Paper No. ___
`Filed October 19, 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. IPR2017-01641
`Patent No. 9,370,205
`
`
`______________________________________________________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01641
`Patent No. 9,370,205
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................. 6
`A.
`ʼ205 Patent Priority Claim .................................................................... 6
`B.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in The Art ..................................................... 7
`C.
`ʼ205 Patent Claims ............................................................................... 8
`D.
`Claim Construction .............................................................................. 8
`1.
`“liquid supply” ........................................................................... 9
`The Petition Fails to Show a Reasonable Likelihood That the
`ʼ205 Patent Claims Are Unpatentable ................................................ 12
`1.
`Requirements for a priority claim ............................................ 13
`2.
`The ʼ576 PCT Application provides written description
`for the claims of the ʼ205 Patent .............................................. 15
`a.
`The ’576 PCT Application provides explicit
`written description for a vaporizing device
`comprising “a liquid supply” or “liquid absorbed
`in fiber material” in a tubular atomizer housing, as
`well as for a vaporizing device comprising no
`liquid .............................................................................. 15
`The ᾿205 Patent claims do not need to recite every
`feature disclosed in the ᾿576 PCT Application ............. 19
`A patent application’s written description is not
`limited to one embodiment where the specification
`expressly discloses other embodiments ......................... 28
`The term “the invention” does not limit the
`disclosure of the ’576 PCT Application to devices
`comprising a separate cigarette bottle assembly ........... 33
`Applicant’s amendments to the specification of the
`ʼ521 Application do not limit the scope of the ʼ576
`PCT Application’s written description .......................... 37
`Disclosure of a species can establish written
`description for an entire genus....................................... 44
`-ii-
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01641
`Patent No. 9,370,205
`
`g.
`
`Statements made during prosecution of an
`unrelated application about an unrelated reference
`do not limit the ʼ576 PCT Application’s written
`description ...................................................................... 51
`III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 53
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ...................................................................... 54
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01641
`Patent No. 9,370,205
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 33, 34
`
`Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc,
`601 F.3d 133 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ...................................................................... 41, 42
`
`Apple Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00457 , Paper 9, Decision Denying Institution of Inter
`Partes Review (P.T.A.B. June 30, 2015) (Ex. 2012) ................................... 21, 39
`
`Ariad Pharms, Inc v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) .................................................... 46, 47
`
`Bilstad v. Wakalopulos,
`386 F.3d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..................................................44, 45, 47, 48, 50
`
`Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. Renishaw PLC,
`945 F.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .......................................................................... 21
`
`Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp.,
`188 F. App’x 984 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..............................................................passim
`
`Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`93 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................ 30
`
`Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`355 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................ 19, 20, 34, 36
`
`Greene’s Energy Group, LLC v. Oil States Energy Services, LLC,
`IPR2014-00364, 2015 WL 2089119 (P.T.A.B. May 1, 2015) ........................... 20
`
`Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.,
`645 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................ 28, 45, 46, 50
`
`ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys.,
`558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 27, 28
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01641
`Patent No. 9,370,205
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 51
`
`Research Corp. Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...................................................................... 43, 44
`
`Revolution Eyewear, Inc. v. Aspex Eyewear, Inc.,
`563 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................... 3, 20, 23, 33
`
`Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp.,
`274 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 47
`
`Rivera v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`857 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................. 25, 26, 27
`
`ScriptPro LLC v. Innovation Assoc. Inc.,
`833 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................20, 28, 29, 31, 37
`
`SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am.,
`775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ...................................................................... 3, 30
`
`Streck, Inc. v. Research & Diagnostic Sys. Inc.,
`665 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 47
`
`Ventana Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biogenex Labs, Inc.,
`473 F.3d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 20
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................................................ 13, 21, 39
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120 .................................................................................................. 12, 14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 371 ........................................................................................................ 14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 371(c)(1)-(5) ......................................................................................... 14
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.73 ....................................................................................................... 40
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01641
`
`Case IPR2017-01641
`Patent No. 9,370,205
`Patent No. 9,370,205
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.495 ..................................................................................................... 14
`37 CPR. § 1.495 ..................................................................................................... 14
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 8
`37 CPR. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 8
`
`M.P.E.P. § 608.01(d)................................................................................................ 40
`M.P.E.P. § 608.01(d) ................................................................................................ 40
`
`M.P.E.P. § 1893.03(b) ............................................................................................... 7
`M.P.E.P. § 1893.03(b) ............................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`-vi-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01641
`Patent No. 9,370,205
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibits
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Pat. No. 9,370,205
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`File History Excerpts for U.S. Pat. No. 9,370,205
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Certified translation of WO 2007/131450 (with Chinese original
`included)
`
`Ex. 1004 U.S. Pat. No. 8,375,957
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`File History Excerpts for U.S. Pat. No. 8,375,957
`
`Ex. 1006 Declaration of Robert Sturges, Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Nu Mark, LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-01642 (PTAB,
`filed August 18, 2016), Paper No. 7
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Translation of PCT/CN2007/001576
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, No.
