`
`
`
`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
`
`U.S. Patent No.: 9,456,632
`Issue Date: October 4, 2016
`Title: Electronic Cigarette
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2018-00634
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,456,632 PURSUANT TO
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... iv 
`EXHIBITS LIST ....................................................................................................... vi 
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 1 
`A. 
`Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................ 1 
`B. 
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 2 
`1. 
`Related Proceedings Before the Board ....................................... 3 
`2. 
`Pending Patent Applications ....................................................... 5 
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel ................................................................... 6 
`C. 
`Service Information ............................................................................... 6 
`D. 
`III.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A) ................... 7 
`IV. 
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND STATEMENT
`OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................... 7 
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 12 
`VI.  STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE RELIEF
`REQUESTED ................................................................................................ 12 
`A. 
`Background Information for the 632 Patent ........................................ 12 
`B. 
`Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (“PHOSITA”) ..................... 14 
`C. 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 14 
`D.  Description of the Prior Art ................................................................. 15 
`1. 
`Brooks (Ex. 1003) ..................................................................... 15 
`2.  Whittemore (Ex. 1004) ............................................................. 22 
`There Is a Reasonable Likelihood That Claims 14-16
`And 18 Are Obvious Over the Combination of Brooks
`and Whittemore ................................................................................... 24 
`1. 
`A PHOSITA Would Have Been Motivated To
`Combine Brooks and Whittemore ............................................ 24 
`
`V. 
`
`E. 
`
`i
`
`
`

`

`
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`c. 
`
`d. 
`
`e. 
`
`Claim 14 Is Obvious ................................................................. 29 
`a. 
`“a vaporizing device” ..................................................... 29 
`b. 
`“a battery assembly and an atomizer
`assembly within an elongated cylindrical
`housing with the battery assembly
`electrically connected to the atomizer
`assembly” ........................................................................ 30 
`“a liquid storage component in the elongated
`cylindrical housing” ........................................................ 41 
`“with the elongated cylindrical housing
`having one or more air inlets” ........................................ 45 
`“the atomizer assembly including an
`atomization chamber having a front end
`opening and a back end opening to allow air
`to flow into the atomization chamber from
`the front end opening and out from the back
`end opening” ................................................................... 48 
`“a heating wire coil wound on a porous
`component that is perpendicular to a
`longitudinal axis of the elongated cylindrical
`housing, with the heating wire coil in an air
`flow path between the front end opening and
`the back end opening of the atomization
`chamber” ......................................................................... 53 
`Claim 15 Is Obvious ................................................................. 64 
`a. 
`“with the atomization chamber having a
`uniform diameter along the length of the
`atomization chamber” ..................................................... 64 
`Claim 16 Is Obvious ................................................................. 70 
`a. 
`“with the heating wire coil having an outer
`diameter less than an inner diameter of the
`atomizing chamber” ........................................................ 70 
`Claim 18 Is Obvious ................................................................. 73 
`a. 
`“further including a restriction component
`between the hollow cylindrical component
`
`f. 
`
`ii
`
`
`

`

`
`
`and the at least one air inlet, with the
`restriction component having a restriction
`hole smaller than the open front end of the
`hollow cylindrical component” ...................................... 73 
`VII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 79 
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES 
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP,
`616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................................... 12, 19
`Cascades Canada ULC v. SCA Hygiene Prods AB,
`IPR2017-01921 (P.T.A.B., petition filed Aug. 7, 2017) ........................................ 8
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131, 579 U.S. ____ (2016) ................................................................ 14
`Donghee America, Inc. v. Plastic Omnium Advanced Innovation and
`Research,
`IPR2017-01654 (PTAB, petition filed June 21, 2017) .......................................... 9
`ICHL, LLC v. NEC Corp. of Am.,
`2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38942 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2010) ............................ 12, 18
`ICHL, LLC v. Sony Electronics,
`455 Fed. Appx. 978 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................... 12
`KSR Int’l v. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................. 28
`Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Mass. Inst. of Tech.,
`IPR2017-00249 (P.T.A.B. May 18, 2017) ............................................................. 9
`Macauto U.S.A. v. BOS GMBH & KG,
`IPR2012-00004 (PTAB, petition filed Sept. 16, 2012) ........................................ 10
`Micron Tech., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill.,
`IPR2013-00005 (PTAB, petition filed Oct. 2, 2012) ............................................. 9
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC,
`IPR2015-00483 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 2015) ............................................................... 9
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 21
`Samsung Elec. Am. v. Uniloc,
`IPR2017-01801 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2018).............................................................. 10
`STATUTES 
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................................... 7
`
`iv
`
`
`

`

`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ......................................................................................................1, 7
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ..................................................................................................... 8
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ..................................................................................... 1, 2, 12
`REGULATIONS 
`37 C.F.R. § 42 ................................................................................................. 1, 7, 14
`RULES 
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
`(9th ed. Rev. 8, Jan. 2018) .................................................................................... 29
`Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) (codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42) .............. 2, 15
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`

`

`
`
`EXHIBITS LIST
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001 U.S. Pat. No. 9,456,632 (“632 patent”)
`1002 Expert Declaration of Robert Sturges, Ph.D.
