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 .................................................................................. vii 
`EXHIBITS LIST .................................................................................................... viii 
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 2 
`A. 
`Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................ 2 
`B. 
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 2 
`C. 
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel ................................................................... 7 
`D. 
`Service Information ............................................................................... 8 
`E. 
`Proof of Service ..................................................................................... 8 
`III.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 8 
`IV. 
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND STATEMENT
`OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................... 9 
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 10 
`VI.  STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE RELIEF
`REQUESTED ................................................................................................ 10 
`A. 
`Summary of the Argument .................................................................. 10 
`B. 
`Background of the ‘548 Patent ............................................................ 11 
`1. 
`Summary of the ‘548 Patent ..................................................... 11 
`2. 
`Prosecution History of the ‘548 Patent ..................................... 12 
`Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (“PHOSITA”) ..................... 15 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 15 
`1. 
`“frame” ...................................................................................... 15 
`2. 
`“porous component set on a frame having a run-
`through hole” ............................................................................. 16 
`Description of the Prior Art ................................................................. 17 
`1. 
`Hon ‘043 (Ex. 1002; Ex. 1003) ................................................. 17 
`2.  Whittemore (Ex. 1004) ............................................................. 19 
`
`C. 
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`i
`
`
`

`
`
`
`F. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Voges (Ex. 1021) ...................................................................... 20 
`3. 
`Gehrer (Ex. 1023) ..................................................................... 22 
`4. 
`There Is a Reasonable Likelihood That Claims 1-14 Are
`Obvious Over the Combination of Hon ‘043 and
`Whittemore .......................................................................................... 24 
`1. 
`The PHOSITA Would Have Been Motivated To
`Combine Hon ‘043, Whittemore and, if Necessary,
`Voges and/or Gehrer ................................................................. 24 
`Claim 1 Is Obvious ................................................................... 34 
`a. 
`“an electronic cigarette” ................................................. 34 
`b. 
`“a battery assembly having a cylindrical
`battery and an operating indicator” ................................ 34 
`“an atomizer assembly in an elongated
`cylindrical housing, with the battery
`assembly electrically connected to the
`atomizer assembly, and with the cylindrical
`battery coaxial with the atomizer assembly” .................. 37 
`“a liquid storage component in the housing” ................. 40 
`“the atomizer assembly including a porous
`component set on a frame having a run-
`through hole” .................................................................. 40 
`“a heating wire coil electrically connected to
`the battery” ...................................................................... 44 
`“an air flow path in the atomizer assembly
`parallel to a longitudinal axis of the housing,
`with the air flow path through the run-
`through hole to an outlet, with the heating
`wire coil wound on the porous component
`and in the air flow path and with the heating
`wire coil oriented perpendicular to the
`longitudinal axis” ............................................................ 45 
`“the porous component in contact with the
`liquid storage component” .............................................. 50 
`Claim 2 Is Obvious ................................................................... 52 
`
`c. 
`
`d. 
`e. 
`
`f. 
`
`g. 
`
`h. 
`
`ii
`
`
`

`
`a. 
`
`
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`8. 
`
`9. 
`
`“the porous component having a first section
`perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and
`having a second section parallel to the
`longitudinal axis” ............................................................ 52 
`Claim 3 Is Obvious ................................................................... 54 
`a. 
`“the frame having a cylindrical first section
`and a second section, with the second
`section between the first section and the
`outlet, and with the second section longer
`than the first section” ...................................................... 54 
`Claim 4 Is Obvious ................................................................... 55 
`a. 
`“the first section of the frame is a cylindrical
`base section” ................................................................... 55 
`Claim 5 Is Obvious ................................................................... 56 
`a. 
`“the battery assembly further including an
`air flow sensor” ............................................................... 56 
`Claim 6 Is Obvious ................................................................... 58 
`a. 
`“the battery assembly further comprising an
`electronic circuit board electrically
`connected to the air flow sensor” ................................... 58 
`Claim 7 Is Obvious ................................................................... 58 
`a. 
`“the porous component is cylindrical” ........................... 58 
`Claim 8 Is Obvious ................................................................... 59 
`a. 