`1:16-cv-01258 (M.D.N.C.), Document 1
`
`Ex. 1010 U.S. Pat. No. 8,689,805
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 8,689,805
`
`Ex. 1012 U.S. Pat. No. 8,720,320
`
`Patent Owner’s Exhibits
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 2001 Declaration of Richard Meyst (“Meyst Decl.”)
`
`Ex. 2002
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.,
`IPR2017-01119, Paper 10, Decision Denying Inter Partes Review
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2017)
`
`
`
`
`-vii-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01641
`Patent No. 9,370,205
`
`Ex. 2003
`
`Ex. 2004
`
`Ex. 2005
`
`Ex. 2006
`
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-01438, Paper13,
`Decision Denying Inter Partes Review (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2016)
`
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-01283, Paper12,
`Decision Denying Inter Partes Review (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2016)
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2017-
`01859, Paper 8, Decision Denying Inter Partes Review (P.T.A.B.
`Mar. 13, 2017)
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2017-
`01180, Paper 2, Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`8,893,726 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 4, 2017)
`
`Ex. 2007
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2017-
`01318, Paper 2, Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`9,326,549 (P.T.A.B. May 1, 2017)
`Ex. 2008 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2003) (selected
`pages)
`
`Ex. 2009
`
`Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (2nd ed. 2001)
`(selected pages)
`
`Ex. 2010
`
`NJOY Inc. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2014-01300, Paper 8,
`Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review (P.T.A.B. Feb.
`19, 2015)
`
`Ex. 2011
`
`Claim Chart – Written Description in Priority Application for U.S.
`Patent No. 9,370,205 Claims
`
`Ex. 2012
`
`Apple Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., IPR2015-00457, Paper
`9, Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, (P.T.A.B.
`June 30, 2015)
`
`Ex. 2013 Declaration of Amy Candeloro
`
`Ex. 2014
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-
`01532, Paper 9, Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes
`Review (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2017)
`
`
`
`
`-viii-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01641
`Patent No. 9,370,205
`
`Ex. 2015
`
`Ex. 2016
`
`Ex. 2017
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-
`01532, Paper 10, Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing (P.T.A.B. Feb.