`1003 U.S. Pat. No. 4,947,874 (“Brooks”)
`1004 U.S. Pat. No. 2,057,353 (“Whittemore”)
`1005 U.S. Pat. No. 5,894,841 (“Voges”)
`1006 Reserved
`1007 Reserved
`1008 U.S. Pat. No. 6,155,268 to Takeuchi
`1009 Chinese Pat. No. 2719043Y (“Hon 043”) (including certified
`translation)
`1010 U.S. Pat. No. 5,743,251 (“Howell”)
`1011 U.S. Pat. No. 2,461,664 (“Smith”)
`1012 U.S. Pat. No. 3,234,357 (“Seuthe”)
`1013 Contact, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-
`Webster, Inc. (11th ed. 2003)
`1014 U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2004/0234916 (“Hale”)
`1015 U.S. Pat. No. 4,922,901 (“Brooks 901”)
`1016 U.S. Pat. No. 1,084,304 (“Vaughn”)
`Institution Decision dated Feb. 7, 2017 (Paper 9), R.J. Reynolds
`Vapor Co. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-01532
`(P.T.A.B., petition filed Aug. 5, 2016)
`Institution Decision dated Mar. 6, 2017 (Paper 9), R.J. Reynolds
`Vapor Co. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-01691
`(P.T.A.B., petition filed Aug. 30, 2016)
`1019 U.S. Pat. No. 3,292,635 (“Kolodny”)
`1020 U.S. Pat. No. 3,685,521 (“Dock”)
`1021 Reserved
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`vi
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1022
`
`Institution Decision dated Feb. 5, 2018 (Paper 9), Cascades
`Canada ULC v. SCA Hygiene Prods AB, IPR2017-01921
`(P.T.A.B., petition filed Aug. 7, 2017)
`Institution Decision dated Jan. 19, 2018 (Paper 9), Donghee
`America, Inc. v. Plastic Omnium Advanced Innovation and
`Research, IPR2017-01654 (P.T.A.B., petition filed June 21,
`2017)
`Institution Decision dated May 18, 2017 (Paper 9), Limelight
`Networks, Inc. v. Mass. Inst. of Tech., IPR2017-00249 (P.T.A.B.,
`petition filed Nov. 11, 2016)
`Institution Decision dated July 15, 2015 (Paper 10), Microsoft
`Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC, IPR2015-00483
`(P.T.A.B., petition filed Dec. 23, 2014)
`Institution Decision dated Mar. 13, 2013 (Paper 19), Micron
`Tech., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill., IPR2013-00005
`(P.T.A.B., petition filed Oct. 2, 2012)
`Institution Decision dated Jan. 24, 2013 (Paper 18), Macauto
`U.S.A. v. BOS GMBH & KG, IPR2012-00004 (P.T.A.B., petition
`filed Sept. 16, 2012)
`Institution Decision dated Feb. 6, 2018 (Paper 8), Samsung
`Elecs. Am. v. Uniloc, IPR2017-01801 (P.T.A.B., petition filed
`July 20, 2017)
`Institution Decision dated Jan. 4, 2017 (Paper 11), R.J. Reynolds
`Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-01270
`(P.T.A.B., petition filed July 2, 2016)
`1030 U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0016550 (“Katase”)
`1031 Reserved
`1032 Reserved
`1033 U.S. Pat. No. 4,941,486 (“Dube”)
`1034 U.S. Pat. No. 7,337,782 (“Thompson”)
`1035 Declaration of Kyle E. Yarberry
`1036 WO00/28843 (“Pienemann”)
`1037 Certified Translation of WO00/28843
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`vii
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42, R.J. Reynolds Vapor
`
`Company (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of
`
`claims 14-16 and 18 of U.S. Pat. No. 9,456,632 to Lik Hon, titled “Electronic
`
`Cigarette” (“632 patent,” Ex. 1001). According to USPTO records, Fontem
`
`Holdings 1 B.V. is the patent owner (“PO”).
