LiTL LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 21, 2021

IPR2021-00822 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2021)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper: 6
571-272-7822 Entered: October 21, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________________

LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.,
Petitioner,

v.

LITL LLC,
Patent Owner.
_____________

IPR2021-00822
Patent 8,624,844 B2
____________

Before MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, GARTH D. BAER, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
35 U.S.C. § 314
IPR2021-00822
Patent 8,624,844 B2

2
I. INTRODUCTION
Lenovo (United States) Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1,
“Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–16 and 18–22 of U.S.
Patent No. 8,624,844 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’844 patent”). LiTL LLC (“Patent
Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 5 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The
standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that
an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable
likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
claims challenged in the petition.” As discussed below, we determine that
Petitioner does not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect
to the challenged claims. Accordingly, we deny institution of an inter partes
review.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Related Matters
The parties identify the following as a related matter: LiTL LLC v.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. and Lenovo (Beijing) Limited, 1:20-cv-00689-
RGA (D. Del.). Pet. 2; Paper 4, 1. Patent Owner also identifies the following
as related matters: IPR2021-00681, IPR2021-00786, IPR2021-00800, and
IPR2021-00821. Paper 4, 2.
B. The ’844 Patent (Ex. 1001)
The ’844 patent is titled “Portable Computer with Multiple Display
Configurations.” Ex. 1001, code (54). The computer system of the ’844
patent describes different profiles to customize the graphical user interface
in different modes, including a laptop mode in which the portable computer
IPR2021-00822
Patent 8,624,844 B2

3
has a conventional laptop appearance, with the display inclined at a viewing
angle from the base (id. at 6:26–28); an easel mode in which the base of the
computer and its display stand upright forming an inverted “V,” and the
display and keyboard are on opposite sides (id. at 7:48–61); and a frame
mode in which the display and base are at a similar orientation and angle as
in easel mode, but with the base lying flat on a surface and the keyboard
facing down (id. at 16:3–13).
Figure 17 of the ’844 patent, reproduced below, illustrates a portable
computer in laptop mode. Id. at 5:13–15.

Figure 4 of the ’844 patent, reproduced below, illustrates the portable
computer in easel mode. Id. at 4:47–48.
IPR2021-00822
Patent 8,624,844 B2

4

Figure 26 of the ’844 patent, reproduced below, illustrates the portable
computer configured into frame mode. Id. at 5:35–37.

The ’844 patent explains that the display’s orientation can change
based on the different modes or in response to a user’s input. Id. at 2:42–44.
C. Challenged Claims
Among challenged claims 1–16 and 18–22, claims 1, 10, and 18 are
independent. Claim 1 is exemplary of the claimed subject matter and is
reproduced as follows:
IPR2021-00822
Patent 8,624,844 B2

5
1. A portable computer configurable between a plurality of
display modes including a laptop mode and an easel mode
wherein transitions between the plurality of display modes
allows an operator to interact with a single display screen in
each of the plurality of display modes, the portable computer
comprising:
a base including a keyboard;
a main display component rotatably coupled to the base such
that the main display component and the base are rotatable with
respect to one another about a longitudinal axis running along
an interface between the main display component and the base
to transition between at least the laptop mode and the easel
mode, the main display component including the single display
screen, wherein the transition between the laptop mode and the
easel mode allows the operator to operate the portable computer
while viewing the single display screen in each of the plurality
of display modes, wherein
the laptop mode is configured to display to a user on the main
display component a first content mode having a first content
display orientation with the main display component oriented
towards the user and the keyboard oriented to receive input
from the user;
the easel mode is configured to display to the user on the main
display component a second content mode having a second
content display orientation with the main display component
oriented towards the user and the keyboard oriented away from
the user, wherein the first and second content display
orientations are 180 degrees relative to each other, and wherein
the portable computer is operable in the easel mode to enable
the user to interact with displayed content without interacting
with the keyboard; and
a navigation control disposed at least partially within the base
and rotatable about the longitudinal axis, the navigation control
configured to permit a user to control at least one of operating
parameters of the portable computer and content displayed on
the single display screen wherein the plurality of modes
IPR2021-00822
Patent 8,624,844 B2

6
includes a frame [mode1] in which the main display component
is oriented towards the operator, the base contacts a
substantially horizontal surface, and the keyboard faces the
substantially horizontal surface.
Ex. 1001, 17:9–51.
D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
Petitioner asserts the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the
following grounds:
Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. §2 Reference(s)/Basis
1, 3–5, 7–10, 13–16 103 Shimura,3 Tsuji,4 Pogue5
6 103 Shimura, Tsuji, Pogue, Escamilla6
2 103 Shimura, Tsuji, Pogue, Escamilla, Yeh7
18, 22 103 Shimura, Tsuji, Pogue, Lin8

