Filed on behalf of Petitioners
`
`By:
`
`James H. Morris
`Edmund J. Walsh
`
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`
`Boston, MA 02210
`Tel:
`(617) 646-8000
`Fax:
`(617) 646-8646
`JMorris-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`NJOY, Inc.;
`
`CB Distributors, Inc.; DR Distributors, LLC,
`
`FIN Branding Group, LLC, Electronic Cigarettes International Group, Ltd. f/k/a
`
`Victory Electronic Cigarettes Corporation, and,
`
`Logic Technology Development LLC
`
`Petitioners
`
`FONTEM HOLDINGS 1 B.V.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. TBD
`
`Patent No. 8,893,726
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT No. 8,893,726
`
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 etseq.
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor
`IPR2016-01270
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor v. Fontem
`Exhibit 1010-00001
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`!—1
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... .. 1
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES — 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ............................................. ..4
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest — § 42.8(b)(1) ..................................................... ..4
`
`B. Related Matters — § 42.8(b)(2) ............................................................... ..4
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information — § 42.8(b)(3) and (4) ...................... ..5
`
`NOTICE OF FEES PAID .............................................................................. ..6
`
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING ................................ ..6
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’726 PATENT ........................................................... ..6
`
`A. Context of the ’726 patent ..................................................................... ..6
`
`B. Description related to the challenged claims ......................................... ..7
`
`C. Priority date of claims ............................................................................ ..9
`
`VI.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`AND RELIEF REQUESTED ........................................................................ ..9
`
`A. Patents upon which Petitioners rely ....................................................... ..9
`
`1. U.S. Pat. No. 6,155,268 (“Takeuchi”) (Ex. 1003) ......................... ..9
`
`2. U.S. Pat. No. 5,144,962 (“Counts”) (Ex. 1004) ........................... ..12
`
`3. U.S. Pat. No. 6,322,268 (“Kaufmann”) (Ex. 1005) ..................... ..13
`
`4.
`
`The relied-upon prior art is analogous to the ’726 patent ............ .. 15
`
`B. Level of ordinary skill in the art .......................................................... ..16
`
`C.
`
`Statutory grounds for challenge ........................................................... .. 17
`
`D. Claim construction ............................................................................... .. 17
`
`VII.
`
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ........... ..20
`
`VIII.
`
`CLAIM-BY-CLAIM EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`
`UNPATENTABILITY ................................................................................ ..21
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 14 would have been
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Takeuchi and Counts ................. ..21
`
`1.
`
`Takeuchi and Counts .................................................................... ..21
`
`2. Claims 1, 9,10, and 14 ................................................................. ..27
`
`3. Claims 3, 8, and 12 ....................................................................... ..35
`
`4
`
`Claim 4 ......................................................................................... ..40
`
`_ 1 _
`
`Exhibit 1010-00002
`
`

`
`B. Ground 2: Claims 15 and 16 would have been obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 over Takeuchi and Kaufmann. ....................................... ..42
`
`1.
`
`Takeuchi and Kaufmann .............................................................. ..42
`
`2. Claims 15 and 16 .......................................................................... ..47
`
`C. Ground 3: Claims 2, 13, and 17 would have been obvious under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 over Takeuchi, Counts, and Kaufmann. ........................ ..54
`
`1.
`
`Takeuchi, Counts, and Kaufmann ................................................ ..54
`
`2. Claim 2 and 13 ............................................................................. ..55
`
`3. Claim 17 ....................................................................................... ..58
`
`IX.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ . .60
`
`_ ii _
`
`Exhibit 1010-00003
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Asyst Teclzs, Inc. V. Emtrak, Inc.,
`544 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... ..25
`
`In re Translogic Teclz., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... ..25
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .............................................................................. .. 16, 25, 45
`
`NJOY, Inc. v. Fontem Holdings I B. V,
`IPR2014-01289, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2015) ............................................. ..1
`
`NJOY, Inc. v. Fontem Holdings I B. V,
`IPR2014-01300, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2015) ............................................. ..1
`
`Princeton Biochemical, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc.,
`411 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... ..15
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C.§102(b) .................................................................................... ..11,13,14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................... .. 41, 53
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ...................................................................................................... .59
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................. ..20
`
`35 U.S.C. § 42.8(b)(3) .............................................................................................. ..5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 42.8(b)(4) .............................................................................................. ..5
`
`35 U.S.C. §§311-19 ................................................................................................. ..1
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1 ....................................................................................................... ..1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ............................................................................................ ..17
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ................................................................................................. ..59
`
`- iii -
`
`Exhibit 1010-00004
`
`