`
`This Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that claims 14-16 and 18
`
`of the 632 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon the
`
`combination of U.S. Pat. No. 4,947,874 (“Brooks,” Ex. 1003) and U.S. Pat. No.
`
`2,057,353 (“Whittemore,” Ex. 1004).
`
`Petitioner authorizes the Patent and Trademark Office to charge Deposit
`
`Account No. 23-1925 for the fees set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition for
`
`IPR, and further authorizes payment of any additional fees to be charged to this
`
`Deposit Account.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that this petition be granted.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`For purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) only,
`
`Petitioner identifies the real-parties-in-interest as R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company,
`
`RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., RAI Innovations Company (the direct parent
`
`

`

`
`
`company of R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company and RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc.), R.J.
`
`Reynolds Tobacco Company, and RAI Services Company. Each of the foregoing
`
`entities is a direct or indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Reynolds American
`
`Inc. Although Petitioner does not believe that Reynolds American Inc. is a real
`
`party-in-interest (see Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759-60
`
`(Aug. 14, 2012) (codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42)), Reynolds American Inc. and its
`
`wholly owned subsidiaries (direct and indirect) nevertheless agree to be bound by
`
`any final written decision in these proceedings to the same extent as a real party-in-
`
`interest. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).
`
`B. Related Matters
`Petitioner is not aware of any reexamination certificates or pending
`
`prosecution concerning the 632 patent. Petitioner is a defendant in the following
`
`litigation involving the 632 patent: Fontem Ventures B.V. et al. v. R.J. Reynolds
`
`Vapor Company, No. 1:17-cv-00175 (M.D.N.C., filed March 1, 2017)
`
`(consolidated with lead case 1:16-cv-01255 (M.D.N.C.)). Fontem has alleged that
`
`Reynolds infringes claims 14-16 and 18 of the 632 patent, as well as certain claims
`
`of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,375,957; 8,863,752; 9,364,027; 9,339,062; 9,326,550;
`
`9,326,551; and 8,393,331. The above-referenced action is one of four related
`
`patent infringement actions filed by the Patent Owner against Petitioner. In the
`
`related action, Fontem Ventures B.V. et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, No.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`1:16-cv-01255 (M.D.N.C.) (filed as 2:16-cv-02286 (C.D. Cal., filed April 4,
`
`2016)), the Patent Owner has asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 8,365,742; 8,490,628;
`
`8,893,726; and 8,899,239. In another related action, Fontem Ventures B.V. et al. v.
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, No. 1:16-cv-01257 (M.D.N.C.) (filed as 2:16-cv-
`
`03049 (C.D. Cal., filed May 3, 2016)), the Patent Owner has asserted U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 9,326,548 and 9,326,549. In a third related action, Fontem Ventures B.V. et
`
`al. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, No. 1:16-cv-01258 (M.D.N.C.) (filed as 2:16-
`
`cv-04534 (C.D. Cal., filed June 22, 2016)), the Patent Owner has asserted U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,370,205. Petitioner has recently filed petitions for IPR against the
`
`742 patent (IPR2016-01268 and IPR2016-01532), the 726 patent (IPR2016-01270,
`
`IPR2017-01117 and IPR2017-01180), the 239 patent (IPR2016-01272 and
`
`IPR2017-01120), the 628 patent (IPR 2016-01527, IPR2017-01118 and IPR2017-
`
`01119), the 548 patent (IPR2016-01691 and IPR2016-01692), the 549 patent
`
`(IPR2016-01859, IPR2017-01318 and IPR2017-01319), and the 205 patent
`
`(IPR2017-01641 and IPR2017-01642).
`
`In addition to the foregoing, Petitioner is aware of the following additional
`
`matters involving or related to the 632 patent.
`
`Related Proceedings Before the Board
`
`1.
