LiTL LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 21, 2021

IPR2021-00786 (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.
_____________

IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2
____________

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

RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
35 U.S.C. § 314
IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

2
I. INTRODUCTION
Lenovo (United States) Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1,
“Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent
No. 9,880,715 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’715 patent”). LiTL LLC (“Patent
Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 5 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
Petitioner identifies Lenovo (United States) Inc. and Lenovo (Beijing)
Limited as the real parties in interest, and further notes that Lenovo (United
States) Inc. is “an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Lenovo Group
Limited.” Pet. 2. Patent Owner identifies LiTL LLC as the real party in
interest. Paper 4, 1.
We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 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 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 any of 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 (challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,289,688,
which belongs to the patent family of the ’715 patent); IPR2021-00800
IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

3
(challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,289,154, which belongs to the patent family
of the ’715 patent); IPR2021-00821 (challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,612,888,
which belongs to the patent family of the ’715 patent); and IPR2021-00822
(challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844, which belongs to the patent family
of the ’715 patent). Paper 4, 2.
B. The ’715 Patent (Ex. 1001)
The ’715 patent is titled “System and Method for Streamlining User
Interaction with Electronic Content.” Ex. 1001, code (54). The challenged
claims relate to “a graphical user interface that organizes interface elements
into views of computer content for presentation to a user” and “an interface
that is responsive to configurations of the device and activities performed by
the user.” Id., code (57). The ’715 patent explains that increased computing
power enables computers to provide more and more features, but the myriad
options may frustrate some users. Id. at 1:40–2:14. The ’715 patent
emphasizes the problem of “the inflexibility of the devices being used and
their accompanying interfaces,” and a problem generated by “feature
packing” whereby “[t]ypical computer users simply can’t take advantage of
all the functionality offered. . . . [as t]he complexity of the interface (both
hardware and software) hampers adoption [of, e.g., services and features
offered by their own computer or by online providers], as does the volume
of features offered.” Id. at 2:18–33; see id. at 15:19–30.
The solution the ’715 patent proposes is a graphical user interface that
improves the user’s experience and the user’s ability to interact with
electronic content, by implementing different views. Id. at 2:45–58. For
example, the ’715 patent explains different views present different
IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

4
organizations of interface elements based upon device configuration and
user activity:
[A]spects and embodiments are directed to a graphical user
interface that organizes interface elements into modes of content
for presentation to a user. Different views of the modes of content
are used to present the user with an interface that is responsive to
configurations of the device and responsive to activity being
performed by the user. Further the elements that comprise the
graphical user interface are configured to present a summarized
view of available actions and content, in order to simplify user
interaction. The different views present different organizations
of the interface elements and in some example display only
certain ones of the modes of content in order to reduce the
number of options a user must navigate to accomplish an
objective.
Id. at 2:35–58.
The ’715 patent further explains that its user interface comprises a
plurality of views of representations of computer content and explains the
views as follows:
The user interface comprises a map based graphical user
interface displayed on the computer system, the map based user
interface comprising a plurality of views of a plurality of visual
representations of computer content, wherein the computer
content includes at least one of selectable digital content,
selectable computer operations and passive digital content, and
the plurality of visual representations of computer content
rendered on the computer display, wherein the plurality of visual
representations of computer content include an association to a
first view of the plurality of views, the first view including the
computer content, and wherein the each of the plurality of visual
representations is responsive to focus and execution, wherein
execution includes clicking on the visual representation, and an
execution component comprising at least one computer hardware
element configured to transition the computer system display
between the plurality of views, wherein the execution component
further comprises a view selector component configured to select
IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

