IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re:
`
`Li Han
`
`Reexamination No.: 95/002,235
`
`Filed:
`
`Title:
`
`September 13, 2012
`
`AEROSOL ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE
`* * *
`* * * * * *
`
`Examiner: Terrence R. Till
`
`Art Unit:
`
`Conf. No:
`
`3991
`
`3893
`
`February 27, 2013
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`Sir:
`
`Third Party Response to Amendment
`
`In response to the Amendment submitted by Ruyan Investments (Holdings) Limited
`
`("Patent Owner") dated January 28, 2013 ("Patent Owner's Response"), kindly enter the
`
`following response on behalf of Fin Branding Group, LLC ("Third Party Requester") in the
`
`above-referenced reexamination as follows:
`
`Status of Claims begins on page 2 of this paper.
`
`Response begins on page 2 of this paper.
`
`I.
`
`Claims I and I 0 are Anticipated by Hon '494 - Discussion begins on page
`
`2.
`
`II.
`
`Claims I and I 0 are Obvious over Hon '494 in View of Hon '955 and
`
`Over New Prior Art Oljaca '776 (newly found) - Discussion begins on page 5.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`Discussion of the Claims Patent Owner Concedes begins on page 12.
`
`New Claims 42-44 are Obvious over Hon '494 in View Hon '955 and
`
`Over New Prior Art Oljaca '776 (newly found) - Discussion begins on page 22.
`
`V.
`
`Alternative Limitations Suggested by Third Party Requester - Discussion
`
`begins on page 27.
`
`VI.
`
`Response to Patent Owner's Supplemental Amendment - Discussion
`
`begins on page 29.
`
`It is understood that no fees are due, but if this understanding is incorrect, please contact
`
`the
`
`undersigned
`
`at
`
`the
`
`number
`
`indicated
`
`below
`
`for
`
`approval
`
`and payment.
`
`10558120.5
`
`Fontem Ex. 2020
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 1 of 56
`
`

`

`LiHan
`Reexam. No. 95/002,235
`
`STATUS OF CLAIMS
`
`Claims 1-6, 8-12, 15-26, 33-36 and 38 are rejected. Claims 7, 27 and 37 are cancelled.
`
`Claims 13-14, 28-32 and 39-41 are pending and Claims 42-44 have been newly proposed by
`
`Applicant.
`
`RESPONSE
`
`Third Party Requester appreciates the Examiner's careful attention to this matter in the
`
`November 27, 2012, Office Action issued by the Examiner ("First Office Action") and requests:
`
`(I) final rejection of claims 1 and 10 as anticipated; (II) final rejection of claims 1 and 10 as
`
`obvious; (III) final rejection by the Examiner for each point to which the Patent Owner did not
`
`respond in the Patent Owner's Response; (IV) rejection of the new claims proposed in the Patent
`
`Owner's Response as anticipated and/or obvious; and (V) in the alternative, if the Examiner
`
`allows the proposed new claims, a requirement for clarifying amendments to the claimed
`
`invention to include (1) Patent Owner's admitted limitations on the run-through chamber, i.e.,
`
`"run-through" means "only air runs through" and "open and unrestricted" and (2) limitations in
`
`view of the prior art on the heating rod, i.e., "the heating rod is electrified by the heating
`
`element." Additional support for these requests is set forth more fully below.
`
`I.
`
`Claims 1and10 are Anticipated by Hon '494.
`
`In the First Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 8-12, 15-26, 33, 34, 36 and
`
`38 as anticipated by Hon '494. See First Office Action, page 5, para. 10. Patent Owner did not
`
`respond to any of these rejections, except to call out and rely on two elements of claims 1 and 10.
`
`As discussed below in Section III, Patent Owner concedes that every single element of claims 1
`
`and 10 is anticipated by Hon '494, except (i) a run-through atomizer (the "Run-Through
`
`Atomizer") and (ii) an electric heating rod located in the atomizing chamber (the "Rod In
`
`Chamber"). See Section I, paras. ( 11) and (17). The Examiner cited and provided a machine
`
`translation of Hon '494 ("Machine Translation of '494") and Patent Owner relied on the
`
`translation found in U.S. Publication 2007/0267031 ("Patent Owner Translation of '494").
`
`10558120.5
`
`2
`
`Fontem Ex. 2020
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 2 of 56
`
`