`“an electronic cigarette” ................................................. 59 
`b. 
`“a battery assembly having a cylindrical
`battery and an operating indicator” ................................ 59 
`“an atomizer assembly in an elongated
`cylindrical housing having a longitudinal
`axis, with the battery assembly electrically
`connected to the atomizer assembly, and
`with the cylindrical battery coaxial with the
`atomizer assembly” ......................................................... 60 
`“the atomizer assembly including a porous
`component having a first section
`
`c. 
`
`d. 
`
`iii
`
`
`

`
`
`
`e. 
`
`f. 
`
`g. 
`
`perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and a
`second section parallel to the longitudinal
`axis, with the porous component set on a
`frame having a run-through hole” .................................. 60 
`“a heating wire coil wound on the first
`section of the porous component and
`electrically connected to the battery” ............................. 62 
`“an air flow path in the atomizer assembly
`parallel to the longitudinal axis, with the air
`flow path through the run-through hole to an
`outlet, and the heating wire coil in the air
`flow path and oriented perpendicular to the
`longitudinal axis” ............................................................ 63 
`“a liquid storage component in the housing
`in contact with the porous component” .......................... 64 
`10.  Claim 9 Is Obvious ................................................................... 64 
`a. 
`“the second section of the porous component
`on opposite sides of the first section of the
`porous component” ......................................................... 64 
`11.  Claim 10 Is Obvious ................................................................. 65 
`a. 
`“the frame having a cylindrical first section
`and a second section, with the second
`section between the first section and the
`outlet, and with the second section longer
`than the first section” ...................................................... 65 
`12.  Claim 11 Is Obvious ................................................................. 65 
`a. 
`“an electronic cigarette” ................................................. 65 
`b. 
`“an atomizer assembly and a liquid storage
`component in an elongated cylindrical
`housing having a longitudinal axis” ............................... 65 
`“battery assembly electrically connected to
`the atomizer assembly, and with the battery
`assembly including a cylindrical battery
`coaxial with the atomizer assembly” .............................. 66 
`
`c. 
`
`iv
`
`
`

`
`
`
`e. 
`
`f. 
`
`d. 
`
`“the atomizer assembly including: a frame
`comprising a cylindrical base having a run-
`through hole” .................................................................. 66 
`“the atomizer assembly including: …; a
`fiber member in contact with the liquid
`storage component;” ....................................................... 68 
`“the atomizer assembly including: …; a
`heating wire coil wound on the fiber
`member and oriented perpendicular to the
`longitudinal axis, and the heating wire coil
`electrically connected to the battery, with
`the fiber member moving liquid from the
`liquid storage component to the heating wire
`coil by capillary action” .................................................. 69 
`“an air flow path parallel to the longitudinal
`axis through the atomizer assembly, with the
`air flow path passing through the run-
`through hole, and with the heating wire coil
`in the air flow path and perpendicular to the
`longitudinal axis” ............................................................ 74 
`13.  Claim 12 Is Obvious ................................................................. 74 
`a. 
`“a first part of the fiber member
`perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and
`the heating wire coil wrapped on the first
`part” ................................................................................ 74 
`14.  Claim 13 Is Obvious ................................................................. 75 
`a. 
`“the fiber member having a first section
`perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and
`having a second section parallel to the
`longitudinal axis” ............................................................ 75 
`15.  Claim 14 Is Obvious ................................................................. 77 
`a. 
`“the frame having a cylindrical first section
`and a second section, with the second
`section between the first section and the
`outlet, and with the second section longer
`than the first section” ...................................................... 77 
`
`g. 
`
`v
`
`
`

`
`
`
`VII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 77 
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ ..77
`
`
`
`vi
`Vi
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES 
`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) ................................................................ 15
`KSR Int’l v. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................. 27
`STATUTES 
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................... 10, 17, 19
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................ passim
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ..................................................................................... 1, 2, 10
`OTHER AUTHORITIES 
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2143 ......................................... 27, 28, 29
`Patent Trial Practice Guide
`77 Fed. Reg., Vol. 77, No. 157 (2012) ................................................................... 2
`REGULATIONS 
`37 C.F.R. § 42 ......................................................................................... 1, 2, 8, 9, 15
`
`
`vii
`
`
`

`
`
`
`EXHIBITS LIST
`
`Description
`Exhibit No.
