Paper No. ___
`Filed: May 25, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FONTEM HOLDINGS 1 B.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01692
`Patent No. 9,326,548
`
`
`
`
`
`______________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 4
`A.
`The ’548 Patent and Claims ......................................................................... 4
`B.
`The Alleged Prior Art ................................................................................... 7
`1.
`Hon ’043 ............................................................................................ 7
`2. Whittemore ...................................................................................... 12
`3.
`Voges ............................................................................................... 13
`Procedural Background .............................................................................. 14
`C.
`III. A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................ 15
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................. 16
`A.
`“set on” ....................................................................................................... 16
`PETITIONER HAS NOT MET ITS BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE
`THAT CLAIMS 1-14 ARE UNPATENTABLE .................................................. 19
`A.
`Claim 1 is Not Obvious Over Hon ’043 in View of Whittemore and
`Voges .......................................................................................................... 20
`1.
`A Skilled Person Would Not Have Combined Hon ’043 With
`Whittemore ...................................................................................... 20
`a.
`Thermal efficiency would not have motivated the
`combination .......................................................................... 21
`Reliable liquid transport cannot motivate the
`combination because Hon ’043 relies on capillary
`action, not air flow, to transport liquid ................................. 29
`Other motivations ................................................................. 31
`(i)
`Combination of prior art elements according to
`known methods ......................................................... 31
`Simple substitution .................................................... 33
`(ii)
`(iii) Known technique to improve similar devices in
`the same way ............................................................. 35
`(iv) Known device ready for improvement ..................... 37
`(v) Obvious to try ............................................................ 38
`-i-
`
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`d.
`
`b.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The proposed combination would have required a
`major redesign ...................................................................... 39
`The Proposed Combination Does Not Teach or Suggest the
`Limitations of Independent Claim 1 ............................................... 40
`a.
`Hon ’043 does not teach or suggest a “porous
`component set on a frame” ................................................... 40
`Hon ’043 does not teach or suggest a “frame having a
`run-through hole” ................................................................. 44
`A Skilled Person Would Not Have Combined Hon ’043 With
`Voges ............................................................................................... 49
`Claim 2 ............................................................................................ 50
`4.
`Claim 3 ............................................................................................ 50
`5.
`Claim 4 ............................................................................................ 50
`6.
`Claim 5 ............................................................................................ 50
`7.
`Claim 6 ............................................................................................ 50
`8.
`Claim 7 ............................................................................................ 51
`9.
`Claim 8 Is Not Obvious Over Hon ’043 in View of Whittemore and
`Voges .......................................................................................................... 51
`1.
`Independent Claim 8 ....................................................................... 51
`2.
`A Skilled Person Would Not Have Combined Hon ’043 With
`Whittemore or Voges ...................................................................... 51
`Claim 9 ............................................................................................ 52
`3.
`Claim 10 .......................................................................................... 52
`4.
`Claim 11 Is Not Obvious Over Hon ’043 in View of Whittemore,
`Voges, and Gehrer ...................................................................................... 52
`1.
`Gehrer .............................................................................................. 52
`2.
`Independent Claim 11 ..................................................................... 53
`3.
`A Skilled Person Would Not Have Combined Hon ’043 With
`Whittemore, Voges, or Gehrer ........................................................ 54
`Claim 12 .......................................................................................... 55
`
`4.
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`Claim 13 .......................................................................................... 56
`5.
`Claim 14 .......................................................................................... 56
`6.
`Dr. Sturges’s Testimony is Contradictory and Unreliable ......................... 56
`D.
`VI. Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 63
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................................... 65
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Paper No. ___
`Filed: May 25, 2017
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 20
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp.,
`732 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 39
`
`Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese & Powder Sys., Inc.,
`725 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 20
`
`Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC v. Autoalert, Inc.,
`Case IPR2013-00220 .......................................................................................... 31
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ...................................................................... 20, 49
`
`In re Ratti,
`270 F.2d 810 (C.C.P.A. 1959) ............................................................................ 39
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 19
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 16
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.108(c) .................................................................................................. 1
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2143 ....................... 31, 32, 33, 35, 37, 39
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Paper No. ___
`Filed: May 25, 2017
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibits
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Pat. No. 9,326,548 to Lik Hon
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Chinese Pat. No. 2719043Y to Lik Hon
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Certified English translation of Chinese Pat. No. 2719043Y to Lik
`Hon
`
`Ex. 1004 U.S. Pat. No. 2,057,353 to C. L. Whittemore, Jr
`
`Ex. 1005 WO 2005/099494, which is the PCT application equivalent of Hon
`(CN 2719043Y) (“Hon ’494”)
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Certified English translation of WO 2005/099494 pursuant to 37
`C.F.R. 42.63(b)
`
`Ex. 1007 Application Data Sheet and Specification of U.S. Pat. Appl. No.
