`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`In re Inter Partes Review of:
`)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,901,123
`)
`
`Issued: February 27, 2018
`)
`
`Application No.: 15/286,087
`)
`
`Filing Date: October 5, 2016
`)
`
`
`For: Tobacco-Containing Smoking Article
`
`FILED VIA E2E
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,901,123
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................... 5
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest .......................................................................... 5
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 5
`C.
`Grounds for Standing ............................................................................ 6
`D.
`Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information ............................. 6
`E.
`Fee for Inter Partes Review .................................................................. 7
`Identification of Challenges (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) ..................................... 7
`III.
`IV. Background ...................................................................................................... 8
`A. Overview of the ’123 Patent (Ex. 1001) ............................................... 8
`B.
`State of the Art .................................................................................... 11
`C.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 13
`D.
`The Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art ............................................ 13
`E.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 13
`1.
`The recited “controller” does not invoke § 112, ¶ 6, but if
`it does, the relevant structure includes Brooks’s prior-art
`controller. .................................................................................. 14
`The art teaches the “removably engaged” term even if it
`requires the cigarette-type device to be interlocked with
`the outer housing ....................................................................... 17
`V. Ground 1: Claims 27-30 are Unpatentable Over Morgan (Ex. 1005),
`Alone or in Combination with Adams (Ex. 1007) and Brooks (Ex.
`1006) .............................................................................................................. 18
`A. Overview of Morgan ........................................................................... 18
`
`2.
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`5.
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Overview of Adams............................................................................. 20
`Overview of Brooks ............................................................................ 22
`Claim 27 .............................................................................................. 23
`1.
`Preamble .................................................................................... 23
`2.
`Limitation 27[a]: an electrical power source ............................ 23
`3.
`Limitation 27[b]: at least one electrical resistance heater ........ 25
`4.
`Limitation 27[c]: elongated portion of resistance heating
`element ...................................................................................... 25
`Limitation 27[d]: controller ...................................................... 33
`Limitation 27[e]: removably engaged cigarette-type
`device ........................................................................................ 35
`Limitation 27[f]: elongated heater portion extends into
`tobacco segment ........................................................................ 41
`Limitation 27[g]: visible mainstream aerosol ........................... 42
`8.
`Claims 28-30 ....................................................................................... 44
`E.
`VI. Ground 2: Claims 27-30 are Unpatentable Over Adams (Ex. 1007),
`Morgan (Ex. 1005), and Brooks (Ex. 1006) .................................................. 46
`1.
`Preamble .................................................................................... 50
`2.
`Limitation 27[a]: an electrical power source ............................ 50
`3.
`Limitation 27[b]: at least one electrical resistance heater ........ 52
`4.
`Limitation 27[c]: elongated portion of resistance heating
`element ...................................................................................... 52
`Limitation 27[d]: controller ...................................................... 53
`Limitation 27[e]: removably engaged cigarette-type
`device ........................................................................................ 55
`
`5.
`6.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`7.
`
`Limitation 27[f]: elongated heater portion extends into
`the tobacco segment .................................................................. 58
`Limitation 27[g]: visible mainstream aerosol ........................... 58
`8.
`Claims 28-30 ....................................................................................... 59
`B.
`VII. Ground 3: Claims 27-30 are Unpatentable Over Counts-962, Alone or
`in Combination with Brooks .......................................................................... 62
`A. Overview of Counts-962 ..................................................................... 62
`B.
`Claim 27 .............................................................................................. 64
`1.
`Preamble .................................................................................... 64
`2.
`Limitation 27[a]: an electrical power source ............................ 64
`3.
`Limitation 27[b]: at least one electrical resistance heater ........ 65
`4.
`Limitation 27[c]: elongated portion of resistance heating
`element ...................................................................................... 65
`Limitation 27[d]: controller ...................................................... 67
`Limitation 27[e]: removably engaged cigarette-type
`device ........................................................................................ 68
`Limitation 27[f]: elongated heater portion extends into
`the tobacco segment .................................................................. 71
`Limitation 27[g]: visible mainstream aerosol ........................... 71
`8.
`Claims 28-30 ....................................................................................... 73
`C.
`VIII. Secondary Considerations ............................................................................. 75
`IX. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 76
`
`5.
`6.
