UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`——————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`——————————
`
`ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC.; ASUS GLOBAL PTE. LTD.;
`DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.; DELL INC.; AND HP INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`LiTL LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`——————————
`Case IPR2024-00532
`U.S. Patent No. 8,289,688
`——————————
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,289,688
`CLAIMS 1-10 and 23
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P. O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`Appendix of Exhibits .................................................................................... x
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 Mandatory Notices.............................................................. xii
`1.
`Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) .............................. xii
`2.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ...................................... xii
`3.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) .................... xiii
`4.
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ................................ xv
`Introduction ........................................................................................1
`I.
`II. Grounds for Standing ...........................................................................2
`III.
`Identification of Challenge ....................................................................2
`IV. Overview of the ’688 Patent ..................................................................4
`V.
`Claim Construction ..............................................................................6
`A.
`Legal Standard ...........................................................................6
`B.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................7
`C.
`Claim Terms ..............................................................................8
`1.
`“… the hinge assembly defines a single longitudinal axis
`running along an interface between the display component
`and the base,” ....................................................................8
`“… a mode sensor which detects a current display mode of
`the portable computer;” .................................................... 10
`“… at least one integrated hardware control, … wherein the
`integrated navigation hardware can be operated by a user to
`control features and manipulate content displayed on the
`portable computer,”.......................................................... 12
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`
`VI. Scope & Content of the Prior Art as of the Earliest Priority Date of the
`’688 Patent........................................................................................ 13
`A. Hinges and Display Modes......................................................... 13
`1.
`Shimano (Exh. 1005)........................................................ 13
`2.
`Kamikakai (Exh. 1014)..................................................... 15
`3.
`Choi (Exh. 1015) ............................................................. 15
`4. Misawa (Exh. 1016) ......................................................... 16
`5.
`Single-Pivot vs. Dual-Pivot Hinges .................................... 17
`Sensors and Display Orientations ................................................ 19
`1.
`Lane (Exh. 1017) ............................................................. 19
`2.
`Hisano (Exh. 1018) .......................................................... 22
`C. User Override or Selection of Display Orientation......................... 26
`1.
`Dunko (Exh. 1019) .......................................................... 26
`2.
`Forstall (Exh. 1020) ......................................................... 28
`VII. The Challenged Claims are Unpatentable .............................................. 29
`A.
`Claim 1 Would Have Been Obvious in View of: [Ground I] Lane
`and Misawa.............................................................................. 29
`1. Motivation to Combine Lane and Misawa ........................... 29
`2.
`[Preamble] A portable computer configurable between a
`plurality of display modes including a closed mode, a laptop
`mode and an easel mode, the portable computer comprising: . 30
`[Element 1.a] a single display component including a
`display screen; ................................................................. 30
`[Element 1.b] a base including a keyboard; ......................... 30
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`[Element 1.c.i] a hinge assembly at least partially housed
`within the base and the display component configured to
`pivotably couple the display component to the base, ............. 31
`[Element 1.c.ii] wherein the hinge assembly defines a
`single longitudinal axis running along an interface between
`the display component and the base, ................................... 31
`[Element 1.c.iii] and wherein the display component and the
`base are rotatable about the single longitudinal axis; ............. 32
`[Element 1.d] wherein, in the closed mode, the display
`screen is disposed substantially against the base; .................. 32
`[Element 1.e.i] wherein rotating either the single display
`component or the base by an operator about the single
`longitudinal axis up to approximately 180 degrees from
`the closed mode configures the portable computer into
`the laptop mode, .............................................................. 33
`[Element 1.e.ii] wherein in the laptop mode the single
`display component is oriented towards the operator and the
`keyboard is oriented to receive input from the operator; ........ 33
`[Element 1.f] wherein rotating either the single display
`component or the base by the operator about the single
`longitudinal axis beyond approximately 180 degrees from
`the closed mode configures the portable computer into the
`easel mode; and ............................................................... 33
`[Element 1.g] wherein in the easel mode the single display
`component is oriented facing the operator with the
`keyboard oriented away from the operator. .......................... 34
`Claim 2 Would Have Been Obvious in View of: [Ground I] Lane
`and Misawa.............................................................................. 34
`1.
