`
`
`
`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 8,365,742
`Issue Date: Feb. 5, 2013
`Title: Aerosol Electronic Cigarette
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2016-01532
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`BASIS FOR REHEARING ............................................................................. 1
`A.
`Legal Standard ....................................................................................... 1
`B.
`The Board’s Priority Decision Is Not Supported By
`Substantial Evidence ............................................................................. 2
`1.
`The Written Description Requirement ........................................ 3
`2.
`The Board Misapprehended The Disclosure of The
`818 Application ........................................................................... 3
`III. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company
`
`(“Reynolds” or “Petitioner”) requests rehearing of the Board’s Decision denying
`
`institution of Inter Partes Review entered February 7, 2017 (Paper 9, hereinafter
`
`“Decision”).
`
`II. BASIS FOR REHEARING
`A. Legal Standard
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c)-(d) a party may request rehearing of a
`
`decision by the Board on whether to institute trial without prior authorization from
`
`the Board. “The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes
`
`the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each such matter
`
`was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. The Board
`
`will review the previous decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).
`
`“An abuse of discretion may be indicated if a decision is based on an erroneous
`
`interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence,
`
`or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant
`
`factors.” IPR 2013-00369, Paper 39 at 2-3 (citing Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United
`
`States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`1
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Board’s Priority Decision Is Not Supported By
`Substantial Evidence
`
`Petitioner’s sole ground asserts that claims 2 and 3 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,365,742 (“742 patent,” Ex. 1001) are anticipated by U.S. Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 2009/0095311 A1, published on April 16, 2009 (“311
`
`publication”, Ex. 1002). The 311 publication is the publication of U.S. Application
`
`Serial No. 12/226,818 (“818 application” or “parent 811 publication,” Ex. 1009).
`
`In support of the ground for anticipation, Petitioner contends that the parent 818
`
`application does not provide written description support for claims 2 and 3 of the
`
`742 patent. As such, claims 2 and 3 are not entitled to the filing date of the parent
`
`818 application, and thus the intervening publication of the 818 application (i.e.,
`
`the 311 publication) anticipates claims 2 and 3. Petition at 1-10, 15, 33, 37-54; Ex.
`
`1012 at ¶¶ 21-39, 42-54.
`
`As set forth in the Petition, the 818 application repeatedly and narrowly
`
`describes the “invention” (and not merely an embodiment of the invention) as an
`
`electronic cigarette with the battery assembly and atomizer assembly located in the
`
`same shell. This limiting disclosure was removed via an intervening “substitute
`
`specification.” In contrast to the 818 application, which describes the invention as
`
`the battery and atomizer assembly in the same shell, claims 2 and 3 of the 742
`
`patent are not so limited, permitting the battery assembly and atomizer assembly to
`
`be located in either the same or separate shells of a housing. Petition at 2, 5-10,
`
`2
`
`
`
`37-54; Ex. 1012 at ¶¶ 42-54; Ex. 1009 at 12-31; Ex. 1001 at 14. Notwithstanding
`
`the difference between the scope of claims 2 and 3 of the 742 patent and the
`
`narrow description set forth in the 818 application, the Board nonetheless found
`
`that the 818 application provides written description support for broad claims 2 and
`
`3. Decision at 14. Petitioner respectfully submits that the Board’s finding is not
`
`supported by substantial evidence.
`
`The Written Description Requirement
`
`1.
`Compliance with the written description requirement is a question of fact.
`
`ScriptPro LLC v. Innovation Assocs., 833 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As
`
`the Board correctly noted, to satisfy the written description requirement, the
`
`disclosure of the priority application must convey with reasonably clarity to those
`
`skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, the inventor was in possession of
`
`the claimed invention. See Decision at 10-11.
`
`2.
`
`The Board Misapprehended The Disclosure of The
`818 Application
`
`The specification, drawings, and original claims of the 818 application
`
`narrowly describe the “invention” as a battery assembly and atomizer assembly
`
`located in the same shell, i.e., shell (a). Petition at 5-8, 38-44; Ex. 1012 at ¶¶ 42-
`
`54; Ex. 1009 at 12-14, 16-27. Figure 2 (annotated) from the 818 application is
`
`representative:
`
`3
`
`
`
`Battery 3
`
`Atomizer 8
`
`Shell (a)
`
`
`
`Shell (a), which contains both the battery assembly and atomizer assembly,
`
`is then connected to shell (b), which contains a perforated component for liquid
`
`storage. As the 818 application explains, this two-piece arrangement permits easy
`
`replacement of the liquid storage shell (b) when the liquid is exhausted. Petition at
`
`6-8, 39-44; Ex. 1012 at ¶¶ 43-49; Ex. 1009 at 12, 14, 16-20, 23.
`
`Additional excerpts from the 818 application are set forth in the table below.
`
`As the Board will note, and as explained in the Petition, original claim 1 (the only
`
`independent claim) and the specification of the 818 application narrowly describe
`
`the “invention” as the battery assembly and atomizer assembly located in the same
`
`shell (a).
`
`Original Claim 1. Petition at 5-6, 42; Ex. 1012 at ¶ 49; Ex. 1009 at 23.
