UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No.: 9,326,548
`Issue Date: May 3, 2016
`Title: Electronic Cigarette
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: To Be Assigned
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,326,548 PURSUANT TO
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`V. 
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii 
`EXHIBITS LIST ........................................................................................................ v 
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ........................ 4 
`A. 
`Real Party-in-Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1)) ..................................................... 4 
`B. 
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .............................................. 4 
`1. 
`Related Matters ........................................................................... 4 
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel ................................................................... 8 
`C. 
`Service Information ............................................................................... 9 
`D. 
`III.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 9 
`IV. 
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND STATEMENT
`OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED (37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`(B)) ................................................................................................................... 9 
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 10 
`VI.  STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE RELIEF
`REQUESTED ................................................................................................ 11 
`A. 
`Summary of the Argument .................................................................. 11 
`B. 
`Background of the ‘548 Patent ............................................................ 12 
`C. 
`Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (“PHOSITA”) ..................... 14 
`D. 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 14 
`E. 
`U.S. 2009/0095311 Anticipates Claims 1-14 of the ‘548
`Patent ................................................................................................... 16 
`Priority Date of Claims 1-14 of the ‘548 Patent ................................. 42 
`1. 
`The Board May Rule on Priority Issues .................................... 43 
`2. 
`Legal Standards ......................................................................... 44 
`3. 
`Statement of Facts ..................................................................... 46 
`4. 
`The Patent Owner’s Infringement Allegations: ........................ 57 
`
`F. 
`
`i
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`5. 
`
`The Great Grandparent ‘818 Application Does Not
`Support the Broad Scope of Clams 1-14 of the
`‘548 Patent ................................................................................ 57 
`VII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 67 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES 
`Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc.,
`601 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................... passim
`Core Survival, Inc. v. S & S Precision, LLC,
`PGR2015-00022, Paper 8 (Feb. 19, 2016) ........................................................... 43
`Fontem Ventures B.V. et al. v. NJOY, Inc. et al.,
`No. 2:14-cv-01645 (C.D. Cal., filed March 5, 2014) ........................................... 15
`ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc.,
`558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ......................................................... 44, 45, 63, 64
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015), aff’d Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131, 579 U.S. ___ (2016) .................................................................. 14
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................... 44, 63
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................ 44
`Munchkin, Inc., et al. v. Luv N’ Care, Ltd.,
`IPR2013-00072, Paper 28 (Final Written Decision, Apr. 21, 2014),
`aff’d, 599 Fed. Appx. 958 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ......................................................... 43
`PowerOasis, Inc. et al. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................. 2, 3, 44, 45
`Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................. 42, 45, 65
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. v. Affinity Labs. Of Texas, LLC,
`IPR2014-01181, Paper 36 (Final Written Decision, Jan. 28, 2016) .................... 43
`Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.,
`156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 45
`Verizon Servs. Corp. et al. v. Vonage Holdings Corp. et al.,
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ..................................................................... 62, 63
`
`iii
`
`
`

`
`
`
`STATUTES 
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................ passim
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 10
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................................................................... 3, 44
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ..................................................................................... 1, 4, 10
`OTHER AUTHORITIES 
`Patent Trial Practice Guide
`77 Fed. Reg., Vol. 77, No. 157 (2012) ................................................................... 4
`REGULATIONS 
`37 C.F.R. § 42 ............................................................................................. 1, 4, 9, 14
`
`
`iv
`
`
`

`
`
`
`EXHIBITS LIST
`
`Exhibit 1009:
`
`Description
`Exhibit No.
`Exhibit 1001: U.S. Pat. No. 9,326,548 to Lik Hon
`Exhibit 1002: U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0095311 to Li Han
`Exhibit 1003: Chinese Pat. Appl. No. 200620090805.0
`Exhibit 1004: English translation of Chinese Pat. Appl. No.