`[Preamble] The portable computer of claim 1, ..................... 34
`2.
`[Element 2.a] wherein the single display component
`is rotatable about the single longitudinal axis up to
`approximately 320 degrees from the closed mode................. 34
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`C.
`
`Claim 3 Would Have Been Obvious in View of: [Ground I] Lane
`and Misawa; or [Ground II] Lane, Hisano, and Misawa ................. 36
`1. Motivation to Combine Hisano with Lane and Misawa ......... 36
`2.
`[Preamble] The portable computer of claim 1, ..................... 36
`3.
`[Element 3.a] further comprising a display orientation
`module that displays content on the display screen in one
`of a plurality of content orientations relative to the single
`longitudinal axis. ............................................................. 37
`a.
`[Ground I] Lane and Misawa .................................... 37
`b.
`[Ground II] Lane, Hisano, and Misawa ...................... 38
`D. Claim 4 Would Have Been Obvious in View of: [Ground II] Lane,
`Hisano, and Misawa .................................................................. 39
`1.
`[Preamble] The portable computer of claim 3, ..................... 39
`2.
`[Element 4.a] further comprising a mode sensor which
`detects a current display mode of the portable computer;
`and................................................................................. 39
`[Element 4.b] wherein the display orientation module
`displays content on the display screen in the one of the
`plurality of content orientations dependent on the current
`display mode detected by the mode sensor. ......................... 41
`Claim 5 Would Have Been Obvious in View of: [Ground I] Lane
`and Misawa; or [Ground II] Lane, Hisano, and Misawa ................. 42
`1.
`[Preamble] The portable computer of claim 3, ..................... 42
`2.
`[Element 5.a] wherein the display orientation module is
`configured to display the content in a first content
`orientation relative to the single longitudinal axis when the
`portable computer is configured into the laptop mode and in
`a second content orientation relative to the single
`longitudinal axis when the portable computer is configured
`into the easel mode........................................................... 42
`
`3.
`
`E.
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`F.
`
`Claim 6 Would Have Been Obvious in View of: [Ground I] Lane
`and Misawa; or [Ground II] Lane, Hisano, and Misawa ................. 43
`1.
`[Preamble] The portable computer of claim 5, ..................... 43
`2.
`[Element 6.a] wherein the second content orientation is 180
`degrees relative to the first orientation. ............................... 43
`G. Claim 7 Would Have Been Obvious in View of: [Ground I] Lane
`and Misawa; or [Ground II] Lane, Hisano, and Misawa ................. 43
`1.
`[Preamble] The portable computer of claim 3, ..................... 43
`2.
`[Element 7.a] wherein the plurality of display modes
`further comprises a flat mode in which the single display
`component is disposed at an angle of approximately 180
`degrees, measured about the single longitudinal axis,
`relative to the base. .......................................................... 43
`a.
`[Ground I] Lane and Misawa .................................... 44
`b.
`[Ground II] Lane, Hisano, and Misawa ...................... 44
`H. Claim 8 Would Have Been Obvious in View of: [Ground III]
`Lane, Misawa, and Dunko; [Ground IV] Lane, Hisano, Misawa,
`and Dunko; [Ground V] Lane, Misawa, and Forstall; [Ground VI]
`Lane, Hisano, Misawa, and Forstall ............................................. 45
`1. Motivation to Combine Either Dunko or Forstall with Lane,
`Hisano, and Misawa ......................................................... 45
`[Preamble] The portable computer of claim 7, ..................... 46
`[Element 8.a] wherein the plurality of content orientations
`comprises a first content orientation relative to the single
`longitudinal axis, a second content orientation relative to
`the single longitudinal axis, and a third content orientation
`relative to the single longitudinal axis; and .......................... 46
`[Element 8.b] wherein, in the flat mode, the content
`displayed on the display screen is configurable among the
`first, second and third content orientations responsive to a
`user input. ....................................................................... 47
`
`2.