5
one of the plurality of views for display on a computer system in
response to a computer system configuration.
Id. at 2:63–3:25.
The computer system of the ’715 patent also describes different
profiles to customize the graphical user interface in different modes,
including: a closed mode (in which the display screen is disposed
substantially against the base of the computer); a laptop mode (in which the
portable computer has a conventional laptop appearance, achieved by, e.g.,
rotating the display about the longitudinal axis up to approximately 180
degrees from the closed mode); an easel mode (in which the base of the
computer and its display component stand upright forming an inverted “V,”
and the keyboard is concealed and not easily accessible); a flat mode (in
which the computer’s base component and display component lay flat on a
surface); and a frame mode (in which the keyboard is concealed and not
easily accessible, and software and/or hardware protection may be provided
for the keyboard to prevent keys from being pressed, or to prevent the
computer from responding to pressed keys). Id. at 6:39–42, 6:49–56, 11:40–
42, 24:37–63, 25:40–50.
Figure 17 of the ’715 patent, reproduced below, illustrates a portable
computer in laptop mode, in which the keyboard is oriented to be accessible
to the user. Id. at 13:29–32, 21:1–3. Figure 4 of the ’715 patent, reproduced
below, illustrates the portable computer in easel mode, in which the
keyboard is concealed and not easily accessible. Id. at 12:57–58, 24:61–62,
26:60–65. And Figure 26 of the ’715 patent, reproduced below, illustrates
the portable computer configured into frame mode, in which the keyboard is
concealed and not easily accessible. Id. at 13:55–58, 24:61–62.
IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

6

Figure 17 illustrates a portable computer in laptop mode.
Id. at 13:29–32.

Figure 4 illustrates a portable computer in easel mode.
Id. at 12:57–58.

IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

7

Figure 26 illustrates a portable computer in frame mode.
Id. at 13:55–58.

The ’715 patent’s computer assigns different views to the different
modes (e.g., the laptop mode, the easel mode, the flat mode, and the frame
mode) based on the mode’s configuration. Id. at 2:45–3:16, 31:18–26. For
example, the computer may display a “home view” in laptop mode, and may
display a “Channel View” in easel mode as Figure 23 of the ’715 patent
shows. We reproduce Figure 23 below. Id. at 31:18–26.

IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

8
Figure 23 is a screen shot of a graphical user interface of the portable
computer set in easel mode, displaying a channel view that may also display
a plurality of modes of content. Id. at 13:47–49, 31:20–26.
As Figure 23 shows, the channel view includes selector display (2302)
and visual representations of content or channel cards (2304–2310) available
for selection. Id. at 31:18–26, 53:63–54:1. The visualization the channel
view provides resembles and behaves like a rolodex. Id. at 54:7–10. In one
example, a user invokes the channel view by operating/moving a physical
scroll wheel (e.g., scroll wheel 132 illustrated in Figure 4, reproduced
above). Id. at 53:60–64. As the user moves the scroll wheel, individual
channels 2304–2310 appear to flip around the hinge of the device. Id. at
54:10–19. In response to a selection, the foremost channel card displayed is
selected and displayed full screen. Id.
As further examples, the ’715 patent explains that the computer may
display a “channel page view” (illustrated in Figure 20A, reproduced
below), and a “channel full view” (illustrated in Figure 21, reproduced
below).
IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

9

Figure 20A is a screen shot illustrating a graphical user interface showing a
channel page view, which presents a unique view into content made
available through a website, and provides a consistent framework for user
interaction with rss style content. Id. at 13:38–40, 51:28–50.

IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

10
Figure 21 is a screen shot illustrating a graphical user interface showing a
channel full view, which includes displays configured to identify a source of
an rss feed, and, in response to a user selection, displays a content menu
permitting selection of any of the rss items.
Id. at 13:41–43, 52:33–52.

C. Challenged Claims
Among challenged claims 1–20, claims 1, 17, and 20 are independent.
Claims 2–16 and 19 depend from claim 1, and claim 18 depends from claim
17. Claim 1 is exemplary of the claimed subject matter of the ’715 patent
and is reproduced as follows, with added bracketed identifiers to claim
elements.
1. [1pre] A customized user interface to display computer
content on a display component of a computer system including
a keyboard, the user interface comprising:
[1a] at least one processor operatively connected to a
memory of the computer system;
[1b] a graphical user interface, executing on the at least
one processor, configured to display the computer
content on the display component of the computer
system, the graphical user interface configured to:
[1c] display a plurality of views of a plurality of
visual representations of computer content, wherein
the computer content includes at least one of
selectable digital content, selectable computer
operations and passive digital content;
[1d] an execution component, executing on the at least
one processor, configured to:
[1e] detect a current computer system configuration
from at least a first computer system configuration
where the keyboard is operable to receive input from
an operator of the computer system to control the
computer system and a second computer system
configuration where the keyboard is inoperable to
IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