`The 632 patent was (or is) also the subject of, or related to, the following
`
`petitions for IPR:
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case Name
`CB Distributors, Inc. v. Fontem Holdings 1
`B.V. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,156,944) (terminated)
`VMR Products LLC Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.
`(U.S. Pat. No. 8,365,742) (denied)
`JT International S.A. v. Fontem Holdings 1
`B.V. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,365,742) (terminated)
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S.
`Pat. No. 8,365,742) (terminated)
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem
`Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,365,742) (on
`appeal)
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem
`Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,365,742)
`(denied)
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S.
`Pat. No. 9,326,548) (terminated)
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem
`Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,326,548)
`(denied)
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem
`Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,326,548)
`(pending)
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S.
`Pat. No. 9,326,548) (terminated)
`Logic Technology Development, LLC v.
`Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S. Pat. No.
`8,375,957) (denied)
`JT International S.A. v. Fontem Holdings 1
`B.V. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,375,957) (terminated)
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S.
`Pat. No. 8,375,957) (denied)
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S.
`Pat. No. 9,370,205) (terminated)
`
`Case Number Filed
`
`IPR2013-00387 Jun. 25, 2013
`
`IPR2015-00859 Mar. 10, 2015
`
`IPR2015-01587 Jul. 14, 2015
`
`IPR2016-01303 Jun. 28, 2016
`
`IPR2016-01268 Jul. 2, 2016
`
`IPR2016-01532 Aug. 5, 2016
`
`IPR2016-01641 Aug. 18, 2016
`
`IPR2016-01691 Aug. 30, 2016
`
`IPR2016-01692 Aug. 30, 2016
`
`IPR2017-00204 Nov. 4, 2016
`
`IPR2015-00098 Oct. 21, 2014
`
`IPR2015-01513 Jun. 26, 2015
`
`IPR2016-01307 Oct. 26, 2016
`
`IPR2016-01642 Aug. 18, 2016
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case Name
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S.
`Pat. No. 9,370,205) (terminated)
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem
`Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,370,205)
`(denied)
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem
`Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,370,205)
`(denied)
`NJOY, Inc. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S.
`Pat. No. 8,863,752) (denied)
`JT International S.A. v. Fontem Holdings 1
`B.V. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,863,752) (terminated)
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S.
`Pat. No. 8,863,752) (denied)
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S.
`Pat. No. 9,326,550) (terminated)
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S.
`Pat. No. 9,326,550) (terminated)
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S.
`Pat. No. 9,326,551) (terminated)
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S.
`Pat. No. 9,326,551) (terminated)
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S.
`Pat. No. 9,339,062) (terminated)
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S.
`Pat. No. 9,339,062) (terminated)
`
`
`Case Number Filed
`IPR2017-00257 Nov. 11, 2016
`
`IPR2017-01641 Jun. 23, 2017
`
`IPR2017-01642 Jun. 26, 2017
`
`IPR2015-01301 May 29, 2015
`
`IPR2015-01604 Jul. 20, 2015
`
`IPR2016-01309 Jun. 28, 2016
`
`IPR2016-01707 Aug. 31, 2016
`
`IPR2017-00205 Nov. 4, 2016
`
`IPR2016-01706 Aug. 31, 2016
`
`IPR2017-00342 Nov. 28, 2016
`
`IPR2016-01705 Aug. 31, 2016
`
`IPR2017-00303 Nov. 18, 2016
`
`Pending Patent Applications
`
`2.
`The following pending patent applications are related to the 632 patent:
`
`Serial No.
`U.S. Patent Application No. 15/167,690, which claims priority to
`the 632 patent
`
`Filed
`May 27, 2016
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Serial No.
`U.S. Patent Application No. 15/634,698, which claims priority to
`the same foreign application as does the 632 patent
`U.S. Patent Re-Examination No. 95/002,235, which claims
`priority to the same international application as does the 632
`patent
`
`Filed
`Jun. 27, 2017
`
`Sep. 13, 2012
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel
`
`Lead Counsel
`Ralph J. Gabric
`Reg. No. 34,167
`rgabric@brinksgilson.com
`
`
`
`
`Brinks Gilson & Lione
`Suite 3600, NBC Tower
`455 Cityfront Plaza Drive
`Chicago, IL 60611-5599
`T: 312-321-4200, F: 312-321-4299
`
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Robert Mallin
`Reg. No. 35,596
`rmallin@brinksgilson.com
`Yuezhong Feng
`Reg. No. 58,657
`yfeng@brinksgilson.com
`
`Brinks Gilson & Lione
`Suite 3600, NBC Tower
`455 Cityfront Plaza Drive
`Chicago, IL 60611-5599
`T: 312-321-4200, F: 312-321-4299
`
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`Please address all correspondence to the lead and backup counsel at the
`
`contact information above. Petitioner also consents to service by email at the
`
`above-designated email addresses (rgabric@brinksgilson.com,
`
`rmallin@brinksgilson.com, and yfeng@brinksgilson.com).