`
`7.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Allied Erecting v. Genesis Attachments,
`825 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 32
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 21
`E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V.,
`904 F.3d 996 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................ 46, 61, 75
`King Pharms., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc.,
`616 F.3d 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................. 45, 61, 75
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 51, 54
`In re Peterson,
`315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .............................................................. 46, 61, 75
`RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Altria Client Services LLC,
`No. 1:20-cv-393 (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 9, 2020) ..................................................... 5
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 14
`Federal Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................ 7, 8, 46
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .......................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. § 315 .......................................................................................................... 5
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................................................................... 5, 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10 ................................................................................................... 6, 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................................... 7
`Patent Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14,
`2012) ..................................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`Exhibit List
`
`Description
`Ex.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,901,123 (“the ’123 patent”)
`1002
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,901,123
`1003 Declaration of Dr. Seetharama C. Deevi in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of ’123 Patent (“Deevi Decl”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Seetharama C. Deevi
`1004
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 5,249,586 (“Morgan”)
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 4,947,874 (“Brooks”)
`1007 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0102013 (“Adams”)
`1008 U.S. Patent No. 5,144,962 (“Counts-962”)
`1009 U.S. Patent No. 5,060,671 (“Counts-671”)
`1010 Chemical and Biological Studies on New Cigarette Prototypes that Heat
`Instead of Burn Tobacco, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Monograph
`(1988) (“RJR’s 1988 Monograph”) (markings on exhibit appeared in the
`used copy purchased by counsel)
`1011 U.S. Patent No. 5,692,525 (“Counts-525”)
`1012 U.S. Patent No. 5,095,921 (“Losee”)
`1013 U.S. Patent No. 5,591,368 (“the ’368 patent”)
`1014
`International Patent Application Publication No. WO 96/32854
`(“Baggett”)
`1015 Korean Patent No. 10-0636287 (“Park”)
`(including certified English translation and original Korean version of
`patent)
`Philip Morris Incorporated Invention Record (submitted May 19, 1994;
`witnessed May 23, 1994) (“May 1994 Invention Record”)
`1017 U.S. Patent No. 4,510,950 (“Keritsis”)
`
`1016
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`Ex.
`1018
`
`Description
`Steven M. Kaplan, Wiley Electrical and Electronics Engineering
`Dictionary (2004)
`IEEE 100, The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms (7th
`ed. 2000) (“IEEE Dictionary”)
`Philip Morris Incorporated Invention Record (dated October 11, 1988)
`(“October 1988 Invention Record”)
`1021 U.S. Patent No. 2,104,266 (“McCormick”)
`1022 U.S. Patent No. 5,865,185 (“Collins”)
`1023 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0215167 (“Crooks”)
`1024 U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 60/722,036
`1025
`Patent Owner’s infringement chart for ’123 patent, In the Matter of
`Certain Tobacco Heating Articles and Components Thereof, Inv. No.
`___, EDIS Doc. ID 707369 (Filed Apr. 9, 2020) (“Infringement
`Chart”)
`1026 U.S. Patent No. 5,498,855 (“the ’855 patent”)
`1027 Modern Dictionary of Electronics (7th ed., 1999) (excerpt)
`1028 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed., 2001) (excerpt)
`1029
`Concise Oxford English Dictionary (11th ed., 2008) (excerpt)
`1030
`The Lady Smokes, www.theladysmokes.com (archived at
`web.archive.org, 2006-2007)
`Chambers Dictionary of Science and Technology (1999) (excerpt)
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v.
`Altria Client Services, No. 1:20-cv-393 (E.D. Va. April 9, 2020)
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1031
`1032
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`Introduction
`Philip Morris Products, S.A. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of
`
`claims 27-30 of U.S. Patent No. 9,901,123, titled “Tobacco-Containing Smoking
`
`Article” (“the ’123 Patent,” Ex. 1001). The Office’s records indicate that the ’123
`
`patent is assigned to RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. (“RAI” or “Patent Owner”).
`
`The challenged claims are generally directed to a device that heats tobacco
`
`rather than burning it.1 Such “heat-not-burn” technology releases less harmful
`
`chemicals than conventional smoking because it heats tobacco to release a
`
`nicotine-carrying aerosol instead of burning it. The general concept of heat-not-
`
`burn technology has been around for decades,2 but in the last 10-12 years it has
`
`evolved to the point where it is commercially viable and scientifically substantiated
`
`as a potentially reduced-risk alternative to continued smoking.
`
`In the last decade alone, Petitioner invested over $7 billion in research and
`
`development on technology that does not burn tobacco. As a direct result of this
`
`effort, Petitioner launched a new heat-not-burn product—IQOS—which is already
`
`
`1 That said, the claims do not rule out burning the tobacco.
