`571-272-7822
`
`.
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: January 3, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`FONTEM HOLDINGS1 B.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-01268
`Patent 8,365,742 B2
`
`Before BRIAN J. MCNAMARA, JEREMY M. PLENZLER,and
`JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 CFR. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01268
`Patent 8,365,742 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company(“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (“Pet.”)
`
`to institute an inter partes review of claims 2 and 3 of U.S. Patent
`
`No.8,365,742 B2 (“the ’742 patent,” Ex. 1001). Paper 2. Fontem
`
`Holdings 1 B.V. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response(“Prelim.
`
`Resp.”). Paper 8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we
`
`determinethat Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of claims 2 and 3 of the ’742
`
`patent. Accordingly, weinstitute an inter partes review ofthose claims.
`
`A.
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`The parties indicate that the ’742 patent is asserted in numerous cases
`
`pending in the Central District of California, including Fontem Ventures
`
`B.V. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, Case No. 2:16-cv-02286. Pet. 2-3;
`
`Paper 4, 1-5; Paper 6, 2. The ’742 patent waspreviously the subject of
`
`IPR2015-00859 (“the 859 IPR,”institution denied on September 9, 2015)
`
`and IPR2015-01587 (terminated on December14, 2015 at the joint request
`
`of the parties before an institution decision was entered) (Pet. 3; Paper 4,7),
`
`and also currently is the subject of IPR2016-01532,filed by Petitioner on
`
`August 5, 2016, and IPR2016-01303, filed by Nu Mark LLC on June28,
`
`2016 (Paper 4, 7; Paper 7, 1).
`
`B.
`
`The ’742 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’742 patent, titled “Electronic Cigarette,” is directed to an aerosol
`electronic cigarette having a battery assembly, an atomizer assembly, a
`cigarette bottle assembly, and a hollow, integrally-formed shell. Ex. 1001,
`
`Abstract. According to the ’742 patent, prior art devices had various
`
`
`
`TPR2016-01268
`Patent 8,365,742 B2
`
`disadvantages, including low atomizing efficiency, being structurally
`complicated, and not providingideal aerosoleffects. Id. at 1:21-24.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’742 patent is reproduced below:
`
`4
`
`31
`
`al
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`7detTTL2Ltd2AeLADichkrakendeakiV2eel]
`
`
`eesease's"
`
`
`“KXeeRsSRSeH
`RsROORoeOot
`
`Pereraoeseer
`
`Figure 1 is a side section view of an electronic cigarette. Jd. at 1:45.
`
`Hollow,integrally-formed shell “a” includes a battery assembly, atomizer
`
`assembly, and cigarette bottle assembly. Jd. at 2:30—33. The battery
`
`assembly connects to the atomizer assemblyin shell “‘a,” and the detachable
`
`cigarette body assembly (whichfits with the atomizer assembly) is located in
`
`one end ofshell “a.” Jd. at 2:33-37. Shell “a” also includes through-air-
`
`inlets al. Jd. at 2:37-38. The battery assembly includes operating indicator
`
`1, battery 3, electronic circuit board 4, and airflow sensor 5. Id. at 2:39-45.
`
`The atomizer assembly is atomizer 8, which includes a porous component
`
`and a heating rod. Id. at 3:6-8. The cigarette bottle assembly includes
`
`hollow cigarette shell holder “b,” and perforatcd component forliquid
`
`storage 9. Id. at3:49-51. Air channel b1 is located in the center on the
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01268
`Patent 8,365,742 B2
`
`surface of one endofcigarette shell holder “b,” and extends inward. Jd. at
`
`3:59-62.