`14/244,376 Filed April 3, 2014
`
`Ex. 1008 Non-Final Office Action of September 4, 2014 in 14/244,376
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Compilation of prosecution papers filed in 14/244,376
`
`Ex. 1010 Non-Final Office Action of August 20, 2015 in 14/244,376
`
`Ex. 1011 Amendment of November 20, 2015 in 14/244,376
`
`Ex. 1012 Notice of Allowance of March 15, 2016 in 14/244,376
`
`Ex. 1013 Board’s Decision Denying Institution in IPR2015-00859
`
`Ex. 1014 Board’s Order Dismissing Petition IPR2015-01587
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent No. 9,326,548
`
`Ex. 1015 Declaration of Dr. Robert Sturges
`
`Ex. 1016 Rohsenow, “Heat, Mass, And Momentum Transfer”
`
`Ex. 1017 Merriam-Webster Definition of “Set”
`
`Ex. 1018 U.S. Pat. No. 6,155,268 to Takeuchi
`
`Ex. 1019 U.S. Pat. No. 4,947,874 to Brooks et al.
`
`Ex. 1020 U.S. Pat. No. 4,629,665 to Matsuo
`
`Ex. 1021 U.S. Pat. No. 5,894,841 to Voges
`
`Ex. 1022 U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0016550 to Katase
`
`Ex. 1023 U.S. Pat. No. 5,703,633 to Gehrer et al.
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`IPR2014-01300, Paper No. 8
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent No. 9,326,548
`
`Patent Owner’s Exhibits
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 2001 Declaration of Richard Meyst (“Meyst Decl.”)
`
`Ex. 2002 U.S. Patent No. 8,365,742 to Hon
`
`Ex. 2003
`
`Ex. 2004
`
`VMR Products LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2015-00859,
`Paper 2, Petition for Inter Partes Review of 8,365,742, March 10,
`2015
`
`Dominion Dealers Solutions, LLC v. Autoalert, Inc., IPR2013-
`00220, Paper 13, Decision on Request for Rehearing, October 10,
`2013
`
`Ex. 2005
`
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2017-00204, Paper 1,
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of 9,326,548, November 4, 2016
`
`Ex. 2006
`
`Examiner Interview Summary of 12/01/2015 interview with
`Examiner Mayes and Supervisory Examiner Wilson in U.S. Patent
`Application No. 14/244,376 issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,326,548 B2
`
`Ex. 2007
`
`Statement of Related Applications filed 01/13/2016 in U.S. Patent
`Application No. 14/244,376
`Ex. 2008 Notice of Allowance in U.S. Patent Application No. 14/244,376
`dated 03/15/2016
`
`Ex. 2009
`
`Statement of Related Applications filed 12/22/2015 in U.S. Patent
`Application No. 13/740,011
`Ex. 2010 Notice of Allowance in U.S. Patent Application No. 13/740,011
`dated 06/21/2016
`Ex. 2011 Office Action in U.S. Patent Application No. 13/079,937 dated
`07/19/2012
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent No. 9,326,548
`
`Ex. 2012
`
`Examiner Interview Summary in U.S. Patent Application No.