`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................................................................................... ..6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10403) .............................................................................................. ..9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ....................................................................................................... ..4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .............................................................................................. ..4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .............................................................................................. ..4
`
`_ iv _
`
`Exhibit 1010-00005
`
`

`
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`
`APPENDIX LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,893,726 “the ’726 patent”
`
`U.S. Pat.No. 6,155,268 “Takeuchi”
`
`U.S. Pat.No. 5,144,962 “Counts”
`
`Markman Hearing/Claim Construction Order, Fontem Ventures,
`B.V V. NJOY, Inc., No. 14-cV-1645, Dkt. 133 (CD. Cal. May 7,
`
`Rulings on Claim Construction, Fontem Ventures, B. V. V. NJOY,
`Inc., No. 14-cV-1645, Dkt. 65 C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, Fontem
`Ventures, B. V V. NJOY, Inc., No. 14-cV-1645, Dkt. 93 (C.D. Cal.
`Mar. 19, 2015
`Revised Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement,
`Fontem Ventures, B. V V. NJOY, Inc., No. 14-cV-1645, Dkt. 34 (CD.
`Cal. Set. 30, 2014
`
`1013
`1014
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 4,945,931 “the ’931 patent”
`Curriculum Vitae of Samir Nayfeh, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit 1010-00006
`
`

`
`Petitioners NJOY, Inc.; CB Distributors, Inc.; DR Distributors, LLC, FIN
`
`Branding Group, LLC, Electronic Cigarettes International Group, Ltd.
`
`f/k/a
`
`Victory Electronic Cigarettes Corporation, and Logic Technology Development
`
`LLC (“Petitioners”), pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-19 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 et seq.,
`
`request inter partes review of claims 1-4, 8-10, and 12-17 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,893,726 (“the ’726 patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’726 patent claims an electronic cigarette. Ex. 1001 at 5:1-6:33,
`
`Declaration Samir Nayfeh, Ph.D. (“Nayfeh Decl.”) (Ex. 1002) at 11 13. Electronic
`
`cigarettes, however, are not new, and one panel of the Board has already instituted
`
`inter partes review of the parent and grandparent of the ’726 patent.1 Petitioners
`
`similarly request inter partes review of the ’726 patent.
`
`The ’726 patent describes a device “that functions as [a] substitute[] for
`
`quitting smoking and cigarette substitutes.” Ex. 1001 at 1:59-60. The claimed
`
`device requires a housing having an air flow channel between an inlet and an
`
`outlet, a liquid storage container, and an atomizer to convert liquid into an aerosol.
`
`Id. at claims 1, 8, 12, 14, 15; id. at Abstract; Nayfeh Decl. at 1111 14-16. The liquid
`
`1 NJOY, Inc. V. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V, IPR2014-01300, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Feb.
`
`19, 2015); NJOY,
`
`Inc. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V, IPR2014-01289, Paper 8
`
`(P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2015).
`
`Exhibit 1010-00007
`
`

