD.,
`Petitioners
`v.
`LITL LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`___________________
`
`IPR2024-00456
`U.S. Patent No. 8,612,888
`_____________________
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. HENRY HOUH
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 8,612,888
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EX-1003
`Microsoft Inc. v. LiTL LLC
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS.......................................................... 2 
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ..................................................... 6 
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED AND RELIED UPON ............................................. 7 
`V.  LEGAL STANDARDS .......................................................................................... 10 
`A. 
`Legal Standards for Prior Art ................................................................... 10 
`B. 
`Legal Standards for Priority Date ............................................................ 11 
`C. 
`Legal Standards for Obviousness ............................................................ 11 
`VI. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ................................................................................. 15 
`VII. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY ............................................. 15 
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’888 PATENT ................................................................. 17 
`A. 
`Subject Matter Overview of the ’888 Patent ............................................ 17 
`B. 
`Brief Summary of ’888 Patent Prosecution History ................................ 21 
`C. 
`Brief Summary of Prior Patent Office Proceedings involving the ’888
`Patent ........................................................................................................ 23 
`IX. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................... 23 
`A. 
`“plurality of views of digital media content” ........................................... 23 
`B.  Means-Plus-Function (“MPF”) ................................................................ 24 
`1. 
`“view selector component” ............................................................ 24 
`2. 
`“aggregation component” .............................................................. 24 
`3. 
`“display component” ..................................................................... 25 
`4. 
`“storage component” ..................................................................... 25 
`5. 
`“execution component” ................................................................. 25 
`X.  DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS .................................................... 26 
`A.  Ground 1: Obviousness Over Reavey, Martinez, and Proctor (Claims 1,
`2, 24, 26-27) ............................................................................................. 26 
`1. 
`Reavey (EX-1009) ......................................................................... 26 
`2.  Martinez (EX-1007) ...................................................................... 27 
`3. 
`Proctor (Ex. 1010) ......................................................................... 30 
`4.  Motivation to Combine .................................................................. 34 
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Claim 1 ........................................................................................... 41 
`5. 
`Claim 2 ........................................................................................... 68 
`6. 
`Claim 24 ......................................................................................... 69 
`7. 
`Claim 26 ......................................................................................... 72 
`8. 
`Claim 27 ......................................................................................... 76 
`9. 
`B.  Ground 2: Obviousness over Reavey, Martinez, Proctor, and Aldrich
`(Claims 3-8, 15-17, 20, 21, 24) ................................................................ 82 
`1. 
`Aldrich ........................................................................................... 82 
`2.  Motivation to Combine .................................................................. 87 
`3. 
`Claim 3 ........................................................................................... 91 
`4. 
`Claim 4 ........................................................................................... 96 
`5. 
`Claim 5 ........................................................................................... 99 
`6. 
`Claim 6 ......................................................................................... 100 
`7. 
`Claim 7 ......................................................................................... 103 
`8. 
`Claim 8 ......................................................................................... 107 
`9. 
`Claim 15 ....................................................................................... 108 
`10.  Claim 16 ....................................................................................... 115 
`11.  Claim 17 ....................................................................................... 118 
`12.  Claim 20 ....................................................................................... 127 
`13.  Claim 21 ....................................................................................... 131 
`C.  Ground 3: Obviousness over Reavey, Martinez, Proctor, and Pröll (Claim
`25) .......................................................................................................... 132 
`1. 
`Pröll .............................................................................................. 132 
`2.  Motivation to Combine ................................................................ 133 
`3. 
`Claim 25 ....................................................................................... 135 
`D.  Ground 4: Obviousness over Reavey, Martinez, Proctor, Aldrich, and
`Chao (Claims 9, 18, 19) ......................................................................... 138 
`1. 
`Chao ............................................................................................. 138 
`2.  Motivation to Combine ................................................................ 140 
`3. 
`Claim 9 ......................................................................................... 143 
`4. 
`Claim 18 ....................................................................................... 147 
`5. 
`Claim 19 ....................................................................................... 148 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`E. 
`
`Ground 5: Obviousness over Reavey, Martinez, Proctor, and Chao
`(Claim 22) .............................................................................................. 150 
`1. 