11
receive input from the operator of the computer
system to control the computer system;
[1f] select one of the plurality of views for display
on the computer system in response to the detected
current computer system configuration; and
transition the display component to the selected one
of the plurality of views.
Ex. 1001, 70:63–71:24; see also Ex. 1009 and Pet. 51–59 (annotating claim
1 with the same identifiers).
D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on
the following grounds:
Ground Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1 1, 20 103 Shimura,1 Tsuji2
2 2–19 103 Shimura, Tsuji, Pogue3
Pet. 3. Petitioner supports the asserted grounds with the Declaration of Jean
Renard Ward. Ex. 1007; see also Ex. 1008 (curriculum vitae of Jean Renard
Ward).
III. ANALYSIS
We organize our analysis into three main sections: (A) level of
ordinary skill in the art; (B) claim construction; (C) the adequacy of
Petitioner’s ground one showings for purposes of trial institution; and
(D) the adequacy of Petitioner’s ground two for purposes of trial institution.

1 JP1994-242853 (H6-242853), published September 2, 1994 (Ex. 1003).
We refer to the Certified English translation (Ex. 1004).
2 US 2005/0062715 A1, published Mar. 24, 2005 (Ex. 1005).
3 Windows XP Home Edition: The Missing Manual (2d ed.) (David Pogue,
Pogue Press, LLC & O’Reilly Media, Inc. 2004) (Ex. 1006).
IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

12
A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
With regard to the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner contends
that a person of ordinary skill 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 user interfaces for computing devices and 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 also have
received a graduate degree such as Master’s or PhD degree in the
same field with at least one year of the same work experience.
Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 24–28).
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.
B. Claim Construction
Petitioner proposes constructions for several claim terms, including:
“execution component” (asserting “‘execution component’ is a means-plus-
function limitation under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6”); and “content mode”
(asserting that for “‘content mode(s),’ ‘single content mode,’ and ‘two
content modes’ each is construed as ‘user selectable element(s) displayed on
a user interface that, when selected, allows the user to access the content
organized therein’”). Pet. 15–29.
Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction for
“content mode” because “the Petition fails even if that construction is
adopted.” Prelim. Resp. 15. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s proposed
IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

13
means-plus-function constructions for “execution component” because “the
Petition misapplies the law for construing an alleged means-plus-function
limitation.” Id.
We determine we need not explicitly construe “execution component”
and “content mode” at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp.
v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 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 “plurality
of views of a plurality of visual representations of computer content” (as
recited in claim 1, and, similarly, in the other challenged claims of the ’715
patent). For brevity, we refer to this recitation as the “views recitation.” With
respect to the views recitation, the ’715 patent provides that “different views
present different organizations of the interface elements” and “organize
modes of content.” Ex. 1001, 2:54–56, 3:26–28. For example, the ’715
patent describes the different views as presenting different organizations of
interface elements as follows:
Different views of the modes of content are used to present the
user with an interface that is responsive to configurations of the
device and responsive to activity being performed by the user.
Further the elements that comprise the graphical user interface
are configured to present a summarized view of available actions
and content, in order to simplify user interaction. The different
views present different organizations of the interface elements
and in some example display only certain ones of the modes of
content in order to reduce the number of options a user must
navigate to accomplish an objective.
. . .

IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

14
The user interface comprises a map based graphical user
interface displayed on the computer system, the map based user
interface comprising a plurality of views of a plurality of visual
representations of computer content, wherein the computer
content includes at least one of selectable digital content,
selectable computer operations and passive digital content, and
the plurality of visual representations of computer content
rendered on the computer display, wherein the plurality of visual
representations of computer content include an association to a
first view of the plurality of views, the first view including the
computer content, and wherein the each of the plurality of visual
representations is responsive to focus and execution, wherein
execution includes clicking on the visual representation, and an
execution component comprising at least one computer hardware
element configured to transition the computer system display
between the plurality of views, wherein the execution component
further comprises a view selector component configured to select
one of the plurality of views for display on a computer system in
response to a computer system configuration. . . .
According to one aspect of the present invention, the
plurality of views are configured to organize modes of content
into different views.
Id. at 2:45–3:28.
The entirety of the ’715 patent is consistent with the description
above. As we explain in the summary of the ’715 patent provided in Section
II.B, supra, the purpose of the ’715 patent is to better organize “more and
more features” provided by “feature packing,” so that the typical computer
user can better take advantage of features offered. Id. at 1:40–2:44. The ’715
patent explains that “different views [that] present different organizations of
the interface elements and in some example[s] display only certain ones of
the modes of content in order to reduce the number of options a user must
navigate to accomplish an objective.” Id. at 2:45–58.
IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