1 Original claim 1 recites a “frame” not a “frame mode.” Ex. 1001, 17:47.
On April 1, 2014, the Office issued a Certificate of Correction that inserts
the word “mode” after the word “frame” in claim 1. Id. at Certificate of
Correction.
2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) amended 35 U.S.C. § 103.
See Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 285–88 (2011). As the application
that issued as the ’844 patent was filed before the effective date of the
relevant amendments, the pre-AIA version of § 103 applies.
3 JP1994-242853 (H6-242853), published September 2, 1994 (Ex. 1003).
We refer to the Certified English translation (Ex. 1004, “Shimura”).
4 US 2005/0062715 A1, published Mar. 24, 2005 (Ex. 1005, “Tsuji”).
5 Windows XP Home Edition: The Missing Manual (2d ed.) (David Pogue,
Pogue Press, LLC & O’Reilly Media, Inc. 2004) (Ex. 1006, “Pogue”).
6 US 6,724,365 B1, Apr. 20, 2004 (Ex. 1007, “Escamilla”).
7 US 6,396,419 B1, May 28, 2002 (Ex. 1008, “Yeh”).
8 US 2007/0013682 A1, published Jan. 18, 2007 (Ex. 1009, “Lin”).
IPR2021-00822
Patent 8,624,844 B2

7
Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. §2 Reference(s)/Basis
11, 12, 19, 21 103 Shimura, Tsuji, Pogue, Escamilla, Lin
Pet. 3–4. Petitioner supports the asserted grounds with the Declaration of
Jean Renard Ward. Ex. 1010.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art
(“POSITA”)
would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical
Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Computer Science, plus
two to three years of work experience in designing hardware
and/or software aspects of the User Interface (UI) for portable
computing devices; the POSITA would also be familiar with
designs of the user interface employed and displayed by the
operating system and its organization of content and
functionality. Alternatively, the POSITA would have received a
graduate degree such as a Master’s or PhD degree with at least
one year of work experience related to hardware and/or software
design aspects of the UI for portable computing devices; the
POSITA would also be familiar with designs of the user interface
employed and displayed by the operating system and its
organization of content and functionality.
Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 26).
Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary
skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp.
We find, based on the current record, that Petitioner’s contention is
reasonable. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the level of ordinary
skill in the art Petitioner proposes.
IPR2021-00822
Patent 8,624,844 B2

8
B. Claim Construction
Petitioner proposes a claim construction for “content mode,” as well
as several related terms, i.e., “first content mode,” “second content mode,”
and “mode(s) of content.” Pet. 16–18. We determine we need not explicitly
construe those terms to determine whether to institute an inter partes review.
See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d
1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in
controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”
(quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
(Fed. Cir. 1999))).
We determine, however, that construction is necessary for “frame
mode.” Claim 1 recites, among other things, “[a] portable computer
configurable between a plurality of display modes . . . wherein the plurality
of modes includes a frame mode in which the main display component is
orientated towards the operator, the base contacts a substantially horizontal
surface, and the keyboard faces the substantially horizontal surface.”
Ex. 1001, 17:9–51; see id. at Certificate of Correction. Independent claims
10 and 18 have similar “frame mode” limitations. Id. at 18:65–19:2, 20:25–
29. The ’844 patent explains that frame mode is “illustrated in FIG. 26.” Id.
at 16:2–3. Figure 26 is reproduced below.
IPR2021-00822
Patent 8,624,844 B2

9

Figure 26 and the accompanying text characterize frame mode as having the
keyboard face down on a surface with the screen face up, and the base and
display components forming a non-zero angle 134, similar to easel mode’s
inverted “V.” See id. at 16:6–13.
Frame mode is distinct from “tablet mode,” which the ’844 patent
acknowledges was known in the art. See id. at 1:32–55 (citing U.S. Patent
Nos. 6,771,494 (Ex. 2009) and 6,266,236 (“the ’236 patent”) (Ex. 2010)). In
tablet mode, the display is “rotated and folded against the base.” Id. at 1:43–
46. Tablet mode is depicted, for example, in the ’236 patent’s Figure 2,
which is reproduced below.