`200620090805.0
`Exhibit 1005: PCT publication corresponding to PCT/CN2007/001575
`Exhibit 1006: English translation of PCT ‘575
`Exhibit 1007: PCT publication corresponding to PCT/CN2007/001576
`Exhibit 1008: English translation of PCT ‘576
`U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 12/226,818 Filed October 29, 2008,
`including English translation of the PCT publication
`(also included as Ex. 1006), Application Data Sheet, and
`Preliminary Amendment
`Exhibit 1010: U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 13/079,937 with Preliminary
`Amendment Filed April 5, 2011
`Exhibit 1011: Amendment with Substitute Specification Filed in USSN
`13/079,937 on August 7, 2012
`Exhibit 1012: U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 13/740,011 Filed January 11, 2013
`Exhibit 1013: U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 14/244,376 Filed April 3, 2014
`Exhibit 1014: Amendment Filed in 14/244,376 on November 20, 2015
`Exhibit 1015: Declaration of Dr. Robert Sturges
`Exhibit 1016: Board’s Decision Denying Institution in IPR2015-00859
`Rulings On Claims Construction, Fontem Ventures, B.V.
`et al. v. NJOY, Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-01645 (C.D. Cal.,
`filed March 5, 2014)
`Exhibit 1018: U.S. Pat. No. 8,156,944
`Complaint, Fontem Ventures B.V. et al. v. R.J. Reynolds
`Vapor Company, No. 2:16-cv-03049 (C.D. Cal., filed
`May 3, 2016)
`
`Exhibit 1017:
`
`Exhibit 1019:
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`

`
`
`I.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42, R.J. Reynolds Vapor
`
`Company (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of
`
`claims 1-14 of U.S. Pat. No. 9,326,548 to Lik Hon, titled “Electronic Cigarette”
`
`(“‘548 patent,” Ex. 1001), which is currently assigned to Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.
`
`(“Patent Owner”). The Petitioner authorizes the Patent and Trademark Office to
`
`charge Deposit Account No. 23-1925 for the fees set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for
`
`this Petition, and further authorizes payment of any additional fees to be charged to
`
`this Deposit Account.
`
`Challenged claims 1-14 of the ‘548 patent are invalid as anticipated under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b) by the intervening publication of the ‘548 patent’s great
`
`grandparent application (Serial No. 12/226,818 filed October 29, 2008 (the “great
`
`grandparent ‘818 application”)), which published on April 16, 2009
`
`(US2009/0095311 (“‘311 publication”), Ex. 1002). See Ex. 1015 at ¶¶ 23-59. In
`
`order to survive this invalidity ground, the Patent Owner must demonstrate that
`
`claims 1-14 are entitled to a filing date prior to April 17, 2010. This, the Patent
`
`Owner cannot do, because the narrow disclosure of the great grandparent ‘818
`
`application, although anticipating, does not provide written description support for
`
`the broad scope of claims 1-14 of the ‘548 patent.
`
`Petitioner recently filed a similar petition for inter partes review challenging
`
`claims 2-3 of U.S. Patent No. 8,365,742 (the “‘742 patent”), which issued from the
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`same application family as the ‘548 patent at issue here. See IPR2016-01532. As
`
`explained in that petition, in an effort to cure the lack of written description support
`
`and broaden the scope of the invention described in the great grandparent ‘818
`
`application, the Patent Owner filed a “substitute” specification during the
`
`prosecution of an intervening divisional application that deleted limiting language
`
`from the ‘818 application. Even worse, the Patent Owner improperly characterized
`
`the revisions as merely the correction of grammatical and punctuation errors, and
`
`the deletions as the elimination of “extraneous” and “redundant” text. Ex. 1011 at
`
`2. Regardless of whether the substitute specification provides written description
`
`support for claims 1-14 of the ‘548 patent, the great grandparent ‘818 application
`
`does not.
`
`More specifically, claims 1-14 of the ‘548 patent broadly encompass an
`
`electronic cigarette in which the atomizer assembly is located in a “cylindrical
`
`housing” while there is no limitation specifically directed to the location of the
`
`battery assembly, other than the battery assembly is merely “coaxial” with the
`
`atomizer assembly. Ex. 1001 at claims 1-14. In stark contrast to the broad scope
`
`of claims 1-14 of the ‘548 patent, the great grandparent ‘818 application narrowly
`
`describes the “invention” as an electronic cigarette with the battery assembly and
`
`the atomizer assembly located together in the same one-piece shell. See Ex. 1015
`
`at ¶¶ 62-77. See, e.g., PowerOasis, Inc. et al. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“It is elementary patent law that a patent application
`
`is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the
`
`disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later
`
`application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112”) (citations omitted). Nowhere does
`
`the great grandparent ‘818 application describe or contemplate an electronic
`
`cigarette of the “invention” having the battery assembly and atomizer assembly
`
`located in separate shells, or one in which the battery assembly is merely coaxial
`
`with the atomizer assembly, as broad claims 1-14 of the ‘548 patent permit. See,
`
`e.g., Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`(“A patentee is not deemed to disclaim every variant that it does not mention.