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 2,104,266 issued in 1935 and described heating rather than
`
`burning tobacco to avoid releasing undesirable elements of tobacco smoke. See Ex.
`
`1021 at 1 (left column line 1 to right column, line 18).
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`an overwhelming commercial success in more than fifty countries around the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`world. As can be expected, Petitioner protects its heat-not-burn innovations that
`
`demonstrate clear advances over earlier heat-not-burn technology.
`
`Meanwhile, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (“RJR”) and its parent
`
`company, British American Tobacco plc (“BAT”), are lagging behind. To date,
`
`BAT and its affiliates, including RJR and Patent Owner RAI, have not marketed a
`
`heat-not-burn product that can compete with IQOS.3 Failing on that front, BAT and
`
`its affiliates are using their patents—including the ’123 patent—in an attempt to
`
`exclude others from offering current adult smokers safer alternatives. In the
`
`District Court and in the ITC, BAT has accused Petitioner of infringing the ’123
`
`and other patents, even though the asserted claims recite conventional heat-not-
`
`burn features already in the public domain, including features in the expired Philip
`
`Morris patents asserted as prior art here. See, e.g., Complaint (Ex. 1032).
`
`Specifically, the ’123 patent describes several different examples. Some use
`
`a combination of liquid and tobacco materials, while others have only tobacco
`
`
`3 In addition, BAT and its affiliates have not undergone an expensive Premarket
`
`Tobacco Product Application process with the Food and Drug Administration, and
`
`therefore cannot lawfully sell such products in the United States.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`treated with aerosol-generating materials. The claims challenged here most
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`resemble the device shown below in the ’123 patent’s Figure 3.
`
`
`
`’123 patent Fig. 3; 27:35-30:36.4
`
`The claimed device was disclosed in the prior art. For example, U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,249,586 (Ex. 1005, “Morgan”) issued to Philip Morris USA in 1993—over a
`
`decade before the ’123 patent’s earliest claimed priority date—and taught each and
`
`every element of the independent claims:
`
`
`4 Unless otherwise noted, all annotations and emphases are added.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`
`
`Morgan Fig. 2, 2:44-45; see also Figs. 7, 8 (depicting heating elements with
`
`elongated portions and proximal to the center of the outer housing).
`
`Likewise, Counts-962 discloses an electrically powered smoking article like
`
`the one claimed in the ’123 patent, and Adams also discloses a centered heater like
`
`the one shown in Figure 3 of the ’123 patent above.
`
`Counts-962 Fig. 1 (“heating element 14”); id. 3:16-29; Adams Fig. 7.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`Accordingly, and for the reasons fully explained in the following sections,
`
`Petitioner asks the Board to institute review and find the challenged claims
`
`unpatentable.
`
`II. Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`For purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) only,
`
`Petitioner Philip Morris Products, S.A. identifies the real parties-in-interest as
`
`Philip Morris Products, S.A., Philip Morris International, Inc., Altria Client
`
`Services LLC, and Philip Morris USA. Petitioner further states that under the
`
`governing standard, Altria Group, Inc. is not a real-party-in-interest. See Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012). Altria Group,
`
`Inc. nevertheless agrees to be bound by any final written decision in these
`
`proceedings. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).5
`
`B. Related Matters
`Patent Owner asserted ’123 patent in the United States District Court for the
`
`Eastern District of Virginia and in the ITC. See RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v.
`
`
`5 In addition, Philip Morris International, Inc., and Altria Group, Inc. were
`
`improperly named as defendants in the litigation noted in the Related Matters
`
`section, and the parties have agreed to dismiss them from those matters.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`Altria Client Services LLC, No. 1:20-cv-393 (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 9, 2020); In the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`Matter of Certain Tobacco Heating Articles and Components Thereof, Inv. No.
`
`___, EDIS Doc. ID 707369 (Filed Apr. 9, 2020).
`
`Petitioner is concurrently filing a petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,814,268 (“the ’268 patent”). The ’268 patent is related to the ’123 patent and
`
`shares an identical specification, and is also asserted in the district court litigation
`
`cited above.
`
`Public PAIR also indicates that Appl. Ser. Nos. 16/271,443, 16/271,426,
`
`16/247,298 are related to the ’123 patent and are currently pending.
`
`C. Grounds for Standing
`Petitioner certifies that the ’123 patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that Petitioner is not barred from requesting this proceeding.