`

`LiHan
`Reexam. No. 95/002,235
`
`A.
`
`Hon '494 Teaches A Run-Through Atomizer.
`
`In the First Office Action, the Examiner stated: "Hon '494 teaches ... a run-through
`
`atomizing chamber (open area 10)." See Office Action, para. 11.
`
`In the Patent Owner's
`
`Response, the Patent Owner argues that the atomizing chamber in Hon '494 is not a "run(cid:173)
`
`through" atomizing chamber because it is not "open and unrestricted." See Patent Owner's
`
`Response, page 14, first paragraph. Additionally, Patent Owner argues that "run-through" means
`
`that air runs through the chamber and not liquid or vapor. Id., page 20, lines 4-6.
`
`Hon '494 teaches a "run-through" atomizing chamber as shown in figure 6 shown below.
`
`Figure 6 above of Hon '494 clearly shows an atomization cavity 10 with an atomization
`
`10558120.5
`
`3
`
`Fontem Ex. 2020
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 3 of 56
`
`

`

`LiHan
`Reexam. No. 95/002,235
`
`cavity wall 25 in the shape of a tube. The tube is wrapped entirely by porous material 36,
`
`including some porous material that appears to be stuffed into one end of the tube. Hon '494,
`
`Figure 6; see also Patent Owner Translation of '494, para [0009], lines 18-19. Among the
`
`porous materials taught are "foam nickel" and "stainless steel fiber felt", which would each
`
`allow liquid, steam or air to pass through them. Hon '494, para. [0009], lines 23-24.
`
`Additionally, Hon '494 teaches:
`
`an air inlet provided in the external wall of the shell; an electronic circuit board, a
`normal pressure cavity, a sensor, a vapor-liquid separator, an atomizer, a liquid(cid:173)
`supplying bottle arranged sequentially within the shell; a stream [sic] passage
`provided on one side of the sensor; a negative pressure cavity provided in the
`sensor; and atomization cavity arranged in the atonizer [sic]; ... and an aerosol
`passage provided on the other side of the liquid-supplying bottle, ... the liquid
`supplying bottle is in contact with the atomizer; and the air inlet, normal pressure
`cavity, vapor-liquid separator, atomizer, aerosol passage, gas vent and mouthpiece
`are sequentially interconnected.
`
`Patent Owner Translation of '494, para [0008], lines 2-17 (emphasis added). Hon '494 also
`
`teaches:
`
`The air enters the normal pressure cavity 5 through the air inlet 4, passes
`through the air passage 18 of the sensor and then the through hole in the
`vapor-liquid separator 7, and flows into the atomization cavity 10 in the
`atomizer 9 .... After atomization ... the droplets with small diameter
`float in stream and forms aerosols, which are sucked out via the aerosol
`passage 12, gas vent 17 and mouthpiece 15.
`
`Id., para. [0028], lines 18-21 and 30-32 (omitting the sentences believed by Third Party
`
`Requester to pertain to the optional piezoelectric features of the device).
`
`A plain reading of the paragraphs above clearly describes an interconnected path from the
`
`air inlet to the mouthpiece. If the air entering the air inlet is to pick up the nicotine in the liquid
`
`supply bottle and the atomizer before traveling to the mouthpiece where the nicotine is inhaled
`
`by the smoker, the air must necessarily pass through the atomizing chamber along the way.
`
`B.
`
`Hon '494 Teaches the Rod In Chamber.
`
`10558120.5
`
`4
`
`Fontem Ex. 2020
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 4 of 56
`
`

