`
`
`
`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 9,364,027
`Issue Date: June 14, 2016
`Title: Electronic Cigarette
`___________________________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2018-00630
`
`___________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,364,027 PURSUANT
`TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... iv
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ........................ 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................ 2
`
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 3
`
`1.
`
`Related Matters ........................................................................... 3
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Related Litigations ............................................................ 3
`
`Related Proceedings Before the Board ............................. 6
`
`Related Patent Applications Before the
`Patent Office ..................................................................... 8
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel ................................................................... 8
`
`Service, Payment and Deposit Account Information ............................ 8
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A) ................... 9
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE CHALLENGE AND
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .......................... 9
`
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 12
`
`VI. THE ’027 PATENT ....................................................................................... 12
`
`VII. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ’027
`PATENT ........................................................................................................ 15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“PHOSITA”) ............................. 15
`
`Claim Construction.............................................................................. 15
`
`VIII. DESCRIPTION OF THE PRIOR ART RELIED UPON ............................. 18
`
`A. U.S. Patent No. 5,894,841 to Voges (“Voges”) .................................. 18
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,144,962 to Counts (“Counts”) ................................ 21
`
`Chinese Patent Application Publication No. CN
`1233436A (“Hongbin”) ....................................................................... 22
`
`D. Korean Patent Application Publication No. 2002-
`0067473 (“KR473”) ............................................................................ 23
`
`i
`
`
`

`

`
`
`E.
`
`JP Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2001-
`291598 (“JP598”) ................................................................................ 24
`
`IX. CLAIM BY CLAIM EXPLANATION OF THE GROUNDS
`FOR UNPATENTABILITY ......................................................................... 27
`
`A.
`
`Claims 1, 12 and 14 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over Voges in view of Counts, JP598, and Hongbin .......................... 27
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1: ..................................................................................... 27
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`1.P: An electronic smoking device ................................. 27
`
`1.1: A Tubular housing having a first end
`and a second end ............................................................. 28
`
`1.2: An outlet on the second end of the
`tubular housing ............................................................... 29
`
`1.3: A wire coil in a tube, with the tube
`within the housing, and the wire coil
`configured to vaporize liquid moving from
`outside of the tube into the tube and
`contacting the wire coil ................................................... 31
`
`1.4: A control circuit in the tubular housing
`electrically connected to the wire coil and to
`a sensor ........................................................................... 40
`
`1.5: At least one air opening leading into the
`tubular housing, with the wire coil in
`between the at least one air opening and the
`second end of the tubular housing .................................. 42
`
`1.6: An LED at the first end of the tubular
`housing, with the LED electrically
`connected to the control circuit, and the
`LED configured to provide a gradual change
`in luminance to imitate a conventional
`cigarette ........................................................................... 44
`
`2.
`
`Claim 12: ................................................................................... 59
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`12.P: An electronic smoking device ............................... 59
`
`12.1: An electronic cigarette having a
`housing having a first end and a second end .................. 59
`
`ii
`
`
`

`

`
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`12.2: An outlet on a second end of the
`housing ............................................................................ 59
`
`12.3: A wire coil in a tube, with the tube in
`the housing and attached to a base in the
`housing ............................................................................ 59
`
`12.4: A control circuit in the housing
`electrically connected to the wire coil and to
`a sensor and a battery in the housing .............................. 63
`
`12.5: An LED at the first end of the housing,
`with the LED electrically connected to the
`control circuit, and the LED configured to
`provide a gradual change in luminance via
`the control circuit ............................................................ 64
`
`12.6: At least one air opening leading into
`the housing, with the wire coil in between
`the at least one air opening and the second
`end of the housing ........................................................... 65
`
`3.
`
`Claim 14: ................................................................................... 65
`
`a.
`
`14: The LED configured to provide a
`gradual change in luminance via the control
`unit that changes based on an output of the
`sensor .............................................................................. 65
`
`X.