`
`Figures 5, 6, and 7 of the ’742 patent are reproduced below:
`
`B11N
`
`84
`
`813
`
`
`POOOQQOOS)
`
`
`
`SSOOSOHSY
`
`
`
`5
`
`eure
`Figure
`
`893
`
`82
`
`L 822
`
`$21
`
`Figure 6
`
`
`
`Figure 7
`
`Figure 5 is a side-section view of the porous componentof atomizer8,
`
`Figure 6 is a diagram ofthe structure of a heating rod in atomizer 8, and
`
`Figure 7 is a side-section view of atomizer 8. Jd. at 1:53-59. Atomizer 8
`
`includes porous component 81 and heating rod 82. Jd. at 3:6-8. Heating rod
`82 includes heating wire 822 woundon the wall ofcylinder 821. Id. at
`3:28-30. Porous component 81 contains run-through atomizing chamber
`
`811. Id. at 3:8-9. Heating rod 82 enters run-through atomizing chamber
`
`811, and the space between heating rod 82 andthe interior wall of run-
`through atomizing chamber811 creates negative pressure cavity 83. Id. at
`
`3:11-15. One end of porous component 81 fits with the cigarette bottle
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01268
`Patent 8,365,742 B2
`
`assembly, with protuberance 812 at the other end connecting to atomizing
`
`chamber811 with run-through hole 813. Jd. at 3:16-19.
`
`C.
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 2 and 3 of the ’742 patent, which are
`
`reproducedbelow.
`
`2. An electronic cigarette, comprising:
`a battery assembly and an atomizer assembly within a housing
`with the battery assembly electrically connected to the
`atomizer assembly;
`
`a liquid storage componentin the housing;
`with the housing having one or more through-air-inlets;
`the atomizer assembly including a porous component supported
`by a frame having a run-through hole;
`a heating wire wound on a part of the porous componentin the
`path of air flowing through the run-throughhole; and
`the porous component substantially surrounded by the liquid
`storage component.
`3. An electronic cigarette, comprising:
`a battery assembly and an atomizer assembly within a housing
`with the battery assembly electrically connected to the
`atomizer assembly;
`with the housing having one or more through-air-inlets and an
`outlet;
`
`the atomizer assembly includes a frame having a run through
`hole, and a porous component between the frame and the
`outlet;
`
`a heating wire wound on a part of the porous component which
`is substantially aligned with the run-through hole; and
`with the porous componentin contact with a liquid supply in the
`housing.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01268
`Patent 8,365,742 B2
`
`D.
`
`The Prior Art
`
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art references:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Whittemore|US 2,057,353 Sept. 27, 1004
`
`1935
`Hon ’043 Chinese Patent No.|Aug. 24, 1002 and
`
`
`CN 2719043 Y
`2005
`1003 (English
`translation) !
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`The Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims2 and 3 of the
`
`742 patent on the following ground:
`
`
`
`References Basis—_|Claims Challenged
`
`Hon ’043 and Whittemore
`§ 103
`
`A.
`
`35 USC. $ 325(d)
`
`fl. ANALYSIS
`
`Institution of inter partes review is discretionary. See 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Our discretion on whethertoinstitute is
`
`1 Hon 043 is a Chinese patent, and Petitioner provided an English-language
`translation, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b). Ourcitations are to that
`translation, which we assumefor purposes of this Decision is accurate.
`However, although the translation of Hon ’043 is accompanied by a
`translator’s certificate attesting to the accuracy ofthe translation (Ex. 1003,
`19), the certificate is not an “affidavit” as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b)
`and as defined by 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.68 and 42.2. Specifically, the translator’s
`certificate does not warn thetranslator“that willful false statements and the
`like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.68.
`Petitioner mustfile, as a new exhibit, a satisfactory affidavit attesting to the
`accuracy ofthe translation within ten business days of this Decision.
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01268
`Patent 8,365,742 B2
`
`guided by 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), which states that “the Director may take into
`
`account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or
`
`substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to
`
`the Office.”
`
`Patent Ownerrequests that the Board exercise its discretion under
`
`§ 325(d) and declinc to institute inter partes review of the ’742 patent
`
`because the ground presented in the Petition presents the sameprior art and
`
`arguments rejected in the Institution Decision in the 859 IPR. Prelim. Resp.
`
`7-13. Patent Ownernotes that § 325(d) has been used to denya petition “in
`
`part because ‘[a]llowing similar, serial challenges to the same patent, by the
`
`samepetitioner, risks harassment of patent owners andfrustration of
`
`Congress’s intent in enacting the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,’” and
`
`arguesthat “[t]he same reasoning should apply evenif the Petitioneris
`
`different.” Jd. at 7 (quoting Arista Networks v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case
`
`No. IPR2015-01710, 2016 WL 1083023 at *5 (PTAB Feb. 16, 2016)).