`Claim 22 ....................................................................................... 150 
`XI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 153 
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I, Dr. Henry Houh, hereby declare as follows:
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I have been retained on behalf of Microsoft Corp. (“Microsoft” or
`
`“Petitioner”) to offer technical opinions related to U.S. Patent No. 8,612,888 (“the ’888
`
`patent”) (EX-1001). I understand that Microsoft is requesting that the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) institute an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding
`
`of the ’888 patent. Specifically, I have been asked to consider the validity of claims 1-
`
`9, 15-22, and 24-27 of the ’888 Patent (the “Challenged Claims”) in view of prior art
`
`and obviousness considerations from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the invention (“POSITA”) as it relates to the ’888 Patent.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at my standard consulting rate. I am
`
`also being reimbursed for expenses that I incur during the course of this work. My
`
`compensation is not contingent upon the results of my study, the substance of my
`
`opinions, or the outcome of any proceeding involving the Challenged Claims. I have no
`
`financial interest in the outcome of this matter or on the pending litigation between
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner.
`
`3. My analysis here is based on my years of education, research and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials, including those
`
`cited herein.
`
`4.
`
`I may rely upon these materials, my knowledge and experience, and/or
`
`additional materials to rebut arguments raised by the Patent Owner. Further, I may also
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`consider additional documents and information in forming any necessary opinions,
`
`including documents that may not yet have been provided to me.
`
`5. My analysis of the materials in this proceeding is ongoing, and I will
`
`continue to review any new material as it is provided. This declaration represents only
`
`those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise, supplement, and/or
`
`amend my opinions stated herein based on new information and on my continuing
`
`analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`6.
`I am over the age of 18 and am competent to write this declaration. I have
`
`personal knowledge, or have developed knowledge of these technologies, based upon
`
`education, training, or experience, of the matters set forth herein.
`
`7. My qualifications are set forth in my curriculum vitae, a copy of which is
`
`filed as Exhibit EX-1004. The following is a brief summary of my relevant
`
`qualifications and professional experience.
`
`8.
`
`I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from
`
`the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) in 1998. Beforehand, I received a
`
`Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1991, a
`
`Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1989,
`
`and a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics in 1990, all from MIT.
`
`9.
`
`I am currently self-employed as an independent technical consultant. Until
`
`late 2022, I was also president of a company that provides supplemental science,
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`technology, engineering, and mathematics (“STEM”) education to children of all ages.
`
`10.
`
`I first entered telecommunications in 1987 when I worked as a summer
`
`intern at AT&T Bell Laboratories as part of a five-year dual degree program at MIT.
`
`During my first summer, I worked designing digital hardware including using
`
`programmable logic devices. I continued to work at AT&T Bell Laboratories as part of
`
`this MIT program. While at MIT, I was a teaching assistant (“TA”) in the Electrical
`
`Engineering and Computer Science Department’s core Computer Architectures course.
`
`I first was a TA as a senior for a role typically reserved for graduate students. I later
`
`became head TA. The course covered various topics in computer architectures,
`
`including programmable logic arrays, multiprocessor systems, and parallel processing.
`
`As a TA, I helped write homework assignments, lab assignments, and exams. I also
`
`taught in the recitation sections.
`
`11. Later, as part of my doctoral research at MIT from 1991-1998, I was a
`
`research assistant in the Telemedia Network Systems (“TNS”) group at the Laboratory
`
`for Computer Science. The TNS group built a high-speed gigabit network and created
`
`applications that ran over the network. Example applications included ones for remote
`
`video capture, processing, and display of video on computer terminals. In addition to
`
`working on the design of core network components, designing and building the high-
`
`speed links, and designing and writing the device drivers for the interface cards, I also
`
`helped design the switch, which was composed of an array of FPGAs at the core.
`
`12.
`
`I also set up the group’s web server and helped to build the web pages that
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`initiated the above-mentioned video sessions via a web interface. Vice President Al
`
`Gore visited our group in 1996 and received a demonstration of—and remotely drove—
`
`a radio-controlled toy car with a wireless video camera mounted on it that was built by
`
`our group. This toy car device received commands transmitted over a network from a
`
`remote computer, and video data from the toy car was transmitted wirelessly then over
`
`a computer network back to the user controller. On occasion, we allowed users visiting
`
`our web site to drive the toy car from their remote computer while they watched the
`
`video on their computer. The video stream was encoded by TNS-designed hardware,
`
`streamed over the TNS-designed network, and displayed using TNS-designed software.
`
`13.
