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 8,893,726
`Issue Date: Nov. 25, 2014
`Title: Electronic Cigarette
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2016-01270
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,893,726 PURSUANT TO
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv
`LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................. v
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ........................ 2
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest ........................................................................... 2
`B.
`Related Matters .................................................................................... 2
`1.
`Related Litigations ..................................................................... 2
`2.
`Related Proceedings Before the Board ...................................... 4
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel .................................................................. 5
`C.
`Service Information .............................................................................. 5
`D.
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ....................................................................... 6
`IV.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND STATEMENT
`OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................. 6
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 7
`VI. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE RELIEF
`REQUESTED ................................................................................................. 7
`A.
`Summary of the Argument ................................................................... 7
`B.
`Background of the ’726 Patent ............................................................. 9
`1.
`The ’726 Patent .......................................................................... 9
`2.
`The Prosecution History of the ’726 Patent ............................. 10
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“PHOSITA”) ............................ 13
`Claim Construction ............................................................................ 13
`1.
`“electronic cigarette” ................................................................ 14
`2.
`“atomizer” ................................................................................ 16
`3.
`“liquid storage body including fiber material” ........................ 17
`4.
`“physical contact” .................................................................... 17
`
`C.
`D.
`
`V.
`
`i
`
`
`

`
`
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`2.
`
`d.
`
`Patents and Publications Relied on in this Petition ............................ 17
`1.
`Brooks (Ex. 1006) Discloses An Electronic
`Cigarette That Has The Claimed Features ............................... 18
`Cook (Ex. 1007) and Takeuchi (Ex. 1008)
`Disclose A Porous Liquid Storage Body Including
`Fiber Material ........................................................................... 22
`The Challenged Claims Are Anticipated by Brooks .......................... 26
`1.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 26
`a.
`“an electronic cigarette” ................................................ 26
`b.
`“a housing having an inlet and an outlet” ...................... 29
`c.
`“an electronic circuit board and an atomizer
`having a heating element, within the
`housing” ......................................................................... 31
`“a battery electrically connected to the
`electronic circuit board” ................................................ 34
`“a stream passage within the housing
`leading from the inlet to the atomizer” .......................... 35
`“a liquid storage body including fiber
`material in a cylindrical section of the
`housing, with the liquid storage body in
`physical contact with the atomizer” ............................... 37
`“an aerosol passage from the atomizer to the
`outlet” ............................................................................ 42
`Claim 16 ................................................................................... 44
`2.
`The Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable as Obvious
`over Brooks (Ex. 1006) Combined With Cook (Ex. 1007)
`and/or Takeuchi (Ex. 1008) ................................................................ 46
`1.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 48
`a.
`“an electronic cigarette” ................................................ 48
`b.
`“a housing having an inlet and an outlet” ...................... 48
`c.
`“an electronic circuit board and an atomizer
`having a heating element, within the
`housing” ......................................................................... 48
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`ii
`
`
`

`
`
`
`d.
`
`“a battery electrically connected to the
`electronic circuit board” ................................................ 48
`“a stream passage within the housing
`leading from the inlet to the atomizer” .......................... 49
`“a liquid storage body including fiber
`material in a cylindrical section of the
`housing, with the liquid storage body in
`physical contact with the atomizer” ............................... 49
`“an aerosol passage from the atomizer to the
`outlet” ............................................................................ 55
`Claim 16 ................................................................................... 56
`2.
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 56
`
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed.Cir.2002) ............................................................................... 15
`Cisco Sys. et al v. Capella Photonics, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01276 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2016) ........................................................... 16
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee,
`579 U. S. ____ (2016) ......................................................................................... 13
`Google Inc. v. Visual Real Estate, Inc.
`IPR2014-01339 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2016) ........................................................... 15
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................... 13
`RF Controls, LLC. v. A1 Packaging Solutions, Inc.