15
As Patent Owner explains, the ’715 patent discusses views
extensively. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 29–33 (providing numerous citations to
the ’715 patent. In particular, the ’715 patent describes many examples of
views that each organize content in a different way. See, e.g., id. at Figs. 2
(home view), 3A (web page view), 5 (quick access view), 6 (bookmark
view), 20A (channel page view), 21 (channel full view), 23 (channel view);
see also id. at 12:48–15:15 (summarizing the ’715 patent’s figures). We
agree with Patent Owner that, when discussing views, the ’715 patent
consistently refers to different ways of organizing content. Prelim. Resp. 29–
33.
Although not a focus of the ’715 patent, the ’715 patent also describes
how the orientation of displayed content may be changed to ensure it is
right-side up. The ’715 patent explains that changing the visual display may
be rotated when the computer’s configuration is changed as follows:
According to one embodiment, when the portable computer 100
is configured into the easel mode, the visual display on the
display screen 110 is automatically rotated 180 degrees such that
the information appears “right-way-up,” even though the display
screen is upside-down compared to when the portable computer
is in laptop mode. Thus, a user may simply “flip” the portable
computer 100 into the easel mode and immediately be able to
comfortably view information on the display screen 110, without
having to access display screen controls to adjust the orientation
of the visual display.
Ex. 1001, 20:10–24. The ’715 patent further explains how the computer may
incorporate sensors to allow automatic adjustment of the display’s
orientation. Id. at 20:24–38; see also id. at 23:59–24:1 (explaining change in
orientation). The ’715 patent, however, never refers to merely changing the
IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

16
visual display’s orientation as changing views of a plurality of visual
representations of computer content.
Based on the analysis above and the record before us, and for
purposes of this Decision, we construe the claim recitation “plurality of
views of a plurality of visual representations of computer content” (and
similar recitations) as referring to a plurality of ways of organizing visual
representations of computer content. The recitation is distinct from merely
providing a plurality of ways of displaying content (by, for example,
changing display orientation, color, resolution, etc.).
C. Ground One: Obviousness Based on Shimura and Tsuji
All grounds rely on Shimura and Tsuji. We provide an overview of
Shimura and Tsuji before we address the parties’ contentions.
1. Overview of Shimura (Exs. 1003 and 1004)
Shimura is a Japanese patent application publication (Ex. 1003) for
which Petitioner has provided a certified English translation (Ex. 1004).
Shimura relates to a personal computer “which 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.
IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

17

Figure 1 illustrates a personal computer. Id.

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 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, and coupling mechanism 103
enables the opening and closing of computer parts 101 and 102. 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.
Figures 4 and 5 of Shimura, reproduced below, show inclined views of the
personal computer, with main part 101 rotated nearly 360° with respect to
cover part 102 (Figure 4), and main part 101 and cover part 102 opened to
an angle of approximately 340° (Figure 5). Id. ¶¶ 16–17, Figs. 4 and 5.
IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

18

Figures 4 and 5 show inclined views of the personal computer in which main
part 101 has been rotated by more than 180° with respect to cover part 102.
Id. ¶¶ 6–7, 12, 16–17.

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. A display reverse
switch 106 enables display 105 to be switched upside down. Id. ¶¶ 12, 17. A
user may place display reverse switch 106 in a normal state and a reverse
state. Id. ¶ 12. For example, a user may set display reverse switch 106 to a
normal mode so that the display orientation of display 105 has orientation
120 (as shown in Figure 1). Id. ¶ 12. A user may also set display reverse
switch 106 to a reverse mode so that a display orientation of display 105 has
IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

19
orientation 121 (e.g., upside down, as shown in Figure 5). Id. ¶¶ 12, 17.
Display control circuit 107 of the personal computer controls the output to
display 105 by controlling a computer circuit stored in main part 101. Id.
¶ 12. Display control circuit 107 turns the display upside down (to
orientation 121) based on the state of display reverse switch 106. Id.
2. Overview of Tsuji (Ex. 1005)
Tsuji is a US patent application publication that relates to a portable
computer including: a housing with a top surface; a keyboard placed on the
top surface of the housing; a display unit with a front surface and a rear
surface, supported by the housing and “rotated between a closed position in
which the keyboard is covered and an open position in which the keyboard is
exposed”; a sensor which senses an angle formed between the front surface
of the display unit and the top surface of the housing; and a display device in
the display unit to display a screen image in one of “a first orientation in
which a bottom-end portion of the screen image is located toward the
housing and a second orientation in which a top-end portion of the screen
image is located toward the housing in accordance with the angle sensed by
the sensor.” Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 10. Tsuji’s Figures 1, 2, and 5, reproduced
below, illustrate the portable computer with its display in various positions.
Id. ¶¶ 13–15.
IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

