DECLARATION OF ROBERT M. KIMMEL
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 REGARDING U.S. PATENT NOS. 7,798,319;
`8,458,996; AND 8,556,070
`
`Declaration
`I declare that all statements made herein on my own knowledge are true and
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and further,
`that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and
`the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001
`of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Date: January 28, 2021
`
` By:
`
`Robert M. Kimmel
`
`RJRV EX 1004
`
`

`

`V.
`
`VI.
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`Table of Contents
`Professional Background................................................................................................. 4 
`Relevant Legal Standards ............................................................................................... 7 
`Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ........................................................................... 10 
`Technology Background ................................................................................................ 11 
`A.
`The ’319 Patent .................................................................................................... 11 
`B.
`The ’996 Patent .................................................................................................... 13 
`C.
`The ’070 Patent .................................................................................................... 13 
`Overview Of The Prosecution Histories ...................................................................... 13 
`A.
`The ’319 Patent .................................................................................................... 13 
`B.
`The ’996 Patent .................................................................................................... 14 
`C.
`The ’070 Patent .................................................................................................... 15 
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................................ 17 
`A.
`Tobacco Product .................................................................................................. 17 
`B.
`Connection Rim ................................................................................................... 18 
`C.
`Non-Hermetic Seal............................................................................................... 18 
`D.
`Bead ..................................................................................................................... 19 
`E.
`Continuous Bead .................................................................................................. 19 
`VII. Overview Of The Prior Art ........................................................................................... 19 
`A.
`Overview Of Brucker ........................................................................................... 19 
`B.
`Overview Of Welk ............................................................................................... 23 
`C.
`Overview Of Rosson ............................................................................................ 27 
`D.
`Overview Of Boyd ............................................................................................... 31 
`E.
`Overview Of Bried 928 ........................................................................................ 33 
`F.
`Overview Of Budd ............................................................................................... 35 
`G.
`Overview Of Szalay ............................................................................................. 36 
`H.
`Overview Of Winterson ....................................................................................... 37 
`VIII. The Claims Of The ’319 Patent Are Unpatentable ..................................................... 38 
`A.
`Ground 1: Claims 17-20, 23 And 25-26 Are Obvious Over Brucker In
`View Of Welk ...................................................................................................... 38 
`1.
`Independent Claim 17 .............................................................. 38
`2.
`Dependent Claim 18 ................................................................ 49
`
`RJRV EX 1004
`
`

`

`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Dependent Claim 19 ................................................................ 51 
`3. 
`Dependent Claim 20 ................................................................ 52 
`4. 
`Dependent Claim 23 ................................................................ 55 
`5. 
`Dependent Claim 25 ................................................................ 56 
`6. 
`Dependent Claim 26 ................................................................ 58 
`7. 
`Ground 2a: Claims 17-20 And 25-26 Are Obvious Over Brucker In View
`Of Rosson............................................................................................................. 59 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 17 .............................................................. 59 
`2. 
`Dependent Claim 18 ................................................................ 70 
`3. 
`Dependent Claim 19 ................................................................ 72 
`4. 
`Dependent Claim 20 ................................................................ 73 
`5. 
`Dependent Claim 25 ................................................................ 75 
`6. 
`Dependent Claim 26 ................................................................ 77 
`Ground 2b: Claim 23 Is Obvious Over Brucker In View Of Rosson And
`Further In View Of Boyd ..................................................................................... 78 
`1. 
`Dependent Claim 23 ................................................................ 78 
`The Claims Of The ’996 Patent Are Unpatentable ..................................................... 79 
`A. 
`Ground 1a: Claims 1 and 4 Are Obvious Over Brucker In View Of Welk ......... 79 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................ 79 
`2. 
`Dependent Claim 4 .................................................................. 93 
`Ground 1b: Claim 5 Is Obvious Over Brucker In View Of Welk And
`Further In View Of Szalay ................................................................................... 95 
`1. 
`Dependent Claim 5 .................................................................. 95 
`Ground 2a: Claims 1 and 4 Are Obvious Over Brucker In View Of Rosson ...... 97 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................ 97 
`2. 
`Dependent Claim 4 ................................................................ 112 
`Ground 2b: Claim 5 Is Obvious Over Brucker In View Of Rosson And
`Further In View Of Szalay ................................................................................. 114 
`1. 
`Dependent Claim 5 ................................................................ 114 
`The Claims Of The ’070 Patent Are Unpatentable ................................................... 116 
`Ground 1a: Claims 1-6, 8, 11-22 And 25-28 Are Obvious Over Brucker In
`A. 
`View Of Welk .................................................................................................... 116 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`IX. 
`
`X. 
`
`
`
`RJRV EX 1004
`
`