`
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 68
`
`
`iii
`
`
`

`

`
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) .........................................................................................15
`
`Google Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V.,
`IPR2017-00386 (P.T.A.B., petition filed Dec. 5, 2016) ............................... 10, 12
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................15
`
`In re Sneed,
`710 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ............................................................................53
`
`Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Mass. Inst. of Tech.,
`IPR2017-00249 (P.T.A.B., petition filed Nov. 11, 2016) ....................................11
`
`Micron Tech., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill.,
`IPR2013-00005 (P.T.A.B., petition filed Oct. 2, 2012) .......................................12
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC,
`IPR2015-00483 (P.T.A.B., petition filed Dec. 23, 2014) ....................................11
`
`Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................52
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................................... 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ......................................................................................................2, 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ........................................................................................................11
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319...................................................................................... 1, 2, 12
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42 .................................................................................................. passim
`
`OTHER AUTHORITY
`
`Patent Trial Practice Guide
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) (codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42) ...............3, 15
`
`iv
`
`
`

`

`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Exhibit
`
`1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,364,027 (“the ’027 Patent”)
`
`1002
`
`Declaration of Dr. Robert H. Sturges regarding U.S. Patent No.
`9,364,027
`
`1003
`
`Chinese Patent Application Publication No. CN1233436A
`
`1004
`
`Certified translation of Chinese Patent Application Publication
`No. CN1233436A (“Hongbin”)
`
`1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,479,561 (“Janning”)
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2001-
`291598
`
`Certified translation of Japanese Unexamined Patent Application
`Publication No. 2001-291598 (“JP598” or “JP598 publication”)
`RESERVED
`
`Korean Patent Application Publication No. 2002-0067473
`Certified translation of Korean Patent Application Publication
`No. 2002-0067473 (“KR473”)
`
`1011
`
`RESERVED
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`Final Written Decision of Inter Partes Review, R.J. Reynolds
`Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-01272,
`Paper 51 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2017) (petition filed July 2, 2016)
`(“IPR2016-01272 FWD”)
`
`Institution Decision of Inter Partes Review, R.J. Reynolds Vapor
`Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-01272, Paper 11
`(P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016) (petition filed July 2, 2016)
`(“IPR2016-01272 Institution Decision”)
`
`Institution Decision of Inter Partes Review, R.J. Reynolds Vapor
`Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2017-01120, Paper 11
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2017) (petition filed April 4, 2017)
`(“IPR2017-01120 Institution Decision”)
`
`Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief from Fontem
`Ventures, B. V. et al. v. NJOY, Inc. et al, Case No. 14-cv-1645-
`GW (MRWx) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2015) (Dkt No. 117) (“PO
`Claim Construction Brief in NJOY Litigation”)
`
`Ex. 3 attached to Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction
`Brief from Fontem Ventures, B. V. et al. v. NJOY, Inc. et al, Case
`
`v
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`No. 14-cv-1645-GW (MRWx) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2015) (Dkt
`No. 117-2)
`
`Ex. 4 attached to Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction
`Brief from Fontem Ventures, B. V. et al. v. NJOY, Inc. et al, Case
`No. 14-cv-1645-GW (MRWx) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2015) (Dkt
`No. 117-2)
`
`Ex. 5 attached to Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction
`Brief from Fontem Ventures, B. V. et al. v. NJOY, Inc. et al, Case
`No. 14-cv-1645-GW (MRWx) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2015) (Dkt
`No. 117-2)
`
`Mosdesign Semiconductor Corp. Datasheet for M1600 LED
`Drivers (“Mosdesign M1600 Datasheet”)
`
`Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition,
`Merriam-Webster, Inc. 2002 - Excerpt
`
`Dr. Sturges Deposition Transcript, R.J. Reynolds Vapor
`Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-01272, Exhibit
`2020 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2017) (petition filed July 2, 2016)
`(“IPR2016-01272 Dr. Sturges Deposition”)
`
`Dr. Sturges Reply Deposition Transcript, R.J. Reynolds Vapor
`Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-01272, Exhibit
`2023 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2017) (petition filed July 2, 2016)
`(“IPR2016-01272 Dr. Sturges Reply Deposition”)
`
`1023
`
`RESERVED
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`Dr. Schaafsma Deposition Transcript, R.J. Reynolds Vapor
`Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-01272, Exhibit
`1016 (P.T.A.B. June 23, 2017) (petition filed July 2, 2016)
`(“IPR2016-01272 Dr. Schaafsma Deposition”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,144,962 (“Counts”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,057,353 (“Whittemore”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,894,841 (“Voges”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,959,664 (“Fenn”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,269,394 (“Cuno”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,104,266 (“McCormick”)
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`The Oxford Modern English Dictionary, Second Edition, Oxford
`University Press, 1996 - Excerpt
`
`vi
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1034
`
`RESERVED
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms,
`Fifth Edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1994 - Excerpt
`
`Richard Meyst Deposition Transcript, filed June 23, 2017, R.J.
`Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-
`01272, Exhibit 1015 (P.T.A.B. June 23, 2017) (petition filed July
`2, 2016) (“IPR2016-01272 Meyst Deposition”)
`
`1037
`
`Declaration of Joshua P. Smith
`
`vii
`
`
`

`

`
`
`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 of claims 1, 12,
`
`and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 9,364,027 (“the ’027 Patent”). Ex.1001. According to
`
`USPTO records, Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. is the patent owner (“PO”). PO asserted
`
`the challenged claims against Petitioner in a pending litigation.
`
`Petitioner has not filed any prior petitions for review of this patent.
`
`On December 21, 2017, the Board issued a Final Written Decision in
`
`IPR2016-01272, finding claims 1, 2, and 9 in U.S. Patent No. 8,899,2391 (“the
`
`’239 Patent”) obvious in view of Janning (Ex.1005) and JP598 (Ex.1007).
`
`Ex.1012, p.21. In particular, the Board found that “[t]he teachings of the prior
`
`art…readily lend themselves to a conclusion that producing the gradual change in
`
`luminance, i.e. escalating and de-escalating brightness, to simulate a conventional
`
`cigarette via control circuitry was a known, viable option.” Ex.1012, p.20.
`
`Petitioner seeks review of claims 1, 12, and 14 of the ’027 Patent.
`
`Independent claim 1 includes the limitation “a gradual change in luminance to
`
`imitate a conventional cigarette” previously found obvious. Ex.1012 (IPR2016-
`
`
`1 The ’239 Patent and the ’027 Patent are both direct continuations of U.S.
`
`Application No. 13/921,582.
`
`

`

`
`
`01272 FWD), p.21. Independent claim 12 drops the phrase “to imitate a
`
`conventional cigarette” and instead recites more broadly “provide a gradual change
`
`in luminance.” As is discussed below, JP598 and KR473 each disclose circuits
`
`that provide the claimed “gradual change” limitations. And, KR473 makes clear
`
`that it was known in the art to use an LED “for giving off (lighting up) light to the
`
`closest extent to that of a cigarette flame” which “create[s] an atmosphere like
`
`actual smoking, naturally meeting the unconscious desire of smoking.” Ex.1010,
`
`p.5:154-155, 8:327-28 (certified translation of Ex.1009, Korean Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 2002-0067473). Neither JP598 nor KR473 have ever been
`
`considered in connection with the ’027 patent. When combined with other prior
`
`art, both JP598 and KR473 render claims 1, 12 and 14 obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103.
`
`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 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.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Although Petitioner does not believe that Reynolds American Inc. is a real party-
`
`in-interest (see Patent Trial Practice Guide 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48759-60 (Aug.