`
`However, neither is a patentee presumed to support variants that are not
`
`described.”); PowerOasis, Inc., 522 F.3d at 1306 (“Entitlement to a filing date does
`
`not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over
`
`what is expressly disclosed”) (citations omitted).
`
`Accordingly, claims 1-14 of the ‘548 patent lack written description support
`
`in the great grandparent ‘818 application, which narrowly describes the
`
`“invention” as an electronic cigarette where the battery assembly and the atomizer
`
`assembly are located together in the same one-piece shell. Because claims 1-14
`
`are not entitled to the filing date of the great grandparent ‘818 application, they are
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`anticipated by its intervening publication, i.e., the ‘311 publication, under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)
`A. Real Party-in-Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1))
`
`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, identifies the real parties-in-interest as
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., RAI Innovations
`
`Company (the direct parent company of R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company and RAI
`
`Strategic Holdings, Inc.), R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and RAI Services
`
`Company. Each of the foregoing entities is a direct or indirect wholly owned
`
`subsidiary of Reynolds American Inc. Although Petitioner does not believe that
`
`Reynolds American Inc. is a real party-in-interest (see Patent Trial Practice Guide
`
`77 Fed. Reg., Vol. 77, No. 157 (2012) at 48759-60), Reynolds American Inc. and
`
`each of its other wholly owned subsidiaries (direct and indirect) nevertheless agree
`
`to be bound by any final written decision in these proceedings to the same extent as
`
`a real party-in-interest. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`1.
`Related Matters
`Petitioner is not aware of any reexamination certificates or pending
`
`prosecution concerning the ‘548 patent. Petitioner is a defendant in the following
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`litigation involving the ‘548 patent: Fontem Ventures B.V. et al. v. R.J. Reynolds
`
`Vapor Company, No. 2:16-cv-03049 (C.D. Cal., filed May 3, 2016). Fontem has
`
`alleged that Reynolds infringes claims 1-14 of the ‘548 patent. The above-
`
`referenced action is one of three related patent infringement actions filed by the
`
`Patent Owner against the Petitioner. In the related action, Fontem Ventures B.V. et
`
`al. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, No. 2:16-cv-02286 (C.D. Cal., filed April 4,
`
`2016), the Patent Owner has asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 8,365,742; 8,490,628;
`
`8,893,726; and 8,899,239. In addition to the petitions for IPR noted below with
`
`respect to the ‘742 patent, the Petitioner has also recently filed petitions for IPR
`
`against the ‘628 patent (2016IPR-01527), the ‘726 patent (2016IPR-01270), and
`
`the ‘239 patent (2016IPR-01272). In the other related action, Fontem Ventures
`
`B.V. et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, No. 2:16-cv-04534 (C.D. Cal., filed
`
`June 22, 2016), the Patent Owner has asserted U.S. Patent No. 9,370,205.1
`
`The Petitioner is aware of the following additional matters involving or
`
`related to the ‘548 patent.
`
`Pending Litigations and IPRs
`
`Case Name
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v. Nu Mark LLC, 2-16-
`
`Filed
`June 22, 2016
`
`
`1 The court in the three related actions recently ordered transfer of the cases to the
`
`United States District Court for The Middle District of North Carolina.
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`Case Name
`cv-04537 (C.D. Cal.)
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1
`B.V. v. Nu Mark LLC, 2-16-cv-02291 (C.D. Cal.)