`

`LiHan
`Reexam. No. 95/002,235
`
`In the First Office Action, the Examiner rejected the Rod In Chamber element of claims 1
`
`and 10 because "Hon '494 teaches ... the electric heating rod comprises a cylinder 25 and a
`
`heating element 26 provided at the wall of the cylinder, the electric heating rod is in the said
`
`atomizing chamber (see figure 6) .... " See Office Action, para. 11. In the Patent Owner's
`
`Response, the Patent Owner does not dispute that the cylinder of Hon '494 is a heating rod, but
`
`only the location of it. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that the heating rod of Hon '494 is the
`
`wall of the chamber, so it cannot be in the chamber. See Patent Owner's Response, page 16, first
`
`paragraph. Third Party Requester disagrees with Patent Owner's analysis because the wall of the
`
`chamber in Hon '494 defines the chamber so if that heating rod is the wall of the chamber, the
`
`rod's interior surface is necessarily in the chamber.
`
`Hon '494 teaches having a "heating element provided within the atomization chamber."
`
`Patent Owner Translation of' 494, para [0009], lines 16-17. In the Machine Translation of' 494,
`
`the publication also teaches: (1) the "[a]tomizing chamber is equipped with the heating member."
`
`Machine Translation of '494, page 4, line 8; and (2) the "atomizing chamber wall 25 in
`
`atomizing chamber 10 is gone up to open has spout hole 29, and the intracavity is equipped with
`
`heating member 26 .... " Machine Translation of '494, page 5, lines 12-13. Either way, Hon
`
`'494 teaches to heat the liquid from inside the atomization chamber using either a "heating
`
`member" or a "heating element." Id.
`
`For the reasons described above, the Examiner should finalize rejection of claims 1 and
`
`10 as anticipated by Hon '494.
`
`II.
`
`Claims 1 and 10 Are Obvious over Hon '494 In View of Hon '955 and Over New
`
`Prior Art Oljaca '776 (necessitated by Patent Owner's Response).
`
`In the First Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5-6, 8-12, 15-17, 24, 26, 33-
`
`36 and 38 as being obvious over Hon '494 in combination with Hon '955. See First Office
`
`Action, page 10, para. 41. Patent Owner did not respond to any of these rejections, except to call
`
`out and rely on two elements of claims 1 and 10. As discussed below in Section III, Patent
`
`10558120.5
`
`5
`
`Fontem Ex. 2020
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 5 of 56
`
`

`

`Li Han
`Reexam. No. 95/002,235
`
`Owner concedes that every single element of claims 1 and 10 is obvious over by Hon '494 in
`
`view of Hon '955, except (i) a Run-Through Atomizer and (ii) a Rod In Chamber.
`
`A.
`
`New Prior Art Oljaca '776 Teaches both the Run-Through Chamber and a Rod In
`
`Chamber.
`
`Third Party Requester conducted an additional prior art search on February 25, 2013 to
`
`better understand the state of the art with respect to the specific arguments presented by Patent
`
`Owner's Response regarding the run-through atomizer. The goal/intent was to better understand
`
`the distinctions and nuanced arguments made by Patent Owner as well as to determine whether
`
`these new interpretations presented novel features. Specifically, Third Party Requester was
`
`searching for the differences between run-through atomizers, non-run-through atomizers,
`
`obstructed atomizers and non-obstructed atomizers. Third Party Requester believes this newly
`
`cited prior art did not appear in earlier searches due to its general applicability to atomizers rather
`
`than specifically to electronic cigarettes. Third Party Requester became aware of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,601,776 by Miodrag Oljaca, et. al. ("Oljaca '776") for the first time during this supplemental
`
`search on February 25, 2013. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. l.948(a)(2) and (a)(3), Third Party
`
`Requester is citing this additional reference in rebuttal to positions taken by the Patent Owner in
`
`the Patent Owner's Response and because the reference for the first time became known or
`
`available to Third Party Requester after the filing of the request for inter partes reexamination.
`
`Oljaca '776 issued in August 5, 2003 well before the priority date of the '944 Patent.
`
`Oljaca '776 is titled "Liquid Atomization Methods and Devices" and 1s used in
`
`"nebulizers for inhalation applications" and "[i]n applications such as pulmonary delivery of
`
`protein and peptide therapeutics" where "the drug must be delivered in small sized particles to
`
`prevent exhalation or deposition on the upper airway. See Col. 2, line 41 and Col. 5, line 67 to
`
`Col. 6, line 3. Third Party Requester searched all the IDS's that have been filed for the '944
`
`Patent, and it does not appear to have ever been cited in previously filed IDS forms, and does not
`
`appear to have ever been considered by the Examiner. Oljaca '776 provides a thorough
`
`explanation of the way an atomizer works, in particular an atomizer with a "run-through
`
`I 0558120.5
`
`6
`
`Fontem Ex. 2020
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 6 of 56
`
`