20

Figure 1 illustrates a portable computer including display unit 12 that can
rotate around first central axis 15a that extends in parallel to the outer
surface of computer main body 11, and can also rotate around second central
axis 15b perpendicular to first central axis 15a. Id. ¶¶ 13, 31–33.

IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

21
Figure 2 illustrates the portable computer with display unit 12 rotated around
second central axis 15b, display unit 12 rotatable 360° around second central
axis 15b in the horizontal direction with respect to the outer surface of
computer main body 11. Id. ¶¶ 14, 33.

Figure 5 illustrates the portable computer with display unit 12 set to a PDA
style by rotating the display unit 180° around second central axis 15b in a
horizontal direction so that the display unit is accessible in a second open
position. Id. ¶¶ 17, 33–34.

Figure 14 of Tsuji, reproduced below, illustrates a control operation
for an automatic image rotating function performed by the portable
computer shown in Figure 1. Id. ¶ 26.
IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

22

Figure 14 illustrates a control operation for an automatic image rotating
function performed by the portable computer shown in Figure 1. Id. ¶ 26.

A BIOS (Basic Input Output System) program 301 shown in Figure
14 acquires values from a sensing switch, a rotation angle sensor, and a
gravity sensor to determine whether the portable computer is used in a PC
style (as shown in Figure 1, reproduced above) or in a PDA style (as shown
in Figure 5). Id. ¶¶ 34, 64, 69–71. When the computer is used in PC style,
BIOS 301 performs control to change the orientation of a screen image in
response to a signal from rotation angle sensor 202. Id. ¶ 70. When the
computer is used in PDA style, BIOS 301 performs control to change the
orientation of a screen image in response to a signal from gravity sensor 203.
Id. BIOS 301 then informs display driver 303 of the orientation of the screen
image to be displayed on the computer’s LCD and the aspect ratio of the
screen image, and display driver 303 performs an operation for rotating the
IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

23
screen image displayed on the computer’s LCD and a scaling operation for
varying the aspect ratio in response to an instruction from BIOS 301. Id.
Display driver 303 then sets the orientation of the screen image displayed on
the LCD in one of four orientations (a), (b), (c) and (d). Id. ¶ 71.
3. Discussion
Based on the present record, Petitioner does not demonstrate a
reasonable likelihood of showing the combination of Shimura and Tsuji
(ground 1) would have rendered obvious the subject matter of challenged
claims 1 and 20. Pet. 42–62. Petitioner also does not demonstrate a
reasonable likelihood of showing the subject matter of the challenged claims
would have been obvious over the combination of references Petitioner
applies for ground 2. Id. at 62–102.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, a “graphical user interface” configured to
“display a plurality of views of a plurality of visual representations of
computer content, wherein the computer content includes at least one of
selectable digital content, selectable computer operations and passive digital
content” (limitation [1c]), and an “execution component” configured to
“select one of the plurality of views for display on the computer system in
response to the detected current computer system configuration [as
determined by the keyboard being operable or inoperable to receive input
from the computer’s operator]” and “transition the display component to the
selected one of the plurality of views” (limitation [1f]). Ex. 1001, 71:1–24.
Petitioner contends Shimura’s display 105 teaches the claimed
“graphical user interface.” Pet. 53–54 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 1; Ex. 1007
¶¶ 185–189). Petitioner further contends Shimura’s graphical user interface
IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

24
meets the views recitation because Shimura’s display 105 “displays content
in either a normal or inverted view (i.e., rotated 180º),” where
[t]he view depends on the state of display reversal switch
106 inputted to display control circuit 107 inside the cover part
102. . . . If the display reverse switch 106 is set to normal view,
the display control circuit 107 causes the display screen 105 to
display the content in normal view. . . . Similarly, if the display
reverse switch 106 is set to reverse mode the content is displayed
in an inverted view.
A POSITA would have considered the Shimura-Tsuji
Computer’s ability to display content in either a normal or
inverted view to disclose [1c].