`Petition for Inter Partes Review by R.J. Reynolds
`Vapor Company, IPR No.: To Be Assigned
`(challenging claims 1-14 of the ‘548 patent)
`Petition for Inter Partes Review by Nu Mark
`LLC, IPR2016-01641 (challenging claims 1-14 of
`the ‘548 patent)
`Petition for Inter Partes Review by Nu Mark
`LLC, IPR2016-01642 (US9,370,205)
`Petition for Inter Partes Review by R.J. Reynolds
`Vapor Company, IPR2016-01268 (PTAB)
`(US8,365,742)
`Petition for Inter Partes Review by R.J. Reynolds
`Vapor Company, IPR2016-01532 (PTAB)
`(US8,365,742)
`Petition for Inter Partes Review by Nu Mark
`LLC, IPR2016-01303 (PTAB) (US8,365,742)
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.,
`IPR2016-01307 (PTAB) (US8,375,957)
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.,
`IPR2016-01309 (PTAB) (US8,863,752)
`
`
`Pending Patent Applications
`
`Filed
`
`April 4, 2016
`
`Filed
`concurrently
`with this petition
`August 18, 2016
`
`August 18, 2016
`
`July 2, 2016
`
`August 5, 2016
`
`June 28, 2016
`
`June 28, 2016
`
`June 28, 2016
`
`Serial No.
`U.S. Patent Application No. 13/740,011, claiming
`priority to the ‘742 patent
`U.S. Patent Application No. 15/167,659, claiming
`priority to the ‘742 patent
`U.S. Patent Application No. 15/167,690, claiming
`priority to the ‘742 patent
`U.S. Patent Application No. 15/158,421, claiming
`priority to the same foreign application as does
`the ‘742 patent
`U.S. Patent Re-Examination No. 95/002,235,
`claiming priority to the ‘742 patent
`
`Filed
`January 11, 2013
`
`May 27, 2016
`
`May 27, 2016
`
`May 18, 2016
`
`September 13,
`2012
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Terminated Litigations and Previous IPR Petitions
`
`Case Name
`Fontem Ventures BV et al v. NJOY, Inc., No.
`2:14-cv-01645 (C.D. Cal.)
`Fontem Ventures BV et al v. LOEC, Inc. et al, No.
`2:14-cv-01648 (C.D. Cal.)
`Fontem Ventures BV et al v. CB Distributors, Inc.
`et al, No. 2:14-cv-01649 (C.D. Cal.)
`Fontem Ventures BV et al v. Vapor Corp., No.
`2:14-cv-01650 (C.D. Cal.)
`
`Fontem Ventures BV et al v. FIN Branding
`Group, LLC et al, No. 2:14-cv-01651 (C.D. Cal.)
`Fontem Ventures BV et al v. Ballantyne Brands,
`LLC, No. 2:14-cv-01652 (C.D. Cal.)
`Fontem Ventures BV et al v. Spark Industries,
`LLC, No. 2:14-cv-01653 (C.D. Cal.)
`Fontem Ventures BV et al v. Logic Technology
`Development LLC, No. 2:14-cv-01654 (C.D. Cal.)
`Fontem Ventures BV et al v. VMR Products, LLC,
`No. 2:14-cv-01655 (C.D. Cal.)
`Ruyan Investment (Holdings) Limited v. Sottera,
`Inc., 2:12-CV-5454 (C.D. Cal.)
`Ruyan Investment (Holdings) Limited v. LOEC,
`Inc., 2:12-CV-5455 (C.D. Cal.)
`Ruyan Investment (Holdings) Limited v. CB
`Distributors, Inc. et al, 2:12-CV-5456 (C.D. Cal.)
`Ruyan Investment (Holdings) Limited v. The Safe
`Cig LLC, 2:12-CV-5462 (C.D. Cal.)
`Ruyan Investment (Holdings) Limited v. Vapor
`Corp., 2:12-CV-5466 (C.D. Cal.)
`Ruyan Investment (Holdings) Limited v. Finiti
`Branding Group LLC, 2:12-CV-5468 (C.D. Cal.)
`Ruyan Investment (Holdings) Limited v. Barjan
`LLC et al, 2:12-CV-5470 (C.D. Cal.)
`Ruyan Investment (Holdings) Limited v. Spark
`Industries LLC, 2:12-CV-5472 (C.D. Cal.)