`

`Li Han
`Reexam. No. 95/002,235
`
`chamber."
`
`For example, Figure 4 of Oljaca '776 shows a "run-through chamber" in the shape of a
`
`cylinder. See also Oljaca '776 at claims 1, 11, 13, 16, 21, 28, 31, 35, 41 and 42.
`
`As shown in Figure 4 represented above, Oljaca '776 teaches a heating element 35 in the run(cid:173)
`
`through chamber 31 (hollow tube). Oljaca '776 also teaches that the heating element may
`
`alternatively be an alternative heating means 98, as further described in the patent excerpts
`
`below. Id. Col. 13, lines 14-19. Oljaca '776 also teaches that it makes no difference whether a
`
`heating element is a wire, tube or other body. Oljaca '776, at col. 9, lines 25-38.
`
`Figure 4 of Oljaca '776:
`
`Illustrates a further embodiment 30 of the atomizer of the present
`invention. As in the basic embodiment, the atomizer is constructed as a
`In this
`hollow tube 31 having an inlet end 32 and an outlet end 33.
`is preferably constructed of non(cid:173)
`tube 31
`embodiment, however,
`electrically conductive material such as ceramic. A centrally disposed
`heating element 3 5 extends along the central axis of the tube 31 (although
`the heating element 35 could be off-center in some configurations). Power
`
`10558120.5
`
`7
`
`Fontem Ex. 2020
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 7 of 56
`
`

`

`Li Han
`Reexam. No. 95/002,235
`
`to she [sic] heating element 35 is provided by electrical wires 34, which
`are connected to each end of the heating element. . . . By disposing the
`heating element 3 5 within the tube 31, the liquid completely surrounds the
`heating element 35, thereby increasing the efficiency of the heating
`element 3 5 as opposed to heating the entire tube, which is only contacted
`internally by the liquid. Tube 31 provides structural strength to the
`heating element 35, while insulating the heating element 35 from
`electrically conductive apparatus components. Also in FIG. 4, an
`alternative heating means 98 is shown. Heating means 98 may comprise
`any number of radiant, conductive or other heating means as previously
`described. Depending on the heating requirements, these heat sources 98
`may be used in conjunction with, or instead of, the electrically resistive
`heating means described above.
`
`Id. at col. 12, lines 60 through col. 13, lines 15. Ojaca '776 also teaches:
`
`In the basic embodiment the atomizer is a heated tube or chamber. The
`method of heating the tube can be chosen from a number of different
`methods, including, but not limited to: direct electrical resistive heating
`(using a resistive tube or internal heating element); ... Electrically
`resistive heating is preferred, as this provides a large range of controllable
`heating in a relatively small space.
`
`Id., at col 7, lines 31-45.
`
`A further embodiment has a tube or body that is constructed of a non(cid:173)
`electrically conductive material such as ceramic or glass. A central,
`heating wire or element extends along the longitudinal axis of the ceramic
`tube, thereby contacting and heating the liquid as it flows through the tube
`and about the heating device. The ceramic tube provides electrical and
`thermal insulation for the heating element and also provides structural
`strength for the heating wire or element. Other embodiments include a
`spirally shaped heating wire that extends along the inside surface of the
`chamber from one end to the other or within any section of the interior.
`Such a configuration provides additional surface area of heating element
`per length of chamber, as may be required for high flow rates or increased
`heating.
`
`Id., at col. 8, lines 41-56.
`
`Many different materials may be used to produce the various components
`of the liquid atomizer of the present invention. The heating element (wire,
`
`10558120.5
`
`8
`
`Fontem Ex. 2020
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 8 of 56
`
`