Id. at 54–56 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 12, Fig. 1; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 190–194). With
respect to limitation [1f], Petitioner contends that a combined Shimura-Tsuji
computer can select a view based on computer system configuration:
[t]he Shimura-Tsuji Computer can determine the computer
system configurations and “select[s] one of the plurality of views
[e.g., normal and inverted views] for display on the computer
system in response to the detected current computer system
configuration” and transitions the display to that view.

Id. at 59 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 203–206). For the claimed “execution
component,” Petitioner also relies on Tsuji’s BIOS program 301 “that
informs a display driver 303 . . . of the orientation of the image to be
displayed,” and on Tsuji’s display driver 303 “which is controlled by the
BIOS program 301, [and] performs the operation for rotating the image
displayed on the LCD.” Id. at 59–60 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 68–74, Fig. 14;
Ex. 1007 ¶ 205).
Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has failed to meet its burden for
claim 1 because the “Petition fails to properly construe ‘plurality of views,’
which refers to a plurality of ways of organizing displayed content.” Prelim.
IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

25
Resp. 24, 44–45. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive for the reasons
explained below.
As Patent Owner argues, the Petition relies only on different
orientations (such as a “normal view” and an “inverted view”) of a single
organization of displayed content, to meet claim 1’s views recitation. Id. at
24–25. For example, Patent Owner points out that the Petition considers
Shimura’s display of the word “PATENT” right-side-up (normal view) and
upside-down (inverted) as meeting the recited “plurality of views.” Id. at 26–
27 (citing Pet. 49–50, 54–55). As we explain above in our claim
construction, however, inverting or re-orienting a single way of organizing
displayed content does not create a “plurality of views of a plurality of visual
representations of computer content” as claimed and described in the ’715
patent. As such, Petitioner’s implicit “construction of ‘plurality of views’ as
reading on different orientations of the same organization of displayed
content is wrong because it is inconsistent with every embodiment of a
‘plurality of views’ described in the specification.” Id. at 25, 38–41.
Indeed, Patent Owner correctly explains that the ’715 patent addresses
reorientation of a display but reorientation does not result in the views
recitation. Patent Owner makes this distinction by arguing:
[in] the claims and the specification of the ’715 Patent—a “view”
is a way of organizing displayed content. Ex. 1001, Abstract,
2:54–58 (“[t]he different views present different organizations
of the interface elements”); 3:26–28 (“the plurality of views are
configured to organize modes of content into different views”);
7:25–27, 9:55–57 (a “plurality of views” of computer content as
recited in claims 1, 17 and 20, is a plurality of ways of organizing
displayed content).
. . . the specification also describes re-orientating the same
display organization about the computer’s longitudinal axis to
IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

26
ensure it is right-side-up, but uses different terminology to
describe that re-orientation and never refers to two different
orientations of the same organization of displayed content as
different views.
. . .
The specification makes clear “views” are particular ways of
organizing displayed content—not different orientations of a
single organization of displayed content.
Prelim. Resp. 27–28; see id. at 29–37, 42–44. We find that Patent Owner’s
explanation of this distinction is best supported by the text of the ’715
patent.
Thus, on the current record, Petitioner has not made a sufficient
showing that the combination of Shimura and Tsuji teaches the subject
matter of limitations [1c] and [1f] of claim 1.
Independent claim 20 includes recitations similar to the views
recitation of claim 1. See Ex. 1001, 73:19–74:18; Pet. 60–62. Patent Owner
maps claim 20 to the prior art’s teachings merely by referring back to claim
1. Pet. 60–62. For the reasons we provide as to claim 1, Petitioner has not
made a sufficient showing that the combination of Shimura and Tsuji
teaches the subject matter of claim 20.
D. Ground Two: Obviousness Based on Shimura, Tsuji, and Pogue
We provide an overview of Pogue before we address the parties’
contentions.
1. Overview of Pogue (Ex. 1006)
Pogue is a book on Windows XP, titled “Windows XP Home Edition:
The Missing Manual.” Ex. 1006, 2. Pogue explains that “[t]he purpose of
this book . . . is to serve as the manual that should have accompanied
Windows XP” and to provide “step-by-step instructions for using almost
IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

27
every Windows feature.” Id. at 15.4 Pogue presents various screen images
from a computer running Windows XP, including the “Windows XP
computer screen” after a fresh install of Windows XP (Figure 2-2) and a
Filmstrip view that “turns [a] folder window into a slide show machine,
complete with Next and Previous buttons beneath an enlarged picture, as
well as buttons that rotate the image on the screen” (Figure 2-5). Id. at 36,
87.