`
`D. Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4), and 42.10(a), Petitioner
`
`designates the following lead counsel:
`
`• Jonathan M. Strang (Reg. No. 61,724). jonathan.strang@lw.com,
`
`Latham & Watkins LLP; 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000;
`
`Washington, DC 20004-1304; 202.637.2362; 202.637.2201 (fax).
`
`Petitioner also designates the following backup counsel:
`
`• Matthew J. Moore (Reg. No. 42,012). matthew.moore@lw.com,
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`Latham & Watkins LLP; 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000;
`
`Washington, DC 20004-1304; 202.637.2278; 202.637.2201 (fax).
`
`• Inge A. Osman (Reg. No. 74,480). inge.osman@lw.com, Latham &
`
`Watkins LLP; 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000; Washington, DC
`
`20004-1304; 202.637.3308; 202.637.2201 (fax).
`
`• Christopher W. Henry (Reg. No. 60,907). christopher.henry@lw.com,
`
`Latham & Watkins LLP; 200 Clarendon Street, Boston, MA 02116;
`
`617.880.4550; 617.948.6001 (fax).
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney from Petitioner is attached.
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`
`E.
`Fee for Inter Partes Review
`The Director is authorized to charge the fee specified by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.15(a) to Deposit Account No. 506269.
`
`III.
`
`Identification of Challenges (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
`• Ground 1: Claims 27-30 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`Morgan (Ex. 1005), alone or in view of Adams (Ex. 1007) and Brooks
`
`(Ex. 1006).
`
`• Ground 2: Claims 27-30 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`Adams in view of Morgan and Brooks.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`• Ground 3: Claims 27-30 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`Counts-962 (Ex. 1008), alone or in view of Brooks.
`
`IV. Background
`A. Overview of the ’123 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’123 patent primarily focuses on three distinct examples. The
`
`challenged claims most resemble the example depicted in Figure 3 of the patent,
`
`but a basic understanding of all three examples provides helpful context. See Deevi
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 31-69.
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a smoking article with a cartridge 85 (also called a
`
`“liquid storage container 85”) containing a liquid aerosol-generating material and
`
`tobacco or tobacco extract:
`
`’123 patent at Fig. 1; 19:37-24:48; Deevi Decl. ¶¶ 37-42. In this example, the
`
`liquid components are “wicked” to the heater where they are vaporized. See, e.g.,
`
`’123 patent 20:20-24; Deevi Decl. ¶¶ 38-42.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`Figure 2 illustrates a different smoking article:
`
`
`
`’123 patent Fig. 2. This example includes a cigarette 150 with “a charge or roll of
`
`tobacco 89 (e.g., tobacco cut filler or processed tobacco material) wrapped in
`
`wrapping material 160 (e.g., paper).” Id. 24:57-60. “[T]he cigarette 150 possesses a
`
`type of cartridge 85 at its distal end within the wrapping material 160 and in fluid
`
`communication with the tobacco rod,” and the “optional cartridge 85 contains an
`
`aerosol-generating material composition 101 therein.” Id. 25:27-32. Deevi Decl. ¶¶
`
`43-51.
`
`Figure 3, which includes a heater with an elongated portion and no cartridge,
`
`most resembles the challenged claims:
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`
`
`’123 patent Fig. 3; 27:35-30:36. The claimed but conventional features of the
`
`patent’s smoking article include a tubular outer housing (item 20, light gray); a
`
`battery (item 36, green); a heating element 72 (item 72, red); a controller for
`
`regulating current flow through the heater (item 50, orange). The smoking article
`
`in Figure 3 also incorporates a conventional “cigarette 150,” which includes a
`
`“tobacco segment 89,” “wrapping material 160” and a “filter element 200.” Id.
`
`27:42-56.
`
`“[A]t least a portion of [heating element 72] can be elongated” to “extend
`
`downstream within the outer container 20,” and thus “extend into the tobacco
`
`segment 89, and hence be in close contact with a significant amount of substrate
`
`and aerosol-forming material within the tobacco.” Id. 28:35-43, Deevi Decl. ¶¶ 52-
`
`58. The claimed features not shown in Figure 3 consist of “an actuation
`
`mechanism” for turning on the heater (e.g., a switch), see id. 34:62-65 (claim 29),
`
`and an operating temperature range for the heater of “at least 200° C and less than
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`600° C ,” see id. 34:66-35:2 (claim 30). As will be explained in the following
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`sections, all of these features were disclosed in the prior art.