`3.
`
`4.
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`[Ground III] Lane, Misawa, and Dunko; [Ground IV]
`Lane, Hisano, Misawa, and Dunko ............................ 47
`[Ground V] Lane, Misawa, and Forstall; [Ground VI]
`Lane, Hisano, Misawa, and Forstall ........................... 48
`Claim 9 Would Have Been Obvious in View of: [Ground III]
`Lane, Misawa, and Dunko; [Ground IV] Lane, Hisano, Misawa,
`and Dunko; [Ground V] Lane, Misawa, and Forstall; [Ground VI]
`Lane, Hisano, Misawa, and Forstall ............................................. 48
`1.
`[Preamble] The portable computer of claim 8, ..................... 48
`2.
`[Element 9.a] wherein the second content orientation is 90
`degrees relative to the first content orientation; and .............. 48
`[Element 9.b] wherein the third content orientation is 180
`degrees relative to the first content orientation. .................... 49
`Claim 10 Would Have Been Obvious in View of: [Ground VII]
`Lane, Misawa, and Nako............................................................ 49
`1. Motivation to Combine Nako with Lane and Misawa ........... 49
`2.
`[Preamble] The portable computer of claim 1, ..................... 50
`3.
`[Element 10.a] further comprising: a foot disposed along
`at least a portion of the base and configured to support
`the portable computer when in the easel mode. .................... 50
`K. Claim 23 Would Have Been Obvious in View of: [Ground II]
`Lane, Hisano, and Misawa ......................................................... 51
`1.
`[Preamble] The portable computer of claim 1, ..................... 51
`2.
`[Element 23.a] further comprising at least one integrated
`navigation hardware control, ............................................. 51
`[Element 23.b] wherein at least one of the at least one
`integrated navigation hardware control is accessible in
`at least the laptop and easel modes, .................................... 52
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`3.
`
`3.
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`[Element 23.c] and wherein the integrated navigation
`hardware can be operated by a user to control features and
`manipulate content displayed on the portable computer, ........ 52
`[Element 23.d] including any mode wherein the keyboard is
`inaccessible or oriented away from the user. ........................ 52
`VIII. Discretionary Denial is Not Warranted ................................................. 53
`A. Discretionary Denial Under Section 314(a) is Not Warranted ......... 53
`1.
`Fintiv Factor #1: No Request for Stay ................................. 53
`2.
`Fintiv Factor #2: Later District Court Trial Date .................. 53
`3.
`Fintiv Factor #3: Little Investment in the District Court
`Actions ........................................................................... 54
`Fintiv Factor #4: No Overlap in Issues ................................ 55
`Fintiv Factor #5: Same Parties ........................................... 55
`Fintiv Factor #6: Compelling Evidence of Unpatentability
`Mandates Institution Under the Interim Guidance ................ 55
`B. Discretionary Denial Under Section 325(d) is Not Warranted ......... 57
`IX. Conclusion........................................................................................ 58
`Certificate of Compliance ............................................................................ 59
`Certificate of Service................................................................................... 60
`
`
`
`4.
`5.
`6.
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB 2/13/2020) .............................................. 57
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB 3/20/2020) ...................................... passim
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB 12/15/2017) ....................................... 57, 58
`CrowdStrike, Inc. v. Open Text Inc.
`IPR2023-00289, Paper 7 (PTAB 7/21/2023) .............................................. 55
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................................................... 6
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Staton Techiya
`LLC, IPR2022-00302, Paper 13 (PTAB 7/11/2022) .................................... 55
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group-Trucking LLC
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB 6/16/2020) ....................................... 53, 55
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. CellPort Systems, Inc.