`

`LiHan
`Reexam. No. 95/002,235
`
`tube, etc) can be any thermally/electrically conductive/resistive material
`that is not degraded by the liquid or the required heat and pressure. PTC
`material may be used for maintaining a specific temperature, as is well
`known in the art. In electrically heated tube embodiments, stainless steel
`has had satisfactory results, in terms of conductivity, heat transfer,
`strength and liquid resistance.
`
`Id., Col. 9, 25-34.
`
`Although Oljaca '776 is not specifically directed at an electronic cigarette, it describes
`
`the exact same atomizer technology and principles for use, among other things, in pulmonary
`
`delivery of pharmaceuticals and chemicals. Id., at col. 5, lines 47-53; col. 5, lines 67 through
`
`col. 6, line 3; col. 14, lines 49-51. Oljaca '776 teaches the heart of the atomizer being claimed by
`
`the Hon '944 patent, and specifically the disputed elements in claims 1 and 10. When Oljaca
`
`'776 is combined with Hon '494 and Hon '955, the entire invention of the '944 Patent, and
`
`specifically, the Run-Through Chamber and the Rod In Chamber are disclosed and thoroughly
`
`taught. Third Party Requester maintains that these three patents disclose each claim of the Hon
`
`'494 patent. However, as only two elements of claims 1 and 10 are currently being disputed as
`
`patentable by the Patent Owner, the following response is limited to just the disputed elements of
`
`those claims.
`
`B.
`
`Claim 1 and 10 Are Obvious Over Hon '494 in View of Hon '955 and Oljaca
`
`'776.
`
`1.
`
`Hon '494, Hon '955 and Oljaca '776 Teach a Run-Through Chamber.
`
`The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 10 in the First Office Action as being obvious over
`
`Hon '494 in combination with Hon '955. See First Office Action, page 10, para. 41. In Patent
`
`Owner's Response, Patent Owner argues that Hon '494 and Hon '955 do not teach the claimed
`
`invention because Patent Owner interprets the Run-Through Chamber as an "open and
`
`unrestricted pathway through the atomizing chamber." Patent Owner's Response, page 14, lines
`
`2-3. Patent Owner has also adopted the position that "run-through chamber" means "air" runs
`
`through the chamber, not liquid or vapor. Id. at page 20, lines 4-6. These positions require a
`
`10558120.5
`
`9
`
`Fontem Ex. 2020
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 9 of 56
`
`

`

`LiHan
`Reexam. No. 95/002,235
`
`response by Third Party Requester because claims 1 and 10 are not written to reflect Patent
`
`Owner's Position, and do not specify that the chamber must be "open and unrestricted" or that
`
`only "air" runs through the chamber.
`
`As discussed in Section I above, Hon '494 teaches the run-through chamber of the claims
`
`1 and 10. Hon '955 also teaches a run-through chamber in the form of an atomizing nozzle
`
`where liquid mist is pumped into a nozzle, converted to vapor, runs through the nozzle (or
`
`tubule) and exits the other side of the nozzle (or tubule). Hon '955, para. [0020]. Additionally,
`
`Oljaca '776 is entirely dedicated to teaching a run-through atomizing chamber as shown in
`
`Figure 4 reproduced above. See also Oljaca '776, Col. 12, lines 32-59. Third Party Requester
`
`asks that claims 1 and 10 be rejected as obvious over Hon '494 in view of Hon '955 further in
`
`view of Oljaca '776.
`
`2.
`
`Hon '494, Hon '955 and Oljaca '776 Teach Placing the Heat Source
`
`Inside the Chamber.
`
`Patent Owner argues in response to the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 10 that Hon
`
`'955
`
`does not disclose an electric heating rod comprising a cylinder, with the
`electric heating rod in an atomizing chamber. Even if the nozzle 17 in
`Hon '955 is viewed as an electric heating rod comprising a cylinder, there
`is no electric heating rod in an atomizing chamber, because the nozzle 17
`then forms or defines the chamber. The nozzle 1 7 cannot both form the
`chamber and also be in the chamber.
`
`Patent Owner's Response, page 20, last paragraph (underlining in original).
`
`As discussed in Section I, Hon '494 teaches a heating rod in the atomizing chamber. Hon
`
`'955 teaches the importance of placing the heat source inside the atomizing chamber: "An
`
`electric heating element is provided within the nozzle, and the shapes of the electric heating
`
`element and the cavity of the nozzle are designed to facilitate vaporization and ejection of
`
`liquid." See Hon '955, para. [0020], lines 34-39. In Hon '955, the nozzle is the cylinder (rod)
`
`10558120.5
`
`10
`
`Fontem Ex. 2020
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 10 of 56
`
`