`
`14, 2012) (codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42), 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. 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`1. Related Matters
`
`Petitioner is not aware of any reexamination certificates or pending
`
`prosecution concerning the ’027 Patent.
`
`a. Related Litigations
`
`Petitioner is a defendant in the following litigation involving the 027 Patent:
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, No. 1:17-cv-00175
`
`(M.D.N.C. filed March 1, 2017), which has been consolidated with lead case
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, No. 1:16-cv-01255
`
`(M.D.N.C.) (prior No. 2:16-cv-02286 (C.D. Cal., filed April 4, 2016)). Claims 1,
`
`12, and 14 of the 027 Patent are currently asserted against the Petitioner. Patent
`
`Owner also has asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 8,375,957; 8,393,331; 8,863,752;
`
`9,326,550; 9,339,062; 9,326,550; and 9,456,632 in this action.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`The above-referenced action is one of four related patent infringement
`
`actions filed by the Patent Owner against the Petitioner, which have been
`
`consolidated. In the lead case, Fontem Ventures B.V. et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor
`
`Company, No. 1:16-cv-01255 (M.D.N.C.) (prior 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 another consolidated case, Fontem
`
`Ventures B.V. et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, No. 1:16-cv-1257
`
`(M.D.N.C.) (prior No. 2:16-cv-03049 (C.D. Cal., filed May 3, 2016)), the Patent
`
`Owner has asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 9,326,548 and 9,326,549. In yet another
`
`consolidated case, Fontem Ventures B.V. et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company,
`
`No. 1:16-cv-01258 (M.D.N.C.) (prior No. 2:16-cv-04534 (C.D. Cal., filed June 22,
`
`2016)), the Patent Owner has asserted U.S. Patent No. 9,370,205.
`
`In addition to the petitions noted below with respect to the patents in the
`
`same family as the 027 Patent, the current Petitioner has also filed petitions for IPR
`
`with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,365,742; 8,490,628; 8,893,726; 8,899,239;
`
`9,326,548; and 9,326,549.
`
`The Patent Owner has asserted the 027 Patent as well as U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`8,899,239 and 8,910,641, which are in the priority chain of the 027 Patent in the
`
`following additional district court proceedings in which Petitioner was not and is
`
`not a party:
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`a.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Nu Mark
`
`LLC, No. 1:16-CV-1259 (M.D.N.C.) (prior No. 2:16-CV-4537 (C.D.
`
`Cal.));
`
`b.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Nu Mark
`
`LLC, No. 1:16-CV-1261 (M.D.N.C.) (prior No. 2:16-CV-2291) (C.D.
`
`Cal.));
`
`c.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. NJOY, Inc.,
`
`No. 2:14-CV-8144 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`d.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. NJOY, Inc.,
`
`No. 2:14-CV-9263 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`e.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. LOEC, Inc.,
`
`No. 2:14-CV-9265 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`f.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. CB Distrib.,
`
`Inc. and DR Distrib., LLC, No. 2:14-CV-9266 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`g.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Vapor Corp.,
`
`No. 2:14-CV-9267 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`h.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. FIN
`
`Branding Grp., LLC and Electronic Cigarettes Int’l Grp. Ltd., No.
`
`2:14-CV-9268 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`i.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Ballantyne
`
`Brands, LLC, No. 2:14-CV-9269 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`j.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Spark Indus.,
`
`LLC, No. 2:14-CV-9270 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`k.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Logic Techn.
`
`Dev. LLC, No. 2:14-CV-9271 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`l.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. VMR Prods.,
`
`LLC, No. 2:14-CV-9273 (C.D. Cal.).