`Exhibit 1001: U.S. Pat. No. 9,326,548 to Lik Hon
`Exhibit 1002: Chinese Pat. No. 2719043Y to Lik Hon
`Exhibit 1003: Certified English translation of Chinese Pat. No.
`2719043Y to Lik Hon
`Exhibit 1004: U.S. Pat. No. 2,057,353 to C. L. Whittemore, Jr
`Exhibit 1005: WO 2005/099494, which is the PCT application
`equivalent of Hon (CN 2719043Y) (“Hon ’494”)
`Exhibit 1006: Certified English translation of WO 2005/099494 pursuant
`to 37 C.F.R. 42.63(b)
`Exhibit 1007: Application Data Sheet and Specification of U.S. Pat.
`Appl. No. 14/244,376 Filed April 3, 2014
`Exhibit 1008: Non-Final Office Action of September 4, 2014 in
`14/244,376
`Exhibit 1009: Compilation of prosecution papers filed in 14/244,376
`Exhibit 1010: Non-Final Office Action of August 20, 2015 in
`14/244,376
`Exhibit 1011: Amendment of November 20, 2015 in 14/244,376
`Exhibit 1012: Notice of Allowance of March 15, 2016 in 14/244,376
`Exhibit 1013: Board’s Decision Denying Institution in IPR2015-00859
`Exhibit 1014: Board's Order Dismissing Petition IPR2015-01587
`Exhibit 1015: Declaration of Dr. Robert Sturges
`Exhibit 1016: Rohsenow, “Heat, Mass, And Momentum Transfer”
`Exhibit 1017: Merriam-Webster Definition of “Set”
`Exhibit 1018: U.S. Pat. No. 6,155,268 to Takeuchi
`Exhibit 1019: U.S. Pat. No. 4,947,874 to Brooks et al.
`Exhibit 1020: U.S. Pat. No. 4,629,665 to Matsuo
`Exhibit 1021: U.S. Pat. No. 5,894,841 to Voges
`Exhibit 1022: U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0016550 to Katase
`
`viii
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1023: U.S. Pat. No. 5,703,633 to Gehrer et al.
`Exhibit 1024: IPR2014-01300, Paper No. 8
`
`ix
`
`
`

`
`
`
`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.
`
`(“Fontem” or “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 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 1-14 of the
`
`‘548 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon the combination of
`
`Chinese Pat. No. 2719043Y to Lik Hon (“Hon ‘043,” Ex. 1002) and U.S. Pat. No.
`
`2,057,353 (“Whittemore,” Ex. 1004) in further view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,894,841
`
`(“Voges,” Ex. 1021) and/or U.S. Patent No. 5,703,633 (“Gehrer,” Ex. 1023). As
`
`explained herein, the claimed invention is simply the predictable use of prior art
`
`elements according to their established functions.1
`
`
`1 On July 2, 2016, the Petitioner filed a petition for inter partes review based upon
`
`the combination of Hon ‘043 and Whittemore challenging claims 2-3 of U.S.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`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, 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
`Petitioner is not aware of any reexamination certificates or pending
`
`prosecution concerning the ‘548 patent. Petitioner is a defendant in the following
`
`
`Patent No. 8,365,742, which issued from the same application family as the ‘548
`
`patent. See IPR2016-01268.
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`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, as well as certain
`
`claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,326,549. 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. 9,370,205.2
`
`In addition to the foregoing, the Petitioner is aware of the following
`
`additional matters involving or related to the ‘548 patent.
`
`Pending Litigations and IPRs
`
`
`2 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.