`

`Independent Claim 1 .............................................................. 116 
`1. 
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................ 129 
`2. 
`Dependent Claim 3 ................................................................ 129 
`3. 
`Independent Claim 4 .............................................................. 131 
`4. 
`Dependent Claim 5 ................................................................ 144 
`5. 
`Dependent Claim 6 ................................................................ 147 
`6. 
`Dependent Claim 8 ................................................................ 148 
`7. 
`Dependent Claim 11 .............................................................. 149 
`8. 
`Dependent Claim 12 .............................................................. 150 
`9. 
`10.  Dependent Claim 13 .............................................................. 151 
`11.  Dependent Claim 14 .............................................................. 155 
`12.  Dependent Claim 15 .............................................................. 156 
`13.  Dependent Claim 16 .............................................................. 157 
`14.  Dependent Claim 17 .............................................................. 158 
`15.  Dependent Claim 18 .............................................................. 160 
`16. 
`Independent Claim 19 ............................................................ 161 
`17.  Dependent Claim 20 .............................................................. 172 
`18.  Dependent Claim 21 .............................................................. 174 
`19.  Dependent Claim 22 .............................................................. 175 
`20.  Dependent Claim 25 .............................................................. 178 
`21.  Dependent Claim 26 .............................................................. 178 
`22.  Dependent Claim 27 .............................................................. 183 
`23.  Dependent Claim 28 .............................................................. 184 
`Ground 1b: Claim 10 Is Obvious Over Brucker In View Of Welk And
`Further In View Of Winterson ........................................................................... 186 
`1. 
`Dependent Claim 10 .............................................................. 186 
`Ground 2a: Claims 1-6, 8, 11-13, 15-22, 25 And 27-28 Are Obvious Over
`Brucker In View Of Rosson ............................................................................... 187 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 1 .............................................................. 187 
`2. 
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................ 200 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`RJRV EX 1004
`
`

`

`Dependent Claim 3 ................................................................ 200 
`3. 
`Independent Claim 4 .............................................................. 202 
`4. 
`Dependent Claim 5 ................................................................ 215 
`5. 
`Dependent Claim 6 ................................................................ 217 
`6. 
`Dependent Claim 8 ................................................................ 219 
`7. 
`Dependent Claim 11 .............................................................. 219 
`8. 
`Dependent Claim 12 .............................................................. 220 
`9. 
`10.  Dependent Claim 13 .............................................................. 222 
`11.  Dependent Claim 15 .............................................................. 224 
`12.  Dependent Claim 16 .............................................................. 226 
`13.  Dependent Claim 17 .............................................................. 226 
`14.  Dependent Claim 18 .............................................................. 228 
`15. 
`Independent Claim 19 ............................................................ 229 
`16.  Dependent Claim 20 .............................................................. 241 
`17.  Dependent Claim 21 .............................................................. 243 
`18.  Dependent Claim 22 .............................................................. 244 
`19.  Dependent Claim 25 .............................................................. 246 
`20.  Dependent Claim 27 .............................................................. 247 
`21.  Dependent Claim 28 .............................................................. 248 
`Ground 2b: Claim 10 Is Obvious Over Brucker In View Of Rosson And
`Further In View Of Winterson ........................................................................... 249 
`1. 
`Dependent Claim 10 .............................................................. 249 
`Ground 2c: Claim 14 Is Obvious Over Brucker In View Of Rosson And
`Further In View Of Boyd ................................................................................... 251 
`1. 
`Dependent Claim 14 .............................................................. 251 
`Ground 2d: Claim 26 Is Obvious Over Brucker In View Of Rosson And
`Further In View Of Budd ................................................................................... 252 
`1. 
`Dependent Claim 26 .............................................................. 252 
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`
`
`
`
`RJRV EX 1004
`
`