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A)
`Petitioner certifies that the 632 patent is available for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review on the
`
`ground identified herein.
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND STATEMENT OF THE
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), the precise relief requested is that the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) review and find unpatentable claims
`
`14-16 and 18 of the 632 patent based upon the following ground:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 14-16 and 18 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`obvious based on the combination of U.S. Pat. No. 4,947,874 (“Brooks,” Ex. 1003)
`
`in view of U.S. Pat. No. 2,057,353 (“Whittemore,” Ex. 1004).
`
`The 632 patent is to be reviewed under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`Brooks and Whittemore are prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b):
`
`Exhibit
`
`1004
`
`1003
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Publication Date
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,057,353 (“Whittemore”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,947,874 (“Brooks”)
`
`
`Oct. 13, 1936
`
`Aug. 14, 1990
`
`Petitioner’s detailed statement of the reasons for the relief requested is set
`
`forth below in the section titled “Statement of Reasons for the Relief Requested.”
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(c), copies of the exhibits are filed herewith.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`In addition, the Petition and the ground stated herein is supported by the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Robert Sturges (Ex. 1002).
`
`Statement of Non-Redundancy: This is the first and only petition relating
`
`to the 632 patent filed by Petitioner or, to Petitioner’s knowledge, by any party.
`
`The invalidity ground presented in this petition is not redundant of grounds
`
`previously before the PTO. The combination of Brooks with Whittemore was not
`
`considered during prosecution. While Whittemore was cited in an IDS and listed
`
`on the 632 patent, Brooks was not cited. U.S. Patent No. 4,947,875 (“875 patent”)
`
`and EP0358002A2 (“EP0002”), which are similar to Brooks, were cited and listed
`
`on the 632 patent. Nonetheless, even though cited on the face of the 632 patent,
`
`neither Whittemore nor the 875 patent nor EP0002 was used during prosecution to
`
`substantively reject any of the 632 patent claims. Further, the Examiner did not
`
`have other evidence, such as Dr. Sturges’ expert declaration to consider. Under
`
`situations such as this, the Board has rejected arguments that institution should be
`
`denied under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Ex. 1022, Institution Decision dated Feb. 5, 2018
`
`(Paper 9) at pp. 7-8, Cascades Canada ULC v. SCA Hygiene Prods AB, IPR2017-
`
`01921 (P.T.A.B., petition filed Aug. 7, 2017) (instituting IPR although Examiner
`
`considered both prior art references during prosecution because Petitioner’s
`
`arguments “differ sufficiently from what was presented during prosecution, and
`
`have merit”); Ex. 1023, Institution Decision dated Jan. 19, 2018 at pp. 9-12, 17-19
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`(Paper 9), Donghee America, Inc. v. Plastic Omnium Advanced Innovation and
`
`Research, IPR2017-01654 (P.T.A.B., petition filed June 21, 2017) (instituting IPR
`
`based on prior art that formed the basis for rejection during prosecution because
`
`there was no evidence the Examiner considered “the unnumbered element in [prior
`
`art] Figure 1,” the petitioner’s “distinct arguments,” and the evidence presented in
`
`the petition including the expert declaration); Ex. 1024, Institution Decision dated
`
`May 18, 2017 at p. 7 (Paper 9), Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Mass. Inst. of Tech.,
`
`IPR2017-00249 (P.T.A.B., petition filed Nov. 11, 2016) (“We are not persuaded
`
`… that a citation to prior art in an IDS, without substantive discussion of the
`
`reference by the Examiner, is sufficient reason to exercise our discretion under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 325(d) to decline to institute an inter partes review”); Ex. 1025,
`
`Institution Decision dated July 15, 2015 at p. 15 (Paper 10), Microsoft Corp. v.
