`
`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.
`Identification of Challenges (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) ..................................... 3
`II.
`III. Background ...................................................................................................... 4
`A.
`The named inventors disassembled Hon’s prior-art Ruyan
`device and used it to describe their alleged invention .......................... 4
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 9
`B.
`The Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art .............................................. 9
`C.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 10
`D.
`IV. Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 21, and 23-26 are
`Unpatentable Over Hon, Alone or with Brooks and Whittemore ................. 10
`A. Overview of Hon (Ex. 1005) ............................................................... 11
`B.
`Overview of Whittemore (Ex. 1007) .................................................. 14
`C.
`Overview of Brooks (Ex. 1006) .......................................................... 16
`D.
`Independent Claims 1 and 15 .............................................................. 17
`1.
`Preambles .................................................................................. 17
`2.
`Element 1/15[a]: electrical power source ................................. 18
`3.
`Element 1/15[b]: electrical resistance heater ............................ 20
`4.
`Element 1/15[c]: puff-actuated controller ................................. 22
`5.
`Element 1/15[d]: a rod-shaped carrier device ........................... 29
`a.
`Overview of Hon’s rod-shaped carrier device
`comprising a cartridge .................................................... 30
`b. Mixture of tobacco extract and aerosol-forming
`material ........................................................................... 32
`Absorbent fibrous/wicking material ............................... 34
`
`c.
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`E.
`
`5.
`6.
`
`d.
`e.
`f.
`
`Single unit cartridge/carrier ............................................ 38
`[Removably] engaged ..................................................... 41
`Rod-shaped and generally tubular, with airflow
`therethrough .................................................................... 43
`Element 1/15[e]: wicking and aerosol formation ..................... 45
`6.
`Dependent Claims ............................................................................... 53
`1.
`Claim 2: glycerin or propylene glycol ...................................... 54
`2.
`Claims 5 and 18: organic acid ................................................... 54
`3.
`Claim 7: synthetic polymer fibrous material ............................ 54
`4.
`Claims 9, 11, 21 and 23: cartridge materials ............................ 55
`a.
`Claims 9 and 21: plastic .................................................. 57
`b.
`Claims 9, 11, 21, and 23: conducts heat/electricity ........ 59
`Claim 12: carrier is removably engaged ................................... 60
`Claims 14 and 24: absorbent fibrous/wicking material in
`contact with heater .................................................................... 61
`Claim 25: wick in proximity to heater ...................................... 61
`7.
`Claim 26: air passageway along length of cartridge ................. 62
`8.
`V. Ground 2: Claims 3, 4, 13, 16, and 17 are Unpatentable Over Hon,
`Whittemore, Brooks, and Susa (Ex. 1008) .................................................... 62
`A.
`Claims 3, 4, 16, and 17: flavoring agent, menthol .............................. 63
`B.
`Claim 13: glycerin, tobacco extract, and a flavoring agent ................ 64
`VI. Ground 3: Claims 6 and 19 are Unpatentable Over Hon, Whittemore,
`Brooks, and Ray (Ex. 1009) .......................................................................... 66
`A.
`Claims 6 and 19: mixture includes pure or predominantly
`nicotine ................................................................................................ 66
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`
`VII. Secondary Considerations ............................................................................. 69
`VIII. The Board Should Reach the Merits of This Petition ................................... 69
`A.
`Section 325(d) is not applicable here .................................................. 69
`B.
`NHK Spring is not applicable here ...................................................... 72
`C.
`General Plastic is not applicable here ................................................ 73
`IX. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................................. 75
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest ........................................................................ 75
`B.
`Related Matters .................................................................................... 75
`C.
`Grounds for Standing .......................................................................... 77
`D.
`Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information ........................... 77
`E.