`13/079,937 dated 08/23/2012
`
`Ex. 2013 U.S. Patent No. 1,775,947 to Robinson
`
`Ex. 2014 U.S. Patent No. 5,144,962 to Counts
`
`Ex. 2015
`
`EP 0 845 220 B1 to Susa
`
`Ex. 2016
`
`IPR2016-01268, Ex. 1001 (U.S. Patent No. 8,365,742)
`
`Ex. 2017
`
`IPR2016-01268, Ex. 1020 (Sturges Supplemental Declaration)
`
`Ex. 2018
`
`IPR2016-01268, Ex. 2016 (Deposition Transcript of Robert Sturges,
`March 8, 2017)
`
`Ex. 2019
`
`IPR2016-01268, Ex. 2015 (Second Meyst Declaration)
`
`Ex. 2020 New Oxford American Dictionary, 2001, selected pages
`
`Ex. 2021
`
`Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, 2001, selected
`pages
`
`Ex. 2022
`
`NJOY, Inc. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2014-01300, Paper 39,
`Order Terminating Proceeding (PTAB November 24, 2015)
`
`Ex. 2023
`
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings B.V. 1, IPR2016-01285, Paper
`10, Decision Denying Inter Partes Review (PTAB November 30,
`2016)
`
`Ex. 2024
`
`Fluent 6.3 Users Guide, Fluent, Inc., Lebanon, NH, September 2006
`(excerpt)
`
`Ex. 2025
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.,
`IPR2016-01527, Paper 10, Decision Denying Inter Partes Review,
`(PTAB January 30, 2017)
`
`Ex. 2026
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`Ex. 2027
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent No. 9,326,548
`
`Ex. 2028 Declaration of Peter Sher
`
`Ex. 2029
`
`IPR2016-01268, Ex. 1015 (Sturges Declaration)
`
`Ex. 2030
`
`Second Declaration of Richard Meyst
`
`Ex. 2031 Deposition Transcript of Robert Sturges, May 10, 2017
`
`Ex. 2032 U.S. Patent No. 1,968,509 to Tiffany
`
`Ex. 2033
`
`R. Sabersky and Allan J. Acosta, “Fluid Flow: A First Course in
`Fluid Mechanics,” The Macmillan Company, New York, 1964
`(excerpt)
`
`Ex. 2034 Declaration of Gabriel Flores
`
`Ex. 2035
`
`Choe, Heeman et al., “Mechanical properties of oxidation-resistant
`Ni-Cr foams,” Materials Science and Engineering A384, pp. 184-
`193, May 2004
`Ex. 2036 Xi, Zhengping et al., “Progress of Application Researches of Porous
`Fiber Metals,” Materials, Vol. 4, pp. 816-824, April 19, 2011
`
`Ex. 2037
`
`Su, Wei-Fang, “Principles of Polymer Design and Synthesis,”
`Springer, Heidelberg, 2013, Chapter 2 - Polymer Size and Polymer
`Solutions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent No. 9,326,548
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In IPR2015-00859 involving the ’548 Patent’s grandparent, the Board
`
`rejected the argument that “more efficient, uniform heating” would have motivated
`
`a skilled person to combine Hon ’043 with Whittemore resulting in the “heating
`
`wire wound on part of the porous component” claimed in that patent. Ex. 1013 at
`
`24-25.
`
`Here, Petitioner argues that a similar claim limitation—a “heating wire coil
`
`wound on the porous component”—is obvious over the same prior art for the same
`
`reason. In its decision to institute review, the Board found an issue of material fact
`
`between the parties’ testimonial evidence regarding motivations for combining
`
`Hon ’043 with Whittemore, which the Board viewed in Petitioner’s favor as
`
`required by 37 C.F.R. §42.108(c). Paper 8 at 15-16. But now, just as in IPR2015-
`
`00859, the Board should find that the purported motivations are insufficient to
`
`make the proposed combination because Petitioner’s expert’s testimony is
`
`incorrect and not credible.
`
`Petitioner’s purported motivation to make the combination includes: (1)
`
`improved heating efficiency; and (2) more reliable liquid transport. In short,
`
`Petitioner asserts that Hon ’043’s atomizer transports liquid by spraying it around a
`
`heating element without it touching the element. According to Petitioner, the
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent No. 9,326,548
`heating element then atomizes the liquid by “convection.” Petition at 30. So
`
`Petitioner asserts that transporting liquid via a capillary wick is more reliable than
`
`spraying it through the air, and that having the liquid contact the heater is more
`
`efficient than convection. But Petitioner’s alleged motivations only make sense
`
`when viewed through hindsight, as they are based on an incorrect representation of
`
`Hon ’043’s atomization mechanism.