`IPR2014-01536 (P.T.A.B. March 28, 2016) ....................................................... 16
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102-103 ............................................................................... 6, 7, 10, 18
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ................................................................................... 1, 2, 3, 7
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Patent Trial Practice Guide
`77 Fed. Reg., Vol. 77, No. 157 (2012) .................................................................. 2
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42 ................................................................................................... 1, 2, 6
`
`
`iv
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Exhibit
`
`Exhibit
`1001:
`Exhibit
`1002:
`Exhibit
`1003:
`Exhibit
`1004:
`
`Exhibit
`1005:
`
`Exhibit
`1006:
`Exhibit
`1007:
`Exhibit
`1008:
`Exhibit
`1009:
`
`Exhibit
`1010:
`
`Exhibit
`1011:
`
`Exhibit
`1012:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,893,726
`
`’726 Patent File History, Non-Final
`Rejection (August 16, 2013)
`’726 Patent File History, Amendment
`(October 8, 2013)
`’726 Patent File History, Notice of
`Allowance (August 18, 2014)
`NJOY, Inc. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.,
`IPR2015-01302 (PTAB, filed May 29,
`2015), Paper No. 15
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,947,874
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,944,025
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,155,268
`
`Declaration of Robert Sturges, Ph.D.
`
`NJOY, Inc. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.,
`IPR2015-01302 (PTAB, filed May 29,
`2015), Paper No.2
`NJOY, Inc. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.,
`IPR2015-01302 (PTAB, filed May 29,
`2015), Paper No. 6
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,703,633
`
`v
`
`
`Referred To In
`The Petition As
`“’726 Patent”
`
`“Non-Final
`Rejection”
`“Amendment”
`
`“Notice of
`Allowance”
`“Prior Decision”
`
`“Brooks”
`
`“Cook”
`
`“ Takeuchi”
`
`“Sturges Decl.”
`
`“NJOY Petition”
`
`“Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response”
`“Gehrer”
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42, R.J. Reynolds Vapor
`
`Company (“Reynolds” or “Petitioner”) respectfully requests Inter Partes Review
`
`(“IPR”) of claims 15 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 8,893,726 to Hon, titled
`
`“Electronic Cigarette” (“the ’726 Patent,” Ex. 1001), which is currently assigned to
`
`Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (“Fontem” or “Patent Owner”). The Petitioner authorizes
`
`the Patent and Trademark Office to charge Deposition Account No. 23-1925 for
`
`the fees set forth 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.
`
`This Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that claims 15 and 16 of
`
`the ’726 patent are unpatentable. As discussed herein, U.S. Patent Nos. 4,947,874
`
`(Brooks) discloses every limitation of claims 15 and 16 of the ‘726 patent. In
`
`addition, to the extent there is any question whether Brooks expressly discloses a
`
`liquid storage body “including fiber material” (and it does) in the particular
`
`embodiments of Brooks relied upon here, it was nonetheless well-known in the art
`
`to include fiber material in a liquid storage body. See Brooks (general teachings),
`
`Cook (U.S. Patent No. 5,944,025) and Takeuchi (U.S. Patent No. 6,155,268).
`
`Thus, it would have been a simpler matter of routine design choice to include fiber
`
`material, as taught by Brooks, Cook and/or Takeuchi, in the liquid storage body of
`
`Brooks.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)
`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, R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (“Petitioner”) identifies the real-parties-
`
`in-interest as R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company and Reynolds American Incorporated.
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company further discloses that it is an indirect wholly owned
`
`subsidiary of Reynolds American, Inc., and states that under the governing
`
`standard Reynolds American Incorporated is not a real-party-in-interest. See Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide 77 Fed. Reg., Vol. 77, No. 157 (2012) at 48759-60. Reynolds
`
`American Inc. nevertheless agrees to be bound to the same extent as a real party in
`
`interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`1.