`
`storage is in contact with the atomizer and may contain a fibrous material. Ex.
`
`1001 at claims 1, 2, 13, and 15; Nayfeh Decl. at 1111 14-15. The atomizer has a
`
`porous component that contains a cavity and surrounds a coiled heating wire. Ex.
`
`1001 at claims 1, 3, 9, 10 and 17; Nayfeh Decl. at 11 16. And the device may
`
`contain circuity and a battery. Ex. 1001 at claim 4 and 15; Nayfeh Decl. at 11 13.
`
`The ’726 patent issued over a single rejection in the Patent Office. Ex. 1006.
`
`In reliance on the applicant’s arguments, the examiner stated that the one cited
`
`reference did not disclose “a heating wire in the atomizer surrounded by a porous
`
`body/atomizer in contact with a liquid storage body” or “a liquid storage body
`
`including fiber material.” Ex. 1007. The references cited herein disclose all those
`
`features, as well as the remaining features of the challenged claims.
`
`Petitioners cite one primary reference, U.S. Pat. No. 6,155,268 (“Takeuchi”)
`
`(Ex. 1003), and two secondary references, U.S. Pat. No. 5,144,962 (“Counts”) (Ex.
`
`1004) and U.S. Pat. No. 6,322,268 (“Kaufmann”) (Ex. 1005). None of these were
`
`discussed during prosecution and none were relied upon by the examiner during
`
`the prosecution of the ’726 patent. Ex. 1006, Ex. 1001 at [56]. And in fact, the
`
`Patent Office never relied on or discussed either Takeuchi or Kaufmann during the
`
`prosecution of any the ’726 patent’s ancestors.
`
`Takeuchi discloses,
`
`in addition to other
`
`’726 patent claim elements, a
`
`“flavor-generating device for
`
`simulated smoking” with a “gas passageway”
`
`-2-
`
`Exhibit 1010-00008
`
`

`
`between an “intake port” and an “inhalation port,” and a “heater” to “gasify a
`
`liquid favor source.” Ex. 1003 at 1:4-6, id. at 4:48-52, id. at 6:4-7, Nayfeh Decl. at
`
`1111 23-26. Counts discloses an “electrically-heated flavor delivery article[]” for
`
`“releasing flavor from tobacco” that contains a “wire coil” “heating element.” Ex.
`
`1004 at 1:5-12;
`
`id. at 4:5-14, Nayfeh Decl. at 11 29. Kaufmann discloses an
`
`“efficient fluid dispensing utensil” suitable for “medicine, perfume,
`
`and food.”
`
`Ex. 1005 at Title, id. at 1:21-23, Nayfeh Decl. at 11 33. All of the elements in the
`
`challenged claims of the ’726 patent are disclosed in these three references.
`
`The only success that Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (“the Patent Owner”) had
`
`with the inter partes review proceedings of the ’726 patent’s parent and
`
`grandparent was convincing the panel that Takeuchi does not disclose a “porous
`
`bulge section” of the atomizer that projects into the liquid container.
`
`IPR20l4-
`
`01300, Paper 8 at 20-21, 22-23 (denying institution as to one challenged claim).
`
`The “porous bulge section” is an unremarkable feature of the ’726 patent, so much
`
`so that the specification never describes its shape or function. Nevertheless,
`
`Petitioners here do not rely on Takeuchi to disclose the “porous bulge section,” but
`
`instead present Kaufmann, which discloses a porous bulge having a shape that
`
`comports with the prior panel’s interpretation of “porous bulge section.”
`
`Exhibit 1010-00009
`
`

`
`For the reasons set forth herein,
`
`the challenged claims are invalid and
`
`Petitioners respectfully request that the Board institute inter partes review of
`
`claims 1-4, 8-10, and 12-17 ofthe ’726 patent.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES — 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest — § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Petitioners NJOY, Inc.; CB Distributors, Inc; DR Distributors, LLC, FIN
`
`Branding Group, LLC, Electronic Cigarettes International Group, Ltd.
`
`f/k/a
`
`Victory Electronic Cigarettes Corporation, and Logic Technology Development
`
`LLC are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`Petitioners certify that they exercised their sole and absolute discretion in
`
`deciding to file this petition against the ’726 patent. Petitioners further certify that
`
`they controlled every aspect of and all strategy decisions related to this petition,
`
`including which claims to challenge, which prior art to apply, which grounds to
`
`raise, and when to bring the challenge. Petitioners were responsible for paying all
`
`fees and expenses incurred during the preparation of this petition.
`
`Petitioners are the only real-parties-in-interest.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters — § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`This proceeding could affect or be affected by the series of cases the Patent
`
`Owner filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The
`
`defendants and case numbers are listed below:
`
`(i) Ballantyne Brands, LLC, Nos.
`
`Exhibit 1010-00010
`
`