`
`Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC, IPR2015-00483 (P.T.A.B., petition filed Dec.
`
`23, 2014) (“while [the reference] was listed on a lengthy Information Disclosure
`
`Statement initialed by the Examiner, the reference was not applied against the
`
`claims and there is no evidence that the Examiner considered the particular
`
`disclosures cited … in the Petition.”); Ex. 1026, Institution Decision dated Mar. 13,
`
`2013 at pp. 7, 20 (Paper 19), Micron Tech., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill.,
`
`IPR2013-00005 (P.T.A.B., petition filed Oct. 2, 2012) (instituting IPR based on
`
`prior art that “was before the Office during prosecution,” and reasoning that “[t]he
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`present record differs from the one before the Examiner” in that the Board now
`
`“consider[s] the [reference] in view of the [Expert] declaration testimony [], which
`
`was not before the Examiner.”); see also Ex. 1027, Institution Decision dated Jan.
`
`24, 2013 at pp. 16-19 (Paper 18), Macauto U.S.A. v. BOS GMBH & KG, IPR2012-
`
`00004 (P.T.A.B., petition filed Sept. 16, 2012) (explicitly rejecting examiner’s
`
`reasoning about prior art during prosecution).
`
`As noted above, this is the first and only petition being filed by Petitioner or
`
`any party concerning the 632 patent. Further, even though PO previously
`
`addressed the prior art presented in this petition in other IPRs, any argument from
`
`PO about alleged prejudice or burden by being subjected to multiple petitions
`
`related to other patents is unwarranted in view of the different claim scope covered
`
`by the 632 patent claims, and in view of PO’s litigation activity. Indeed, in
`
`addition to numerous lawsuits against others, PO has filed four lawsuits against
`
`Petitioner alleging infringement of 15 patents, and this is Petitioner’s first and only
`
`petition concerning the 632 patent. Ex. 1028, Institution Decision dated Feb. 6,
`
`2018 at pp. 26 (Paper 8), Samsung Elec. Am. v. Uniloc, IPR2017-01801 (P.T.A.B.,
`
`petition filed July 20, 2017) (Patent Owner’s complaint about the multiple IPR
`
`petitions “is not persuasive when the volume appears to be a direct result of its own
`
`litigation activity.”).
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Finally, the Board’s determination in IPR2016-01270 concerning U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,893,726 should not preclude institution. In IPR2016-01270, the
`
`Board determined that Brooks’ embodiment of “porous substrates in intimate
`
`contact with resistance heating components” did not disclose a “liquid storage
`
`body in physical contact with the atomizer” as required in the challenged 726
`
`patent claims. Ex. 1029, Institution Decision dated Jan. 4, 2017 at pp. 10-13
`
`(Paper 11), R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-
`
`01270 (P.T.A.B., petition filed July 2, 2016). The 632 patent claims do not include
`
`any such limitation. Further, the Board did not have the evidence presented here to
`
`consider during IPR2016-01270. For example, the Board did not have Dr. Sturges’
`
`testimony expressly explaining that a PHOSITA would have understood that
`
`Brooks’ “porous substrates in intimate contact with resistance heating
`
`components” are distinct structures. Ex. 1002, ¶¶44-46, 74. As Dr. Sturges
`
`explains, the plain meaning of the word “contact” requires that the porous substrate
`
`and resistance heating component be separate structures. Id., ¶45. Further,
`
`Brooks’ claims and description support that they are separate. Id., ¶¶44-46, 74; Ex.
`
`1003, 6:45-52, claims 53, 57, 104, 105, 131, 132. Indeed, the porous substrate and
`
`resistance heating components of Brooks’ “intimate contact” embodiment are
`
`necessarily separate structures because something cannot be in intimate contact
`
`with itself. See ICHL, LLC v. NEC Corp. of Am., No. 5:08-CV-65, No. 5:08-CV-
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`175, No. 5:08-CV-177, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38942, at *30-31 (E.D. Tex. Apr.
`
`20, 2010), aff’d, 455 Fed. Appx. 978 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“in intimate contact”
`
`requires “the touching of two or more distinct parts”); see also Becton, Dickinson
`
`& Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“If the
`
`‘hinged arm’ and the ‘spring means’ are one and the same, then the hinged arm
`
`must be ‘connected to’ itself . . . a physical impossibility.”) (internal quotations
`
`added).