`
`I defended and submitted my Ph.D. thesis, titled “Designing Networks for
`
`Tomorrow’s Traffic,” in January 1998. As part of my thesis research, I analyzed local
`
`area and wide area flows to show a more efficient method for routing packets in a
`
`network, based on traffic patterns at the time.
`
`14. From 1997 to 1999, I was a Senior Scientist and Engineer at NBX
`
`Corporation, a start-up that made business telephone systems for streaming packetized
`
`audio over data networks instead of using traditional telephone lines. NBX was later
`
`acquired by 3Com Corporation and the phone system is still used today by numerous
`
`businesses.
`
`15. As part of my work at NBX, I designed the core audio reconstruction
`
`algorithms for the telephones, as well as the packet transmission algorithms. I also
`
`designed and validated the core packet transport protocol used by the phone system.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`The protocol was used for all signaling in the phone system, including for the setup of
`
`conference calls. The NBX system also featured a computer interface for initiating
`
`phone calls, which could also initiate conference calls. The NBX system also supported
`
`the Telephony Application Programming Interface (“TAPI”) that allowed other
`
`computer programs to integrate with our system telephony features. We obtained U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,697,963, entitled “Telecommunication method for ensuring on-time
`
`delivery of packets containing time-sensitive data,” as part of this work.
`
`16. From 1999-2004, I was employed by Empirix or its predecessor company,
`
`Teradyne. Empirix was a leader in test tools for telecommunications protocols and
`
`systems, providing functional testing tools as well as load testing tools. From 2000-
`
`2001, I conceived and built a test platform for testing Voiceover-IP (VoIP) based on
`
`highly parallel network processors. The first application on this new test platform was
`
`a cloud emulator for simulating the effects of transmitting VoIP over a busy network.
`
`The platform was based on a multi-core high performance network processor chip.
`
`17.
`
`In 2006, as part of my role at BBN Technologies, I helped found PodZinger
`
`Inc., now known as RAMP Inc. PodZinger utilized BBN’s speech recognition
`
`algorithms to search through the spoken words in audio and video segments. While I
`
`was Vice President of Operations and Technology, PodZinger followed its initial
`
`prototype with a full streaming audio and video search solution. I also created a social
`
`networking web site, which BBN sold to a venture-funded startup company. In the
`
`process of creating the web site, I designed and specified the authentication and
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`authorization protocols.
`
`18. Since I set up one of the web’s first hundred or so servers around late 1993,
`
`I have continued to create web servers and their interfaces for various organizations and
`
`companies. I have coded the web user interface from scratch, and I also have used
`
`various content management systems to create user interfaces.
`
`19.
`
`I have been awarded several United States patents, and I have several
`
`patent publications including the following examples:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,975,296, “Automated security threat testing of web pages”;
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,877,736, “Computer language interpretation and optimization
`
`for server testing”;
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,801,910, “Method and apparatus for timed tagging of media
`
`content”;
`
` U.S. Patent 7,590,542, “Method of Generating Test Scripts Using a Voice-
`
`Capable Markup Language”;
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,967,963, “Telecommunication method for ensuring on-time
`
`delivery of packets containing time-sensitive data.”
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`20.
`In rendering the opinions set forth in this declaration, I was asked to
`
`consider the patent claims and the prior art through the eyes of a POSITA at the time of
`
`the alleged invention, which I understand is asserted to be April 1, 2008—the earliest
`
`possible priority date of the ’888 Patent. I understand that the factors considered in
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`determining the ordinary level of skill in a field of art include the level of education and
`
`experience of persons working in the field; the types of problems encountered in the
`
`field; the teachings of the prior art; and the sophistication of the technology at the time
`
`of the alleged invention. I understand that a POSITA is not a specific real individual,
`
`but rather is a hypothetical individual having the qualities reflected by the factors above.
`
`I understand that a POSITA would also have knowledge from the teachings of the prior
`
`art, including the art cited below.
`
`21. Taking these factors into consideration, in my opinion, at the relevant time,
`
`a POSITA relating to the technology of the ’888 Patent would have had a Bachelor’s
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or a
`
`similar field, plus two years of work experience in designing GUIs for computing
`
`devices. In my opinion, more education could substitute for experience and vice versa.
`
`22. Before April 1, 2008, my level of skill in the art was at least that of a
`
`POSITA. I am qualified to provide opinions concerning what a POSITA would have
`
`known and understood at that time, and my analysis and conclusions herein are from
`
`the perspective of a POSITA as of that date.