`IPR2015-00633, Paper 11.......................................................................... 6
`Vizio, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
`IPR2022-01458, Paper 8 (PTAB 4/11/2023) .............................................. 56
`FEDERAL STATUTES, REGULATIONS, AND RULES
`37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100 .................................................................................................. 6
`§ 42.104(a) .............................................................................................. 2
`§ 42.104(b).............................................................................................. 2
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b) .................................................................................................. 8
`§ 112 ...................................................................................................... 7
`§ 315(e) ................................................................................................ 55
`§ 325(d) ................................................................................................ 57
`OTHER STATE STATUTES, REGULATIONS, AND RULES
`Delaware Default ESI Rules
`Rule 4(c) ............................................................................................... 54
`Rule 4(d)............................................................................................... 54
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`U.S. Patent No.
`6,154,359 .............................................................................................. 15
`6,918,159 .............................................................................................. 15
`7,791,594 .............................................................................................. 26
`7,978,176 .............................................................................................. 28
`8,289,688 ........................................................................................ passim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Title
`
`APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS
`
`Abbreviation
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,289,688
`
`The ’688 Patent
`
`File History of U.S. Patent Appl. No.
`12/170,939 (which issued as the ’688 Patent)
`
`The ’688 File
`History
`
`U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2009/0244832 A1
`(which issued as the ’688 Patent)
`
`
`
`Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. in support
`of the Petition for Inter Partes Review of the
`’688 Patent
`
`Wolfe Decl.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,494
`
`Shimano
`
`U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2006/0264243 A1
`
`Aarras
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,061,472
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,343,006
`
`Schweizer
`
`Moscovitch
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination No. 90/015,035:
`7/5/2022 Order Granting Reexamination
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination No. 90/015,035:
`12/28/2022 Non-Final Office Action
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination No. 90/015,035:
`5/18/2023 Final Office Action
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination No. 90/015,035:
`8/21/2023 Advisory Action
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination No. 90/015,035:
`11/14/2023 LiTL Appeal Brief
`
`LiTL Appeal
`Brief
`
`x
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Title
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,154,359
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,918,159
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Kamikakai
`
`Choi
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2005/0134717 A1 Misawa
`
`PCT Patent Pub. No. WO 95/24007
`
`Lane
`
`U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2006/0034042 A1
`
`Hisano
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,791,594
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,978,176
`
`Dunko
`
`Forstall
`
`U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2004/0212602 A1
`
`Nako
`
`September 30, 2023 Judicial Caseload Profile,
`District of Delaware Page
`
`LiTL v. HP,
`D. Del. case no. 1:23-cv-00120-RGA:
`1/29/2024 Docket Report
`
`LiTL v. Dell,
`D. Del. case no. 1:23-cv-00121-RGA:
`1/29/2024 Docket Report
`
`LiTL v. AsusTek,
`D. Del. case no. 1:23-cv-00122-RGA:
`1/29/2024 Docket Report
`
`District Court Case Scheduling Order
`
`Delaware Default ESI Rules
`
`
`xi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 Mandatory Notices
`
`1.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real parties-in-interest are Petitioners ASUSTeK Computer Inc., ASUS
`
`Global Pte. Ltd., Dell Inc., Dell Technologies Inc., and HP, Inc. No unnamed entity
`
`is funding, controlling, or directing this Petition or has the opportunity to control or
`
`direct this Petition or Petitioners’ participation in any resulting inter partes review.
`
`Petitioners are not barred by operation of estoppel to submit this Petition for inter
`
`partes review.
`
`2.
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`Petitioners identify the following pending district court actions involving U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,289,688 (“the ’688 Patent”):
`
`a LiTL LLC v. HP Inc.
`b LiTL LLC v. Dell Technologies Inc. and
`Dell Inc.
`c LiTL LLC v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and
`ASUS Global Pte. Ltd.
`
`1:23-cv-00120-RGA D. Del.
`1:23-cv-00121-RGA D. Del.
`
`1:23-cv-00122-RGA D. Del.
`
`
`
`Petitioners also identify the following administrative matters that involve the
`
`’688 Patent which would not affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding.