`
`With a correct understanding of Hon ’043, one skilled in the art would not
`
`have been motivated to combine Hon ’043 with Whittemore as claimed. Hon ’043
`
`is not a “convection” atomizer. Instead, Hon ’043 transports liquid via capillary
`
`action to an ejection hole, which atomizes the liquid by spraying it into an
`
`atomization cavity. Once inside the cavity, those droplets may be “further
`
`atomized” via direct contact with an optional heating element—not by convection.
`
`Petitioner’s assertion that the atomized droplets do not contact the heating
`
`element is not credible. Petitioner’s expert relies on the dimensions shown in a
`
`figure to conclude that Hon ’043’s heating element is so small that the atomized
`
`droplets would just flow around the heating element. Nonsense. Hon ’043
`
`discloses that the ejected droplets are directed at the heating element and further
`
`discloses that the heating element can be a “sheet.” Ex. 1003 at 7. Heating
`
`efficiency would not have motivated one skilled in the art to combine Hon ’043
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent No. 9,326,548
`with Whittemore because the embodiment Petitioner relies on in Hon ’043
`
`primarily atomizes without heat—by spraying liquid through an ejection hole.
`
`And to the extent the atomized droplets are “further atomized” by the optional
`
`heater, that embodiment does so via direct contact with the liquid, not by
`
`convection.
`
`Petitioner’s assertion that using Whittemore’s wick would improve liquid
`
`transport by employing capillary action is not credible, either. Hon ’043 already
`
`uses capillary action to transport liquid through a porous body from the liquid
`
`supply to the atomizer’s ejection hole. There is no motivation to include
`
`Whittemore’s wick in Hon ’043 because Hon ’043 already uses a wicking material
`
`to transport liquid.
`
`Accordingly, just like the Board found in IPR2015-00859, Petitioner’s
`
`purported motivations to combine Hon ’043 and Whittemore, namely that Hon
`
`’043 does not disclose direct liquid contact with the heating element or wicking
`
`liquid from the liquid supply to the atomizer, are insufficient to meet Petitioner’s
`
`burden of demonstrating unpatentability. For those and other reasons set forth
`
`herein, Petitioner has not shown unpatentability of claims 1-14.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent No. 9,326,548
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. The ’548 Patent and Claims
`
`The ’548 Patent relates to an “aerosol electronic cigarette” directed toward
`
`satisfying the “smoking habit” without the harmful effects of tar. Ex. 1001, 1:18-
`
`34, 45-47. The ’548 Patent provides particular improvements over the prior art in
`
`“atomizing efficiency” and “ideal aerosol effects.” Ex. 1001, 1:35-38. The ’548
`
`Patent focuses on this problem by addressing how air flows through an electronic
`
`cigarette in combination with how liquid contacts a heater to be vaporized. Ex.
`
`2030 ¶¶10-13; Paper 7 at 3-5.
`
`Figure 1 (below) shows an embodiment of the claimed device. Air flows
`
`into the device through inlets a1 and enters the atomizer 8. Ex. 1001, 4:33-36.
`
`The atomizer atomizes liquid into an aerosol or vapor, which flows through shell b
`
`and out the air channel b1. Ex. 1001, 5:37-42.
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent No. 9,326,548
`One embodiment of the atomizer 8 is depicted below in Figures 17 (front
`
`view) and 18 (side view). Ex. 1001, 5:61-6:4. The porous component 81 transfers
`
`liquid from the liquid storage 9 via capillary impregnation. Ex. 1001, 4:55-59.
`
`The porous component 81 is set on the frame 82, and wound with heating wire 83
`
`on the part that is in the path of air flowing through the run-through hole 821. Ex.
`
`1001, 5:61-6:4.
`
`
`
`Improved airflow, atomizing efficiency, and aerosol effects are specific
`
`improvements over the prior art. Ex. 2030 ¶¶44-46. The improved airflow is
`
`attributable in part to the claimed “run-through hole,” which can be throttled with a
`
`“restriction component,” allowing the electronic cigarette to more closely
`
`approximate the “draw” of a real cigarette than Hon ’043’s ejection hole atomizer.
`
`Ex. 2030 ¶45; Ex. 1001, 5:17-27, Fig. 10. This improved atomization process is
`
`illustrated below in annotated Figure 18. Ex. 2030 ¶46.