`Fee for Inter Partes Review ................................................................ 78
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 79
`
`X.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Gerate
`GMBH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (Feb. 13, 2020) ........................................................... 71
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020) .................................................. 72, 73
`
`In the Matter of Certain Tobacco Heating Articles and Components
`Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1199, EDIS Doc. ID 707369 (filed Apr. 9, 2020). ................. 76
`Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc.,
`807 F.2d 955 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ...................................................................... 34, 58
`Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (Sept. 9, 2017) .......................................................... 73
`Nitto Denko Corp. v. Hutchinson Tech. Inc.,
`IPR2018-00955, Paper 7 (Dec. 4, 2018) ............................................................. 72
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.,
`IPR2016-01268, Paper 63 (Dec. 19, 2017)..................................................passim
`RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Altria Client Services LLC,
`No. 1:20-cv-393 (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 9, 2020) ................................................... 75
`RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Altria Client Servs. LLC,
`No. 3:20-cv-393 (E.D. Va. July 13, 2020) ......................................................... 76
`Yeda Research & Dev. Co. v. Mylan Pharms., Inc.,
`906 F.3d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................... 9, 34, 36, 59
`Zip Top, LLC v. Stasher, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01216, Paper 14 (Jan. 17, 2019) .......................................................... 70
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b) ........................................................................................................passim
`§ 312(a)(2) .......................................................................................................... 75
`§ 315(e) ............................................................................................................... 75
`§ 325(d) ......................................................................................................... 69, 70
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.8 ................................................................................................................... 75
`§ 42.8(b)(1) ......................................................................................................... 75
`§ 42.8(b)(3) ......................................................................................................... 77
`§ 42.8(b)(4) ......................................................................................................... 77
`§ 42.10(a) ............................................................................................................ 77
`§ 42.10(b) ............................................................................................................ 77
`§ 42.15(a) ............................................................................................................ 78
`§ 42.104(b) ............................................................................................................ 3
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (Aug. 14,
`2012) ................................................................................................................... 75
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. Description
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`Exhibit List
`
`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 Stewart Fox in Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of ’123 Patent (“Fox Decl.”)
`
`1004 Curriculum Vitae of Stewart Fox
`
`1005 Chinese Patent No. CN 2719043 (“Hon”) (including certified English
`translation and original Chinese version of the patent document)
`
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 4,947,874 (“Brooks”)
`
`1007 U.S. Patent No. 2,057,353 (“Whittemore”)
`
`1008 European Patent Publication No. EP 0845220 (“Susa”)
`
`1009 U.S. Patent No. 4,284,089 (“Ray”)
`
`1010 Chemical and Biological Studies on New Cigarette Prototypes that
`Heat Instead of Burn Tobacco, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
`Monograph (1988) (“RJR monograph”) (excerpts) (markings on
`exhibit appeared in the used copy purchased by counsel)
`
`1011 U.S. Patent No. 4,793,365 (“Sensabaugh”)
`
`1012 Letter from Robert B. Swierupski, Director, National Commodity
`Specialist Division, to Mark Weiss, Weiss & Moy, P.C. regarding tariff
`classification ruling (Aug. 22, 2006), https://rulings.cbp.gov/ruling/
`M85579
`
`1013 Webpages from Beijing SBT Ruyan Technology & Development
`Corp., Sbtry.cn (archived at web.archive.org, 2005-2006, with
`affidavit)
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. Description
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`1014
`
`International Patent Publication No. WO 98/57556 (“Biggs”)
`
`1015 Webpages from E-cig.com (archived at web.archive.org, 2006-2007,
`with affidavit)
`
`1016 Complainants RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., R.J. Reynolds Vapor
`Company, and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company’s Revised
`Infringement Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 9,901,123 from ITC Inv.
`No. 337-TA-1199 (Ex. 42)
`
`1017 RESERVED
`
`1018 Barbara Demick, A High-Tech Approach to Getting a Nicotine Fix,
`L.A. Times (Apr. 25, 2009), https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-
`2009-apr-25-fg-china-cigarettes25-story.html
`
`1019 Philip Morris U.S.A. interoffice correspondence from R.H. Mofitt to K.
`Torrence regarding operational analysis of SBT Ruyan Atomizing
`Nicotine Inhaler (Sept. 27, 2004),
`https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/fnpb0219
`
`1020 Philip Morris U.S.A. interoffice correspondence from R.H. Moffitt to
`K. Torrence regarding operational analysis of SBT Ruyan Atomizing
`Nicotine Inhaler (Sept. 27, 2004) (original)
`
`1021 Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,365,742 Pursuant
`to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42, R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.