`
`Inter Partes Review IPR2021-00681 (not instituted)
`d
`e Ex Parte Reexamination control no. 90/015,035 (involving other claims of
`the ’688 Patent not challenged in this Petition)
`
`
`
`xii
`
`

`

`
`
`3.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Lead Counsel1
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`
`
`Raymond K. Chan (Reg. No. 66,164)
`PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH, LLP
`200 Spectrum Center Dr., Suite 1650
`Irvine, California 92618
`Tel.: 949-383-2997
`Fax.: 619-398-0131
`E-mail: raymond.chan@procopio.com
`
`Jack Shaw (Reg. No. 72,262)
`PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH, LLP
`3000 El Camino Real, Suite 5-400
`Palo Alto, California 94306
`Tel.: 650-645-9000
`Fax.: 619-398-0131
`E-mail: jack.shaw@procopio.com
`
`Robert H. Sloss (pro hac vice to be applied for)
`PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH, LLP
`3000 El Camino Real, Suite 5-400
`Palo Alto, California 94306
`Tel.: 650-645-9000
`Fax.: 619-398-0131
`E-mail: robert.sloss@procopio.com
`
`
`
`1 For purposes of this IPR, the Petitioner parties have designated a lead counsel as a
`
`commitment to act as a single entity in the proceeding. Counsel for each party will
`
`coordinate and act through the designated lead counsel. This designation is not a
`
`representation of an attorney-client relationship.
`
`xiii
`
`

`

`Back-Up Counsel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`James Heintz (Reg. No. 41,828)
`DLA PIPER LLP US
`One Fountain Square
`11911 Freedom Drive, Suite 300
`Reston, Virginia 20190-5602
`Tel.: 703-773-4000
`Fax.: 703-773-5000
`E-mail: Jim.Heintz@us.dlapiper.com
`
`Jackob Ben-Ezra (pro hac vice to be applied for)
`DLA PIPER LLP US
`845 Texas Avenue, Suite 3800
`Houston, Texas 77002
`Tel.: 713-425-8422
`Fax.: 713-425-8401
`E-mail: Jackob.Ben-Ezra@us.dlapiper.com
`
`James L. Day (Reg. No. 72,681)
`FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP
`One Bush Street, Suite 900
`San Francisco, California 94104
`Tel.: 415-954-4400
`Fax.: 415-954-4480
`E-mail: jday@fbm.com
`
`Daniel Callaway (Reg. No. 74,267)
`FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP
`One Bush Street, Suite 900
`San Francisco, California 94104
`Tel.: 415-954-4400
`Fax.: 415-954-4480
`E-mail: dcallaway@fbm.com
`
`
`
`xiv
`
`

`

`
`
`4.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`Service information for lead and backup counsel is provided above in the
`
`designation of lead and backup counsel.
`
`Petitioners consent to electronic service at the respective e-mail addresses
`
`listed above for lead and back-up counsel, provided that all above e-mail addresses
`
`are included in the e-mails by which documents are served electronically.
`
`xv
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners ASUSTeK Computer Inc., ASUS Global Pte. Ltd., Dell Inc., Dell
`
`Technologies Inc., and HP Inc. request inter partes review of Claims 1-10 and 23 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,289,688 (“the ’688 Patent”), assigned to LiTL, Inc.
`
`The ’688 Patent centers on a concept well-known in the prior art: adjusting
`
`the display orientation — such that content is displayed the correct way up relative
`
`to a user — based on the relative spatial orientations of the screen and the base of a
`
`portable computer rotatably connected by a hinge that opens far enough for the user
`
`to deploy the portable computer in an easel mode, putting the hinge at the apex of a
`
`lambda Λ (or an inverted V) shape where the screen and the keyboard both face
`
`outward, one of several configurations or “display modes” in which the user can
`
`deploy the portable computer. Thus, it is no surprise that the Patent Office has twice
`
`rejected in an ex parte reexamination all claims of the ’688 Patent not challenged
`
`here as obvious over the same prior art cited herein; this petition seeks likewise to
`
`dispose of the claims not addressed in the reexamination.