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent No. 9,326,548
`
`
`
`The ’548 Patent’s claims recite an atomizer according to the above
`
`embodiments. Claims 1 and 8 require “a frame” having a “run-through hole” and
`
`“a heating wire coil wound on … the porous component.” Claim 11 includes “a
`
`frame comprising a cylindrical base having a run-through hole,” and “a heating
`
`wire coil wound on the fiber member.” Claim 1 is reproduced below.
`
`1. An electronic cigarette, comprising:
`a battery assembly having a cylindrical battery and an operating
`indicator;
`an atomizer assembly in an elongated cylindrical housing, with the
`battery assembly electrically connected to the atomizer
`assembly, and with the cylindrical battery coaxial with the
`atomizer assembly;
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent No. 9,326,548
`
`a liquid storage component in the housing;
`the atomizer assembly including a porous component set on a frame
`having a run-through hole;
`a heating wire coil electrically connected to the battery;
`an air flow path in the atomizer assembly parallel to a longitudinal
`axis of the housing, with the air flow path through the run-
`through hole to an outlet, with the heating wire coil wound on
`the porous component and in the air flow path and with the
`heating wire coil oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal
`axis; and
`the porous component in contact with the liquid storage component.
`B.
`The Alleged Prior Art
`
`1. Hon ’043
`
`Hon ’043 was cited and considered during prosecution of the ’548 Patent.
`
`Ex. 1001, References Cited. Both Hon ’043 and the patent at issue here, the ’548
`
`Patent, were invented by the same inventor, Lik Hon. Hon ’043 discloses several
`
`embodiments of an electronic cigarette. Hon ’043 describes, among other things,
`
`the device’s atomizer and liquid supply. Liquid-supplying bottle 11 includes a
`
`solution storage porous body 28, which holds the liquid in a porous structure such
`
`as foam or fiber. Ex. 1003 at 9-10. Atomizer 9 includes a porous body 27 that
`
`makes contact with solution storage porous body 28 inside liquid-supplying bottle
`
`11, allowing liquid to move from the storage body to the atomizer via capillary
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent No. 9,326,548
`action. Id. at 9, 11. Atomizer 9 also includes atomization cavity 10 inside cavity
`
`wall 25, which is surrounded by porous body 27. Id. at 9. Atomizer 9 (red) and
`
`liquid-supplying bottle 11 (blue) are shown in annotated Figure 1.
`
`
`
`Air flows into the device through inlet 4 and enters the atomization cavity 10
`
`inside atomizer 9. Id. at 10-11. Inside atomization cavity 10, liquid is atomized
`
`into fine droplets, which flow out aerosol passage 12, gas vent 17, and mouthpiece
`
`15 for inhalation. Id.
`
`Hon ’043 discloses several ways to atomize liquid delivered to the atomizer
`
`by capillary action. First, the high speed stream of air passing through ejection
`
`holes 24 or 30 causes liquid to eject into cavity 10 in the form of droplets. Id. at
`
`10. Those droplets would be considered atomized particles. Ex. 2020 at 101
`
`(“atomize”: “convert (a substance) into very fine particles or droplets”); see Ex.
`
`2024 at 22-47 (“The plain-orifice is the most common type of atomizer and the
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent No. 9,326,548
`most simply made.”); Ex. 2030 ¶37. Second, the atomizer may include a
`
`piezoelectric element 23 on its outside surface which atomizes the liquid via
`
`ultrasonic vibrations. Ex. 1003 at 10-11. Third, the airstream may be focused
`
`directly at a piezoelectric element 35 inside cavity 10. Id. at 11. And fourth, a
`
`heating element 26, which may be in the form of a “wire” or “sheet,” can be
`
`included in cavity 10. Id. at 9-11.
`
`In some embodiments, the heating element 26 and piezoelectric elements 23
`
`and 35 are optional. Ex. 1003 at 11. If the heating element is included, it “further
`
`atomize[s]” the ejected liquid droplets via direct contact between the droplets and
`
`the heater. Id. Hon ’043 teaches that the ejection holes “focus” the ejected
`
`droplets at the atomizing element inside the cavity. Ex. 1003 at 11. The heating
`
`element 26 is thus aligned with the ejection holes so that the ejected droplets are
`
`aimed at the heater to be “further atomized.” Ex. 2030 ¶¶37-38, 99-108.
