Obviousness

Based on the provided patent text and the external search results, a complete obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 that identifies specific combinations of prior art references to render the claims of US11048299 obvious is not possible.

Here's why:

1. Limited Prior Art References Provided: The "Prior art keywords" from the patent's Google Patents page (state, segments, instructions, segment, display) are generic terms and do not refer to specific prior art documents. While a targeted search for "US11048299 cited prior art" and "prior art for reconfigurable touch screen computing devices" was conducted, the results did not provide specific prior art that comprehensively addresses the unique combination of features claimed in US11048299.
2. Irrelevance of US 2012/0084737 A1: One search result, US 2012/0084737 A1, describes a handheld computing device with multiple displays that can be positioned between open and closed states, and whose GUI can switch between single and multi-screen modes. This appears highly relevant to the reconfigurable display and GUI adaptation of US11048299. However, the provisional application for US11048299 was filed on August 10, 2010 (U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/372,391), whereas the provisional application for US 2012/0084737 A1 was filed on October 1, 2010 (U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/389,000). Therefore, US 2012/0084737 A1 is not prior art to US11048299 and cannot be used in an obviousness analysis.

Summary of Available (but insufficient for combination) Prior Art Concepts:

Prior to the priority date of US11048299 (August 10, 2010), a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would have been aware of:

• Touchscreen and Multi-touch Technology: Touchscreens had been in existence for decades, with multi-touch interfaces implemented as early as 1982 and capacitive multi-touch tablets in 1985. US7663607B2, published in 2004, details a multipoint touchscreen using a capacitive sensing device. Apple's patent #7,479,949, awarded in January 2009, described touch screen devices with graphical user interfaces for determining commands by applying heuristics, and specifically mentioned multi-touch interfaces and gestures like "pinch" for zooming.
• Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs): GUIs for various computing devices were well-established, allowing users to interact with content, including those with unstructured touch-sensitive areas that respond to gestures.
• Miniaturization and Demand for Larger Displays: The background section of US11048299 itself acknowledges the significant advancements in electronics leading to compact handheld devices and the desire for increased display size without sacrificing portability.

Missing Elements for Obviousness Argument:

The critical inventive aspects of US11048299, as reflected in its independent claims (Claims 1, 8, 14), include:

• A reconfigurable computing device with a touch screen display comprising multiple segments coupled by a flexible electronic circuit.
• The ability to reconfigure between a compact state (phone-like) and an expanded state (tablet/laptop-like).
• Sensors that detect the physical configuration state and communicate it to a processor.
• A graphical user interface that automatically adapts and adjusts displayed content based on the detected physical state of the reconfigured display.
• A physical support structure with hinges and alignment mechanisms (e.g., magnets) specifically for facilitating the folding and unfolding of these display segments and locking them in place.
• A processing module containing core electronics housed within one of the segments and functional in both states.

While the prior art clearly shows the existence of touchscreens, GUIs, and the general concept of portable devices, it does not, based on the provided information, reveal specific references or combinations thereof that would teach or suggest the physical folding of a multi-segment display with a flexible circuit, sensors for state detection, and a dynamically adapting GUI in a manner that directly anticipates or renders obvious the claimed invention.

Therefore, without specific prior art references that disclose these core physical reconfiguration and state-adaptive GUI elements in combination, it is not possible to formulate a well-grounded obviousness argument under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using the currently available information.