`
`Although the argumentsin the Petition are similar to those asserted by
`
`VMR Products LLC in the 859 IPR, the permissive language of § 325(d)
`
`does not prohibit instituting inter partes review based onpriorart or
`
`arguments previously presented to the Office. While we are mindful of the
`
`burden on Patent Ownerand the Office to rehear the same or substantially
`the samepriorart or arguments previously presented to the Office, weare
`
`persuaded,for the reasons that follow, that Petitioner’s arguments have
`
`merit. Moreover, Patent Ownerhas not demonstrated that the Petition
`
`constitutes harassmentoris part of a pattern of filing serial petitions against
`
`the ’742 patent. Therefore, considering the totality of the circumstances, we
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01268
`Patent 8,365,742 B2
`
`do not exercise our authority to decline an inter partes review of the ’742
`
`patent under § 325(d).
`
`B.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`Weinterpret claims of an unexpired patent using the “broadest
`
`reasonable constructionin light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`[the claims] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`
`LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 214446 (2016). Only those terms in
`
`controversy needto be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve
`
`the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the terms “frame” and “porous
`
`componentsubstantially surrounded bythe liquid storage component.”
`
`Pet. 11-12. Patent Ownerstates that it disagrees with Petitioner’s proposed
`
`constructions, “[b]ut because those constructions are not relevant to” the
`Preliminary Response, it “does not dispute those construction[s] here.”
`
`Prelim. Resp. 13. For purposes of this Decision, based on the record before
`
`us, we determine that none of the claim terms requires an explicit
`
`construction.
`
`C.
`
`Obviousness over Hon ’043 and Whittemore
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 2 and 3 would have been obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of Hon ’043 and Whittemore.
`
`Pet. 17-36. Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Dr. Robert H. Sturges
`
`(Ex. 1015) in support of its contentions. Jd. Patent Owner disagrees with
`
`Petitioner’s contentions, and relies on the Declaration of Richard Meyst
`
`(Ex. 2001).
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01268
`Patent 8,365,742 B2
`
`1.
`
`Overview ofHon ’043
`
`Hon ’043 is directed to an electronic atomization cigarette. Ex. 1003,
`
`5. Figure 1 of Hon ’043 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a schematic diagram ofthe structure of an electronic cigarette
`
`that includesair inlet 4, normal pressure cavity 5, sensor 6, vapor-liquid
`
`separator 7, atomizer 9, liquid-supplying bottle 11, and mouthpiece 15
`
`within shell 16. Jd. at 8-9.
`
`Figure 6 of Hon ’043 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`FIG.6
`
`Figure 6 is a structural diagram of an atomizer, which includes atomization
`cavity 10, long stream ejection hole 24, atomization cavity wall 25, heating
`element 26, porous body 27, and bulge 36. Jd. at 9. Hon ’043states that
`“atomization cavity wall 25 is surrounded with the porous body 27, which
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01268
`Patent 8,365,742 B2
`
`can be madeof 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.” Jd.
`
`Hon ’043 teaches that “[w]hen a smoker smokes, the mouthpiece 15 is
`
`under negative pressure, the air pressure difference or high speed stream
`
`between the normalpressure cavity 5 and the negative pressure cavity 8 will
`
`cause the sensor6 to output an actuating signal,” which causesthe cigarette
`
`to begin operating. Jd. at 10. Air enters normal pressure cavity 5 throughair
`
`inlet 4, proceeds through the through hole in vapor-liquid separator 7, and
`
`flows into atomization cavity 10 in atomizer 9. Jd. The nicotine solution in
`
`porous body 27is driven by the high speed stream passing through the
`
`ejection hole into atomization cavity 10 in the form of a droplet, whereit “is
`
`subjected to the ultrasonic atomization bythe first piezoelectric element 23
`
`and is further atomized by the heating element 26.” Jd. 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. Jd. at 11.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of Whittemore
`
`Whittemoreis directed to vaporizing units for a therapeutic apparatus.