`

`I, Robert M. Kimmel, do hereby declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of R.J. Reynolds Vapor
`
`Company and Modoral Brands, Inc. (“Petitioners”) in the matter of the Inter Partes
`
`Reviews (“IPRs”) of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,798,319 (“the ’319 patent”); 8,458,996 (“the
`
`’996 patent”); and 8,556,070 (“the ’070 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at my standard hourly
`
`rate of $550 for such consulting services. My compensation in no way depends on
`
`the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I considered the following materials:
`
` Ex. 1001 – U.S. Patent No. 7,798,319, filed March 11, 2008, issued September
`
`21, 2010;
`
` Ex. 1002 – U.S. Patent No. 8,458,996, filed August 18, 2010, issued June 11,
`
`2013;
`
` Ex. 1003 – U.S. Patent No. 8,556,070, filed April 26, 2013, issued October 15,
`
`2013;
`
` Ex. 1006 – File History of the ’319 patent;
`
` Ex. 1007 – File History of the ’996 patent;
`
` Ex. 1008 – File History of the ʼ070 patent;
`
` Ex. 1009 – U.S. Patent No. 2,816,682 to Brucker, filed April 5, 1954, issued
`
`December 17, 1957 (“Brucker”);
`
`RJRV EX 1004
`
`

`

` Ex. 1010 – U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2008/0202956 A1 to Welk, et al., filed
`
`February 28, 2007, published August 28, 2008 (“Welk”);
`
` Ex. 1011 – Canadian Patent No. 1,205,024 to Rosson, filed July 14, 1982,
`
`issued May 27, 1986 (“Rosson”);
`
` Ex. 1012 – U.S. Patent No. 4,190,170 to Boyd, filed January 15, 1979, issued
`
`February 26, 1980 (“Boyd”);
`
` Ex. 1013 – U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0110928 A1 to Bried et al., filed
`
`February 28, 2006, published May 17, 2007 (“Bried 928”);
`
` Ex. 1014 – UK Patent Application GB 2,136,775A to Budd, et al., filed
`
`March 23, 1983, published September 26, 1984 (“Budd”);
`
` Ex. 1015 – U.S. Patent No. 3,245,566 to Szalay, filed May 17, 1963, issued
`
`April 12, 1966 (“Szalay”);
`
` Ex. 1016 – U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0012328 A1 to Winterson, et al., filed
`
`April 28, 2006, published January 18, 2007 (“Winterson”);
`
` Ex. 1017 – U.S. Patent No. 4,660,577 to Sensabaugh, et al., filed June 3, 1985,
`
`issued April 28, 1987 (“Sensabaugh”).
`
` Ex. 1018 – Johnson, J., Studies on the Fermentation of Tobacco (1934) J. of
`
`Agricultural Research, 49, 137-160 (“Johnson”);
`
` Ex. 1019 – Swain, A.P., Composition Studies On Tobacco (1966) J. Sci. Fd.
`
`Agric., 17, 349-353 (“Swain”);
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`RJRV EX 1004
`
`

`

` Ex. 1020 – U.S. Patent No. 5,425,215 to Lewis, et al. (“Lewis”), filed April
`
`16, 1993, issued June 20, 1995;
`
` Ex. 1021 – Soroka, W., Fundamentals of Packaging Technology, Second
`
`Edition (1999) (“Soroka”);
`
` Ex. 1022 – Joint Claim Construction Statement, Altria Client Services LLC
`
`and U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC, v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., Case
`
`No. 1:20-cv-00472-NCT-JLW (M.D.N.C. Dec. 23, 2020);
`
` Ex. 1023 – Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Infringement Contentions For U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,798,319, Altria Client Services LLC and U.S. Smokeless Tobacco
`
`Company LLC, v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., Case No. 1:20-cv-00472-NCT-
`
`JLW (M.D.N.C. Sep. 11, 2020);
`
` Ex. 1024 – Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Infringement Contentions For U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,458,996, Altria Client Services LLC and U.S. Smokeless Tobacco
`
`Company LLC, v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., Case No. 1:20-cv-00472-NCT-
`
`JLW (M.D.N.C. Sep. 11, 2020); and
`
` Ex. 1025 – Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Infringement Contentions For U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,556,070, Altria Client Services LLC and U.S. Smokeless Tobacco
`
`Company LLC, v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., Case No. 1:20-cv-00472-NCT-
`
`JLW (M.D.N.C. Sep. 11, 2020).
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`RJRV EX 1004
`
`