`
`2:14-cv-09269, 2:14-cv-08157, and 2:14-cv-01652, (ii) VMR Products, LLC, Nos.
`
`2:14-cv-09273, 2:14-cv-08161, and 2:14-cv-01655, (iii) Spark Industries, LLC,
`
`Nos. 2:14-cv-09270, 2:14-cv-08158, and 2:14-cv-01653, (iv) Vapor Corp., Nos.
`
`2:14-cv-09267, 2:14-cv-08155, and 2:14-cv-01650, (V) CB Distributors, Inc. and
`
`DR Distributors, LLC, Nos. 2:14-cv-09266, 2:14-cv-08154, and 2:14-cv-01649,
`
`(vi) LOEC, Inc., Nos. 2:14-cv-09265, 2:14-cv-08149, and 2:14-cv-01648, (vii)
`
`Logic Technology Development LLC, Nos. 2:14-cv-09271, 2:14-cv-08160, and
`
`2:14-cv-01654; (viii) NJOY, Inc., Nos. 2:14-cv-09263, 2:14-cv-08144, and 2:14-
`
`cv-0l645; (ix) FIN Branding Group, LLC and Electronic Cigarettes Int’l Group
`
`Ltd., Nos. 2:14-cv-09268, 2:14-cv-08156, and 2:14-cv-01651.
`
`Related IPRs include:
`
`IPR2013-00387; IPR20l4-01289, IPR2014-01300,
`
`IPR2014-01529, IPR2015-00098, IPR20l5-00859; and IPR20l5-01027.
`
`Petitioners are concurrently filing petitions for inter partes review of U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 8,910,641, 8,863,752, and 8,899,239. Due to the related nature of this
`
`technology, and the overlap in parties, the Petitioners request the Board assign
`
`these petitions to the same panel and coordinate scheduling in the interest of
`
`administrative efficiency.
`
`C.
`
`Counsel and Service Information — § 42.8(b)(3) and (4)
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`James H. Morris (Registration No. 34,681)
`
`Ba:::ku'p Counsel
`
`Edmund J. Walsh (Registration No. 32,950)
`
`JMorris-PTAB @wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Service
`
`Email:
`
`Exhibit 1010-00011
`
`

`
`Information
`
`EWalsh-PTAB @wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Post and hand delivery: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`
`Boston, MA 02210-2206
`
`Facsimile: 617-646-8646
`
`Telephone: 617-646-8000
`
`Powers of attorney are submitted with this petition. Counsel for Petitioners
`
`consents to service of all documents via electronic mail.
`
`III. NOTICE OF FEES PAID
`
`Fees are submitted with this Petition.
`
`If additional fees are due during the
`
`proceeding, the Office is authorized to charge Deposit Account No. 23/2825.
`
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`The ’726 patent was filed before March 16, 2013.
`
`Petitioners certify,
`
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), that the ’726 patent is available for inter partes
`
`review and that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes
`
`review as to the ’726 patent claims identified herein.
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’726 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Context of the ’726 patent
`
`The ’726 patent
`
`is in a family of patents that describe a device “that
`
`functions as [a] substitute[] for quitting smoking and cigarette substitutes.” Ex.
`
`1001 at 1:59-60. The ’726 patent is the third patent in its family to be subject to a
`
`petition for inter partes review; the Board already instituted inter partes review of
`
`-6-
`
`Exhibit 1010-00012
`
`

`
`the other two patents. See footnote 1. Although the ’726 patent ostensibly relates
`
`to just electronic cigarettes, the specification explains that “the present invention
`
`can be filled with [a] conventional drug for pulmonary administration.”2 Id. at
`
`Title;
`
`id. at claim 1,
`
`id. at 2:5-7, Nayfeh Decl. at
`
`11 13.
`
`Similarly, during
`
`prosecution, the applicant cited a variety of patents related to flavor and perfume
`
`generation, writing and printer technologies, and medical inhalers and nebulizers.
`
`See Ex. 1008. The ’726 patent and the purported problems it sought to solve
`
`should, therefore, be understood in this broader context.
`
`B.
`
`Description related to the challenged claims
`
`With respect to claims 1-4, 8-10, and 12-17,
`
`the ’726 patent generally
`
`requires a housing having an air flow channel between an inlet and a mouthpiece, a
`
`fibrous liquid storage container, and an atomizer to convert liquid into an aerosol.
`
`EX. 1001 at claims 1, 8, 12, 14, 15; id. at Abstract; id. at 3:11-15, id. at 3:18-20,
`
`Nayfeh Decl. at 11 14. The atomizer has a “porous body” in contact with the liquid
`
`storage container via a “bulge” which causes liquid to move via capillary action
`
`into the atomizer. Ex. 1001 at 3:64-67, Nayfeh Decl. at 11 15. The atomizer has a
`
`“heating
`
`wire” within an “atomization cavity” in the air passage. Ex. 1001 at
`
`2:51-55,
`
`id. at 3:49-52, Nayfeh Decl. at 11 16. When a user inhales through the
`
`2 All emphasis added, unless noted.
`
`Exhibit 1010-00013
`
`

