Upon consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the cited evidence, we determine that Petitioner has not satisfied its burden to show that the ’202 patent is eligible for post-grant review.
Petitioner further contends that “[s]uch a POSA would have been familiar with electrically powered smoking articles and/or the components and underlying technology used therein.” Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 63).
In general, a preamble is construed as a limitation “if it recites essential structures or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg.
In evaluating the adequacy of the disclosure, a court may consider “the existing knowledge in the particular field, the extent and content of the prior art, the maturity of the science or technology, [and] the predictability of the aspect at issue.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (cited with approval in Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1352).
Based on the arguments in the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner fails to carry its burden to show that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’202 patent is not entitled to an effective filing date before March 16, 2013.