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`Case Name
`Fontem Ventures BV v. Nu Mark LLC, 2-16-cv-
`04537 (CACD)
`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 (US8,365,742)
`Petition for Inter Partes Review by R.J. Reynolds
`Vapor Company, IPR2016-01532 (US8,365,742)
`Petition for Inter Partes Review by Nu Mark
`LLC, IPR2016-01303 (US8,365,742)
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.,
`IPR2016-01307 (US8,375,957)
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.,
`IPR2016-01309 (US8,863,752)
`
`
`Pending Patent Applications
`
`Filed
`June 22, 2016
`
`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, which
`claims priority to the ‘742 patent
`U.S. Patent Application No. 15/167,659, which
`claims priority to the ‘742 patent
`U.S. Patent Application No. 15/167,690, which
`claims priority to the ‘742 patent
`U.S. Patent Application No. 15/158,421, which
`claims priority to the same foreign application as
`does the ‘742 patent
`U.S. Patent Re-Examination No. 95/002,235,
`which claims priority to the ‘742 patent
`
`Filed
`January 11, 2013
`
`May 27, 2016
`
`May 27, 2016
`
`May 18, 2016
`
`September 13,
`2012
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Terminated Litigations and IPRs
`
`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.)
`
`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
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`Case Name
`Ruyan Investment (Holdings) Limited v. Nicotek
`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, filed) (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 (US8,156,944)
`Logic Technology Development, LLC v. Fontem
`Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2015-00098 (US8,375,957)
`NJOY, Inc. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2015-
`01301 (US8,863,752)
`JT International S.A. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.,
`IPR2015-01513 (US8,375,957)
`JT International S.A. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.,
`IPR2015-01604 (US8,863,752)
`
`
`Filed
`June 22, 2012
`
`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
`
`As noted above, the grandparent of the ‘548 patent, U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,365,742 (the “‘742 patent”), has been challenged in several IPRs. In IPR2015-
`
`01587, the Board dismissed JT International’s petition for inter partes review of
`
`the ‘742 patent at the parties request in view of an apparent settlement. Ex.1014 at
`
`2.
`
`The VMR Petition
`
`In IPR2015-00859, the Board denied institution of VMR’s petition for inter
`
`partes review of the ‘742 patent. Ex. 1013 at 2. VMR’s petition relied on the
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`combination of Hon ‘043 with Whittemore, which are also relied upon in the
`
`current Petition with respect to the ‘548 patent. According to the Board, VMR
`
`failed to articulate sufficient reasoning with rational underpinnings (as opposed to
`
`conclusory statements) as to why the person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`been motivated to combine Hon ‘043 with Whittemore. Specifically, the Board
`
`concluded that VMR’s contention that “more efficient, uniform heating” as the
`
`motivation for combining the references consisted of unsupported conclusory
`
`statements. Id. at 17-19, 21-25. As discussed herein, the proposed combination of
`
`Hon ‘043 and Whittemore in the current Petition does not suffer from any such
`
`defect. There are multiple rationales (in addition to, or in lieu of, the motivation
`
`for “more efficient, uniform heating”) why the person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have been motivated to combine Hon ‘043 and Whittemore to arrive at the
`
`claimed invention, any one of which standing alone is sufficient.
`
`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
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Yuezhong Feng
`Reg. No. 58,657
`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.
`
`Proof of Service
`
`E.
`Proof of service of this Petition on the Patent Owner at the correspondence
`
`address of record for the ‘548 Patent is attached.
`
`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.
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND STATEMENT OF THE
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), the precise relief requested is that the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board review and find unpatentable claims 1-14 of the
`
`‘548 Patent.
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-14 of the
`
`‘548 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103 as set forth herein. The ‘548 patent is to be
`
`reviewed under pre-AIA § 103. Petitioner’s detailed statement of the reasons for
`
`the 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 (“Sturges Decl.”) Ex. 1015.
`
`Claims 1-14 of the ‘548 patent are unpatentable based upon the following
`
`ground:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-14 are obvious over the combination of Chinese Pat.
`
`No. 2719043Y to Lik Hon (“Hon ‘043,” Ex. 1002; “Hon ‘043 English translation,”
`
`Ex. 1003; Hon ‘043 PCT equivalent; Ex. 1005; and Hon ‘043 PCT equivalent
`
`English translation; Ex. 1006) with Whittemore, U.S. Pat. No. 2,057,353
`
`(“Whittemore,” Ex. 1004), and, if necessary, in further view of Voges, U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,894,841 (“Voges,” Ex. 1021) and/or Gehrer, U.S. Patent No. 5,703,633
`
`(“Gehrer,” Ex. 1023).