`
`mouthpiece, liquid is atomized in the “cavity” by the “heating
`
`wire” and enters
`
`the air flow path to be inhaled. Ex. 1001 at 3:52-58; Nayfeh Decl. at 11 16.
`
`In response to the prior petitions for inter partes review, the Patent Owner
`
`attempted to avoid institution with arbitrary line-drawing. For example, the Patent
`
`Owner argued that the atomizer had to be a single component, and that it cannot be
`
`fed by capillary movement through a tube.
`
`IPR2014-01289, Paper 8 at 9-10, 16.
`
`Similarly,
`
`the Patent Owner argued that the air passage must go through the
`
`atomizer rather than around it.
`
`IPR2014-01289, Paper 8 at 17. The claims of the
`
`’726 are not so limited, and the prior panel rightly rejected Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments. IPR2014-01289, Paper 8 at 16-18.
`
`The “bulge” took on importance when the prior panel denied institution of
`
`inter partes review of one claim that required such a “bulge.”
`
`IPR2014-01300,
`
`Paper 8 at 20-21, 22-23. The ’726 patent places no particular emphasis on this
`
`aspect of the disclosed device, and mentions it only three times—once in claim 13
`
`and twice in the specification to explain that the atomizer is in contact with the
`
`“liquid supplying bottle” via the “bulge.” Ex. 1001 at claim 13;
`
`id. at 2:49-50
`
`(“The atomizer 9 is in contact with the liquid-supplying bottle 11 via the bulge
`
`36...”), id. at 3:65-66 (“[T]he liquid-supplying bottle 11 is in contact with the
`
`bulge 36 on the atomizer 9...”), Nayfeh Decl. at 11 15.
`
`Exhibit 1010-00014
`
`

`
`C.
`
`Priority date of claims
`
`The ’726 patent claims priority to a PCT application filed March 18, 2005,
`
`which in turn claims priority to a Chinese application filed April 14, 2004.
`
`Without conceding that the challenged claims are entitled to priority as asserted,
`
`the claims are unpatentable based on patents and printed publications published
`
`more than one year before the filing date of the PCT application and before the
`
`foreign priority date, and are therefore prior art even if the ’726 patent is entitled to
`
`the earliest priority date claimed.
`
`VI.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioners seek cancellation of claims 1-4, 8-10, and 12-17 of the ’726
`
`patent.
`
`A.
`
`Patents upon which Petitioners rely
`
`In seeking cancellation of the claims listed above, Petitioners rely on the
`
`following patents.
`
`1.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,155,268 (“Takeuchi”) (EX. 1003)
`
`Takeuchi discloses a “flavor-generating device for enjoying inhalation of
`
`flavor or for enjoying simulated smoking” that creates an aerosol “to be inhaled by
`
`a user by heating a liquid[] flavor source without relying on combustion.” Ex.
`
`1003 at 1:4-10, id. at 5:33-37; Nayfeh Decl. at 11 23. When used as a “simulated
`
`smoking article,” the liquid flavor source can “contain tobacco components such as
`
`-9-
`
`Exhibit 1010-00015
`
`