`

`Li Han
`Reexam. No. 95/002,235
`
`and is both in the chamber and lining the chamber because it makes up the interior wall of the
`
`chamber.
`
`In Oljaca '776, "[a]s liquid travels through the tube it is heated upon exiting the tube and
`
`entering a reduced pressure area the liquid atomizes to form very fine droplets." Oljaca '776,
`
`Abstract, lines 18-20. "In the basic embodiment the atomizer is a heated tube or chamber. The
`
`method of heating the tube can be chosen from a number of different methods, including, but not
`
`limited to direct electrical resistive heating (using a resistive tube or internal heating element)."
`
`Id., at col. 7, lines 31-35. "Electrically resistive heating is preferred, as this provides a large
`
`range of controllable heating in a relatively small space."
`
`Id. at col. 7, lines 43-45.
`
`"In
`
`electrically heated embodiments, an electrode is attached either directly to an end of the device,
`
`to the connection fittings or to any conductive object in electrical contact with the heating
`
`element portion of the atomizer. A voltage is applied across the electrodes sending electrical
`
`current through the material around the chamber, (or an internal heating element) to thereby heat
`
`the material that is in direct contact with the liquid inside of the tube." Id., at col. 8, lines 4-11.
`
`"Other embodiments include a spirally shaped heating wire that extends along the inside surface
`
`of the chamber from one end to the other or within any section of the interior. Id., at col. 8, lines
`
`50-54.
`
`In another embodiment, "[a] centrally disposed heating element 35 extends along the
`
`central axis of the tube 31 (although the heating element 35 could be off-center in some
`
`configurations). Power to she [sic] heating element 35 is provided by electrical wires 34, which
`
`are connected to each end of the heating element." Id., at col. 12, line 63 through col. 13 line 3.
`
`Oljaca '776 teaches a heating rod, a heating element and a coiled wire as a heating
`
`element.
`
`D.
`
`Summary of Obviousness of Claims 1and10.
`
`In summary, Patent Owner concedes that claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-12, 15-26, 33-34, 36 and 38
`
`are obvious over Hon '494 in view of Hon '955. Examiner's rejection of these claims should be
`
`made final. Additionally, Patent Owner concedes that these two patents teach all elements of
`
`10558120.5
`
`11
`
`Fontem Ex. 2020
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 11 of 56
`
`