`
`b. Related Proceedings Before the Board
`
`Petitioner identifies the following related inter partes review proceedings
`
`and administrative matters before:
`
`a.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,910,641,
`
`IPR2015-01299, P.T.A.B., filed May 29, 2015 by Petitioners CB
`
`Distrib., Inc.; DR Distrib.; Electronic Cigarettes Int’l Grp. Ltd.; FIN
`
`Branding Grp., LLC; JT Int’l SA; Logic Techn. Dev. LLC and
`
`NJOY, Inc.;
`
`b.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,899,239,
`
`IPR2015-01304, P.T.A.B., filed May 29, 2015 by Petitioners CB
`
`Distrib., Inc.; DR Distrib.; Electronic Cigarettes Int’l Grp. Ltd.; FIN
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Branding Grp., LLC; JT Int’l SA; Logic Techn. Dev. LLC and
`
`NJOY, Inc.;
`
`c.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,899,239,
`
`IPR2016-01272, P.T.A.B., filed July 2, 2016 by Petitioners RAI
`
`Innovations Co.; RAI Servs. Co.; RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc.; RJ
`
`Reynolds Tobacco Co.; RJ Reynolds Vapor Co.; Reynolds Am. Inc.;
`
`d.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,899,239,
`
`IPR2016-01302, P.T.A.B., filed June 28, 2016 by Petitioners Altria
`
`Client Servs. LLC; Altria Grp., Inc.; and Nu Mark LLC;
`
`e.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,364,027,
`
`IPR2016-01668, P.T.A.B., filed August 24, 2016 by Petitioners
`
`Altria Client Servs. LLC and Nu Mark LLC;
`
`f.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,364,027,
`
`IPR2017-00304, P.T.A.B., filed November 21, 2016 by Petitioners
`
`Altria Client Servs. LLC and Nu Mark LLC;
`
`g.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,899,239,
`
`IPR2017-01120, P.T.A.B., filed April 4, 2017 by Petitioners RAI
`
`Servs. Co.; RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co.; RJ Reynolds Vapor Co.;
`
`Reynolds Am. Inc..
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`c. Related Patent Applications Before the Patent Office
`
`The following pending patent applications claim the benefit of the 027
`
`Patent: U.S. Patent Application Nos. 15/632,030 and 15/895,147.
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`Joshua P. Smith (Reg. No. 74,043)
`jsmith@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
`
`
`D. Service, Payment and Deposit Account Information
`
`Please address all correspondence to the lead and backup counsel at the
`
`contact information above. Petitioner also consents to service by email at
`
`rgabric@brinksgilson.com, rmallin@brinksgilson.com and
`
`jsmith@brinksgilson.com.
`
`Petitioner authorizes the Patent and Trademark Office to charge Deposit
`
`Account No. 23-1925 for the fees required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this IPR
`
`Petition, and authorizes payment of any additional fees to be charged to this
`
`Deposit Account.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’027 Patent is available for IPR and that
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR on the grounds identified
`
`herein.
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE CHALLENGE AND STATEMENT OF
`THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), the precise relief requested is that the
`
`Board review and find unpatentable claims 1, 12, and 14 of the ’027 Patent are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious based on Voges (Ex.1027) in view
`
`of Counts (Ex.1025), JP598 (Ex.1007), and Hongbin (Ex.1004).
`
`This ground is supported by the declaration of Dr. Robert Sturges (Ex.1002).
`
`Each reference identified above is prior art:
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`No.
`
`1027
`
`1025
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,894,841
`(“Voges”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,144,962
`(“Counts”)
`
` Publication
`Date
`
`Prior Art Under
`35 USC §
`
`Apr. 20, 1999
`
`102(b)
`
`Sept. 8, 1992
`
`102(b)
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`No.
`
`1003
`10042
`
`1006
`10073
`
`
`
`Chinese Patent Application
`Publication No. CN 1233436A
`(“Hongbin”)
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent
`Application Publication No.