`Related Litigations
`Petitioner is not aware of any reexamination certificates or pending
`
`prosecution concerning the ’726 patent. Petitioner is a defendant in the following
`
`litigation involving the ’726 patent: Fontem Ventures B.V. et al. v. R.J. Reynolds
`
`Vapor Company, No. 2:16-cv-02286 (C.D. Cal., filed April 4, 2016). Fontem has
`
`alleged that Reynolds infringes claims 15 and 16 of the ‘726 patent, the two claims
`
`for which Reynolds seeks inter partes review. In addition to the ‘726 patent,
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`Fontem has also asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 8,365,742; 8,490,628; and 8,899,239
`
`against Reynolds in the above-referenced district court action.
`
`Reynolds was served with the complaint in the above-referenced action on
`
`April 6, 2016. Thus, Reynolds’ petition is timely under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`The Patent Owner has also asserted the ’726 patent in the following
`
`additional district court proceedings in which Reynolds was not and is not a party:
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. et al. v. Nu Mark LLC, No. 2-16-cv-02291 (C.D. Cal., filed
`
`April 4, 2016); Fontem Ventures BV et al v. NJOY, Inc., No. 2-14-cv-08144 (C.D.
`
`Cal., filed October 21, 2014) (terminated); Fontem Ventures B.V. et al v. LOEC,
`
`Inc. et al., No. 2-14-cv-08149, (C.D. Cal., filed October 21, 2014) (terminated);
`
`Fontem Ventures BV et al v. CB Distributors, Inc. et al., No. 2-14-cv-08154 (C.D.
`
`Cal., filed October 21, 2014) (terminated); Fontem Ventures BV et al v. Vapor
`
`Corp., No. 2-14-cv-08155 (C.D. Cal., filed October 21, 2014) (terminated);
`
`Fontem Ventures BV et al v. FIN Branding Group, LLC et al., No. 2-14-cv-08156
`
`(C.D. Cal., filed October 21, 2014) (terminated); Fontem Ventures BV et al v.
`
`Ballantyne Brands, LLC, No. 2-14-cv-08157 (C.D. Cal., filed October 21, 2014)
`
`(terminated); Fontem Ventures BV et al v. Spark Industries, LLC, No. 2-14-cv-
`
`08158 (C.D. Cal., filed October 21, 2014) (terminated); Fontem Ventures BV et al
`
`v. Logic Technology Development, LLC, No. 2-14-cv-08160 (C.D. Cal., filed
`
`October 21, 2014) (terminated); Fontem Ventures BV et al v. VMR Products, LLC
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`d/b/a V2CIGS, No. 2-14-cv-08161 (C.D. Cal., filed October 21, 2014)
`
`(terminated).
`
`Related Proceedings Before the Board
`
`2.
`The ‘726 patent was also the subject of the following petitions for IPR:
`
`• NJOY, Inc. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2015-01302 (PTAB, filed
`
`May 29, 2015). On December 9, 2015, the Board denied institution of
`
`NJOY’s petition in IPR2015-01302 because NJOY did not establish a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of the
`
`challenged claims 1-4, 8-10, and 12-17. NJOY’s petition relied on the
`
`combination of Takeuchi (Ex. 1008) with U.S. Pat. No. 5,144,962
`
`(Counts) and/or U.S. Pat. No. 6,322,268 (Kaufman). Ex. 1010 at 17.
`
`Reynolds’ petition relies on a different combination, and advances
`
`different arguments, and thus is not redundant to NJOY’s petition.
`
`• Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-01288 (PTAB, filed
`
`June 28, 2016). Nu Mark’s petition in IPR2016-01288 relies on the
`
`combination of Takeuchi (Ex. 1008) with U.S. Pat. No. 1,514,682
`
`(Wilson) and/or U.S. Pat. No. 6,598,607 (Adiga) and/or U.S. Pat. No.
`
`6,322,268 (Kaufman), and also on the combination of U.S. Patent No.
`
`2,057,353 (“Whittemore”) in view of Wilson and Whittemore in view of
`
`Wilson and Adiga. Reynolds’ petition relies on a different combination,
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`and advances different arguments, and thus is not redundant to Nu
`
`Mark’s petition.