`
`Accordingly, this Petition is not redundant.
`
`V. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`This petition meets the threshold requirement for inter partes review
`
`because the asserted ground of unpatentability establishes “a reasonable likelihood
`
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged
`
`in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`VI. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Background Information for the 632 Patent
`The 632 patent generally describes an electronic cigarette.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Atomizer
`
`Liquid
`Storage
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 1 (Annotated)
`
`
`
`With respect to Figs. 1 and 10, the electronic cigarette includes an operating
`
`indicator 1, a battery 3, an atomizer assembly 8, a restriction component 10 and a
`
`liquid storage 9. Ex. 1001, 2:51-63, 2:65-3:1, 3:28-30, 4:5-7, 5:23-34, Figs. 1, 10.
`
`The electronic cigarette also includes a shell (a) which is hollow and integrally
`
`formed. Id., 2:51-54. The battery assembly connects with said atomizer assembly
`
`and both are located in said shell (a). Id., 2:54-56. The shell (a) has through-air-
`
`inlets (a1). Id., 2:58-59, Fig. 1.
`
`Further details of the atomizer assembly 8 are illustrated in annotated Figs.
`
`17 and 18 below. Id., Figs. 17-18.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`The atomizer assembly includes “a frame (82), the porous component (81)
`
`set on the frame (82), and the heating wire (83) wound on the porous component
`
`(81). The frame (82) has a run-through hole (821). The porous component (81) is
`
`wound with heating wire (83) in the part that is on the side in the axial direction of
`
`the run-through hole (821). One end of the porous component (81) fits with the
`
`cigarette bottle assembly.” Id., 6:1-10.
`
`Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (“PHOSITA”)
`
`B.
`A PHOSITA for the 632 patent is a person 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. Ex. 1002, ¶¶22-25.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), a claim in an unexpired patent is given its
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification in which it appears.
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278-79 (Fed. Cir. 2015), aff’d,
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 579 U.S. ____ (2016). Any
`
`ambiguity regarding the “broadest reasonable construction” of a claim term should
`
`be resolved in favor of the broader construction absent amendment by the patent
`
`owner, who can resolve ambiguities during inter partes review by amending the
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`claims. See, Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg., at 48,764. Petitioner’s
`
`construction of claim terms is for purposes of this IPR petition only and is not
`
`binding upon Petitioner in any other proceeding related to the 632 patent.
`
`Independent claim 14 of the 632 patent recites the term “elongated
`
`cylindrical housing.” Ex. 1001, 7:20-8:8. The Board previously construed
`
`“housing” in the parent 742 patent and child 548 patent to be not limited to a one-
`
`piece shell in IPR2016-01532 and IPR2016-01691, respectively. Ex. 1017,
`
`Institution Decision dated Feb. 7, 2017 at pp. 7-9 (Paper 9), R.J. Reynolds Vapor
`
`Co. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-01532 (P.T.A.B., petition filed Aug. 5,
`
`2016); Ex. 1018, Institution Decision dated Mar. 6, 2017 at pp. 6-8 (Paper 9), R.J.
`
`Reynolds Vapor Co. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-01691 (P.T.A.B.,
`
`petition filed Aug. 30, 2016). For purposes of this petition only and under the
`
`applicable BRI standard, Petitioner applies the Board’s prior construction of
`
`“housing.”
`
`D. Description of the Prior Art
`1.
`Brooks (Ex. 1003)
`Brooks is titled “Smoking Articles Utilizing Electrical Energy” and discloses
`
`“cigarettes and other smoking articles such as cigars, pipes, and the like, which
`
`employ an electrical resistance heating element and an electrical power source to
`
`produce a tobacco-flavored smoke or aerosol.” Ex. 1003, 1:6-10. Brooks’
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`preferred smoking articles are capable of providing the user with sensations of
`
`smoking without burning tobacco. Id., 1:6-16.
`
`Brooks discloses an electrically powered device that includes: (1) a reusable
`
`component containing batteries and also housing the control circuitry and sensors
`
`and (2) a disposable cartridge or “cigarette” that includes an electric heating
`
`component, aerosol liquid, and an air passageway for inhaling the aerosol. Id., 4:7-
`
`12, 7:15-25; Ex. 1002, ¶70.
`
`Brooks’ re