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`Statement of Non-Redundancy: Petitioner is concurrently filing another
`
`Petition for IPR on the ‘548 patent. The present Petition is not redundant of the
`
`ground presented in the concurrently filed petition, which 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. In contrast, this Petition assumes
`
`without conceding that claims 1-14 are entitled to the priority of the filing date of
`
`PCT/CN2007/001575, and asserts unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`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). 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
`As explained herein, the claimed invention is simply the obvious
`
`combination of prior art elements according to their predicted and well-established
`
`functions. Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board find that
`
`claims 1-14 of the ‘548 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`B.
`
`Background of the ‘548 Patent
`1.
`The ‘548 patent generally describes an electronic cigarette.
`
`Summary of the ‘548 Patent
`
`
`
`With respect to Fig. 1, the electronic cigarette includes an operating
`
`indicator 1, a battery 3, an atomizer assembly 8 and a liquid storage 9. Ex. 1001 at
`
`2:48-56, 62-64; 3:25-27; 4:1-3; Fig. 1. The electronic cigarette also includes a
`
`shell (a) which is hollow and integrally formed. Id. at 2:48-51. The battery
`
`assembly connects with said atomizer assembly and both are located in said shell
`
`(a). Id. at 2:52-53. The shell (a) has through-air-inlets (a1). Id. at 2:55-56; Fig. 1.
`
`A porous component of the atomizer assembly 8, i.e., protuberance/bulge 812,
`
`contacts the liquid storage 9 “to achieve the capillary impregnation for liquid
`
`supply.” Id. at 3:35-40; 4:1-14, 55-59.
`
`Further details of the atomizer assembly 8 are illustrated in annotated Figs.
`
`17 and 18, which are reproduced below. Id. at Figs. 17-18.
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Prosecution History of the ‘548 Patent
`
`2.
`The ‘548 patent issued from U.S. Appl. No. 14/244,376, filed on April 3,
`
`2014. Ex. 1001 at 1; Ex. 1007 at 2-3. In an Office Action dated August 20, 2015,
`
`the Examiner rejected the then pending claims 1-15 based upon Susa (EP845220)
`
`alone or in combination with Brooks (U.S. Pat. No. 4,922,901). Ex. 1010 at 4-8.
`
`In an Amendment dated November 20, 2015, the Applicant amended claims 1-7,
`
`canceled claims 8-15, and added new claims 16-22. Ex. 1011 at 4-8. Independent
`
`claim 1 was amended to “include an operating indicator in the battery assembly”
`
`and a “porous component set on a frame having a run-through hole, an air flow
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`path parallel to the longitudinal axis of the housing and passing through the run-
`
`through hole, and the heating wire coil in the air flow path and perpendicular to the
`
`longitudinal axis.” Id. at 9. The Applicant stated that these changes are supported
`
`by paragraph [0052] and Fig. 17-18 of the application. Id.; Ex. 1007 at 18, 27.
`
`New claims 16-22 included additional limitations, which according to the
`
`Applicant found support in the specification. Ex. 1011 at 9-10.
`
` “the porous component having a first section perpendicular to the
`
`longitudinal axis of the housing and having a second section parallel to
`
`the longitudinal axis, as shown in the marked up Fig. 18 below, wherein
`
`the dotted line represents the orientation of the longitudinal axis”
`
`
`
` “a frame having a cylindrical first section and a second section, with the
`
`second section between the first section and the outlet, and with the
`
`second section longer than the first section, as shown in the marked up
`
`Fig.18 below”
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
` “the second section of the porous component on opposite sides of the first
`
`section of the porous component, as shown in the marked up Fig. 18
`
`
`
`below”
`
`
`
`Application claims 1-7 and 16-22 were subsequently allowed, and issued as
`
`patent claims 1-14. Id. at 4-8; Ex. 1001 at 6:12-8:21. In the reasons for allowance,
`
`the Examiner stated that “[n]one of the prior art of record teaches nor reasonably
`
`suggests an electronic cigarette