`
`Atomization cavity 10 (green), piezoelectric element 23 (pink), piezoelectric
`
`element 35 (pink), heating element 26 (red line), ejection holes 24 (purple), and
`
`porous body 27 (red circle) are depicted below in annotated Figures 6 and 8.
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent No. 9,326,548
`
`
`
`
`
`The wall 25 of atomization cavity 10 (shown above in blue) is made of
`
`aluminum oxide or ceramic. Ex. 1003 at 9. An overflow hole 29 is included in the
`
`atomization cavity wall 25. Id. at 11. After atomization, droplets that are too large
`
`for inhalation stick to the cavity wall 25 and are reabsorbed into porous body 27
`
`through the overflow hole 29. Id. Overflow holes 29 (orange) in cavity wall 25
`
`(blue) are depicted below in annotated Figure 7, along with ejection holes 30
`
`(purple) and cavity 10 (green).
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent No. 9,326,548
`
`The operation of Hon ’043’s atomizer is illustrated below. Ex. 1003 at 10-
`
`
`
`11; Ex. 2030 ¶¶36-40.
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent No. 9,326,548
`
`
`
`2. Whittemore
`
`Whittemore was also cited and considered during prosecution of the ’548
`
`Patent. Ex. 1001, References Cited. Whittemore issued in 1936 and discloses a
`
`“vaporizing unit.” Ex. 1004. As depicted in Figure 2 below, the device looks like
`
`a light bulb. Whittemore discloses wick D inside glass vessel A that holds liquid
`
`medicament x. Id., 1:19-28. Liquid is carried up the wick D via capillary action,
`
`where it is vaporized by heat from filament 3. Id., 1:50-2:8.
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent No. 9,326,548
`
`3.
`
`Voges
`
`
`
`Voges was also cited and considered during prosecution of the ’548 Patent.
`
`Ex. 1001, References Cited. Voges discloses a “dispenser.” A nicotine-containing
`
`liquid is stored in a container with a spigot-shaped outlet and coupling that allows
`
`fluid to flow to a droplet ejection device (DED) similar to those used in ink-jet or
`
`bubble-jet printers. Ex. 1021, 5:58-64. When the user inhales, the DED emits a
`
`predetermined number of liquid droplets to administer a precisely determined dose
`
`of nicotine. Id. 6:52-7:3. The device is shown in Figure 2 below.
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent No. 9,326,548
`
`C.
`
`Procedural Background
`
`
`
`The Board instituted review of whether claims 1-10 would have been
`
`obvious over the combined teachings of Chinese Pat. No. 2719043Y to Lik Hon
`
`(“Hon ’043”) (Ex. 1002 and English translation Ex. 1003), U.S. Pat. No. 2,057,353
`
`to C. L. Whittemore, Jr. (“Whittemore”) (Ex. 1004), and U.S. Pat. No. 5,894,841 to
`
`Voges (“Voges”); and whether claims 11-14 would have been obvious over the
`
`combined teachings of Hon ’043, Whittemore, Voges, and U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,703,633 to Gehrer et al. (“Gehrer”) (Ex. 1023). Paper 8 at 17.
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent No. 9,326,548
`In its decision to institute review, the Board found there were issues of
`
`material fact created by testimonial evidence that must be viewed in Petitioner’s
`
`favor. Paper 8 at 15-16. Patent Owner now files this Opposition along with an
`
`additional expert declaration and the benefit of having cross-examined Petitioner’s
`
`expert. Ex. 2030; Ex. 2031. Petitioner’s expert also testified recently about the
`
`prior art at issue here in an IPR regarding the grandparent patent to the ’548 Patent.
`
`Ex. 2029; Ex. 2017; Ex. 2018.
`
`III. A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would be a person with a mechanical or
`
`electrical engineering degree, industrial design degree, or similar technical degree,
`
`or equivalent work experience, and 5-10 years of experience working in the area of
`
`electromechanical devices, including medical devices. Ex. 2030 ¶21. Petitioner
`
`defines a person of ordinary skill in the art as someone with at least the equivalent
`
`of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or
`
`biomedical engineering or related fields, along with at least 5 years of experience
`
`designing electromechanical devices, including those involving circuits, fluid
`
`mechanics and heat transfer. Petition at 15; Ex. 1015 ¶¶26-27. Under either
`
`definition, claims 1-14 of the ’548 Patent are patentable.