`
`• Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-01297 (PTAB, filed
`
`June 28, 2016). Nu Mark’s petition in IPR2016-01297 relies on U.S.
`
`2007/0267031. Reynolds’ petition relies on a different combination, and
`
`advances different arguments, and thus is not redundant to Nu Mark’s
`
`petition.
`
`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
`Brinks Gilson & Lione
`Suite 3600 NBC Tower
`455 Cityfront Plaza Drive
`Chicago IL 60611-5599
`T: 312-321-4200, F: 312-321-4299
`Mircea Tipescu (Reg. No. 53,690)
`mtipescu@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
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`rgabric@brinksgilson.com, rmallin@brinksgilson.com and
`
`mtipescu@brinksgilson.com.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`As required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’726 patent
`
`is available for IPR and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting
`
`IPR on the grounds identified herein.
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND STATEMENT OF THE
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review and cancellation of claims 15 and 16
`
`of the ’726 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103 as set forth herein. The
`
`’726 patent is to be reviewed under pre-AIA §§ 102 and 103. Petitioner’s detailed
`
`statement of the reasons for 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. In addition, the Petition is
`
`accompanied by the declaration of Dr. Robert Sturges. Ex. 1009.
`
`Claims 15 and 16 are unpatentable based upon the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 15 and 16 are anticipated by Brooks.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 15 and 16 are obvious over Brooks alone or Brooks in
`
`combination with Cook and/or Takeuchi.
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`There is no redundancy in Grounds 1 and 2. Ground 1 relies on Brooks as
`
`an anticipatory reference. Ground 2 relies on Brooks, alone or in combination with
`
`Cook and/or Takeuchi, in demonstrating that claims 15 and 16 are obvious under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`V. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`This petition meets the threshold requirements for inter partes review
`
`because it 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). As explained below, for the ground of unpatentability proposed below,
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least
`
`one of the challenged claims.
`
`VI. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED
`A.
`Summary of the Argument
`Claims 15 and 16 of the ’726 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102
`
`and/or 103. Specifically, Brooks anticipates claims 15 and 16, or, in the
`
`alternative, claims 15 and 16 are obvious based upon Brooks alone or in
`
`combination with Cook and/or Takeuchi.
`
`Claim 15, which is written in independent form, requires (a) a housing
`
`having an inlet and an outlet; (b) an electronic circuit board and an atomizer having
`
`a heating element, within the housing; (c) a battery electrically connected to the
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`electronic circuit board; (d) a stream passage within the housing leading from the
`
`inlet to the atomizer; (e) a liquid storage body including fiber material in a
`
`cylindrical section of the housing, with the liquid storage body in physical contact
`
`with the atomizer; and (f) an aerosol passage from the atomizer to the outlet. Ex.
`
`1001 at 6:17-28. Claim 16, which depends from claim 15, additionally requires a
`
`sensor in the stream passage, with the sensor electrically linked to the electronic
`
`circuit board. Id. at 6:29-31.
`
`Brooks discloses an electronic cigarette having each of the elements recited
`
`in claims 15 and 16. Alternatively, and to the extent Brooks does not expressly
`
`disclose the claimed “liquid storage body including fiber material,” it would have
`
`nonetheless been obvious to include fiber material in the porous liquid storage
`
`substrate of Brooks as taught by Brooks, Cook and/or Takeuchi. Specifically,
`
`Brooks discloses that heating element 18 “preferably is a fibrous material . . . in
`
`order to carry a suitable amount of aerosol forming substance,” the aerosol forming
`
`substance comprising a liquid. Ex. 1006 at 7:26-30, 8:8-15 (emphasis added).
`
`Cook discloses “an absorbent fuel reservoir [22] consists of synthetic fiber transfer
`
`wick material.” Ex. 1007 at 2:18-22; Fig. 1 (emphasis added). Takeuchi discloses
`
`a porous liquid storage body constructed from “bundled fibers.” Ex. 1008 at 3:35-
`
`49; 10:50-55; Fig. 14 (emphasis added). Thus, it would have been a matter of
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`routine design choice to include fiber material in the liquid storage body of Brooks.