Figure 2-2 shows the Windows XP computer screen displayed after a fresh
install of Windows XP. Id. at 36.

4 Page numbers refer to numbered pages of Exhibit 1006 rather than
referring to pages of the book.
IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

28

Figure 2-5 shows a Filmstrip view that “turns [a] folder window into a slide
show machine, complete with Next and Previous buttons beneath an
enlarged picture, as well as buttons that rotate the image on the screen.”
Id. at 87.

2. Discussion
Petitioner’s second ground of unpatentability is based on obviousness
over Shimura, Tsuji, and Pogue. Pet. 62. Although Petitioner states that
Pogue discloses a “home view” and a “channel view,” as recited in claim 2,
Petitioner does not show that Pogue remedies the deficiencies of Shimura
and Tsuji with respect to the claimed selection and display of “a plurality of
views of a plurality of visual representations of computer content,” as recited
in claim 1. See Pet. 63–66.
IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

29
In particular, claims 2–16 and 19 depend from claim 1 and include all
the limitations claim 1 requires. Claim 1 requires “an execution component
. . . configured to: select one of the plurality of views for display on the
computer system in response to the detected current computer system
configuration.” Ex. 1001, 71:10–20; see also Ex. 1009, 1 (mapping this
recitation as [1f]). Even if Pogue teaches a plurality of views (within the
claim construction we provide above), Petitioner does not rely on Pogue to
meet the [1f] recitation. Instead, Petitioner alleges that the Shimura-Tsuji
combination selecting between normal and inverted views meets the [1f]
recitation. Pet. 59. But, as we explain above, Petitioner’s mapping of
Shimura-Tsuji to [1f] is insufficient. Thus, for the reasons discussed with
respect to claim 1, we determine that Petitioner has not established a
reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its contention that the asserted
combination of Shimura, Tsuji, and Pogue would have rendered obvious
claims 2–16 and 19.
As Patent Owner’s arguments with respect to independent claim 17
(arguments similar to those submitted for claims 1 and 20, see Prelim. Resp.
24–27, 42–45) further explain, Petitioner also has not shown that the
combination of Shimura and Tsuji teaches the limitations directed to the
“plurality of views of a plurality of visual representations of the computer
content” recited in independent claim 17. Id. at 62–64. Petitioner labels the
portions of claim 17 requiring a graphical user interface “configured to
display a plurality of views of a plurality of visual representations of the
computer content” and requiring an execution component configured to
“select, responsive to the sensor input, a first content view from the plurality
of views” as [17b] and [17e] respectively. Ex. 1009, 4. Petitioner does not
IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

30
provide any mapping to prior art for these recitations beyond what Petitioner
provided for claim 1. Pet. 100–101. Petitioner, therefore, does not show that
Pogue remedies the deficiencies of Shimura and Tsuji that we addressed
with respect to claim 1. Thus, Patent Owner’s arguments persuade us that
Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing that the combination of
Shimura, Tsuji, and Pogue teaches the subject matter of claim 17.
Claim 18 depends from claim 17 and includes all the limitations claim
17 requires. For the reasons discussed with respect to claim 17, we
determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of
prevailing in its contention that claim 18 would have been rendered obvious
by the asserted combination of Shimura, Tsuji, and Pogue.
Therefore, Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood of
prevailing in demonstrating the unpatentability of any challenged claim of
the ’715 patent in its second ground of unpatentability for the same reasons
as Petitioner’s first ground of patentability.

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 ’715 patent based on a ground asserted in
the Petition.
IPR2021-00786
Patent 9,880,715 B2

31
PETITIONER:
Martin Bader
Nam Kim
Michael Hopkins
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
mbader@sheppardmullin.com
nkim@sheppardmullin.com
mhopkins@sheppardmullin.com

PATENT OWNER:
Gerald B. Hrycyszyn
Richard F. Giunta
Jason Balich
WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
ghrycyszyn-ptab@wolfgreenfield.com
rgiunta-ptab@wolfgreenfield.com
jbalich-ptab@wolfgreenfield.com