`

`I.
`
`Professional Background
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Exhibit 1005 is a copy of my current curriculum vitae (“CV”).
`
`I received the degrees of Bachelor of Science in Materials Engineering
`
`in 1964, Master of Science in 1965, Materials Engineer in 1967, and Doctor of Science
`
`in Materials Engineering in 1968 from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
`
`6.
`
`I am Associate Professor of Packaging Science at Clemson University in
`
`Clemson, South Carolina. I was formerly Chair of the Department of Packaging
`
`Science and am currently Director of the Clemson University Center for Flexible
`
`Packaging. I teach, conduct research and provide services to industry in the fields of
`
`package design, packaging materials and packaging processes. In addition to my
`
`work at Clemson, I provide technical consulting and expert witness services to
`
`companies globally in the fields of packaging and plastics.
`
`7.
`
`In 1999, I joined the faculty of the Packaging Science Department at
`
`Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina. In December 2006, I was appointed
`
`Chair of the Packaging Science Department, a position I held until September 2010,
`
`when the Department was merged with another department in the College to form a
`
`larger entity. In addition to my other responsibilities, I now serve as Director of the
`
`Packaging Science Program. In this role, I am responsible for curriculum
`
`development and assessment for the Program and strategic leadership of the
`
`Packaging Science faculty. In addition, I develop and manage relationships with
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`RJRV EX 1004
`
`

`

`companies around the world who interface and support research and service work with
`
`the Packaging Science Program.
`
`8. My teaching responsibilities in the Packaging Science Department have
`
`included developing and teaching two core curriculum courses: Applications of
`
`Polymers in Packaging and Converting for Flexible Packaging. The term project for
`
`one of those courses is an analysis of a patent related to plastics and packaging. I have
`
`also developed and taught graduate courses in flexible packaging and semi-rigid/rigid
`
`packaging. The subject matter of all these courses includes selection, design, and
`
`manufacture of materials and packages for packaging applications.
`
`9.
`
`For the past seventeen years, I have taught the capstone course of the
`
`Clemson Packaging Science B.S. curriculum, Package Design and Development. This
`
`course focuses on a systematic procedure for package design. In the course, I guide
`
`teams of students through this process using real-world problems. The systematic
`
`procedure taught in this course is also applicable to the packaging devices at hand in
`
`this matter.
`
`10. During my involvement with this packaging design course, I have
`
`mentored over 175 industry-sponsored team projects that have addressed a diverse
`
`assortment of packaging problems including, among other subjects, retail food
`
`products (human and animal), medical devices, artificial organs, appliances, printers,
`
`automotive components, electronic devices, and many others. Many of the package
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`RJRV EX 1004
`
`

`

`design issues required for food and artificial organs are similar to those for packaging
`
`tobacco products. The same systematic design process was applied to each of these
`
`problems. Solutions to some of these packaging challenges required a knowledge of
`
`metal and plastic container technologies, sealing technologies, management of
`
`product changes during storage, as well as broad knowledge of packaging and
`
`materials science.
`
`11. Prior to joining the Clemson faculty in 1999, I was employed by the
`
`Hoechst Celanese Corporation and its predecessor companies from 1968 through
`
`1998. I held a variety of technical and marketing positions of increasing
`
`responsibility, including over 25 years in positions relating to packaging. Among my
`
`direct responsibilities during this time were plastics for manufacturing molded
`
`containers and films for packaging tobacco products.
`
`12.
`
`I serve as a technical consultant to a wide variety of organizations and
`
`companies in the plastics and packaging fields, as detailed in my CV. Ex. 1005.
`
`13.
`
`I am the author or co-author of dozens of articles relating to plastics and
`
`materials engineering, multi-layer or multi-component plastic materials for
`
`packaging, biopolymers (i.e., plastics derived from biological sources), and other
`
`subjects in packaging. These articles also are listed in my CV.
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`RJRV EX 1004
`
`

`

`14.
`
`I am a named inventor on six U.S. and four foreign patents relating to
`
`polymers (i.e., plastics), six of which relate to multi-component plastics for packaging
`
`applications. See Ex. 1005.
`
`15.
`
`I have reviewed the ’319, ’996, and ’070 patents, and I am familiar with
`
`the subject matter of these patents, which is within the scope of my education and
`
`professional experience.
`
`II. Relevant Legal Standards
`
`16.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to whether certain claims of
`
`the ’319, ’996, and ’070 patents are anticipated or would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in view of the prior art.
`
`17.
`
`I am an engineer by training and profession. The opinions I am
`
`expressing in this report involve the application of my knowledge and experience to
`
`the evaluation of certain prior art with respect to the ’319, ’996, and ’070 patents. My
`
`formal knowledge of patent law is no different than that of any lay person. Therefore,
`
`I have requested the attorneys from Jones Day, who represent Petitioners, to provide
`
`me with guidance as to the applicable patent law in this matter. The paragraphs below
`
`express my understanding of how I must apply current principles related to patent
`
`validity to my analysis.
`
`18.
`
`It is my understanding that in determining whether a patent claim is
`
`anticipated or obvious in view of the prior art, the Patent Office must apply the Phillips
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`RJRV EX 1004
`
`