`
`All challenged claims depend directly or indirectly on Claim 1, which LiTL
`
`limited to having a uni-axial (or single-pivot) hinge during prosecution to overcome
`
`prior art disclosing a dual axis (or dual-pivot) hinge. However, this limitation does
`
`not confer patentability because a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the earliest
`
`priority date claimed by the ’688 Patent (“POSA”) would have known that a simpler
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`single-pivot hinge could be substituted for a double-pivot hinge. The dependent
`
`claims similarly recite language that read on well-known features and functions that
`
`a POSA would have been motivated to implement on a portable computer capable
`
`of being deployed in multiple display modes. Thus, this petition presents compelling
`
`evidence of the unpatentability of the challenged claims.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioners certify that the ’688 Patent is
`
`available for inter partes review, and that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting an inter partes review of the challenged claims on the grounds identified
`
`below. The Office is authorized to charge all fees due for this proceeding to Deposit
`
`Account No. 50-2075.
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), Petitioners request inter partes review and
`
`cancellation of Claims 1-10 and 23 of the ’688 Patent, pursuant to the following
`
`statement of precise relief requested:
`
`Ground Claim(s) Basis* Prior Art References
`I
`1-3 & 5-7 § 103 WO 95/24007 “Lane” (Exh. 1017)
`U.S. 2005/0134717 A1 “Misawa” (Exh. 1016)
`§ 103 WO 95/24007 “Lane”
`U.S. 2006/0034042 A1 “Hisano” (Exh. 1018)
`U.S. 2005/0134717 A1 “Misawa”
`
`3-7 & 23
`
`II
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`IV
`
`8-9
`
`Ground Claim(s) Basis* Prior Art References
`III
`8-9
`§ 103 WO 95/24007 “Lane”
`U.S. 2005/0134717 A1 “Misawa”
`U.S. 7,791,594 B2 “Dunko” (Exh. 1019)
`§ 103 WO 95/24007 “Lane”
`U.S. 2006/0034042 A1 “Hisano”
`U.S. 2005/0134717 A1 “Misawa”
`U.S. 7,791,594 B2 “Dunko”
`§ 103 WO 95/24007 “Lane”
`U.S. 2005/0134717 A1 “Misawa”
`U.S. 7,978,176 B2 “Forstall” (Exh. 1020)
`§ 103 WO 95/24007 “Lane”
`U.S. 2006/0034042 A1 “Hisano”
`U.S. 2005/0134717 A1 “Misawa”
`U.S. 7,978,176 B2 “Forstall”
`
`V
`
`8-9
`
`VI
`
`8-9
`
`VII
`
`10
`
`§ 103 WO 95/24007 “Lane”
`U.S. 2005/0134717 A1 “Misawa”
`U.S. 2004/0212602 A1 “Nako” (Exh. 1021)
`
` *
`
`
`
` All pre-AIA § 103.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’688 PATENT
`
`The ’688 Patent, Portable Computer with Multiple Display Configurations,
`
`claims an earliest priority date of April 1, 2008. (Exh. 1001.) It describes portable
`
`computers that can be deployed by users in multiple configurations or display
`
`modes, including: a laptop mode (Fig. 1), an easel mode (Fig. 4), a frame mode (Fig.
`
`26), and a flat mode (Fig. 27).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`In each display mode, the relative spatial orientations of the screen and the
`
`base of the portable computer are different, and the display orientation (i.e., the
`
`orientation of content visually presented on the screen) would be adjusted based on
`
`the display mode or by the user. (Id. at 2:42-44.)
`
`The ’688 Patent mentions “an orientation (or mode) sensor that is configured
`
`to detect whether the portable computer is in the laptop mode or the easel mode, and
`
`to adjust the display accordingly.” (Id. at 8:17-20.) The sensor “may be used to
`
`determine a precise relative orientation of the base component 104 with respect to
`
`the display component 102, or vice versa, for example, to determine whether the
`
`device is in the laptop mode, easel mode, or some point in between the two modes.”
`
`(Id. at 8:26-31.) Or the sensor may be used to detect the angle 134 between display
`
`component 102 and base component 104. (Id. at 8:49-61; Figs. 5 & 6A-6C.)