`
`tobacco extracts and a tobacco smoke condensate.” Ex. 1003 at 5 :43-46, Nayfeh
`
`Decl. at 11 23.
`
`In addition, “alcohols, sugars, [and] water” may be used. Ex. 1003
`
`at 5:35-37, Nayfeh Decl. at 11 23.
`
`Takeuchi has a “liquid container for storing [the] liquid flavor source” (blue
`
`in Fig.
`
`1 below) and a “gas passageway” (green in Fig.
`
`1 below) through “a
`
`chamber having an air inlet port and a flavor inhalation port.” Ex. 1003 at
`
`Abstract, Nayfeh Decl. at 11 24. A “liquid passageway” (red in Fig. 1 below) is “in
`
`fluid communication with the liquid flavor source at its first end
`
`and with the
`
`gas passageway at its second end.” Ex. 1003 at Abstract; Nayfeh Decl. at 11 25.
`
`Liquid from the “liquid flavor source” moves through the “liquid passageway” to
`
`the “gas passageway” “by capillary force.” Ex. 1003 at Abstract, Nayfeh Decl. at 11
`
`25. The “liquid passageway” can be an “intercommunicating pore structure” such
`
`as a “foam” or “bundled fibers.” Ex. 1003 at 3:42-50, Nayfeh Decl. at 11 25. At the
`
`end of the “liquid passageway” by the “gas passageway,
`
`[a] heater heats and
`
`77
`
`CC
`
`evaporates the liquid flavor source,” which cools into an aerosol in the “cooling
`
`chamber.” (red in Fig. 1 below). Ex. 1003 at Abstract; id. at Fig. 1, id. at 5:1-20,
`
`Nayfeh Decl. at 11 26. The “heater” can be a “rod-like heater” that is “inserted into
`
`the outlet” of the “liquid passageway.” Ex. 1003 at 8:22-23; Nayfeh Decl. at 11 26.
`
`-10-
`
`Exhibit 1010-00016
`
`

`
`EX. 1003 at Fig.
`
`1
`
`(“liquid container” (32) highlighted in blue,
`
`the atomizer
`
`(including “liquid passageway” (37), “heater” (42), and “cooling chamber” (circled
`
`21)) highlighted in red, and the “gas passageway” (20, horizontal arrow) indicated
`
`in green).
`
`Takeuchi’s embodiments,
`
`including Fig.
`
`1 above, each illustrate various
`
`features. Nayfeh Decl. at
`
`11 27. However, Takeuchi’s embodiments do not
`
`illustrate every combination of its features, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSA”) would have recognized that features identified in one embodiment could
`
`readily be applied with other features in combinations not specifically depicted or
`
`described in any given embodiment. Nayfeh Decl. at 11 27.
`
`Takeuchi issued on December 5, 2000, which is more than a year before the
`
`earliest claimed priority date of the ’726 patent. Ex. 1003 at [45]. Takeuchi is
`
`-11-
`
`Exhibit 1010-00017
`
`

`
`therefore prior art to the ’726 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).
`
`Takeuchi was assigned to Japan Tobacco Inc. and was cited by the applicant
`
`during the prosecution of the ’726 patent. Ex. 1003 at [73]; Ex. 1008.
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,144,962 (“Counts”) (Ex. 1004)
`
`Counts discloses an “electrically-heated device for generating flavor
`
`components” that has an electric heater to “release” “flavor components” from
`
`“tobacco-derived materials.” Ex. 1004 at 1:29-37; id. at 4:1-11; Nayfeh Decl. at 11
`
`29. The “[f]lavor-generating medium 12 typically may be formed in a packed bed
`
`.. around heating element 14” and is “encased in
`
`tube 20.” Ex. 1004 at 3:20-
`
`24; Nayfeh Decl. at 11 29.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004 at Fig. 2 (“heating element 14” and tube (not numbered, around “heating
`
`element 14”) highlighted in red and “connector pins 30” highlighted in yellow).
`
`In Fig. 2, “energy is supplied to heating element 14 from an external source”
`
`and “is transmitted to the contacts of heating element 14 via connector pins 30.”
`
`-12-
`
`Exhibit 1010-00018
`
`