`
`Ex. 1004, 1:1-2. Whittemore Figure 2 is reproduced below:
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01268
`Patent 8,365,742 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 2 is an enlarged sectional view of a therapeutic apparatus with a
`
`vaporizing unit as taught by Whittemore. /d. at 1:15-16. Vaporizing vessel
`
`A is a hollow glass container that holds liquid medicament x. Jd. 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. Jd. 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. Jd. at 1:53—
`
`2:5.
`
`According to Whittemore, medicamentx is carried on wick D by
`
`capillary action to a point whereit will be vaporized by the heat from
`
`heating element 3. Jd. at 2:5-8. Whittemore states that “wick D consists of
`
`a thread, string or strand of some suitable wick material doubled
`
`intermediate its ends so as to form a substantially inverted V-shaped device
`
`whoseside portions are encased in and surroundedbycoiled or looped
`
`portions”of heating element 3, and “the lower endsortree endsofthe side
`
`pieces of the wick projecting downwardly into the medicament and
`
`terminating at or in close proximity to the closed bottom 6 of the vessel.” Jd.
`
`at 2:9-18.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01268
`Patent 8,365,742 B2
`
`3.
`
`Analysis
`
`Petitioner contends that “Hon ’043 discloses every element of claims
`
`2 and 3 of the ’742 patent, except that Hon ’043’s heating wire is not wound
`
`on a porous component,” and “a heating wire wound on a porous wickis
`
`disclosed by Whittemore.” Pet. 7. For example, Petitioner contendsthat
`
`Hon ’043 describes “the atomizer assembly including a porous component
`
`supported by a frame having a run-through hole”limitation of claim 2
`
`because “the PHOSITA[person having ordinary skill in the art] would have
`
`understood that atomization cavity wall 25 provides support for porous body
`
`27.” Id. at 15. Petitioner contends that “porous body 27 is attached to cavity
`
`wall 25 either byafriction fit or with a bonding material to prevent axial
`
`displacementof the porous body underthe shear forces at the interface of
`
`cavity wall 25 and porous body 27” when porous body 27 is inserted into
`
`solution storage body 28 ofliquid supplying bottle 11, “the leading edge of
`
`the cavity wall 25 provides further support for the porous bodyin the area of
`
`bulge 36,” and “cavity wall 25 also provides radial support when pressure
`
`increases in the low pressure area surrounding atomizer 9, such as when the
`
`user deliberately or accidentally blows in the mouthpiece 15.” Jd. at 15-16
`
`(citing Ex. 1015 J§ 45-50).
`
`In support of Petitioner’s contentions, Dr. Sturges states that “shear
`
`forces could be particularly significant when the porous body and the
`
`solution storage body 28 are made from materials that have similar and
`
`relatively high rigidity.” Ex. 1015 45. Dr. Sturges furtherstates that,
`
`“should the user blow into the mouthpiece by mistake, the pressure in the
`
`space around the atomizer could rise to as mucha[s} 2 pounds per square
`
`inch or more,” which “could cause the porous body 27 to impinge upon
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01268
`Patent 8,365,742 B2
`
`and/or destroy the atomization cavity 10 but for the support provided by
`
`atomization cavity wall 25.” Id. | 48.
`
`Patent Ownerargues that because “cavity wall 25 is entirely inside of
`
`porous body 27, the cavity wall 25 cannot support or hold up the porous
`
`body 27.” Prelim. Resp. 15. Patent Owner arguesthat, contrary to
`
`Petitioner’s contentions, “Hon °043 says nothing about the cavity wall 25
`
`being attached to the porous body, about preventing axial displacement, or
`
`shear forces,” and does not say anything “abouta friction fit or a bonding
`
`material.” Jd. at 16. Patent Ownerfurther argues that “Hon ’043 makes no
`
`mention ofthe leading edge of the cavity wall 25,”“the cavity wall
`
`providing radial support to the porous body 27, or any indication that the
`
`porous body requires any radial support.” Jd.