`
`The orientation sensor may include “an accelerometer whose output is fed to
`
`the computer operating system … which then triggers a display inversion [i.e., a
`
`180° rotation of the display orientation] as appropriate.” (Id. at 8:31-34.) The sensor
`
`“may be incorporated into the base component 104, … or into the display component
`
`[102].” (Id. at 8:20-23.) The latter “may provide more robust detection.” (Id. at
`
`8:23-26.) Alternatively, the sensor may be incorporated into the hinge assembly and
`
`used to detect and translate the movement of the hinge assembly into information
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`about the relative orientation of the display component 102 and the base component
`
`104, for example, the angle 134 between the two components. (Id. at 9:36-41.)
`
`The figures in the ’688 Patent depict a single-pivot hinge between the display
`
`component 102 and the base component 104. (Id. at Figs. 1-5, 7A-7B, 8-10, 15-18,
`
`and 23-27.) However, the ’688 Patent also mentions that the hinge assembly of the
`
`portable computer may comprise multiple parallel axes. (Id. at 2:49-54.)
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A. Legal Standard
`
`In an inter partes review, a patent claim “shall be construed [under Phillips],
`
`in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the
`
`patent.” (37 C.F.R. § 42.100; see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (en banc).) Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary
`
`to resolve the controversy. (Toyota Motor Corp. v. CellPort Systems, Inc., IPR2015-
`
`00633, Paper 11 (Institution Decision) at 16, PTAB 8/14/2015.) The Board does not
`
`need to determine the outer bounds of the claims in this proceeding because the prior
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`art discloses a preferred embodiment squarely within the scope of the claims. 2 Claim
`
`terms not listed below should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’688 Patent (“POSA”)
`
`would have had a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering,
`
`computer engineering, computer science, or a comparable subject, and two to three
`
`years of work experience in the design and architecture of laptop computers and
`
`other portable electronic devices. Alternatively, a POSA would have had an
`
`advanced degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer engineering,
`
`computer science, or a comparable subject and one year of post-graduate research or
`
`work experience in the design and architecture of laptop computers and other
`
`portable electronic devices. A POSA would have been familiar with the structural
`
`hardware aspects of laptop computers and other portable electronic devices, as well
`
`as designs of user interfaces employed and displayed by computer operating systems
`
`and their organization of content and functionality. A POSA could have acquired
`
`similar skills and knowledge by other means. (Exh. 1004, ¶ 25.)
`
`
`2 Petitioners reserve the right to present other claim construction arguments in the
`
`related district court actions as relevant and necessary in those proceedings, and to
`
`challenge the validity of the claims under § 112.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`C. Claim Terms
`
`1.
`
`“… the hinge assembly defines a single longitudinal axis
`running along an interface between the display component
`and the base,”
`
`Claim 1 was twice amended during prosecution to overcome Aarras (Exh.
`
`1006) as follows:
`
`Original 7/10/2008
`
`wherein the display
`component is rotatable
`about a longitudinal
`axis running along an
`interface between the
`display component
`and the base;
`
`Exh. 1002 at 26.
`
`Amended 11/3/2010 Amended 4/29/2011
`wherein the hinge assembly
`
`defines a single longitudinal
`wherein the display
`axis running along an interface
`component and the
`between the display component
`base are is rotatable
`and the base,
`about a longitudinal
`axis running along an
`and wherein the display
`interface between the
`component and the base are
`display component
`rotatable about a the single
`and the base;
`longitudinal axis running along
`an interface between the display
`component and tile base;
`Exh. 1002 at 311.
`
`Exh. 1002 at 190.
`
`
`
`Original claim 1 was rejected under § 102(b) citing Aarras. (Exh. 1002 at
`
`158, ¶¶ 3-4.) To distinguish the first amended claim 1 from Aarras, LiTL argued
`
`that “Aarras teaches a dual axis hinge about which the two sections of the portable
`
`electronic device rotate.” (Id. at 197 (emphasis added).) The Examiner maintained
`
`the same rejection and explained:
`
`The fact that the hinge 16 in Aarras has two axes of
`rotation is immaterial in this instance because either