`28, 2017)
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-
`01532, Paper 12, Decision Denying Petitioner’s Request for
`Rehearing (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2017)
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-
`01691, Paper 12, Decision Denying Petitioner’s Request for
`Rehearing (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2017)
`
`Ex. 2018
`
`Certified Translation of CN 200620090805
`
`Ex. 2019
`
`State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China,
`How Many Types of Industrial Property Rights Exist in China?,
`http://english.sipo.gov.cn/FAQ/200904/t20090408_449727.html
`(last visited July 12, 2017)
`
`Ex. 2020 U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2009/0188490
`
`Ex. 2021
`
`Bilstad v. Wakalopulos, Patent Interference No. 104,832, Paper 93,
`Decision - Interlocutory Motions (B.P.A.I. Apr. 13, 2005)
`
`Ex. 2022
`
`Ex. 2023
`
`Ex. 2024
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-
`01270, Exhibit 1009, Declaration of Dr. Robert H. Sturges (selected
`pages)
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2017-
`01642, Exhibit 1004, Declaration of Dr. Robert H. Sturges (selected
`pages)
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2017-
`01119, Paper 2, Petition for Inter Partes Review (P.T.A.B. Apr. 4,
`2017)
`
`Ex. 2025
`
`Excerpts from File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,375,957
`
`
`
`
`-ix-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01641
`Patent No. 9,370,205
`
`Ex. 2026
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2017-
`01120, Ex. 1008, Declaration of Dr. Robert H. Sturges (P.T.A.B.
`Apr. 4, 2017) (selected pages)
`
`
`
`
`
`-x-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01641
`Patent No. 9,370,205
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The issue in this proceeding is straightforward: if PCT Application No.
`
`PCT/2007/001576 (“ʼ576 PCT Application”) provides written description for the
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,370,205 (“ʼ205 Patent”) claims, then those claims are entitled to
`
`priority to the ʼ576 PCT Application, and the publication of the ’576 PCT
`
`Application, WO 2007/131450 (“Hon ʼ450”), is not prior art. Petitioner does not
`
`dispute that the ’576 PCT Application describes the limitations actually recited in
`
`the claims. Instead, Petitioner asserts that the ’576 PCT Application is limited to a
`
`particular embodiment, a cigarette bottle assembly, such that the ’576 PCT
`
`Application fails to describe any claim not reciting a limitation to that embodiment.
`
`But Petitioner’s attempt to insert limitations into claims via the written description
`
`requirement should be rejected and the Petition should be denied.
`
`The independent claims of the ʼ205 Patent recite a vaporizing device
`
`including a “liquid supply” (claim 1) or “liquid absorbed in fiber material” (claim
`
`16) inside a tubular atomizer assembly housing, or do not require liquid at all
`
`(claim 9). Petitioner does not dispute that the ʼ576 PCT Application describes a
`
`liquid supply and liquid absorbed in fiber material, but asserts that the ʼ576 PCT
`
`Application’s written description is limited to vaporizing devices that include a
`
`separate “cigarette bottle assembly.” Petition at 2-4, 56-57. So, since the ʼ205
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01641
`Patent No. 9,370,205
`
`Patent claims recite no such limitation, and in the case of claim 9 do not recite
`
`liquid at all, Petitioner asserts that the ʼ576 PCT Application does not meet the
`
`written description requirement for the “bottle-less” claims of the ʼ205 Patent.
`
`Petition at 2-4, 56-57.
`
`This is not the first time Petitioner has attempted to limit Fontem’s patents to
`
`a “bottle.” For a different patent family, Petitioner’s attempts have been rejected
`
`by the Board in three other IPR proceedings, including one filed by Petitioner.1
`
`Specifically, in IPR2016-01438, IPR2016-01283, and IPR2016-01859 (filed by
`
`Petitioner), the petitioners argued that the parent application does not provide
`
`written description support for “bottle-less” claims.2 See Ex. 2003 at 11-12; Ex.
`
`2004 at 10-11; Ex. 2005 at 13, 16. But the Board denied institution in all three
`
`
`
`In addition, the Board recently denied IPR2017-01119 under 35 U.S.C. §
`
` 1
`
`
`
`325(d) in which Petitioner asserted that the “bottle-less” claims lacked written
`
`description. See Ex. 2024 at 6; Ex. 2002 at 5.
`
`2
`
`Petitioner requests the Board to consider these same arguments in two
`
`pending petitions in IPR2017-01180 and IPR2017-01318. See, e.g., Ex. 2006 at 5-
`
`6; Ex. 2007 at 5-6.