`
`Specification of The 818 Application
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Abstract. Petition at 39; Ex. 1009 at 12.
`
`Contents of invention. Petition at 6-7, 39-40; Ex. 1012 at ¶ 45; Ex. 1009 at
`
`14, 16.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Specific Mode for Carrying Out the Invention. Petition at 41-42; Ex. 1012 at
`
`¶ 48; Ex. 1009 at 18, 19.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`In stark contrast to the 818 application, which repeatedly describes the
`
`“invention” as the battery assembly and atomizer assembly in the same shell (a),
`
`claims 2 and 3 of the 742 patent broadly recite “a battery assembly and the
`
`atomizer assembly located [anywhere] within a housing,” which the Board
`
`construed as not limited to a one-piece shell. See Decision at 7 (“[w]e agree with
`
`the parties that ‘housing’ is not limited to a one-piece shell”). As a result, claims 2
`
`and 3 permit the battery assembly and atomizer assembly to be located in separate
`
`shells of a housing; a configuration that is simply not described in the 818
`
`application. See Petition at 2, 37, 42-44; Ex. 1012 at ¶¶ 50-54.
`
`In finding that claims 2 and 3 nonetheless found written description support
`
`in the 818 application, the Board misapprehended the scope of the disclosure of the
`
`818 application. According to the Board, the “disclosure of the 818 Application is
`
`similar to the disclosure of the ‘742 patent,” and, like the 742 patent, the 818
`
`application “contemplated embodiments of an electronic cigarette in which the
`
`battery assembly and the atomizer assembly are in a housing that is completed
`
`6
`
`
`
`when multiple shells [i.e., shell (a) and cigarette bottle assembly shell (b)] are
`
`connected.” Decision at 13. The Board erred in two important respects.
`
`First, and contrary to the Board’s implicit holding, the 818 application does
`
`not contemplate embodiments where the battery assembly and the atomizer
`
`assembly are merely located anywhere within a housing that is purportedly formed
`
`by shells (a) and (b). To the contrary, the disclosure of the 818 application is much
`
`narrower. The only embodiment – indeed the “invention” – described in the 818
`
`application is one in which the battery assembly and the atomizer assembly are
`
`located in the same shell (i.e., shell (a)) of a housing that is purportedly formed by
`
`shells (a) and (b). Petition at 5-8, 38-44; Ex. 1012 at ¶¶ 42-54; Ex. 1009 at 12-14,
`
`16-27. No other arrangement is described, nor contemplated by the 818
`
`application. Petition at 2, 37, 42-44; Ex. 1012 at ¶¶ 50-54. Thus, the 818
`
`application, which narrowly describes the “invention” as a battery assembly and
`
`atomizer in the same shell cannot provide written description support for claims 2
`
`and 3, which permit the battery assembly and atomizer assembly to be located in
`
`separate shells.
`
`As noted in the Petition, the facts here are analogous to the Federal Circuit
`
`decisions in ICU Medical, Research Corp. Techs, and Anascape. See Petition at
`
`50-54; see also Decision at 10-11. As was the situation in those cases, the claims
`
`7
`
`
`
`at issue here are broader than the narrow description of the invention set forth in
`
`the specification.
`
`Second, and perhaps more important, the Board erred in concluding that the
`
`disclosures of the 742 patent and the 818 application are similar; they are vastly
`
`different in key respects. The 818 application repeatedly describes the “invention”
`
`as the battery assembly and atomizer assembly located in the same shell, i.e., shell
`
`(a), of a housing. Petition at 5-8, 38-44; Ex. 1012 at ¶¶ 42-54; Ex. 1009 at 12-14,
`
`16-27. However, this limiting disclosure was removed from the 742 patent via an
`
`intervening “substitute specification.” The “substitute specification” rewrote the
`
`818 application by adding “new matter” that fundamentally expanded the scope of
`
`the invention. First, the term “shell (a)” was replaced in the “substitute
`
`specification” with the term “housing” in an effort to broaden the invention from
`
`one in which the battery and atomizer assemblies are located in the same shell (a)
`
`to one in which these components may also be located in separate shells of a
`
`“housing.” The “substitute specification” also added new matter by deleting the
`
`818 application’s repeated use of the term “invention” in connection with the
`
`arrangement of the battery and atomizer assemblies located in the same shell (a),
`
`in an effort to morph the same shell “invention” into merely a preferred
`
`embodiment. Petition at 8-10, 44-46; Ex. 1011 at 9, 14-19. In short, because there
`
`is no written description support in the 818 application, claims 2 and 3 must
`
`8
`
`
`
`necessarily rely on the new matter added to the “substitute specification.” As such,
`
`claims 2 and 3 are not entitled to the earlier filing date of the 818 application.
`
`For the Board’s convenience, Petitioner sets forth below a few examples of
`
`the broadening new matter added via the “substitute specification.” Further
`
`examples of additional broadening new matter are found in the substitute
`
`specification submitted with the Petition as Ex. 1011.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011 at 9.