`
`B.
`State of the Art
`As established in the Introduction, heat-not-burn systems predate the ’123
`
`patent by at least seven decades. See, e.g., Ex. 1021 (filed in 1935); Deevi Decl. ¶¶
`
`70-76. The ’123 patent recognizes as much. See, e.g., ’123 patent 3:49-4:7
`
`(discussing heat-not-burn prior art). After discussing that prior art, however, the
`
`’123 patent states that it would be “highly desirable” to provide a heat-not-burn
`
`smoking article, without explaining how it purports to meet that objective in a way
`
`that differs from the prior art. See id. 4:28-38 (describing a smoking article that
`
`operates without “burning any significant amount of tobacco” and therefore does
`
`not deliver harmful combustion products).
`
`The ’123 patent identifies in the prior art most, if not all, of the features
`
`recited in the challenged claims. The ’123 patent acknowledges that it was known
`
`to use tobacco with aerosol-generating materials. See, e.g., ’123 patent 8:56-9:11
`
`(describing useful tobaccos in the prior art), 9:46-10:54 (same); id. 13:59-67
`
`(“Representative types of aerosol-forming materials are set forth in” various prior
`
`art references, including [Ex. 1010, RJR’s 1988 Monograph].), 14:13-24 (listing
`
`commercially available aerosol-forming materials); Deevi Decl. ¶¶ 73-76. In fact,
`
`glycerol, one of the ’123 patent’s preferred aerosol-forming materials (see ’123
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`patent 14:6-15; 16:53-58) already had “a long history of use in the tobacco
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`industry” by 1998. Ex. 1010 at 60, 122 (RJR’s Monograph); Ex. 1011 at 16:33-38;
`
`Ex. 1012 at 3:9-13; Ex. 1006 at 6:45-52 (aerosols are “vapors, gases, particles, and
`
`the like, both visible and invisible, and especially those components perceived by
`
`the user to be ‘smoke-like,’” which may be “generated by action of heat from [a]
`
`resistance heating element upon aerosol forming substances and/or tobacco flavor
`
`substances”); Deevi Decl. ¶¶ 73-76.
`
`The ’123 patent also admits that wrapping materials and filters were known.
`
`E.g., ’123 patent 18:11-37 (“Exemplary types of wrapping materials are set forth
`
`in” various prior art patents); id. 19:13-18 (“The smoking article typically
`
`possesses a mouth-end piece. Representative types of filter elements, such as those
`
`employed for cigarettes, including segmented cigarette filters, are set forth in U.S.
`
`patent application Ser. No. 11/461,941, … which is incorporated by herein by
`
`reference.”); Deevi Decl. ¶¶ 74-76.
`
`Furthermore, the ’123 patent provides examples of suitable prior art power
`
`sources (e.g., batteries), control components, and resistance heating elements. See
`
`’123 patent 20:26-32, 20:43-48, 21:45-48; Deevi Decl. ¶76.
`
`In addition, prior art references beyond those discussed in the ’123 patent
`
`specification—e.g., Morgan, Adams, Counts-962, and Brooks—also demonstrate
`
`that the features recited in the challenged claims were conventional and well-
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`known long before October 2006. These will be discussed at length in the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`following sections.
`
`C.
`Prosecution History
`Notably, the applicants overwhelmed the examiner by identifying hundreds
`
`of prior-art references without any explanation, despite the Examiner’s request to
`
`do so. Specifically, the Examiner warned the applicants that their IDS contained
`
`“an extremely large number of references for consideration,” and asked them to
`
`identify particularly pertinent references. Ex. 1002 at 142 (June 26, 2017 office
`
`action). Applicants never responded to the Examiner’s request.
`
`D. The Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`A POSA at the time of the purported invention (the October 2006
`
`timeframe) would have had a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering,
`
`electrical engineering, chemistry, or physics, or a related field, and three to four
`
`years of industry experience, or a Master’s degree in mechanical engineering,
`
`electrical engineering, chemistry, or physics, or a related field, and one to two
`
`years of industry experience. Such a POSA would have been familiar with
`
`electrically powered smoking articles and/or the components and underlying
`
`technology used therein. Deevi Decl. ¶¶ 26-30.
`
`E. Claim Construction
`The prior art relied on in this Petition discloses the subject matter of the
`
`challenged claims under any reasonable construction, including their plain
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`meaning.6 Petitioner further explains the meaning of the following terms, which
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`might be subject to dispute here.