`v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-01268 (July 2, 2016)
`
`1022 Final Written Decision, R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. v. Fontem Holdings 1
`B.V., IPR2016-01268, Paper 63 (Dec. 19, 2017) (“RJRV FWD”)
`
`1023 Kevin Hatch, et al., Preliminary Evaluation of a Commercially
`Available Electric Aerosol Inhaler from China (Sept. 14, 2006) (“RJR
`Teardown”), available at https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/
`docs/nyvy0228
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. Description
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`1024 Email exchange among Carolyn Carpenter, John Robinson et al.
`regarding electric cigarette, available at
`https:/www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/nsxy0228
`
`1025 Hon Lik, I Was Sure That the Electronic Cigarette Would be
`Welcomed with Open Arms, Sciences et Avenir (Oct. 7, 2013)
`https://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/sante/i-was-sure-that-the-electronic-
`cigarette-would-be-welcomed-with-open-arms_26020 (updated Oct.
`18, 2013)
`
`1026 U.S. Patent No. 7,117,867 (“Cox”)
`
`1027 U.S. Patent No. 4,735,217 (“Gerth”)
`
`1028 European Patent Publication No. EP 1,618,803 (“Hon-803”)
`
`1029 U.S. Patent No. 5,388,574 (“Ingebrethsen”)
`
`1030 U.S. Patent No. 6,095,153 (“Kessler”)
`
`1031 U.S. Patent No. 4,449,541 (“Mays”)
`
`1032 U.S. Patent No. 8,950,587 (“Thomson”)
`
`1033 George Wypych, Handbook of Polymers (2d ed. 2016)
`
`1034 Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority in
`International Application No. PCT/US2007/081461
`
`1035 U.S. Patent No. 1,968,509 (“Tiffany”)
`
`1036 U.S. Patent No. 5,692,525 (“Counts”)
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`Introduction
`Philip Morris Products, S.A. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of
`
`claims 1-7, 9, 11-19, 21, and 23-26 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. (“Patent
`
`Owner”).
`
`The challenged claims are directed to a vaping device, i.e., a smoking device
`
`that volatilizes a liquid mixture instead of heating a solid material such as tobacco.
`
`As a result, the claims challenged here are directed to a different device than the
`
`“heat-not-burn” claims 27-30 challenged in IPR2020-00919 (and asserted against
`
`Petitioner in District Court and the ITC).
`
`The vaping device illustrated in the Figure 1 of the ’123 patent most
`
`resembles the challenged claims. Figure 1 shows a “liquid storage container 85”
`
`containing a liquid aerosol-generating material:
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`
`
`’123 patent Fig. 1 (annotated), 19:37-24:48. This is in stark contrast to independent
`
`claim 27 and Figure 3 in the ’123 patent, which have a heater with an “elongated
`
`portion” extending into the tobacco segment of a cigarette. See, e.g., claims 27 (“a
`
`cigarette-type device … comprising a tobacco segment circumscribed by a
`
`wrapping material”), 30 (heating to a temperature “such that the tobacco material
`
`does not burn during use”).
`
`The ’123 patent’s vaping device was not new. Hon taught a similar e-
`
`cigarette with all or nearly all of the challenged claims’ elements:
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`Hon (Ex. 1005) Fig. 1 (annotated). For example, Hon teaches an electric resistance
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`heater (inside of the pink-colored atomizer 9), a puff-actuated controller 3 with a
`
`sensor 6 (both orange), and rod-shaped carrier device comprising a cartridge
`
`(blue). Hon at 6. To the extent that Hon’s disclosure regarding its controller and its
`
`heater are lacking, a POSA would have turned to Brooks (Ex. 1006) and
`
`Whittemore (Ex. 1007), respectively, for the reasons explained here.
`
`Petitioner therefore asks the Board to institute review and find the
`
`challenged claims unpatentable for the reasons fully explained herein.
`
`II.