`
`Declaration Robert Sturges, Ph.D. (“Sturges Decl.”) (Ex. 1009) at ¶¶ 82-88.
`
`B.
`
`Background of the ’726 Patent
`1.
`As illustrated in FIG. 1 reproduced below, the ’726 patent describes a
`
`The ’726 Patent
`
`structure having a shell 14 and a battery 2, an electronic circuit board 3, a sensor 6,
`
`an atomizer 9, and a liquid-supplying bottle 11 within the shell 14. Ex. 1001 at
`
`2:37-40. An air inlet 4 is also provided on the external wall of the shell 14 and a
`
`mouthpiece 15 is provided at one end of the shell. Id. at 2:36-37.
`
`
`
`battery
`
`electronic
`circuit board
`
`air inlet
`
`mouthpiece
`
`atomizer
`The ’726 patent also describes that “a solution storage porous body 28 is
`
`
`
`sensor
`
`bottle
`
`shell
`
`provided in the liquid-supplying bottle [11], and can be filled with polypropylene
`
`fiber, terylene fiber or nylon fiber.” Id. at 3:11-15; Fig. 11.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`solution storage
`porous body
`
`
`
`The solution storage porous body 28 is in contact with the atomizer 9 to supply
`
`liquid nicotine solution to the atomizer. Id. at 3:64-67.
`
`When a user inhales, air enters through the air inlet 4, passes through an air
`
`passage 18 of the sensor and flows into an atomization cavity 10 of the atomizer 9.
`
`Id. at 3:49-52. This drives a nicotine solution from a porous body that surrounds
`
`the atomization cavity into the atomization cavity. Id. at 3:52-59. It also causes
`
`the sensor 6 to output a signal to the electronic circuit board 3, which actuates a
`
`heating element 26 of the atomizer 9 to atomize the nicotine solution. Id. at 3:27-
`
`43. After the atomization, small droplets of the nicotine solution form aerosols,
`
`which are sucked out via an aerosol passage 12, gas vent 17 and mouthpiece 15.
`
`Id. at 3:59-64.
`
`The Prosecution History of the ’726 Patent
`
`2.
`The ‘726 patent issued from application serial no. 13/777,927 filed on
`
`February 26, 2013, and claims priority to Chinese application CN 2004 0031182
`
`filed on April 14, 2004. In the first Office Action dated August 16, 2013, the
`
`Examiner rejected application claims 16-18, which correspond to issued claims 15-
`
`17, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Brooks. Ex. 1002 at p. 2-5.
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`However, the Examiner indicated that application claim 19, which depended from
`
`application claim 16, contained allowable subject matter, namely, “a liquid supply
`
`comprising fibers.” Id. at p. 5.
`
`In a Response dated October 8, 2013, the Applicant argued that Brooks
`
`failed to disclose a liquid supply that is a “separately identifiable element” from
`
`heating element 18. Ex. 1003 at p. 6. However, that argument was incorrect. As
`
`Brooks expressly notes, the heating element 18 may consist of “porous substrates
`
`[i.e., a liquid supply] in intimate contact with resistance heating components.” Ex.
`
`1006 at 8:1-2. Of course, something cannot be in intimate contact with itself, and
`
`thus Brooks expressly taught that the porous substrates could be separate from the
`
`resistance heating components, provided the substrates and the heating component
`
`are in intimate contact.
`
`Applicant also amended application claim 16 to include, inter alia, subject
`
`matter from application claim 19:
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003.
`
`The Examiner subsequently issued a Notice of Allowance on August 18,
`
`2014. Ex. 1004. The Notice of Allowance included an examiner's amendment to
`
`the “liquid supply” element of application claim 16 as follows: “a liquid storage
`
`body including fiber material supply comprising fibers in a cylindrical section of
`
`the housing, with the liquid storage body supply in physical contact with the
`
`atomizer.” Id. at p. 2. The Examiner’s amendment also canceled claims 20-23.