`
`In support of Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments, Mr. Meyststates that “providing a friction fit would complicate
`
`making the device described in Hon ’043 becausea friction fit requires
`
`precise mechanicaltolerances on the mating components, and a pressing step
`
`to fit them together.” Ex. 2001 436. Mr. Meyst further states that a bonding
`
`material “would interfere with the reabsorption by forming a barrier between
`
`the atomization cavity wall [25] and the porous body 27 which would block
`
`overflow hole 29.” Id. { 38.
`
`For purposes of deciding whetherto institute an inter partes review,
`
`we must view any issues of material fact created by testimonial evidence in
`
`the light most favorable to Petitioner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Thus, only for
`
`purposes of this Decision, we must resolve the dispute between Dr. Sturges
`
`and Mr. Meyst regarding whether atomization cavity wall 25 supports
`
`porous body 27 in Petitioner’s favor. Consequently, we are persuaded, on
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01268
`Patent 8,365,742 B2
`
`the present record, that Petitioner has established that Hon ’043 describes “a
`porous component supported by a frame”as required by claim 2.
`Petitioner further contends that a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art “would havereadily understood the inefficiencies associated with the
`
`heating element configuration disclosed in Hon ’043,” and would also “have
`
`recognizedthat the configuration disclosed in Whittemore(i.e., a heating
`
`wire wound on a porous wick) is thermally moreefficient, because the liquid
`
`(whichis contained in the porous wick) comesinto direct contact with the
`
`heating element.” Pet. 18-19 (citing Ex. 1015 Ff] 58-62). Petitioner
`
`contendsthat “in the Whittemore configuration, the heating element can be
`
`run at lower temperatures as comparedto the configuration in Hon ’043,
`
`where there are air gaps between the nicotine droplets and the heating
`
`element,” and, therefore, “less energy is required to vaporize the liquid.” Jd.
`
`at 19. According to Petitioner, “the proposed combination is the simple
`
`substitution of one known element (Whittemore’s wick/heating wire
`
`configuration) for another (Hon ’043’s heating element) to obtain
`
`predictable results.” Id. We are persuaded, based on the current record, that
`
`Petitioner has provided sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to
`
`support a reason to combine Hon ’043 and Whittemore.
`
`For these reasons, we determine that the record before us establishes a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showingthat the
`
`subject matter of claim 2 would have been obvious over the combined
`
`teachings of Hon ’043 and Whittemore. Wealso have considered the
`
`arguments and evidence with respect to claim 3, and are persuaded on the
`
`present record that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood thatit
`
`would prevail as to claim 3 as well. See Pet. 31-36.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01268
`Patent 8,365,742 B2
`
`II. CONCLUSION
`
`Based on the arguments in the Petition and Preliminary Response, and
`
`the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a
`
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on its challenge that claims 2
`
`and 3 of the ’742 patent are unpatentable.
`
`At this stage of the proceeding, the Board has not madea final
`
`determination as to the construction of any claim term orthe patentability of
`
`claims 2 and 3.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby
`
`ORDEREDthat, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`
`review is instituted as to claims 2 and 3 of the ’742 patent with respect to the
`
`following ground:
`
`Whether claims 2 and 3 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`obvious over the combinedteachings of Hon ’043 and Whittemore;
`
`FURTHER ORDEREDthat, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given ofthe institution of a trial
`
`commencing on the entry date of this Decision;
`
`FURTHER ORDEREDthat Petitioner shall file as an exhibit, within
`
`ten business days of this Decision, an affidavit attesting that Exhibit 1003 is
`
`an accurate translation of Hon ’043, in compliance with 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.63(b); and
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01268
`Patent 8,365,742 B2
`
`FURTHER ORDEREDthat no ground other than that specifically
`
`granted aboveis authorized for inter partes review asto the claimsof the
`
`°742 patent.
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Ralph J. Gabric
`Robert Mallin
`Yuezhong Feng
`BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
`rgabric@brinksgilson.com
`rmallin@brinksgilson.com
`yfeng@brinksgilson.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Michael J. Wise
`Joseph P. Hamilton
`PERKINS COIJE LLP
`MWise@perkinscoie.com
`JHamilton@perkinscoie.com
`patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com
`
`16
`
`