`2001-291598 (“JP598”)
`
` Publication
`Date
`
`Prior Art Under
`35 USC §
`
`Nov. 3, 1999
`
`102(b)
`
`Apr. 10, 2000
`
`102(b)
`
`Statement of no redundancy: The sole ground presented in this petition is
`
`not redundant of grounds previously before the PTO. This petition is based, in
`
`part, on JP598 (Ex.1007), which was not considered or cited during prosecution or
`
`considered by the Board in any IPR involving the ’027 Patent.4 Institution
`
`Decision dated June 12, 2017 at pp. 9-10 (Paper 8), Google Inc. v. Koninklijke
`
`Philips Elecs. N.V., IPR2017-00386 (P.T.A.B., petition filed Dec. 5, 2016)
`
`(instituting when petition relies on combination with another reference not
`
`previously cited in IDS and expert testimony not previously before the Office).
`
`
`2 Ex.1004 is a certified translation of Ex.1003 (Chinese Patent Application
`
`Publication No. CN1233436A).
`
`3 Ex.1007 is a certified translation of Ex.1006 (Japanese Unexamined Patent
`
`Application Publication No. 2001-291598).
`
`4 JP598 was cited in IPR2016-01272 involving the related ’239 Patent, which the
`
`Board relied upon in finding certain claims obvious. Ex.1012 (FWD), p.21.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`This petition is also based, in part, on various combinations of Voges
`
`(Ex.1027) and Counts (Ex.1025). While these references were cited in an IDS
`
`during prosecution, they were not discussed by the Examiner in any rejection
`
`during prosecution, nor were they considered by the Board in any prior IPR
`
`involving the ’027 Patent, particularly in the combination asserted in Ground 1.
`
`See Institution Decision dated May 18, 2017 at p. 7 (Paper 9), Limelight Networks,
`
`Inc. v. Mass. Inst. of Tech., IPR2017-00249 (P.T.A.B., petition filed Nov. 11,
`
`2016) (“We are not persuaded…that a citation to prior art in an IDS, without
`
`substantive discussion of the reference by the Examiner, is sufficient reason to
`
`exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to decline to institute an inter
`
`partes review”); Institution Decision dated July, 15, 2015 at p. 15 (Paper 10),
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC, IPR2015-00483 (P.T.A.B.,
`
`petition filed Dec. 23, 2014) (“while [the reference] was listed on a lengthy
`
`Information Disclosure Statement initialed by the Examiner, the reference was not
`
`applied against the claims and there is no evidence that the Examiner considered
`
`the particular disclosures cited … in the Petition”).
`
`Moreover, Dr. Sturges’ declaration testimony, submitted herewith as
`
`Ex.1002, includes evidence and analysis of how these references render the claims
`
`obvious, which information was not before the Examiner during prosecution. See
`
`Institution Decision dated Mar. 13, 2013 at 7, 20 (Paper 19), Micron Tech., Inc. v.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill., IPR2013-00005 (P.T.A.B., petition filed Oct. 2,
`
`2012) (instituting IPR based on prior art that “was before the Office during
`
`prosecution,” and reasoning that “[t]he present record differs from the one before
`
`the Examiner” in that the Board now “consider[s] the [references] in view of the
`
`[Expert] declaration testimony [], which was not before the Examiner.”); Google,
`
`IPR2017-00386, Paper 8 at 9-10.
`
`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).
`
`VI. THE ’027 PATENT
`
`The ’027 Patent describes an electronic cigarette that, in part, provides a user
`
`with a smoking experience without being lit by forming a puff of smoke and
`
`replicating the appearance of a cigarette using a red LED. Ex.1001, Abstract, 4:19-
`
`23. In one example, a control circuit uses a sawtooth wave signal to provide a
`
`“gradual change of luminance to imitate the ignition and combustion process of a
`
`conventional cigarette.” Id.; Ex.1002, ¶24.
`
`The electronic cigarette includes charger 1, red LED 3, battery 5, shell 6,
`
`control circuit board 8, pump 11, solution storage container 13, air inlets 16,
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`vaporization nozzle 17, airflow sensor 18, and resistance or capacitance sensor 19.