`

`standard to construe the claim by giving the claim its plain and ordinary meaning,
`
`consistent with the specification and prosecution history. For the purposes of this
`
`review, I have construed each claim term in accordance with its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning under the Phillips standard except where particular constructions are
`
`discussed.
`
`19.
`
`It is my understanding that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`if each and every element and limitation of the claim is found either expressly or
`
`inherently in a single prior art reference.
`
`20.
`
`It is my understanding that a claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`if the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. I also understand that an
`
`obviousness analysis takes into account the scope and content of the prior art, the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`21.
`
`In determining the scope and content of the prior art, it is my
`
`understanding that a reference is considered analogous prior art if it falls within the
`
`field of the inventor’s endeavor. In addition, a reference is analogous prior art if it is
`
`reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved.
`
`A reference is reasonably pertinent if it logically would have commended itself to an
`
`inventor’s attention in considering his problem. If a reference relates to the same
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`RJRV EX 1004
`
`

`

`problem as the claimed invention, that supports use of the reference as prior art in an
`
`obviousness analysis.
`
`22. To assess the differences between prior art and the claimed subject
`
`matter, it is my understanding that 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires the claimed invention to
`
`be considered as a whole. This “as a whole” assessment requires showing that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, confronted by the same problems as
`
`the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would have selected the
`
`elements from the prior art and combined them in the claimed manner.
`
`23.
`
`It is my further understanding that the Supreme Court has recognized
`
`several rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show
`
`obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include: combining
`
`prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; simple
`
`substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; a
`
`predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions; applying
`
`a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to
`
`yield predictable results; choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable
`
`solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; and some teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
`
`the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`RJRV EX 1004
`
`

`

`III. Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`24.
`
`It is my understanding that when interpreting the claims of the ’319,
`
`’996, and ’070 patents, I must do so based on the perspective of one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art (a “POSA”) as of the relevant priority date. My understanding is that the
`
`earliest claimed priority date of the ’319, ’996, and ’070 patents is March 11, 2008
`
`(“time of the alleged invention”).
`
`25.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ’319, ’996, and
`
`’070 patents would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in materials science,
`
`packaging science, chemical engineering, food science, or similar discipline with at
`
`least two years of industry experience in the research, development and/or
`
`manufacture of packaging for consumable products. A person could also have
`
`qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art with some combination of (1) more
`
`formal education (such as a master’s degree) and less technical experience, or (2) less
`
`formal education and more technical or professional experience.
`
`26. As described in detail above in the “Professional Background” section,
`
`my own training and experience exceed that of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`RJRV EX 1004
`
`

`

`IV. Technology Background
`
`A. The ’319 Patent
`27. The ʼ319 patent is titled “Container Device For Tobacco Articles” and is
`
`directed to a packaging device for consumable articles, such as tobacco products, for
`
`enhancing the freshness of the product packaged therein. Ex. 1001 at 1:6-9.
`
`28. The ’319 patent discloses that at the time of the alleged invention, it was
`
`well known that tobacco products were stored in containers that were commonly
`
`referred to as cans or tins. Id. at 1:12-18. These containers would join with a lid to
`
`store the tobacco products therein. Id. at 1:18-19.
`
`29. To purportedly enhance the freshness of tobacco and other products
`
`stored in a container, the ’319 patent discloses the use of a gasket arranged between a
`
`container and a lid. Id. at 1:33-38. The ’319 patent discloses that the gasket provides
`
`a moisture barrier and a non-hermetic seal. Id. at 1:38-48. “The gasket 130 may serve
`
`as a moisture barrier that limits the egress of the moisture from the container 120 (or
`
`the ingress of the moisture into the container 120).” Id. at 4:62-65. The ’319 patent
`
`discloses that tobacco products may produce byproduct gases (id. at 3:35-42, 6:4-11)
`
`and that the non-hermetic seal allows the evolved gases to escape from the container
`
`to relieve the pressure therein. Id. at 3:29-54. The ’319 patent further discloses that
`
`“the gasket can provide the aforementioned gas exchange while continuing to provide
`
`the moisture barrier for improved control over the egress of moisture from the moist
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`RJRV EX 1004
`
`