`
`Identification of Challenges (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
`Challenged claims 1-7, 9, 11-19, 21, and 23-26 are unpatentable over
`
`Chinese Patent No. CN 2719043 (Ex. 1005, “Hon”), alone or in view of other prior
`
`art. Specifically:
`
`• Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 21, and 23-26 are
`
`Unpatentable Over Hon (Ex. 1005), alone or with Brooks (Ex. 1006) and
`
`Whittemore (Ex. 1007);
`
`• Ground 2: Claims 3, 4, 13, 16, and 17 are Unpatentable Over Hon,
`
`Whittemore, Brooks, and Susa (Ex. 1008);
`
`• Ground 3: Claims 6 and 19 are Unpatentable Over Hon, Whittemore,
`
`Brooks, and Ray (Ex. 1009).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`
`III. Background
`A. The named inventors disassembled Hon’s prior-art Ruyan device
`and used it to describe their alleged invention
`The challenged claims most resemble the vaping device depicted in Figure 1
`
`of the ’123 patent. This figure illustrates a smoking article with a “liquid storage
`
`container 85” that contains a liquid aerosol-generating material and tobacco
`
`extracts:
`
`
`
`’123 patent Fig. 1 (annotated), 19:37-24:48; Fox Decl. (Ex. 1003) ¶¶ 37-39.1
`
`The claimed but conventional features of this device include a tubular outer
`
`housing (item 20, light gray), a battery (item 36, green), a heater (item 72, red), a
`
`puff-actuated controller for regulating current flow through the heater (item 50)
`
`and a concomitant puff sensor for sensing draw (item 60) (both orange), a
`
`
`1 The ’123 patent also describes heat-not-burn embodiments, e.g., the one shown in
`
`Figure 3 that is the focus of IPR2020-00919.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`mouthpiece (item 120), and a “liquid storage container 85” (both light blue), the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`latter of which can hold “liquid tobacco extracts or essences” and “aerosol-forming
`
`materials” (light brown). See, e.g., ’123 patent 19:37-23:24; Fox Decl. ¶¶ 39-45.
`
`The liquid in liquid storage container 85 is “wicked” out of the container “so as to
`
`contact” the heater where it is aerosolized. See, e.g., ’123 patent 21:38-45; Fox
`
`Decl. ¶ 42.
`
`Nothing here was new. Indeed, the ’123 patent admits that “[r]epresentative
`
`smoking articles … can be provided” using the “exemplary components” of the
`
`prior art Ruyan device. ’123 patent 19:25-36. Thus, the Ruyan device itself is
`
`applicant-admitted prior art. The inventor of the Ruyan device, Mr. Hon, is also the
`
`inventor of the primary reference asserted in this IPR, a Chinese patent filed in
`
`2004 and published in 2005. Ex. 1005 (“Hon”). Exs. 1018, 1025 (recounting
`
`Ruyan’s commercialization of Hon’s inventions).
`
`The ’123 patent admits that its purported vaping invention can be assembled
`
`from prior-art components from Hon’s prior-art Ruyan e-cigarette, but never
`
`explains how the claimed device differs from the Ruyan device or other admitted
`
`prior art. ’123 patent 19:25-36 (“Representative smoking articles, and exemplary
`
`components thereof” are “available through Atlanta Imports Inc., Acworth, Ga.,
`
`USA., as an electronic cigar having the brand name E-CIG” and “as Ruyan
`
`Atomizing Electronic Pipe and Ruyan Atomizing Electronic Cigarette from Ruyan
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`SBT Technology and Development Co., Ltd., Beijing, China.”); Fox Decl. ¶¶ 21-
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`22, 39-45.
`
`The first two purported inventors listed on the ’123 patent, Robinson and
`
`Griffith, were well acquainted with Hon’s Ruyan device. Before filing their first
`
`application in the ’123 patent’s family on October 18, 2006, they purchased Ruyan
`
`devices, took at least one apart, and documented their findings. Ex. 1023 (“RJR
`
`Teardown”); Ex. 1024 (August 4, 2006, email documenting Robinson’s acquisition
`
`of the Ruyan device). Robinson and Griffith noted in particular that the Ruyan
`
`device “addressed several of shortcomings of some of the earlier attempts at
`
`producing a cigarette-like aerosol without combustion.” Ex. 1023 at 014-15.