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent No. 9,326,548
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In IPR proceedings, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner
`
`proposed constructions for two claim terms: “frame” and “porous component set
`
`on a frame having a run-through hole.” Petition at 15-17. In its decision to
`
`institute review, the Board determined that neither term requires construction.
`
`Paper 8 at 7-8. Although Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction, Patent Owner agrees with the Board that the term “frame” does not
`
`need to be construed here. Patent Owner addresses the term “set on” below.
`
`A.
`
`“set on”
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`held in place by
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`sits on (see Petition at 16-17)
`
`Claims 1 and 8 recite a “porous component set on a frame.” Under the
`
`broadest reasonable construction, “set on” means “held in place by.”
`
`The claim language supports Patent Owner’s proposed construction. In both
`
`claims 1 and 8, the “frame” has a “run-through hole.” Both claims also recite that
`
`a heating wire coil is “wound on” part of the porous component and “in the air
`
`flow path” that is flowing “through the run-through hole to an outlet.” Thus, in
`
`both claims 1 and 8, the frame holds at least part of the porous component (the part
`
`with the heating wire coil) in place, keeping it “in the air flow path.” The claims
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent No. 9,326,548
`recite that the porous component is set on a “frame.” The use of the term “frame”
`
`confirms that the porous component must be held in place by the frame.
`
`The ’548 Patent’s specification further confirms that “set on” means “held in
`
`place by.” The specification uses the term “set on” twice. First, describing Figures
`
`17 and 18, the specification states that porous component 81 is “set on” frame 82.
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:61-66. The picture shows the porous component set on the frame,
`
`which holds the porous component in place. Ex. 1001, Figs. 17, 18. The porous
`
`component 81 (dark blue) set on frame 82 (light blue) is depicted below in
`
`annotated figures 17 and 18.
`
`
`
`Second, the specification describes an embodiment where “a restriction
`
`component (10), which is detachable, is set on one end of the porous component
`
`(81).” Ex. 1001, 5:17-19. Synonymously, the specification says the restriction
`
`component is “installed on” the porous component to control how much air flows
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent No. 9,326,548
`through the atomizer. Id., 5:17-25. The restriction component 10 and restriction
`
`hole 101 are shown in Figure 10 below.
`
`
`
`The extrinsic evidence also supports Patent Owner’s construction.
`
`Dictionaries confirm that “set on” means “held in place by.” Petitioner cites
`
`Merriam-Webster, which defines “set” as meaning “to place with care or deliberate
`
`purpose and with relative stability,” such as to set “a stone on the grave.” Ex. 1017
`
`at 1138. Random House defines “set” as “23. to fix or mount (a gem or the like) in
`
`a frame or setting.” Ex. 2021 at 1751. This is precisely what is shown and
`
`described above in the ’548 Patent. See also id. (“1. to put (something or
`
`someone) in a particular place . . . 6. to put in the proper position.”); Ex. 1017 (“15:
`
`to fix in a desired position . . . . 17[b]: to fix (as a precious stone) in a border of
`
`metal : place in a setting . . . 23a: to fix firmly”); Ex. 2020 at 1559 (“be situated or
`
`fixed in a specified place or position . . . mount (a precious stone) in something”).
`
`Thus, the term “set on” means “held in place by” under the broadest reasonable
`
`construction standard. And Patent Owner’s expert agrees. Ex. 2030 ¶¶20-29.
`-18-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent No. 9,326,548
`Petitioner’s proposed construction “sits on” ignores the context of the claims
`
`and the specification. Specifically, Petitioner ignores the disclosed embodiments,
`
`and that the claim expressly recites that the porous component is set on a “frame”
`
`and is held in a specified location relative to the airflow path through the run
`
`through hole in the frame. Regardless, as explained below, the proposed prior art
`
`combination does not teach the “set on” limitation under its broadest reasonable
`
`meaning or under Petitioner’s proposed construction.
`
`V.
`
`PETITIONER HAS NOT MET ITS BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE
`THAT CLAIMS 1-14 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103, a patent may not be obtained