`Ruyan Investment (Holdings) Limited v. Nicotek
`
`Filed
`March 5, 2014
`
`March 5, 2014
`
`March 5, 2014
`
`March 5, 2014
`
`March 5, 2014
`
`March 5, 2014
`
`March 5, 2014
`
`March 5, 2014
`
`March 5, 2014
`
`June 22, 2012
`
`June 22, 2012
`
`June 22, 2012
`
`June 22, 2012
`
`June 22, 2012
`
`June 22, 2012
`
`June 22, 2012
`
`June 22, 2012
`
`June 22, 2012
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`Case Name
`LLC, 2:12-CV-5477 (C.D. Cal.)
`Ruyan Investment (Holdings) Limited v. Logic
`Technology Development LLC, 2:12-CV-5482
`(C.D. Cal.)
`In re: Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., Appeal No. 15-
`1511 (Fed. Cir.)
`JT International S.A. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.,
`IPR2015-01587 (PTAB) (US8,365,742)
`VMR Products, LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.,
`IPR2015-00859 (PTAB) (US8,365,742)
`CB Distributors, Inc. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.,
`IPR2013-00387 (PTAB) (US8,156,944)
`Logic Technology Development, LLC v. Fontem
`Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2015-00098 (PTAB)
`(US8,375,957)
`NJOY, Inc. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2015-
`01301 (PTAB) (US8,863,752)
`JT International S.A. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.,
`IPR2015-01513 (PTAB) (US8,375,957)
`JT International S.A. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.,
`IPR2015-01604 (PTAB) (US8,863,752)
`
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel
`
`Filed
`
`June 22, 2012
`
`April 1, 2015
`
`July 14, 2015
`
`March 10, 2015
`
`June 27, 2013
`
`October 21,
`2014
`
`May 29, 2015
`
`June 26, 2015
`
`July 20, 2015
`
`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
`
`Yuezhong Feng
`Reg. No. 58,657
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`yfeng@brinksgilson.com
`
`Brinks Gilson & Lione
`Suite 3600, NBC Tower
`455 Cityfront Plaza Drive
`Chicago, IL 60611-5599
`T: 312-321-4200, F: 312-321-4299
`
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`Service of any documents via hand delivery, express mail or regular mail
`
`may be made to the lead and backup counsel at the postal mailing address above.
`
`Petitioner also consents to service by email at the above-designated email
`
`addresses.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`As required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ‘548 Patent
`
`is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped
`
`from requesting inter partes review on the grounds identified herein.
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND STATEMENT OF THE
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED (37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (B))
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-14 of the ‘548 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102 (pre-AIA) as anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0095311 (“‘311
`
`publication,” Ex. 1002). Claims 1-14 of the ‘548 patent are not entitled to a
`
`priority date earlier than April 17, 2010, and therefore, the ‘311 publication, which
`
`was published on April 16, 2009, qualifies as prior art under § 102(b).
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`This Petition is accompanied by the Declaration of Dr. Robert Sturges
`
`(“Sturges Decl.”). Ex. 1015.
`
`Statement of Non-Redundancy: Petitioner is concurrently filing another
`
`Petition for IPR on the ‘548 patent (IPR No.: To Be Assigned). The present
`
`Petition is not redundant of the ground presented in the concurrently filed petition,
`
`which assumes without conceding that claims 1-14 are entitled to the priority of the
`
`filing date of PCT/CN2007/001575, and which asserts unpatentability under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103. In contrast, the present Petition asserts one ground of
`
`unpatentability under § 102(b) and alleges that claims 1-14 are not entitled to a
`
`priority date any earlier than April 17, 2010.
`
`V. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`This Petition meets the threshold requirement 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). 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.
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`VI. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED
`A.