IPR2021-00822
Patent 8,624,844 B2

10
“[T]he specification is always highly relevant to the claim
construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to
the meaning of a disputed term.” Philips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Consistent with the ’844 patent’s specification, for
purposes of this Decision, we construe “frame mode” as having the
keyboard face down on a surface with the screen face up, and the base and
display components forming a non-zero angle. Frame mode is distinct from
“tablet mode,” where the display is flush against the base.
C. Analysis
1. Overview of Shimura (Exs. 1003 and 1004)
All grounds rely on Shimura. Shimura is a Japanese patent application
publication (Ex. 1003), for which Petitioner provided a certified English
translation (Ex. 1004). Shimura relates to a personal computer that “can
adopt a mode suitable for a user environment centered on a pen input
operation and a mouse input operation while retaining a mode which can use
a keyboard.” Ex. 1004, code (57). Figure 1 of Shimura, reproduced below,
illustrates an example of the personal computer. Id.

IPR2021-00822
Patent 8,624,844 B2

11
As shown in Figure 1, the personal computer includes main part 101
provided with keyboard 104 on the front; cover part 102 provided with
display 105 on the front; and coupling mechanism 103, which enables the
opening and closing of computer parts 101 and 102 and is used to couple
one end of main part 101 and one end of cover part 102 with display 105
such that cover part 102 faces main part 101. Id. Coupling mechanism 103 is
structured so that it can also open cover part 102 so that the orientation of
cover part 102 exceeds 180° relative to main part 101. Id. Figure 4 of
Shimura, reproduced below, shows an inclined view of the personal
computer, with main part 101 rotated nearly 360° with respect to cover part
102. Id. ¶¶ 16–17, Fig. 4.

As shown in Figure 4, coupling mechanism 103 enables the rotation of cover
part 102 with respect to main part 101. Id. ¶¶ 12–13. Coupling mechanism
103 is fastened by hinges to main part 101 and cover part 102. Id. ¶ 12.
IPR2021-00822
Patent 8,624,844 B2

12
2. Obviousness Analysis
Based on the present record, Petitioner does not demonstrate a
reasonable likelihood of showing the asserted prior art would have rendered
obvious the subject matter of challenged claims 1–16 and 18–22.
Independent claims 1, 10, and 18 require a “frame mode in which the main
display component is oriented towards the operator, the base contacts a
substantially horizontal surface, and the keyboard faces the substantially
horizontal surface.” Ex. 1001, 17:47–51, 18:66–19:2, 20:27–30, Certificate
of Correction. For all of its asserted grounds, Petitioner relies on Shimura’s
Figure 4 for teaching the claimed “frame mode.” Pet. 57, 87, 102. We agree
with Patent Owner that Shimura’s Figure 4 does not disclose or suggest a
frame mode. See Prelim. Resp. 27–32.
Shimura’s Figure 4 (reproduced below, left) depicts the device’s
display folded against the base—i.e., tablet mode—rather than in a frame
mode where the base and display components form a non-zero angle similar
to easel mode’s inverted “V,” as depicted in the ’844 patent’s Figure 26
(reproduced below, right).

Although, as Petitioner notes, Shimura teaches that its computer can be
configured to any angle between 0° to 360°, see Pet. 22 n.1 (citing Ex. 1004
IPR2021-00822
Patent 8,624,844 B2

13
¶¶ 8, 10, 17), that too does not disclose frame mode. This is so because, as
Patent Owner explains, beyond the required opening angle, frame mode
additionally requires a hinge that “must support the display to prevent it
from collapsing into tablet mode.” Prelim. Resp. 31. Petitioner points to
nothing in Shimura that would indicate its hinge could support the display in
frame mode. See Pet. 22, 41–42, 46–47, 53, 57, 59, 70. Thus, on the current
record, Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing that the asserted
combinations of Shimura and other references teach or suggest the claimed
plurality of modes including a “frame mode” as required in all the
challenged claims.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, we determine that Petitioner has not
established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that at
least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.
V. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and we do not institute an inter
partes review of any claim of the ’844 patent based on a ground asserted in
the Petition.

IPR2021-00822
Patent 8,624,844 B2

14
For PETITIONER:
Martin Bader
Nam Kim
Mike Kim
Michael Hopkins
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
mbader@sheppardmullin.com
nkim@sheppardmullin.com
mskim@sheppardmullin.com
mhopkins@sheppardmullin.com

For PATENT OWNER:
Gerald Hrycyszyn
Richard Giunta
Curtis Powell
WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
ghrycyszyn-ptab@wolfgreenfield.com
rgiunta-ptab@wolfgreenfield.com
cpowell-ptab@wolfgreenfield.com