`
`With their knowledge of the Ruyan device’s inner workings, they drafted the
`
`patent application that, after of series of continuations, resulted in the ’123 patent.
`
`Robinson and Griffith did not provide the Examiner (or the public) with their
`
`report or any details regarding the internals of the Ruyan device. Ex. 1034 at 5
`
`(European Patent Office noting the same in substantively identical PCT
`
`application).
`
`Nonetheless, the patent specification marches through each component—
`
`from housing to heaters—asserting that Hon’s Ruyan e-cigarette provides a
`
`representative example of each component:
`
`• “A representative outer housing can be of the type possessed by the Ruyan
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`Atomizing Electronic Cigarette available from Ruyan SBT Technology and
`
`Development Co., Ltd.” ’123 patent 19:56-59.
`
`• “A representative end cover or cap 35 can be of the type possessed by the
`
`Ruyan Atomizing Electronic Cigarette available from Ruyan SBT
`
`Technology and Development Co., Ltd.” Id. 20:8-11.
`
`• “A representative mouth-end piece can be of the type incorporated within a
`
`device available as Ruyan Atomizing Electronic Cigarette from Ruyan SBT
`
`Technology and Development Co., Ltd.” Id. 24:9-13.
`
`• “Representative types of power sources, and representative arrangements
`
`thereof within the outer container, are of the type incorporated within a
`
`device available as Ruyan Atomizing Electronic Cigarette from Ruyan SBT
`
`Technology and Development Co., Ltd.” Id. 20:26-33.
`
`• “Representative types of electronic control components are of the type can
`
`be of the type possessed by the Ruyan Atomizing Electronic Cigarette
`
`available from Ruyan SBT Technology and Development Co., Ltd.” Id.
`
`20:43-47.
`
`• “Representative types of sensing mechanism components are incorporated
`
`within a device available as Ruyan Atomizing Electronic Cigarette from
`
`Ruyan SBT Technology and Development Co., Ltd. See, also, those types of
`
`airflow sensing mechanisms proposed in EPO 1,618,803 to Hon [Ex.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`1028].” Id. 20:52-55.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`• “Representative types of cartridges are of the type incorporated within a
`
`device available as Ruyan Atomizing Electronic Cigarette from Ruyan SBT
`
`Technology and Development Co., Ltd.” Id. 22:6-14.
`
`• “Exemplary aerosol-forming materials also include those types of materials
`
`incorporated within devices available through Atlanta Imports Inc.,
`
`Acworth, Ga., USA., as an electronic cigar having the brand name E-CIG,
`
`which can be employed using associated Smoking Cartridges Type C1a,
`
`C2a, C3a, C4a, C1b, C2b, C3b and C4b; and as Ruyan Atomizing Electronic
`
`Pipe and Ruyan Atomizing Electronic Cigarette from Ruyan SBT
`
`Technology and Development Co., Ltd., Beijing, China.” Id. 14:15-25.
`
`• “Representative types of resistance heating elements are incorporated within
`
`a device available as Ruyan Atomizing Electronic Cigarette from Ruyan
`
`SBT Technology and Development Co., Ltd.” Id. 21:45-48.
`
`The ’123 patent never explains how its claims, or any of its components, are any
`
`different than those found in the Ruyan device. Instead, it simply arranges the
`
`Ruyan device’s components in the same way that Patent Owner found them. Fox
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 23-36. The Examiner had no way of knowing this, as Robinson and
`
`Griffith never provided the Office with a Ruyan device or even pictures of the
`
`device and its internal components—even though they documented their teardown
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`of such a device. Ex. 1023.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`Relevant to this IPR, the commercially available Ruyan device—as
`
`documented by Patent Owner at the relevant time—illustrates a POSA’s
`
`background knowledge of commercial practices in the art. Such evidence is not
`
`limited to printed publications, not even in IPRs. Yeda Research & Dev. Co. v.
`
`Mylan Pharms., Inc., 906 F.3d 1031, 1041-42 (Fed. Cir. 2018). This evidence is
`
`especially pertinent here, as Hon is known as the inventor of the primary prior-art
`
`patent herein and the inventor of the Ruyan device itself. Exs. 1018, 1025.