`Summary of the Argument
`Claims 1-14 of the ‘548 patent are not entitled to the priority date of the
`
`great grandparent ‘818 application because the ’818 application does not provide
`
`written description support for the broad scope of claims 1-14 of the ‘548 patent,
`
`which merely require the atomizer assembly is located in a cylindrical housing,
`
`without any limitations specifically directed to the location of the battery assembly
`
`other than the battery assembly is coaxial with the atomizer assembly. Ex. 1001 at
`
`claims 1-14. In contrast to the broad scope of claims 1-14 of the ‘548 patent, the
`
`great grandparent ‘818 application narrowly describes the “invention” as one in
`
`which the battery assembly and the atomizer assembly are located together in the
`
`same, one-piece shell. With respect to the “invention,” no other structure or
`
`location for the battery assembly and the atomizer assembly is described in the
`
`great grandparent ‘818 application. Accordingly, claims 1-14 of the ‘548 patent
`
`are broader than the narrow invention described in the great grandparent ‘818
`
`application, and thus are not entitled to its October 29, 2008 filing date. Therefore,
`
`the intervening publication of the great grandparent ‘818 application (i.e., the ‘311
`
`publication, Ex. 1002), which discloses an electronic cigarette that is within the
`
`scope of the broadly claimed invention of claims 1-14, is invalidating prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board find that claims
`
`1-14 of the ‘548 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Background of the ‘548 Patent
`
`B.
`The ‘548 patent is generally directed to an electronic cigarette.
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 1
`
`With respect to Figure 1, the electronic cigarette includes a shell or housing
`
`(a), which is hollow and integrally formed. The battery assembly (which may
`
`include battery 3, operating indicator 1, electronic circuit board 4, and airflow
`
`sensor 5, which are connected to the battery) connects with the atomizer assembly
`
`8, and both are located in the shell. Ex. 1001 at 2:48-60. “[T]he cigarette bottle
`
`assembly includes a hollow cigarette holder shell (b), and a perforated component
`
`for liquid storage (9) inside the shell (b).” Id. at 4:1-3. “One end of the cigarette
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`holder shell (b) plugs into the shell (a).” Id. at 4:9-10. When shell (b) is plugged
`
`into shell (a), the cigarette bottle assembly is located in one end of shell (a), and is
`
`detachable from shell (a). Id. at 2:53-54. The atomizer assembly 8 has a porous
`
`component that contacts the liquid storage 9 in the cigarette bottle assembly to
`
`achieve capillary transport of liquid from the cigarette bottle assembly to the
`
`atomizer assembly 8. Id. at 4:55-59. The liquid from the cigarette bottle assembly
`
`is heated and atomized in the atomizer assembly 8. Id. at 4:28-44.
`
`Further details of the atomizer assembly 8 are illustrated in annotated Figs.
`
`17 and 18, which are reproduced below. Id. at Figs. 17-18.
`
`
`
`The atomizer assembly includes “a frame (82), the porous component (81)
`
`set on the frame (82), and the heating wire (83) wound on the porous component
`
`(81). The frame (82) has a run-through hole (821). The porous component (81) is
`
`wound with heating wire (83) in the part that is on the side in the axial direction of
`
`the run-through hole (821). One end of the porous component (81) fits with the
`
`cigarette bottle assembly.” Id. at 5:61-6:2.
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (“PHOSITA”)
`
`C.
`The PHOSITA is a hypothetical person who is presumed to know the
`
`relevant prior art. Factors that guide the determination of level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art may include: the education level of those working in the field, the
`
`sophistication of the technology, the types of problems encountered in the art, the
`
`prior art solutions to those problems, and the speed at which innovations are made
`
`may help establish the level of skill in the art.
`
`The PHOSITA for the ‘548 patent at the time of the alleged invention 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. 1015 at ¶¶ 15-16.
`
`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, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 579 U.S. ___ (2016).
`
`“frame”: In IPR2015-00859 concerning related U.S. Pat. No. 8,365,742
`
`(the “‘742 patent”), the Board construed the claim term “frame” under the
`
`applicable BRI standard to mean “rigid structure.” Ex. 1016, Paper 9 at pp. 7-8.
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`The ‘742 patent has substantially the same specification as the ‘548 patent.
`
`Petitioner applies the Board’s construction for purposes of this Petition.
`
`“porous component”: In IPR2015-00859, the Board construed the claim
`
`term “porous component” as recited in the claims of the ‘742 patent under the
`
`applicable BRI standard to mean “a component of the atomizer assembly in the
`
`electronic cigarette that includes pores and is permeable to liquid, such as cigarette
`
`solution from the cigarette solution storage area.” Id. at 10. Petitioner applies the
`
`Board’s construction for purposes of this Petition.