`
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED AND RELIED UPON
`23.
`In forming my opinions expressed herein, in addition to relying on my
`
`education and experience, I considered the totality of the following materials:
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`Reference
`U.S. Patent No. 8,612,888 (“the ’888 Patent”)
`File History of the ’888 patent
`Declaration of Dr. Henry Houh in Support of Petition (“Houh Decl.”)
`Dr. Henry Houh CV
`RESERVED
`German Patent Application Publication DE10331185A1 (“Pröll”) with
`certified translation
`U.S. Patent 6,137,468 (“Martinez”)
`Joan Preppernau & Joyce Cox, Step By Step Windows Vista, Microsoft
`Press (Jan. 3, 2007) (“Preppernau”)
`U.S. Patent 5,847,698 (“Reavey”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0227122 A1 (“Proctor”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0062141 A1 (“Chandhri”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0265390 A1 (“Aldrich”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,970,240 B1 (“Chao”)
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`Complaint, LiTL LLC v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc., No. 23-cv-00122
`(D. Del. Feb. 1, 2023)
`Complaint, LiTL LLC v. Dell Techs. Inc., No. 23-cv-0121 (D. Del. Feb.
`1, 2023)
`Complaint, LiTL LLC v. HP Inc., No. 23-cv-00120 (D. Del. Feb. 1,
`2023)
`Order Granting Microsoft Intervention, LiTL LLC v. HP Inc., No. 23-
`cv-00120 (D. Del. Oct. 16, 2023)
`Scheduling Order, LiTL LLC v. HP Inc., No. 23-120 (D. Del. Jan. 11,
`2024), ECF No. 44
`Foley, James D., et al., Computer Graphics Principles and Practice,
`Second Edition in C (July 1997)
`Dino Esposito, New Graphical Interface: Enhance Your Programs with
`New Windows XP Shell Features, MSDN Magazine
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`1027
`
`Reference
`Exhibit
`1023 Maintenance & Service Guide, HP Pavilion dv1600 Entertainment
`Notebook PC (June 2006)
`Complaint, LiTL LLC v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., No. 20-cv-00689
`(D. Del. May 22, 2020)
`Stipulation of Dismissal, LiTL LLC v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., No.
`20-cv-00689 (D. Del. Feb. 3, 2023)
`RESERVED
`Fujitsu LifeBook T3000 Tablet PC review: Fujitsu LifeBook T3000
`Tablet PC, available at https://www.cnet.com/reviews/fujitsu-lifebook-
`t3000-tablet-pc-review/
`HP Compaq Tablet PC TC1100 review: HP Compaq Tablet PC
`TC1100, available at https://www.cnet.com/reviews/hp-compaq-tablet-
`pc-tc1100-review/
`Acer TravelMate C110 review: Acer TravelMate C110, available at
`https://www.cnet.com/reviews/acer-travelmate-c110-review/
`OLPC XO-1 (One Laptop Per Child) review: OLPC XO-1 (One Laptop
`Per Child), available at https://www.cnet.com/reviews/olpc-xo-1-one-
`laptop-per-child-review/
`1031 Microsoft Indemnity Request
`1032
`RESERVED
`1033
`RESERVED
`1034
`RealPlayer 7 Plus User Manual
`1035
`RESERVED
`1036
`Australia Patent Application Publication AU2001100022A4
`1037
`Apple Reinvents the Phone with iPhone, available at
`https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2007/01/09Apple-Reinvents-the-
`Phone-with-iPhone/
`Twist and Shoot: Nokia N90 makes it première, available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20140714193817/http://company.nokia.co
`m/en/news/press-releases/2005/04/27/twist-and-shoot-nokia-n90-
`makes-its-premiere
`Adobe Photoshop Elements 3.0 Getting Started Guide (2004)
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`9
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`1040
`1041
`
`Reference
`U.S. Patent 7,433,876 (“Spivack”)
`An Overview of HTML+, available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/19970605134644/https://www.w3.org/Mar
`kUp/HTMLPlus/htmlplus_7.html
`
` have also considered any materials cited in this declaration even if not included in
`
`
`
`
` I
`
`the list above.
`
`V. LEGAL STANDARDS
`24.
`I am not a lawyer and do not provide any legal opinions, but I have been
`
`advised that certain legal standards are to be applied by technical experts in forming
`
`opinions regarding meaning and validity of patent claims. I have applied the legal
`
`standards described below.