`

`Li Han
`Reexam. No. 95/002,235
`
`claims 1 and 10 except for (i) a Run-Through Chamber and (ii) a Rod In Chamber. See Section
`
`III, paras. (11) and (17) below. Hon '494 and Hon '955 teach both a run-through atomizer and a
`
`heating rod in the chamber. Finally, Oljaca should be considered because it has not been
`
`considered previously, the Third Party Requester was not aware of it until recently and it
`
`contains very detailed information on how to construct an atomizer. Oljaca '776 eloquently
`
`teaches a run-through atomizer, a heating rod in the atomizing chamber, a heating element and a
`
`coiled wire. For the reasons described above and in Section III below, the Examiner should
`
`finalize rejection of claims 1 and 10 as obvious over Hon '494 in view of Hon '955.
`
`Additionally, Examiner should reject claims 1 and 10 over Hon '494 in view of Hon '955 further
`
`in view of Oljaca '776.
`
`III. Rejections Conceded by Patent Owner
`
`As set forth in 37 C.F.R. 1.11 l(b),
`
`[t]he reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which
`distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner's action
`and must reply to every ground of obligation and rejection in the prior Office
`action .... The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions
`believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable
`over any applied references. . . . A general allegation that the claims define a
`patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the
`claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with
`the requirements of this section.
`
`As set forth below in detail, the Patent Owner made no attempt to respond to most of the points
`
`of rejection raised by the Examiner, indicating that the Patent Owner has ceded these points,
`
`which are now ready for final rejection. Id.
`
`Specifically, the Examiner rejected claims 1-6, 8-12, 15-26, 33, 34, 36 and 38. For the
`
`convenience of the Examiner, the following paragraphs are numbered in parentheses using
`
`numbers that correspond to the paragraph numbering in the First Office Action. Third Party
`
`Requestor's responses to Patent Owner's arguments regarding the two elements of claims 1 and
`
`10 that Patent Owner disputed are presented in Section II.
`
`10558120.5
`
`12
`
`Fontem Ex. 2020
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 12 of 56
`
`

`

`LiHan
`Reexam. No. 95/002,235
`
`A.
`
`Patent Owner Concedes that Hon '494 Anticipates nearly all the Rejected Claims
`
`(11)
`
`The Examiner rejected claim 1 because:
`
`Hon '494 teaches an aerosol electronic cigarette (figure 1), comprising: a battery
`assembly 2, an atomizer assembly 9, 10, a cigarette solution storage area 11, and a
`hollow shell 14 having a mouthpiece 15. The battery assembly inherently
`connects with the atomizer assembly ... and both are located in the shell; the
`cigarette solution storage area is located in one end of the shell adjacent to the
`mouthpiece, and fits with at least a portion of the said atomizer assembly inside it
`(see figure 1 ); the shell has through-air-inlets 4; the atomizer assembly includes
`an atomizer comprising an electric heating rod 25, 26 and a run-through
`atomizing chamber (open area 1 O); the electric heating rod comprises a cylinder
`25 and a heating element 26 provided at the wall of the cylinder, the electric
`heating rod is in the said atomizing chamber (see figure 6) and there is a
`negative pressure cavity in the atomizing chamber (as the user inhales).
`
`See Office Action, para. 11 (emphasis added).
`
`In the Patent Owner's Response, the Patent
`
`Owner did not dispute any element rejected by the Examiner in previous paragraph, except for
`
`the elements indicated in italics and bold. The only points that the Patent Owner has not ceded
`
`with respect to anticipation are whether Hon '494 teaches a device as set forth in claims 1and10
`
`with: (i) a run-through atomizing chamber - Patent Owner's Response, page 14, first paragraph;
`
`and (ii) an electric heating rod locate in the atomizing chamber - Patent Owner's Response, page
`
`16, first paragraph. These two points are discussed in Section I above, beginning at page 3.
`
`(12) The Examiner rejected claim 2 because: "Hon '494 teaches a cigarette solution in the
`
`cigarette solution storage area, the cigarette solution comprising nicotine (English translation,
`
`page 7)." See First Office Action, para. 12. The Patent Owner did not dispute this rejection, and
`
`by ceding this point has indicated Patent Owner's agreement with the Examiner that claim 2 is
`
`anticipated by Hon '494.
`
`10558120.5
`
`13
`
`Fontem Ex. 2020
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 13 of 56
`
`