`
`Ex. 1004 at 3:38-44; id. at Fig. 2; Nayfeh Decl. at 11 31. However, Counts explains
`
`that “[o]ne skilled in the art could modify the embodiments of the articles
`
`described herein to utilize either internal or external power sources.” Ex. 1004 at
`
`3:49-52; Nayfeh Decl. at 11 31. “In a preferred embodiment; heating element 14 is
`
`a resistive wire coil
`
`disposed within an insulating tube... .” Ex. 1004 at 4:5-11;
`
`Nayfeh Decl. at 11 31.
`
`Counts issued on September 8; 1992; which is more than a year before the
`
`earliest claimed priority date of the ’726 patent. Ex. 1004 at [45]. Counts is
`
`therefore prior art to the ’726 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).
`
`Counts was assigned to Philip Morris Inc. and was cited by the applicant during
`
`prosecution of the ’726 patent. Id. at [73]; Ex. 1008.
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,322,268 (“Kaufmann”) (Ex. 1005)
`
`Kaufmann discloses an “efficient fluid dispensing utensil” that is “adapted to
`
`prevent leakage.” Ex. 1005 at Title; id. at 1:16-18; Nayfeh Decl. at 11 33. Kaufman
`
`explains that such “utensils are commonly used to deliver fluids such as ink; paint;
`
`adhesives; shoe polish; lotion; medicine; perfume; makeup; white out and food”
`
`Ex. 1005 at 1:21-23; Nayfeh Decl. at 11 33. Kaufmann explains that its invention
`
`improves upon fluid dispensing systems like the one that Takeuchi uses; which
`
`have “a relatively large volume of fluid in a non-capillary container” and transfer
`
`liquid from the container with a “capillary conveying line” Ex. 1005 at 1:23-32;
`
`-13-
`
`Exhibit 1010-00019
`
`

`
`id. at 2:64-3:3; Nayfeh Decl. at 11 33. Those types of fluid dispensers are not able
`
`to equilibrate their internal pressure effectively, and therefore, risk leakage. Ex.
`
`1005 at 1:40-52; Nayfeh Decl. at 11 33.
`
`Kaufmann describes a solution to the problems associated with those fluid
`
`dispensing systems. Kaufmann explains how a porous material (14, 16, and 140 in
`
`Fig. 5 below) in part of the liquid storage body can allow pressure equilibration
`
`while buffering against leakage. EX. 1005 at 3:12-41, Nayfeh Decl. at 11 34. The
`
`specific structure and functionality of Kaufmann’s solution is described in greater
`
`detail in Part VIII.B.1 below. The following is Kaufmann’s Fig. 5.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005 at Fig. 5.
`
`Kaufman issued on November 27, 2001, which is more than a year before
`
`the earliest claimed priority date of the ’726 patent.
`
`Id. at [45]. Kaufmann is
`
`therefore prior art to the ’726 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).
`
`Kaufman was assigned to Avery Dennison Corp. Id. at [73].
`
`-14-
`
`Exhibit 1010-00020
`
`

`
`4.
`
`The relied-upon prior art is analogous to the ’726 patent.
`
`Each of the relied-upon prior art patents are analogous art because (a) each is
`
`within the same field of endeavor of the ’726 patent and/or (b) each addresses
`
`problems that are reasonably pertinent to those in the ’726 patent. See Myers v.
`
`Master Lock Ca; 616 F.3d 1231; 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (explaining that a reference
`
`can be analogous for either reason); Nayfeh Decl. at 11 36.
`
`The ’726 patent describes a battery-powered “electronic cigarette” that uses
`
`“capillary infiltration” to dispense nicotine or a “conventional drug.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`1:21-23; id. at 2:4-7; id. at 3:64-67; Nayfeh Decl. at 11 36. Takeuchi discloses a
`
`battery-powered device for “simulated smoking” that uses “capillary force” to
`
`dispense “tobacco extracts and a tobacco smoke condensate.” Ex. 1003 at 1:4-6;
`
`id. at 5:46;
`
`id. at 6:15-17; Nayfeh Decl. at 11 36. Counts discloses a battery-
`
`powered “[s]moking article[] utilizing electric power for heating and thereby
`
`releasing flavor from tobacco.” Ex. 1004 at 3:38-52; id. at 119-10; Nayfeh Decl. at
`
`11 36. Kaufmann discloses an “efficient fluid dispensing utensil” with a “capillary
`
`conveying line” that is suitable “to deliver fluids such as ink; paint; adhesives; shoe
`
`polish; lotion; medicine; perfume; makeup; white out and food.” Ex. 1005 at Title;
`
`id. at Abstract; id. at 1:21-23; Nayfeh Decl. at 11 36. Thus; each prior art reference
`
`is in the fields of battery-powered electronic cigarettes or liquid dispensers with the
`
`’726 patent. Princeton Biochemical, Inc. V. Beckman Coulter, Inc.; 411 F.3d 1332;
`
`-15-
`
`Exhibit 1010-00021
`
`