`
`25.
`
`It is my understanding that assessing the validity of a U.S. patent based on
`
`a prior art analysis involves two steps. First, one must assess what meaning a POSITA
`
`would have given the terms. Second, after assessing the meaning of the claim terms,
`
`one may then assess validity by comparing a patent claim to the “prior art.” I understand
`
`that the teaching of the prior art is viewed through the eyes of a POSITA at the time the
`
`invention was made. My analysis as to what constitutes a relevant POSITA is set forth
`
`above.
`
`A. Legal Standards for Prior Art
`I understand that a patent or other publication must first qualify as prior art
`
`26.
`
`before it can be used to invalidate a patent claim. For purposes of this declaration,
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`counsel for Petitioner has instructed me to assume that each prior art reference cited in
`
`the combinations described below (Reavey, Martinez, Proctor, Aldrich, Pröll, Chao)
`
`qualify as prior art to the ’888 Patent.
`
`B. Legal Standards for Priority Date
`I understand that the “priority date” (or “earliest effective filing date” or
`
`27.
`
`“Critical Date”) of a patent is the date on which it is filed, or the date on which an earlier
`
`application was filed if the patentee properly claims the benefit of the earlier
`
`application’s filing date. For purposes of my analysis in this declaration, I have assumed
`
`that the ’888 Patent is entitled to a priority date of April 1, 2008.
`
`C. Legal Standards for Obviousness
` My understanding is that a patent claim is invalid as obvious only if the
`
`28.
`
`subject matter of the claimed invention “as a whole” would have been obvious to a
`
`POSITA at the time the invention was made. To determine the differences between a
`
`prior art reference (or a proposed combination of prior art references) and the claims,
`
`the question of obviousness is not whether the differences themselves would have been
`
`obvious, but whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious. Also,
`
`obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements. Rather, it is
`
`necessary to provide some articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support
`
`the legal conclusion of obviousness.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that a patent claim that comprises several elements is not
`
`proved obvious by simply showing that each of its elements was independently known
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`in the prior art. In my evaluation of whether any claim of the ’888 Patent would have
`
`been obvious, I considered whether the Petition, or any evidence submitted in this
`
`proceeding, presented an articulated reason with a rational basis that would have
`
`motivated a POSITA to combine the elements or concepts from the prior art in the same
`
`way as in the claimed invention.
`
`30.
`
`It is my understanding that there is no single way to define the line between
`
`true inventiveness on one hand—which is patentable—and the application of common
`
`sense and ordinary skill to solve a problem on the other hand—which is not patentable.
`
`For instance, factors such as market forces or other design incentives may be the source
`
`of what produced a change, rather than true inventiveness.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that the decision-maker may consider whether the change was
`
`merely the predictable result of using prior art elements according to their known
`
`functions, or whether it was the result of true inventiveness. And the decision-maker
`
`may also consider whether there is some teaching or suggestion in the prior art to make
`
`the modification or combination of elements recited in the claim at issue. Also, the
`
`decision-maker may consider whether the innovation applies a known technique that
`
`had been used to improve a similar device or method in a similar way. The decision-
`
`maker may also consider whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to
`
`try, meaning that the claimed innovation was one of a relatively small number of
`
`possible approaches to the problem with a reasonable expectation of success by those
`
`skilled in the art.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`32.
`
`I have been instructed by counsel that if any of these considerations are
`
`relied upon to reach a conclusion of obviousness, the law requires that the analysis of
`
`such a consideration must be made explicit. I understand that the decision-maker must
`
`be careful not to determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight and that many
`
`true inventions might seem obvious after the fact. I understand that the decision-maker
`
`should consider obviousness from the perspective of a POSITA at the time the claimed
`
`invention was made, and that the decision-maker should not consider what is known
`
`today or what is learned from the teaching of the patent.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that in order to determine whether a patent claim is obvious,
`
`one must make certain factual findings regarding the claimed invention and the prior
`
`art. Specifically, I understand that the following factors must be evaluated to determine
`
`whether a claim is obvious: the scope and content of the prior art; the difference or
`
`differences, if any, between the claim of the patent and the prior art; the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made; and, if available, the objective
`
`indicia of non-obviousness, also known as “secondary considerations.”
`
`34.