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01641
`Patent No. 9,370,205
`
`IPRs and found that the “bottle-less” claims were supported by the description in
`
`the priority application. See Ex. 2003 at 12; Ex. 2004 at 11-12; Ex. 2005 at 16-17.
`
`Indeed, the Federal Circuit has rejected the argument that a patent’s claims
`
`should be limited to preferred embodiments, whether through claim construction or
`
`written description. In SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of America, the Federal
`
`Circuit explained that “[i]f everything in the specification were required to be read
`
`into the claims, or if structural claims were to be limited to devices operated
`
`precisely as a specification-described embodiment is operated, there would be no
`
`need for claims.” 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The court continued,
`
`“[n]or could an applicant, regardless of the prior art, claim more broadly than that
`
`embodiment. Nor would a basis remain for the statutory necessity that an applicant
`
`conclude his specification with ‘claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
`
`claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.’” Id.
`
`Accordingly, the Federal Circuit has rejected attempts like Petitioner’s here
`
`to insert limitations into claims via the written description requirement. For
`
`example, the Federal Circuit applied the reasoning from the court’s “claim
`
`construction cases” to reject the assertion that a claim must include features from
`
`the specification to address two separate problems identified in the prior art.
`
`Revolution Eyewear, Inc. v. Aspex Eyewear, Inc., 563 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir.
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01641
`Patent No. 9,370,205
`
`2009). The court found that “it is unnecessary for each and every claim in the
`
`patent to address both problems.” Id. In other words, the applicant was free to
`
`claim either “invention” in a single claim, and that claim was not invalid under the
`
`written description requirement. As the court summarized, “[i]nventors can frame
`
`their claims to address one problem or several, and the written description
`
`requirement will be satisfied as to each claim as long as the description conveys
`
`that the inventor was in possession of the invention recited in that claim.” Id. See
`
`also Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 188 F. App’x 984, 990 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2006) (“when a patent includes two inventive components, particular claims may
`
`be directed to one of those inventive components and not to the other”). There is
`
`no requirement that every patent claim must address every problem identified or
`
`every inventive feature disclosed in the specification.
`
`Here, the ʼ576 PCT Application literally describes what is claimed, namely a
`
`vaporizing device comprising a liquid supply located within a tubular atomizer
`
`housing (claims 1-8), liquid absorbed in a fiber material located within a tubular
`
`atomizer assembly housing (claims 16-22), fiber containing cigarette liquid in
`
`contact with the atomizer (claim 14), or no liquid at all (claims 9-13, 15). For
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01641
`Patent No. 9,370,205
`example, Fig. 5A of the ʼ576 PCT Application,3 below (annotations added), shows
`
`a liquid supply/fiber material located inside the tubular atomizer assembly housing
`
`in the assembled vaporizing device. See Ex. 1008 at 6-7.
`
`Petitioner’s attempt to write unclaimed features and benefits disclosed in the
`
`ʼ576 PCT Application into the claims through the written description requirement
`
`
`
`should be rejected.
`
`
`The ’576 PCT Application figures reproduced herein are from Hon ’450
`
` 3
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1003 at 33-42), the publication of the ’576 PCT Application, rather than from
`
`the ’576 PCT Application. The PCT publication figures are substantively identical
`
`to the original ’576 PCT Application figures, but are of higher quality.
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01641
`Patent No. 9,370,205
`
`Because the ʼ576 PCT Application provides written description for the
`
`limitations actually recited in the claims of the ʼ205 Patent, Hon ʼ450 is not prior
`
`art against the ʼ205 Patent. Accordingly, the Petition should be denied.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A.