`
`1339 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding references in different fields to be analogous to a
`
`patent that spanned those fields); Nayfeh Decl. at 1] 36.
`
`Furthermore, even if not in the same field of endeavor, each prior art
`
`reference addresses pertinent problems. Nayfeh Decl. at 1] 36. For example,
`
`Takeuchi and Kaufmann address problems related capillary movement from a
`
`liquid storage and Takeuchi and Counts address problems related to electric
`
`heaters. Nayfeh Decl. at 1] 36. “[F]amiliar items may have obvious uses beyond
`
`their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to
`
`fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR Int’! Co.
`
`v. Teleflex Inc, 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). A POSA would have considered each
`
`of the prior art references to address the same problems that the ’726 patent
`
`purports to address. Nayfeh Decl. at 1] 36.
`
`B.
`
`Level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`The POSA 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
`
`two years of experience designing
`
`electromechanical devices, including those involving fluid mechanics and heat
`
`transfer. Nayfeh Decl. at 1] 20. A POSA would have the ability to read and
`
`understand the references and make reasonable inferences based on drawings.
`
`Nayfeh Decl. at 1] 20.
`
`-16-
`
`Exhibit 1010-00022
`
`

`
`C.
`
`Statutory grounds for challenge
`
`Cancellation of claims 1-4, 8-10, and 12-17 of the ’726 patent is requested
`
`on the following grounds.
`
`1
`
`Takeuchi and Counts
`
`Referencei 3
`
`
`
`Takeuchi and Kaufmann
`Takeuchi, Counts, and Kaufmann
`
`1, 3, 4, 8, 9,
`10, 12, 14
`15, 16
`2, 13, 17
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`D.
`
`Claim construction
`
`In this proceeding, claim terms should be given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in view of the specification.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Any claim
`
`terms not expressly discussed below should be given their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning as understood by a POSA.
`
`In the decision instituting inter partes review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,490,628
`
`(“the ’628 patent”), which is in the family of and has the same disclosure as the
`
`’726 patent, the prior panel construed several terms that appear in the claims of the
`
`’726 patent.
`
`IPR2014-01300, Paper 8 at 6-11. Specifically, the ’726 patent is a
`
`division of the application that resulted in the ’628 patent. The terms are shown in
`
`the table below.
`
`-17-
`
`Exhibit 1010-00023
`
`

`
`Coinstructtioin from Inter Partes Review of the
`
`Patent)‘
`
`where the device functions as a substitute for smoking, e. g., by
`
`“electronic
`
`“a device for generating liquid droplets for inhalation by a user,
`
`cigarette”
`
`3 For “electronic cigarette,
`
`atomizer,” and “cavity,” the same prior panel adopted
`
`77 CC
`
`the same constructions as another decision instituting inter partes review of U.S.
`
`Pat. No. 8,393,331 (“the ’331 patent”).
`
`IPR2014-01289, Paper 8 at 6-10. That
`
`decision also construed “physical contact” to mean “direct contact.” Id. at 8-9.
`
`The ’628 patent is a continuation of the application that resulted in the ’331 patent.
`
`In the co-pending litigations, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
`
`California, applying Phillips v. AWH Corp, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005),
`
`entered orders construing several of the terms at issue in this Petition. Ex. 1009
`
`(Claim Construction Order, May 7, 2015) and EX. 1010 (Claim Construction
`
`Order, Jan. 29, 2015). The parties also stipulated to the construction of other
`
`terms,
`
`including “electronic cigarette” and “atomizer,” under the Phillips standard.
`
`See Ex. 1011 (Joint Statement and Ex. A, Mar. 19, 2015) (showing construction of
`
`“electronic cigarette”) and Ex. 1012 (Joint Statement and Ex. A, Sept. 30, 2014)
`
`(showing construction