`

`Li Han
`Reexam. No. 95/002,235
`
`(13) The Examiner rejected claim 3 because: "Hon '494 teaches first and second detachable
`
`sections (see English translation, page 6, first paragraph)." See First Office Action, para. 13.
`
`The Patent Owner did not dispute this rejection, and by ceding this point has indicated Patent
`
`Owner's agreement with the Examiner that claim 3 is anticipated by Hon '494.
`
`(14) The Examiner rejected claim 4 because: "Hon '494 teaches first detachable section
`
`comprises the mouthpiece (English translation, page 6, first paragraph)." See First Office
`
`Action, para. 14. The Patent Owner did not dispute this rejection, and by ceding this point has
`
`indicated Patent Owner's agreement with the Examiner that claim 4 is anticipated by Hon '494.
`
`(15) The Examiner rejected claim 8 because "Hon '494 teaches the cylinder is inside the run-
`
`through chamber (Figures 1 and 6. English translation, page 5, last paragraph)." See First Office
`
`Action, para. 15. The Patent Owner did not dispute this rejection, and by ceding this point has
`
`indicated Patent Owner's agreement with the Examiner that claim 8 is anticipated by Hon '494.
`
`(16) The Examiner rejected claim 9 because "Hon '494 teaches the solution storage area is a
`
`cigarette bottle assembly 11 (See figures 1 and 2. English translation, page 5, last paragraph)."
`
`See First Office Action, para. 16. The Patent Owner did not dispute this rejection, and by ceding
`
`this point has indicated Patent Owner's agreement with the Examiner that claim 9 is anticipated
`
`by Hon '494.
`
`(17) The Examiner rejected claim 10 because:
`
`Hon '494 teaches an aerosol electronic cigarette, comprising a battery
`assembly 2, an atomizer assembly 9, 10, a cigarette solution storage area
`11, and a shell 14 that is hollow and comprises a mouthpiece 15 the said
`
`10558120.5
`
`14
`
`Fontem Ex. 2020
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 14 of 56
`
`

`

`LiHan
`Reexam. No. 95/002,235
`
`battery assembly connects with the said atomizer assembly to provide
`current to the heater element, and both are located in the said shell; the
`said cigarette solution storage area is located in one end of the shell
`proximal to the mouthpiece, and fits with at least a portion of the said
`atomizer assembly inside it (See figure 1); the said shell has through-air(cid:173)
`inlets 4; the atomizer assembly is an atomizer, which includes a porous
`component 27 and an electric heating rod 26; wherein the electric heating
`rod comprises a cylinder, the said porous component has a run-through
`atomizing chamber (Figures 1 and 6. English translation, page 5, last
`paragraph); the electric heating rod is in the said atomizing chamber and
`there is a negative pressure cavity in the atomizing chamber (when user
`inhales).
`
`See Office Action, para 17 (emphasis added). In the Patent Owner's Response, the Patent Owner
`
`did not dispute any element raised by the Examiner in previous paragraph, except for the
`
`elements indicated in italics and bold. The only elements that the Patent Owner has not ceded
`
`with respect to anticipation are whether Hon '494 teaches a device with: (i) a run-through
`
`atomizing chamber - Patent Owner's Response, page 14, first paragraph; and (ii) an electric
`
`heating rod located in the atomizing chamber - Patent Owner's Response, page 16, first
`
`paragraph. These two points are discussed in Section I above, beginning at page 3.
`
`(18) The Examiner rejected claim 11 because "Hon '494 teaches a restriction component 7 is
`
`detachably set on one end of the said porous component (figure 1)." See First Office Action,
`
`para. 18. The Patent Owner did not dispute this rejection, and by ceding this point has indicated
`
`Patent Owner's agreement with the Examiner that claim 11 is anticipated by Hon '494.
`
`( 19) The Examiner rejected claim 12 because:
`
`Hon '494 teaches wherein the said battery assembly includes a battery 2, and an
`operating indicator (Fig. 12. English translation, page 5, second paragraph from
`the bottom), an electronic circuit board (English translation, page 3, last
`paragraph), and an airflow sensor 18, 20, Kl (Fig. 4), which are connected with
`
`10558120.5
`
`15
`
`Fontem Ex. 2020
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 15 of 56
`
`

`

`Li Han
`Reexam. No. 95/002,235
`
`the said battery; the signal output of the said airflow sensor is connected with the
`said electronic circuit board.