`
`ʼ205 Patent Priority Claim
`
`The ʼ205 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Appl. No. 13/754,521 (“ʼ521
`
`Application”), filed January 30, 2013. The ʼ521 Application is a continuation of
`
`U.S. Patent Appl. No. 12/226,819 (“ʼ819 Application”), which in turn is a national
`
`phase entry of the ʼ576 PCT Application (Ex. 1008), filed May 15, 2007, and
`
`published as Hon ʼ4504 (Ex. 1003 at 24-42) on November 22, 2007. The ʼ819
`
`
`The ’819 Application is a national stage entry of the ’576 PCT Application
`
` 4
`
`
`
`in the United States. Ex. 1008. Here, Patent Owner cites to the translation of the
`
`’576 PCT Application (Ex. 1008) filed with the Patent Office as the ’819
`
`Application. In contrast, Petitioner relies on and cites to a new translation of Hon
`
`’450 as a “proxy” for the disclosure of the ʼ576 PCT Application. Petition at 1 n1.
`
`See Ex. 1003 at 1-20. Petitioner states that the there are no material differences for
`
`the issues in this matter between its new translation of Hon ’450 (Ex. 1003) and the
`
`translation of the ’576 PCT Application (Ex. 1008). Petition at 1 n1.
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01641
`Patent No. 9,370,205
`
`Application issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,375,957 (“ʼ957 Patent”). The ʼ576, ʼ819,
`
`and ʼ521 Applications claim priority to Chinese Patent Appl. No. 200620090805.0
`
`(“ʼ805 Application”), filed May 16, 2006. Because the ʼ819 Application is a
`
`national phase entry of the ʼ576 PCT Application, the actual filing date of the ʼ819
`
`Application is the filing date of the ʼ576 PCT Application, i.e., May 15, 2007.
`
`M.P.E.P. § 1893.03(b).
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in The Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) with respect to the ʼ205
`
`Patent has a mechanical or electrical engineering degree, industrial design degree,
`
`or a similar technical degree or equivalent work experience, and 5–10 years of
`
`working in the area of electromechanical devices, including medical devices. Ex.
`
`2001 ¶ 18. Petitioner asserts that a POSITA has “at least the equivalent of a
`
`Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or biomedical
`
`engineering or related fields, along with approximately 5 years of experience
`
`designing electromechnical devices, including those involving circuits, fluid
`
`mechanics and heat transfer.” Petition at 15-16; Ex. 1006 ¶ 21. Under either
`
`definition, Petitioner has failed to meet its burden. Ex. 2001 ¶ 19.
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01641
`Patent No. 9,370,205
`
`C.
`
`ʼ205 Patent Claims
`
`The three independent claims of the ʼ205 Patent (claims 1, 9, and 16) recite a
`
`“vaporizing device” comprising a “battery assembly” within a “battery assembly
`
`housing” and an “atomizer assembly” within a “tubular atomizer assembly
`
`housing.” The “battery assembly” comprises a battery, and the “atomizer
`
`assembly” comprises an “atomizer” that includes a “heater wire coil” wound
`
`around (claim 1) or on (claim 9) a “porous body” or “a heater wire wound in a coil
`
`on a part of the porous body which is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the
`
`tubular atomizer assembly housing” (claim 16).
`
`Claims 1 and 16 further recite a “liquid supply” or a “liquid absorbed in
`
`fiber material[,]” respectively, in the atomizer assembly housing. Claim 9 does not
`
`recite any limitations relating to liquid.
`
`D. 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
`
`asserts that none of the claim terms need to be interpreted. Petition at 16. Patent
`
`Owner asserts that the only claim term that is relevant to the Petition is the term
`
`“liquid supply.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01641
`Patent No. 9,370,205
`
`1.
`
`“liquid supply”
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`
`“a store for liquid”
`
`No construction provided
`
`Independent claim 1 recites “an atomizer assembly comprising an atomizer
`
`and a liquid supply in a tubular atomizer assembly housing” (emphasis added).
`
`The term “liquid supply” means “a store for liquid.”
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction is supported by the ʼ205 Patent
`
`specification. For example, the ʼ205 Patent discloses a “cigarette liquid bottle
`
`(401)” and “fiber (402) containing cigarette liquid. . . .” Ex. 1001 at 2:48-49, Figs.