`
`B.
`Prosecution History
`The applicants overwhelmed the examiner by identifying hundreds of prior-
`
`art references without any explanation. Further, they ignored the Examiner’s
`
`request that applicants “specifically point[] out” “any particular reference or
`
`portion of a reference” in the “extremely large number of references [submitted]
`
`for consideration” in applicant’s IDS. Ex. 1002 at 142 (June 26, 2017 office
`
`action).
`
`C. 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,
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`electrical engineering, chemistry, or physics, or a related field, and one to two
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`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. Fox Decl. ¶¶ 13-18.
`
`D. 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
`
`meaning.2
`
`IV. Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 21, and 23-26 are
`Unpatentable Over Hon, Alone or with Brooks and Whittemore
`As will be demonstrated in the following paragraphs, Hon (Ex. 1005)
`
`teaches each and every element of the claims—which in any event, are all
`
`admittedly in the prior art.
`
`In addition, and to the extent that Patent Owner argues that Hon does not
`
`teach wicking the claimed liquid mixture “into contact with [an] electrical
`
`resistance heater,” a POSA would have implemented Hon’s e-cigarette with a wick
`
`and heater coil as taught by Whittemore (Ex. 1007). Similarly, Hon includes a
`
`puff-actuated controller, and even if Patent Owner disagrees, a POSA
`
`
`2 Petitioner reserves the right to argue alternative constructions in other
`
`proceedings, and where such a defense is available, that the claims are indefinite.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`implementing Hon would have been motivate to improve the controller as taught in
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`the admitted prior-art reference Brooks (Ex. 1006).
`
`A. Overview of Hon (Ex. 1005)
`Hon is Chinese Patent No. CN 2719043. It is § 102(b) prior art because it
`
`was published on August 24, 2005. The Examiner did not discuss Hon during
`
`prosecution, and applicants buried it in an IDS among hundreds of other
`
`references. Ex. 1002 at 020-32 (Hon is #305 of 311 IDS entries), 142 (Examiner
`
`noting the “extremely large number of references” in the IDS and futilely asking
`
`Applicants to point out the most pertinent ones).
`
`The Board has evaluated Hon before, however. As an IPR petitioner, Patent
`
`Owner’s affiliate, R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. (“RJRV”), unsuccessfully asserted Hon
`
`as prior art in an IPR to challenge one of Hon’s U.S. patents. R.J. Reynolds Vapor
`
`Co. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-01268, Paper 63 (December 19, 2017)
`
`(Ex. 1022, “RJRV FWD”).
`
`In that IPR, the Board explained that Hon “is directed to an electronic
`
`atomization cigarette” as shown below:
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`
`
`
`
`Hon Figs. 1, 11 (annotated); Ex. 1022, RJRV FWD, at 8-10. Hon’s e-cigarette
`
`includes a tubular outer housing (“enclosure 14,” gray), a “battery 2” (light green),
`
`an “atomizer 9” containing a heating element (pink), a controller (“electronic
`
`circuit board 3”) and puff sensor (“sensor 6”) (both orange), and a “mouthpiece
`
`15” and connected “liquid-supplying bottle 11” (blue). Hon at 5, 6. Hon’s liquid-
`
`supplying bottle (light blue) contains a solution comprising “nicotine,” “tobacco
`
`flavor,” “organic acid,” an “antioxidant,” and “1, 2-propylene glycol” (light brown,
`
`inside of blue bottle 11). Id. at 8; Fox Decl. ¶¶ 70-71.
`
`Hon’s atomizer 9 (in pink above) is shown below in more detail below:
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`Hon Fig. 6 (annotated); Fox Decl. ¶¶ 72-73. As the Board explained, Hon’s
`
`
`
`atomizer:
`
`includes atomization cavity 10, long stream ejection hole 24,
`atomization cavity wall 25, heating element 26, porous body 27, and
`bulge 36. Id. at 9. [Hon] states that “atomization cavity wall 25 is
`surrounded with the porous body 27, which can be made of foam nickel,
`stainless steel fiber felt, high molecule polymer foam and foam
`ceramic,” and that “atomization cavity wall 25 can be made of
`aluminum oxide or ceramic.” Id.