`
`1.
`
`The recited “controller” does not invoke § 112, ¶ 6, but if it
`does, the relevant structure includes Brooks’s prior-art
`controller.
`Claim 27 recites a “controller … adapted for regulating current flow through
`
`the electrical resistance heater.” The absence of the word “means” “creates a
`
`rebuttable presumption…that § 112, para. 6 does not apply.” Williamson v. Citrix
`
`Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`In its allegations in the ITC proceeding (or district court), Patent Owner did
`
`not indicate that § 112, ¶ 6 applies here or otherwise indicate that the term rebuts
`
`the Williamson presumption. See Ex. 1025 at 3. Solely for the purposes of this
`
`proceeding, Petitioner agrees: the controller term does not invoke § 112, ¶ 6. The
`
`claims do not recite the word “means,” and the Federal Circuit has not deemed
`
`“controller” to be a nonce word as it has “mechanism,” “element,” “device,” and
`
`“module.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350-51. Rather, and for the purposes of this
`
`proceeding, a controller has its plain meaning in the context of the patent: it is a
`
`device that controls the electric power delivered to the apparatus to which it is
`
`
`6 Petitioner reserves the right to argue alternative constructions in other
`
`proceedings, and where such a defense is available, that the claims are indefinite.
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`connected, i.e., the resistance heater(s). See ’123 patent 20:33-49 (explaining that
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`controllers typically control “time of operation, control of current, control of
`
`electrical resistance heat generation, and the like”); 20:49-21:62 (explaining that
`
`common puff-actuated controllers “regulat[e] current flow through” heaters by
`
`energizing them when a puff is detected); Exs. 1019, 1027 (defining controller as
`
`“a device or group of devices that serves to govern, in some predetermined
`
`manner, the electric power delivered to the apparatus to which it is connected”);
`
`Ex. 1031 (“an assembly of equipment for controlling the operation of electrical
`
`apparatus”); Deevi Decl. ¶¶ 77-90.
`
`Petitioner contends in the alternative that the controller term invokes § 112,
`
`¶ 6, and that the claim language, “controller … adapted for regulating current flow
`
`through the heater,” should be construed to cover that term’s function and the
`
`corresponding structures the ’123 patent discloses (and equivalents).
`
`In particular, the recited function is regulating (i.e., controlling, see Exs.
`
`1028, 1029, 1031, defining control as regulate and vice versa) current flow through
`
`the heater. The disclosed structures for performing that function include the
`
`circuits shown in Figures 4 and 5 of the ’123 patent and described in the
`
`accompanying text at 30:30-32:26. The patent also points to Brooks (Ex. 1006) as
`
`disclosing a suitable controller structure, stating that “[r]epresentative types of
`
`electronic control components” and “sensing mechanism components” disclosed in
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`the prior art can be used to “regulat[e] current flow through one or more of the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`resistance heating elements,” citing “U.S. Pat. No. 4,947,874 to Brooks et al.” ’123
`
`patent 20:43-21:14; see also 3:58-4:7 and 13:30-35 (also incorporating Brooks by
`
`reference); Deevi Decl. ¶¶ 86-90. Brooks therefore discloses an admitted prior art
`
`controller structure, and it is applied as such herein.
`
`Notably, Brooks states that its puff-actuated controller provides “accurate
`
`and sophisticated” current actuation and regulation. Brooks Abstract, 4:50-5:12.
`
`Brooks explains that Figures 9 and 10 illustrate exemplary controllers (Brooks
`
`9:55-65), and those figures are described in detail at 12:39-16:31. See also id.
`
`17:41-18:19 (Example 1 “Assembly of the Controller”); 20:54-21:41 (Example 4,
`
`“Assembly of the Controller); Deevi Decl. ¶¶ 88-90.
`
`For example, Brooks’s Figure 9 example is a puff-actuated controller that,
`
`like the description in the ’123 patent, uses a timer with a pressure switch or a
`
`transducer with a threshold detector. Brooks 12:39-13:30. Brooks explains in detail
`
`how to implement the timer, set the duty cycle, and so forth. Brooks 13:31-15:27.
`
`Brooks actually built this controller, and documented its performance using a
`
`“standard smoking machine.” Brooks 17:43-18:33. Deevi Decl. ¶ 88.
`
`Brooks also disclosed another implementation of a puff-actuated controller
`
`in its Figure 10. That controller uses the same mechanism to detect a puff and the
`
`same timer circuitry, and further includes an LED to inform the us