`
`4, 5A, 5B. In certain embodiments, fiber 402 is “made of polypropylene fiber or
`
`nylon fiber to absorb cigarette liquid.” Ex. 1001 at 3:39-40. When the device is
`
`fully assembled, fiber 402 is positioned against atomizer 307 inside the atomizer
`
`assembly housing, allowing liquid from the fiber to soak micro-porous ceramics
`
`inside the atomizer. Ex. 1001 at 2:49-52, 3:6-16, 4:14-24. Thus, the cigarette
`
`liquid bottle or the fiber provide a store for liquid for vaporization by the atomizer.
`
`Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 23-24.
`
`Extrinsic evidence also supports Patent Owner’s construction of “liquid
`
`supply” as “a store for liquid” that has a physical structure. Merriam Webster’s
`
`Collegiate Dictionary defines “supply” as “something that maintains or constitutes
`
`-9-
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01641
`Patent No. 9,370,205
`
`a supply.” Ex. 2008 at 1256. Random House Webster’s Dictionary defines
`
`“supply” to mean a “store” or “provision.” Ex. 2009 at 1912. And Patent Owner’s
`
`expert agrees that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “liquid supply” is “a
`
`store for liquid.” Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 23-25, 29.
`
`The term “liquid supply” has been construed by the Board in IPR
`
`proceedings for other Fontem patents that are unrelated to the ’205 Patent: U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 9,326,549 (“’549 Patent”), 8,393,331 (“’331 Patent”), and 8,490,628
`
`(“’628 Patent”). The Board has provided three different constructions for the term
`
`“liquid supply”: (1) a store for liquid (IPR2016-01859), (2) the liquid itself and
`
`potentially other things in the liquid (IPR2016-01438 and IPR2016-01283), and (3)
`
`a part of the recited electronic cigarette that includes one or more components that
`
`supply liquid to the atomizer (IPR2014-01300). See Ex. 2005 at 10 (construing
`
`“liquid supply” for the ’549 Patent as “a store for liquid”); Ex. 2003 at 11
`
`(construing “liquid supply” for the ’331 Patent as “not limited to the liquid itself,
`
`and may include other things in the liquid”); Ex. 2004 at 10 (construing “liquid
`
`supply” for the ’628 Patent as “not limited to the liquid itself, and may include
`
`other things in the liquid”); Ex. 2010 at 10 (construing “liquid supply” for the ’628
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01641
`Patent No. 9,370,205
`
`Patent as “a part of the recited electronic cigarette that includes one or more
`
`components that supply liquid to the atomizer”).5
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “liquid supply” conforms with the
`
`Board’s most recent decision construing that term. The Board held that the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of “liquid supply” is “a store for liquid.” Ex.
`
`2005 at 10.
`
`In view of the claims and the specification of the ʼ205 Patent and the
`
`extrinsic evidence regarding the meaning of the term “supply,” the broadest
`
`reasonable construction of “liquid supply” is “a store for liquid.” Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 23-
`
`29.
`
`Regardless of what construction of the term “liquid supply” is adopted by
`
`the Board, Patent Owner’s construction or one of the Board’s other two
`
`constructions, the result is the same—the claims of the ’205 Patent are supported
`
`by the ’576 PCT Application. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 46, 67.
`
`
`
`The Board acknowledged that its initial construction of “liquid supply” in
`
` 5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01300 was “preliminary” and “without the benefit of proposed
`
`constructions from either party in that proceeding.” Ex. 2004 at 6 (discussing Ex.
`
`2010).
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01641
`Patent No. 9,370,205
`
`E.
`
`The Petition Fails to Show a Reasonable Likelihood That the
`ʼ205 Patent Claims Are Unpatentable
`
`Petitioner proposes one ground of unpatentability, namely that claims 1-22
`
`of the ʼ205 Patent are unpatentable as anticipated by Hon ʼ450. Petition at 14-15.