`
`Id. The Examiner also provided reasons for allowance, stating “[t]he closest prior
`
`art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest an electronic cigarette having the
`
`claimed structure, specifically that which comprises a heating wire in the atomizer
`
`surrounded by a porous body/atomizer in contact with a liquid storage body, or that
`
`which comprises a liquid storage body including fiber material.” Id. However, the
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`Examiner was incorrect about the closest prior art and what it purportedly failed to
`
`disclose. As discussed below, Brooks, either alone or in combination with Cook
`
`and/or Takeuchi, disclose an atomizer in contact with a liquid storage body
`
`including fiber material, as well as the other elements of claims 15 and 16.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“PHOSITA”)
`
`C.
`A PHOSITA is a hypothetical person who is presumed to know the relevant
`
`prior art. A PHOSITA for the ’726 patent would have had 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. 1009 at ¶¶ 28-29.
`
`D. 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, 579 U. S. ____ (2016). Petitioner submits that the
`
`limitations below require construction, and for the purpose of this inter partes
`
`review only, that the remaining claim terms take on their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning that the terms would have to a PHOSITA in view of the ’726 patent
`
`specification. Petitioner’s construction of claim terms is not binding upon
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`Petitioner in any other proceeding related to the ’726 patent, and Petitioner
`
`reserves the right to offer additional or alternative construction under the Phillips
`
`standard applicable in the co-pending district court litigation.
`
`In the prior decision denying institution of inter partes review of the ’726
`
`patent, the prior panel construed two terms that appear in claims 15 and 16. Ex.
`
`1005 at 8-10. These terms are shown below.
`
`“electronic cigarette”
`
`1.
`The term “electronic cigarette” is only found in the preamble of claim 15
`
`(and claim 16 by virtue of its dependency from claim 15). In the prior IPR
`
`proceedings involving the ‘726 patent, the parties did not dispute whether the
`
`preamble of claim 15 is a claim limitation, and instead submitted competing
`
`constructions for the “electronic cigarette.” The Board largely adopted the Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed construction, interpreting “electronic cigarette” as “a device for
`
`generating liquid droplets for inhalation by a user, where the device functions as a
`
`substitute for smoking, e.g., by providing nicotine without tar.” Ex. 1005 at 8-9.
`
`For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner does not agree that “electronic
`
`cigarette” is a claim limitation that requires construction.
`
`In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or
`
`steps, or if it is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claim.
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`(Fed.Cir.2002). Conversely, a preamble is not limiting “where a patentee defines a
`
`structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to
`
`state a purpose or intended use for the invention.” Id. While there is no litmus test
`
`for determining when a preamble operates as a limitation, courts have provided
`
`certain “guideposts” or examples of circumstances in which a preamble may
`
`establish a claim limitation. These circumstances include when: (1) the “Jepson”
`
`form is used for a claim; (2) the preamble is “essential to understand the limitations
`
`or terms in the claim body” (e.g. when a preamble phrase provides the antecedent
`
`basis for other terms in the claim body); (3) the preamble recites “additional
`
`structure or steps underscored as important by the specification”; and (4) a patentee
`
`clearly relies on the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed
`
`invention from the prior art. Id. None of those circumstances are applicable here.
`
`First, none of the challenged claims are in Jepson format. Second, the
`
`preamble language for an electronic cigarette is not essential to understand the
`
`claim. The language is not used in the body of the claim, and the alleged invention
`
`is fully defined by the claim limitations that follow the preamble. Ex. 1009 at ¶¶
`
`33; see also Google Inc. v. Visual Real Estate, Inc. IPR2014-01339, Final Written
`
`Decision, Paper 39, pp. 9-11 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2016) (preamble language “a
`
`system including a video and data server farm” was not a limitation); Cisco Sys. et
`
`al v. Capella Photonics, Inc., IPR2014-01276, Final Written Decision, Paper 40, p.