`
`RJRV FWD at 9-10. The Board further explained that Hon:
`
`teaches that “[w]hen a smoker smokes, the mouthpiece 15 is under
`negative pressure, the air pressure difference or high speed stream
`between the normal pressure cavity 5 and the negative pressure cavity
`8 will cause the sensor 6 to output an actuating signal,” which causes
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`the cigarette to begin operating. Id. at 10. Air enters normal pressure
`cavity 5 through air inlet 4, proceeds through the through hole in vapor-
`liquid separator 7, and flows into atomization cavity 10 in atomizer 9.
`Id. The nicotine solution in porous body 27 is driven by the high speed
`stream passing through the ejection hole into atomization cavity 10 in
`the form of a droplet, where it “is subjected to the ultrasonic
`atomization by the first piezoelectric element 23 and is further atomized
`by the heating element 26.” Id. at 10–11. After atomization, large-
`diameter droplets stick to the wall and are reabsorbed by porous body
`27 via overflow hole 29, and small-diameter droplets form aerosols that
`are sucked out via aerosol passage 12, gas vent 17, and mouthpiece 15.
`Id. at 11.
`
`RJRV FWD at 9-10 (citing that IPR’s translation of Hon); Fox Decl. ¶¶ 73-75.
`
`B. Overview of Whittemore (Ex. 1007)
`Whittemore is U.S. Patent No. 2,057,353, which issued in 1936 and is
`
`therefore § 102(b) prior art. Whittemore improves on another patent, Tiffany (Ex.
`
`1035), by adding a wick to the heater in Tiffany’s vaping device. Whittemore 1:1-
`
`10. Like Hon, the Examiner did not mention Whittemore, which applicants buried
`
`in their lengthy IDS with over 300 other references. Ex. 1002 at 020-32
`
`(Whittemore is #158 of 311 references).
`
`Also like Hon, the Board addressed Whittemore in RJRV’s proceeding. The
`
`Board recognized that Whittemore taught wicking a liquid into direct contact with
`
`the heater so that it is volatilized for inhalation:
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`Whittemore Figs. 2-3 (annotated); Fox Decl. ¶¶ 81-83. As the Board has explained:
`
`
`
`Figure 2 is an enlarged sectional view of a therapeutic apparatus with a
`vaporizing unit as taught by Whittemore. [Whittemore] at 1:15–16.
`Vaporizing vessel A is a hollow glass container that holds liquid
`medicament x. Id. at 1:19–23. Conductors 1 and 2 are combined with
`heating element 3 such that, when conductors 1 and 2 are energized,
`heating element 3 is heated. Id. at 1:24–27. Wick D is combined with
`heating element 3 so that a portion of wick D is always in contact, or in
`approximate contact, with heating element 3, and a portion of wick D
`is also in contact with liquid medicament x. Id. at 1:53–2:5.
`
`Ex. 1022, RJRV FWD, at 10.
`
`The Board rejected RJRV’s proposed combination. It found that RJRV
`
`failed to show that a POSA would have “add[ed] Whittemore’s wick and retain[ed]
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`[Hon]’s porous body” because a far simpler substitution would have been “to
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,901,123
`
`remove the entire atomizer in [Hon] and replace it with Whittemore’s wire-
`
`wrapped wick.” RJRV FWD at 17-18. Petitioner agrees with the Board, and
`
`therefore proposes the Board’s “far simpler substitution” herein.
`
`C. Overview of Brooks (Ex. 1006)
`Brooks is U.S. Patent No. 4,947,874. It is admitted prior art and, because it
`
`issued in 1990, § 102(b) art. The Examiner did not discuss Brooks during
`
`prosecution.
`
`The ’123 patent cites Brooks for, among other things, providing exemplary
`
`“electronic control components,” “airflow sensing mechanisms,” and “draw
`
`sensors,” such as “pressure differential switches.” ’123 patent 20:43-48, 20:52-58,
`
`21:2-5; see also id.