`
`I understand that the secondary considerations include: commercial
`
`success of a product due to the merits of the claimed invention; a long felt need for the
`
`solution provided by the claimed invention; unsuccessful attempts by others to find the
`
`solution provided by the claimed invention; copying of the claimed invention by others;
`
`unexpected and superior results from the claimed invention; acceptance by others of the
`
`claimed invention as shown by praise from others in the field or from the licensing of
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`the claimed invention; teaching away from the conventional wisdom in the art at the
`
`time of the invention; independent invention of the claimed invention by others before
`
`or at about the same time as the named inventor thought of it; and other evidence tending
`
`to show obviousness.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that, to establish a secondary consideration, the evidence must
`
`demonstrate a nexus between that secondary consideration and the claimed invention.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that a petition must identify, for any terms with means-plus-
`
`function limitations, the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure,
`
`material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function. I also understand a rebuttable
`
`presumption exists that without use of the term, “means,” a claim term is not interpreted
`
`as means-plus-function, but that other nonce words like “component” have been found
`
`to satisfy the rebuttable presumption and invoke a means-plus-function claim
`
`construction of such a claim term.
`
`37.
`
`I also understand that a petitioner seeking to demonstrate that the prior art
`
`discloses a means-plus-function limitation must prove that the corresponding
`
`structure—or an equivalent—was present in the prior art and performing the same
`
`claimed function.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that the standard for determining whether the prior art
`
`discloses the corresponding structure or an equivalent is whether there are insubstantial
`
`differences, which means that if the assertedly equivalent structure performs the
`
`claimed function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`as the corresponding structure described in the specification, it is equivalent.
`
`39.
`
` I understand that proving structural equivalence does not require a
`
`component-by-component analysis, but rather that it is sufficient to show structure,
`
`materials, or acts that perform the claimed function in substantially the same way to
`
`achieve substantially the same result because the claim limitation is the overall structure
`
`corresponding to the claimed function and not individual components.
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`40. For the reasons I discuss below, it is my opinion that claims 1-9, 15-22,
`
`and 24-27 of the ’888 patent are disclosed in the prior art, and are rendered obvious by
`
`the prior art.
`
`VII. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`41. Convertible notebook computers appeared in the early 2000s. For example,
`
`the Fujitsu Lifebook T3000 was introduced in 2003. The T3000 was able to convert
`
`from a notebook to a tablet by swiveling the screen, so that when it folded back down,
`
`the screen was on the outside and covered the keyboard. In particular, when converted
`
`to tablet mode, the screen automatically switched from landscape to portrait mode (EX-
`
`1027).1 The T3000 ran Windows XP Tablet PC Edition. Other tablet PCs available in
`
`2003 included the Acer TravelMate C110 Tablet, and the HP Compaq Tablet PC
`
`
`1 See https://www.cnet.com/reviews/fujitsu-lifebook-t3000-tablet-pc-review/ (EX-
`
`1027)
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`TC1100, and they also ran Windows XP Tablet PC Edition. Both the C110 and the
`
`TC1100 also featured a swivel screen that could fold down (EX-1028, EX-1029).2 This
`
`convertibility feature was also included in the low-cost “One Laptop Per Child” effort
`
`with its first release, the OLPC XO-1, in late 2007 (EX-1030).3
`
`42. Early handheld computing devices included the Apple Newton, introduced
`
`in 1993. Handheld devices began more widespread adoption with the introduction of
`
`the PalmPilot in 1996. Microsoft introduced its Pocket PC in 2000. The iPhone was
`
`introduced in 2007, and the iPhone included the Safari web browser. With a diversity
`
`of screen sizes accessing web sites, the designers of web sites worked to adapt the
`
`presentation to the size of the screens. This was recognized by the W3C (the web’s
`
`standard-setting consortium) in the early days of the web in 1993 that the rendering of
`
`web pages should be guided by user preferences.4
`
`
`2 See https://www.cnet.com/reviews/hp-compaq-tablet-pc-tc1100-review/ (EX-1028),
`
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ0-PaKkHE4 ,
`
`https://www.cnet.com/reviews/acer-travelmate-c110-review/ (EX-1029),
`
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQguX29KDW0
`
`3 See https://www.cnet.com/reviews/olpc-xo-1-one-laptop-per-child-review (EX-
`
`1030)/
`
`4 See
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/19970605134644/https://www.w3.org/MarkUp/HTMLPl
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`43. Thus, by 2008, it was recognized and known that user interfaces would be
`
`customized based on the configuration o