`

`snuff tobacco product (or the ingress of moisture into the dry tobacco products).” Id.
`
`at 3:51-55.
`
`30. The container described in the ’319 patent is illustrated in the figures
`
`below.
`
`
`
`
`
`31. The ’319 patent discloses a tobacco product package device 100 having
`
`a container 120 and a lid 140 with a ring-shaped gasket 130 positioned at the perimeter
`
`of the underside of the lid. Id. at 4:59-62, 5:36-37, 5:47-49. The container 120
`
`includes a cylindrical side wall. Id. at 5:6-8. The container 120 has a connection
`
`rim 122 at the top of the side wall. Id. at 5:31-36. The connection rim 122 includes a
`
`bead 125. Id. at 5:31-34. The lid has a skirt 144 with a bead 145 that engages the
`
`bead 125 on the container 120 to provide a releasable snap-fit engagement of the
`
`container 120 and the lid 140. Id. at 5:24-34, 6:23-26. The snap-fit engagement urges
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`RJRV EX 1004
`
`

`

`the top of the container’s connection rim 122 to abut against the gasket 130. Id. at
`
`5:36-50, 6:23-34. The container 120 has vent structures 123 formed by indentations
`
`or interruptions in the bead 125. Id. at 7:19-29. The vent structures 123 facilitate gas
`
`exchange between the interior of the container and the ambient air. Id. at 7:37-40.
`
`B.
`The ’996 Patent
`32. The ’996 patent shares a common specification with the ’319 patent,
`
`where I have discussed that technology in the section above.
`
`C. The ’070 Patent
`33. The ’070 patent shares a common specification with the ’319 patent,
`
`where I have discussed that technology in the section above.
`
`V. Overview Of The Prosecution Histories
`
`A. The ’319 Patent
`34. The ’319 patent was filed on March 11, 2008 as U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 12/046,051 (“the ’051 application”). Ex. 1006 at 76.
`
`35. As originally filed, the ’051 application included 26 claims. Id. at 123-
`
`127. Application claims 1-15 were directed to a tobacco product package device and
`
`claims 16-26 were directed to a method of packaging a tobacco product. Id.
`
`36. On March 25, 2010, the examiner issued a restriction requirement for
`
`these two groups of claims. Id. at 60-67.
`
`37. On April 1, 2010, the applicant elected to proceed with claims 1-15,
`
`canceled claims 16-26, and added new dependent claims 27-37. Id. at 48-55.
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`RJRV EX 1004
`
`

`

`38. On June 14, 2010, the examiner issued a notice of allowance for
`
`application claims 1-15 and 27-37 without having issued any rejection based on prior
`
`art. Id. at 34-47, 60-67. No reason for allowance was provided. Id. at 34-47.
`
`39. The ’319 patent issued on September 21, 2010 with independent claims
`
`1 and 17 and dependent claims 2-16 and 18-26, which depend from claims 1 and 17
`
`respectively. Ex. 1001.
`
`B.
`The ’996 Patent
`40. The ’996 patent was filed on August 18, 2010 as U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 12/859,019 (“the ’019 application”), as a divisional to the ’051 application, which
`
`was filed on March 11, 2008. Ex. 1007 at 265.
`
`41. As filed, the ’019 application included 20 claims (including independent
`
`claims 1 and 11) directed to a method of packaging a tobacco product. Id. at 306-309.
`
`42. On March 5, 2013, the examiner issued an office action rejecting claims
`
`1, 3-4, 7-11, 13-14 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over the combination
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 4,703,765 (Paules) and U.S. Patent No. 5,566,568 (Rojek),
`
`rejecting claims 2 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over the combination of
`
`Paules in view of Rojek and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,711,687 (Paules II),
`
`and objecting to claims 5-6 and 15-16 as being dependent on a rejected base claim,
`
`but noting that those claims recite allowable subject matter and would be allowable if
`
`rewritten in independent form. Id. at 249-254.
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`RJRV EX 1004
`
`

`

`43. On April 19, 2013, applicant amended independent application claims 1
`
`and 11 to incorporate the allowable subject matter. Id. at 59-68. Application claims
`
`1 and 11 were amended to include the limitation “wherein the lid releasably engages
`
`to the connection rim of the tobacco product container so that the resilient gasket
`
`provides the non-hermetic seal between the lid and the container, and wherein the
`
`non-hermeti