`
`…
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`fir: 51132921113
`
`331$:fo
`
`rm
`
`fur igi'ii‘iing‘
`
`;‘
`
`…
`
` _§T31151E1&1"
`
`…
`
`…
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`r sazmmmimfimfimmmmvmn‘?mmmvnmimsmaflmw'fffi'f‘ur-w
`
`.
`L.
`. Q; u."
`
`…
`
`
`‘ "'hmlnfilwééfifinfiééfim 3
`ibcgmeha§3Wii£W1mauamfl
`
`
`
`Id. at 14-15.
`
`Id. at 14-15.
`
`{.3039§}",]G.
`
`is the section View of {ha -(a,) seepamted {170.111 the: cigarette hattic aascmbiy-fif;
`‘-
`
`mmngMWiZ-éihmfiwwficfixfimfififiimmfiémgmmummiwwssmb{aim
`
`10
`10
`
`
`
`Id. at 15.
`
`Id. at 19.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The new matter added to the “substitute specification” was carried forward
`
`into the 742 patent. By adding this new matter, the applicant attempted to broaden
`
`the narrow “invention” described in the 818 application, i.e., the battery and
`
`atomizer assemblies located together in the same shell (a), to one that permits the
`
`battery and atomizer assemblies to be located in separate shells of a housing; an
`
`arrangement that is simply not disclosed or otherwise contemplated by the
`
`“invention” described in the 818 application. Petition at 2, 37, 42-44; Ex. 1012 at
`
`¶¶ 50-54. Thus, even if one assumes that the 818 application describes a housing
`
`formed from shells (a) and (b), the “invention” of the 818 application always and
`
`only describes the battery assembly and atomizer assembly as located together in
`
`the same shell of the housing.
`
`At bottom, the figures and text of the 818 application do not convey to the
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor was in possession of the broad
`
`11
`
`
`
`limitation of claims 2 and 3, “a battery assembly and atomizer assembly [located
`
`anywhere] within a [multi-shell] housing.” To the contrary, and what the Board
`
`failed to apprehend, is that the description of the invention in the 818 application is
`
`narrower. At most, the 818 application conveys that the inventor was in possession
`
`of an “invention” where the battery assembly and atomizer assembly are located
`
`together in the same shell of a two-piece housing. The difference between the
`
`narrow description of the 818 application and the broad scope of claims 2 and 3 is
`
`illustrated in the chart below.
`
`“Invention” Described in 818 Application Claims 2 and 3 of the 742 patent
`
`The battery assembly and atomizer
`
`The battery assembly and atomizer
`
`assembly are located in same shell (a) of
`
`assembly may be located anywhere
`
`a housing that may be formed from shells
`
`in a single-shell or multi-shell
`
`(a) and (b).
`
`
`
`housing, including in the same shell
`
`or separate shells of a housing.
`
`Finally, the legal authority cited by the Board is distinguishable on its facts.
`
`In ScriptPro, the Federal Circuit determined that the broad claims (which were not
`
`limited to using patient-identifying information for storing containers) had written
`
`description support because the specification described storing the containers using
`
`12
`
`
`
`indexing criterion other than just patient-identifying information. 833 F.3d at
`
`1340. In contrast, the only arrangement described in the 818 application is the
`
`battery assembly and the atomizer assembly located together in the same shell (a).
`
`This arrangement is not merely one embodiment of the described invention, but it
`
`is the sole embodiment and is repeatedly characterized by the 818 application as
`
`the “invention.”
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`The Board’s decision is based on a key factual error with respect to the
`
`scope of the disclosure of the 818 application, which led the Board to erroneously
`
`conclude that claims 2 and 3 of the 742 patent are entitled to the filing date of the
`
`818 application. For the reasons explained herein, and as set forth in the Petition,
`
`claims 2 and 3 are not entitled to the filing date of the 818 application.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests rehearing and institution of
`
`trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 28, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/s/
`Ralph J. Gabric
`
`
`Ralph J. Gabric (Reg. No. 34,167)
`Robert Mallin (Reg. No. 35,596)
`Yuezhong Feng (Reg. No. 58,657)
`Brinks Gilson & Lione
`NBC Tower – Suite 3600
`455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr.
`Chicago, Illinois 60611
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4)(i) et seq. and 42.105(b), the undersigned
`
`certifies that on February 28, 2017, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s
`
`Request for Rehearing Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) was served by Electronic
`
`submission through the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End System
`
`and by e-mail to
`
`
`Michael J. Wise, Lead Counsel (MWise@perkinscoie.com)
`Joseph P. Hamilton, Back-up Counsel
`(JHamilton@perkinscoie.com)
`Jenna M. DeRosier (JDeRosier@perkinscoie.com)
`Tyler R. Bowen, Back-up Counsel
`(TBowen@perkinscoie.com)
`Amy Candeloro (ACandeloro@perkinscoie.com)
`patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ralph J. Gabric
`/s/
`
`
`Ralph J. Gabric (Reg. No. 34,167)
`Brinks Gilson & Lione
`NBC Tower – Suite 3600
`455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr.
`Chicago, Illinois 60611
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
`Dated: February 28, 2017
`
`
`
`