`
`In summary, Petitioner asserts that the disclosure of one of the ʼ205 Patent’s
`
`priority applications, the ʼ576 PCT Application, does not meet the written
`
`description requirement for claims 1-22 of the ʼ205 Patent. Based on that
`
`assertion, Petitioner argues that the publication of that same priority application,
`
`Hon ʼ450, anticipates the ʼ205 Patent claims. Petition at 14-15.
`
`But, for the reasons set forth herein, the ʼ205 Patent claims are described by
`
`and entitled to priority to the ʼ576 PCT Application. First, the ʼ576 PCT
`
`Application provides literal support for every limitation recited in the ʼ205 Patent
`
`claims. See Ex. 2011; Ex. 2001 ¶ 67; see also Petition at 16-41. Second,
`
`Petitioner’s assertion that the ʼ205 Patent claims must include additional unclaimed
`
`features disclosed in the ʼ576 PCT Application, namely a separate “cigarette bottle
`
`assembly,” is contrary to law.
`
`Since the ʼ576 PCT Application provides written description for the ʼ205
`
`Patent claims, the claims of the ʼ205 Patent are entitled to the benefit of the filing
`
`date of the ʼ576 PCT Application and cannot be anticipated by Hon ʼ450.
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01641
`Patent No. 9,370,205
`
`1.
`
`Requirements for a priority claim
`
`The effective filing date for a patent claim is the filing date of an earlier filed
`
`patent application if four conditions are met. 35 U.S.C. § 120. First, the earlier
`
`filed patent application must have at least one inventor in common with the later
`
`filed patent application. 35 U.S.C. § 120 (pre-AIA). Second, the patent must
`
`contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application. Id. Third, the later filed
`
`application must be “filed before the patenting or abandonment of . . . the first
`
`application or on an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of
`
`the first application.” Id. Fourth, the claim must be described and enabled under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 by the earlier filed patent application. Id. The ʼ205 Patent claims
`
`are entitled to priority of the filing date of the ’819 Application, which is the U.S.
`
`national stage entry of the ’576 PCT Application (cited herein as ’576 PCT
`
`Application, Ex. 1008) because all of the above conditions are satisfied.
`
`First, the earlier filed patent application has the same inventor as the later
`
`filed patent application. Lik Hon, the sole inventor of the ʼ205 Patent, is also the
`
`sole inventor of the ʼ576 PCT Application. Ex. 1001 at Title Page; Ex. 1004 at
`
`Title Page.
`
`Second, the ʼ205 Patent includes a specific reference to the earlier filed
`
`application, specifically to the ʼ576 PCT Application. Ex. 1001 at 1:6-13.
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01641
`Patent No. 9,370,205
`
`Third, the ʼ521 Application which issued as the ʼ205 Patent was filed on
`
`January 30, 2013, before the February 19, 2013 issue of the ʼ819 Application. Ex.
`
`1001 at Title Page; Ex. 1004 at Title Page.
`
`Fourth, the ʼ576 PCT Application provides written description for all of the
`
`limitations of the ʼ205 Patent claims. This is illustrated in the arguments set forth
`
`below, and in the claim chart provided as Exhibit 2011. Ex. 2001 ¶ 67.
`
`Additionally, the ’819 Application meets the following conditions that are
`
`required for national stage commencement: (1) payment of the national fee, (2) a
`
`copy of the international application and an English language translation provided
`
`to the Patent Office, (3) amendments, if any, to the claims in the international
`
`application provided to the Patent Office, (4) an oath or declaration of the inventor
`
`provided to the Patent Office, and (5) an English translation of any annexes to the
`
`international report if applicable provided to the Patent Office. 35 U.S.C. §
`
`371(c)(1)-(5). Specifically, (1) Applicant paid the national fee (Ex. 2025 at 26-27,
`
`97), (2) a copy of the international application and an English language translation
`
`was provided to the Patent Office (id. at 1-19, 37-57, 97), (3) no amendments were
`
`made to the international application, (4) an oath of the inventor Lik Hon was
`
`submitted to the Patent Office (id. at 90-92, 97), and (5) there were no annexes to
`
`the international preliminary examination repo