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`18 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2016) (“servo-based” used in the preamble was not a
`
`limitation); RF Controls, LLC. v. A1 Packaging Solutions, Inc. IPR2014-01536,
`
`Final Written Decision, Paper 20, p. 11 (P.T.A.B. March 28, 2016) (preamble
`
`language reciting “an inventory tracking system for use in . . . an inventory
`
`tracking region” was not a limitation).
`
`Nonetheless, even if the Board’s prior construction of “electronic cigarette”
`
`is adopted (and it should not be), Petitioner contends that claims 15 and 16 are
`
`invalid for the reasons set forth herein.
`
`“atomizer”
`
`2.
`The parties in the prior IPR proceedings involving the ‘726 patent submitted
`
`competing constructions for the term “atomizer.” The Board sided with petitioner
`
`NJOY and construed “atomizer” as “a part of the electronic cigarette that includes
`
`components that participate in facilitating atomization.” Ex. 1005 at 9-10.
`
`Petitioner notes that the Patent Owner previously acknowledged in the prior
`
`proceeding involving the ‘726 patent, that “atomization” means “converting liquid
`
`into aerosol or vapor.” Ex. 1011 at 13. Using the Patent Owner’s definition of
`
`“atomization,” Petitioner adopts the Board’s prior construction of “atomizer” for
`
`purposes of this Petition, with one important exception. The non-existent
`
`“electronic cigarette” limitation should not be back-doored into the claim through
`
`the construction of “atomizer.” Petitioner respectfully submits that the Board’s
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`prior construction should be modified to exclude the reference to “electronic
`
`cigarette,” and to instead read “structure for facilitating atomization.” See Ex.
`
`1001 at 2:52-3:10, 3:49-67, 4:11-24; Figs. 6-8; Ex. 1009 at ¶ 35.
`
`3.
`
` “liquid storage body including fiber material”
`
`In the previous IPR proceeding involving the ‘726 patent, and at Fontem’s
`
`urging, the Board declined to construe the term “liquid storage body” concluding
`
`that no construction was necessary. See Ex. 1011 at 11-12; Ex. 1005 at 11. For
`
`purposes of this Petition only, and pursuant to the BRI standard applicable, this
`
`limitation should be construed as written. Ex. 1009 at ¶ 36. No further
`
`construction is necessary for purposes of this Petition. Reynolds reserves the right
`
`to offer a different construction under the Phillips standard applicable in the co-
`
`pending district court litigation.
`
`“physical contact”
`
`4.
`In the previous IPR proceeding involving the ‘726 patent, the Board
`
`construed this term to mean direct contact. Ex. 1005 at 10-11. Petitioner applies
`
`this construction for purposes of this Petition.
`
`E.
`
`Patents and Publications Relied on in this Petition
`
`Claims 15 and 16 are unpatentable as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`as anticipated by Brooks (Ex. 1006), or, in the alternative, as obvious under 35
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Brooks (Ex. 1006) in combination with Cook (Ex. 1007)
`
`and/or Takeuchi (Ex. 1008).
`
`1.
`
`Brooks (Ex. 1006) Discloses An Electronic Cigarette
`That Has The Claimed Features
`
`Brooks is titled “Smoking Articles Utilizing Electrical Energy.” As
`
`discussed in the “Background of the Invention,” many smoking articles and
`
`tobacco substitute smoking materials had been proposed in the past as alternatives
`
`to smoking products that burn tobacco, including alternatives that generate
`
`flavored vapor and/or visible aerosols. Ex. 1006 at 1:19-34. These alternatives
`
`included smoking products, flavor generators and medicinal inhalers that utilized
`
`electrical energy to vaporize or heat a volatile material, or which otherwise
`
`attempted to provide the sensation of cigarette or pipe smoking without burning
`
`tobacco. Id. at 1:50-56. According to Brooks, “[p]referred smoking articles of the
`
`invention are capable of providing the user with the sensations of smoking (e.g.,
`
`smoking, taste, feel, satisfaction, pleasure,