`
`Ex.1001, 3:46-4:27; Ex.1002, ¶24. Upon activation, liquid is pumped from the
`
`storage container into the nozzle 17 to be vaporized. Ex.1001, 3:46-57; Ex.1002,
`
`¶25.
`
`Ex.1001, FIG. 1 (annotated)
`
`
`
`FIG. 3 shows a vaporization nozzle, which may be in the shape of a tube.
`
`Ex.1001, 2:64-3:11, 5:12-13. Although the term “coil” is not used in the ’027
`
`Patent, the wires within the tube may have a spiral shape. Ex.1001, 3:12-18;
`
`Ex.1002, ¶25. A “base 404” is shown next to the nozzle 405, but the ’027 Patent
`
`provides no details regarding the base. Ex.1001, 5:12-13; Ex.1002, ¶26. The base
`
`is only shown as an annular ring structure that is called a “base.” Id.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex.1001, FIG. 3 (annotated)
`
`
`
`The ’027 Patent discloses two sensors: an airflow sensor and a resistance or
`
`capacitance sensor. Ex.1001, 2:43-51 (resistance sensor operates as a “body
`
`sensitive switch”), 3:46-47, 3:67-4:5, 4:43-47, 4:53-55, 4:65-5:3, 5:38-40, 6:4-7.
`
`The specification does not disclose that either sensor provides a signal that causes
`
`the LED illumination to change. Ex.1002, ¶¶27-30. In fact, the specification
`
`indicates that the airflow sensor does not provide a signal that controls
`
`illumination, but is instead associated with a completely unrelated function. Id.
`
`Specifically, the specification explains that the resistance sensor 19 activates the
`
`control circuit board that outputs driving voltage to the heater and micro pump.
`
`Ex.1001, 3:46-51. Then the airflow sensor signals are used only to turn the heater
`
`and pump off. Ex.1001, 3:67-4:5. The illumination control is not described in any
`
`way as being based on a signal from either sensor. Ex.1002, ¶¶27-30. Thus, a
`
`PHOSITA would have understood that the illumination is not based on the airflow
`
`sensor in any way. Id. Indeed, consistent with that understanding, the Example 2
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`and 3 embodiments do not even include an airflow sensor. Id.; Ex.1001, 4:35-57,
`
`5:24-49.
`
`VII. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ’027 PATENT
`
`A. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“PHOSITA”)
`
`A PHOSITA for the ’027 Patent is a person with at least the equivalent of a
`
`Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or biomedical
`
`engineering or related fields, along with at least 5 years of experience designing
`
`electromechanical devices, including those involving circuits, fluid mechanics and
`
`heat transfer. Ex.1002, ¶34.
`
`B. 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., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016). Any ambiguity
`
`regarding the “broadest reasonable construction” of a claim term is resolved in
`
`favor of the broader construction absent amendment by the PO. Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,764 . Petitioner’s construction of claim terms is
`
`for purposes of this Petition only and is not binding upon Petitioner in any district
`
`court proceeding related to the ’027 Patent.
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`“Gradual change in luminance to imitate a conventional cigarette”
`
`(claim 1): Petitioner submits that this term requires no specific construction.
`
`However, Petitioner acknowledges that the Board has previously interpreted this
`
`term in IPR2016-01272 to mean a “gradual escalating brightness upon inhalation
`
`followed by a gradual de-escalating brightness, similar to that of a conventional
`
`cigarette.” Ex.1012 (FWD), p.8. To the extent needed for purposes of this
`
`petition, Petitioner adopts the Board’s interpretation in that decision with one
`
`exception. Specifically, Petitioner submits that the term “upon inhalation” is not
`
`appropriate as claim 1 does not include any language requiring the gradual change
`
`in luminance to be associated with inhalation. Ex.1001, claim 1; Ex.1002, ¶40.
`
`“Gradual change in luminance” (claims 12 and 14): Claims 12 and 14 do not