`
`“an elongated cylindrical housing”: The limitation “an elongated
`
`cylindrical housing” appears in claims 1-14 of the ‘548 patent. In a prior wave of
`
`litigations involving the related ‘742 patent, the Patent Owner asserted that
`
`“housing” required no construction, or alternatively, means “a casing.” The
`
`Defendants contended that “housing” means “a one-piece shell.” The district court
`
`ruled that “housing” “need not be construed, other than to specify that it need not
`
`be a ‘one-piece shell.’” Fontem Ventures B.V. et al. v. NJOY, Inc. et al., No. 2:14-
`
`cv-01645 (C.D. Cal., filed March 5, 2014). Ex. 1017, Rulings on Claims
`
`Construction (DI-65) at 8-10. For purposes of this Petition, and under the BRI
`
`claim construction standard applicable here, Petitioner construes “housing”
`
`consistent with the district court’s ruling that the term “housing” is not limited to
`
`“a one-piece shell.”
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`E. U.S. 2009/0095311 Anticipates Claims 1-14 of the ‘548
`Patent
`
`Claims 1-14 of the ‘548 patent are anticipated by U.S. 2009/0095311 (Ex.
`
`1002; “‘311 publication”). The ‘311 publication was published on April 16, 2009,
`
`which is more than one year prior to the earliest filing date to which claims 1-14 of
`
`the ‘548 patent are entitled. As shown in the claim chart below, and as further
`
`explained in the accompanying Declaration of Dr. Sturges, the ‘311 publication
`
`discloses each and every limitation of claims 1-14. See Ex. 1015 at ¶¶ 23-59.
`
`The preamble of claim 1 recites “[a]n electronic cigarette.” To the extent
`
`that the preamble is considered a claim limitation, the ‘311 publication discloses an
`
`electronic cigarette.
`
`Claim 1
`1. [preamble] An
`electronic cigarette,
`comprising:
`
`The ‘311 publication
`“The present invention relates to an electronic cigarette, in
`particular, an aerosol electronic cigarette that doesn't
`contain tar but nicotine.” Ex. 1002 at para. [0001], ll. 1-3.
`
`“FIG. 1 is the side section view of the electronic cigarette
`of this invention.” Ex. 1002 at para. [0038], ll. 1-2.
`
`
`Claim 1 recites “a battery assembly having a cylindrical battery and an
`
`operating indicator.” The ‘311 publication discloses a battery assembly having a
`
`battery (“the battery assembly includes the battery, and the operating indicator (1),
`
`electronic circuit board (4), and airflow sensor (5), which are connected with the
`
`battery”) and an operating indicator (“operating indicator (1)”). Ex. 1002 at para.
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`[0064], ll. 1-4. As shown in Figs. 1, 3 and 4, the claimed electronic cigarette, and
`
`thus the battery disposed therein, is cylindrical. Specifically, Figures 3 and 4
`
`illustrate axial and side section view of the cigarette bottle assembly, respectively,
`
`and demonstrate that the rectangular side views in the figures represent cylindrical
`
`components. Id. at para. [0040]-[0041]; Figs. 3, 4.
`
`Claim 1
`[a] a battery assembly
`having a cylindrical
`battery and an
`operating indicator;
`
`The ‘311 publication
`
`Ex. 1002 at Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 3.
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 4.
`
`“The additional features of this invention are as follows:
`the said battery assembly includes the battery, and the
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`operating indicator, electronic circuit board, and airflow
`sensor, which are connected with the said battery; the
`signal output of the said airflow sensor is connected with
`the said electronic circuit board.” Id. 1002 at para. [0009],
`ll. 1-6.
`
`“The said battery is a rechargeable battery, which has a
`charging slot on it. The said operating indicator is a LED.”
`Id. 1002 at para. [0012], ll. 1-2.
`
`“As shown in FIG. 1-10, this utility model provides an
`aerosol electronic cigarette, which includes a battery
`assembly …” Id. 1002 at para. [0063], ll. 1-5.
`
`“In this specific embodiment, the battery assembly
`includes the battery, and the operating indicator (1),
`electronic circuit board (4), and airflow sensor (5), which
`are connected with the battery.” Id. at para. [0064], ll. 1-4.
`
`Claim 1 recites “an atomizer assembly in an elongated cylindrical housing,
`
`with the battery a