`In the Matter of:
`
`R.J. Reynolds
`vs.
`Fontem Holdings
`
`___________________________________________________
`
`Richard P. Meyst
`July 21, 2017
`
`___________________________________________________
`
`
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor
`IPR2016-01268
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor v. Fontem
`Exhibit 1035-00001
`
`
`
`Richard P. Meyst 7/21/2017
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` )
` R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY )
` )
` Petitioner, ) Case No.
` ) IPR2016-01692
` vs. )
` )
` FONTEM HOLDINGS 1 B.V., )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
` _____________________________)
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF RICHARD MEYST
` Los Angeles, California
` Friday, July 21, 2017
`
`Reported by:
`SHANDA GABRIEL
`CSR No. 10094
`Job No. CH-134810
`Pages 1-84
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Exhibit 1035-00002
`
`
`
`Richard P. Meyst 7/21/2017
`
`Page 2
`
` Videotaped deposition of RICHARD MEYST,
`taken on behalf of the Petitioner at 1888 Century
`Park East, Los Angeles, California, commencing at
`9:09 a.m., Friday, July 21, 2017, before SHANDA
`GABRIEL, CSR No. 10094.
`
`APPEARANCES:
`FOR THE PETITIONER:
` BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
` BY: RALPH J. GABRIC
` Attorney at Law
` 455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 3600
` Chicago, Illinois 60611-5599
` 312.321.4200
` rgabric@brinksgilson.com
`
`FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
` PERKINS COIE
` BY: JOSEPH HAMILTON
` Attorney at Law
` 1888 Century Park East, Suite 1700
` Los Angeles, California 90067-1721
` 310.788.3271
` jhamilton@perkinscoie.com
` - and -
` PERKINS COIE
` BY: NATHAN R. KASSEBAUM
` Attorney at Law
` 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000
` Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788
` 602.351.8084
` nkassebaum@perkinscoie.com
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`
`67
`
`8
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`13
`14
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`19
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`24
`25
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Exhibit 1035-00003
`
`
`
`Richard P. Meyst 7/21/2017
`
`Page 3
`
`APPEARANCES (CONTINUED)
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
` FRITZ SPERBERG, VIDEOGRAPHER
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Exhibit 1035-00004
`
`
`
`Richard P. Meyst 7/21/2017
`
`Page 4
`
` I N D E X
`
`EXAMINATION BY PAGE
`MR. GABRIC 6, 81
`MR. HAMILTON 79
`
` E X H I B I T S
`NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
`Exhibit 1028 Deposition transcript of 7
` Richard P. Meyst dated June 7,
` 2017
`
` PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS
` NO. PAGE
` Exhibit 1001 8
` Exhibit 1003 47
` Exhibit 1004 41
` Exhibit 1026 72
` Exhibit 2002 10
` Exhibit 2030 44
` Exhibit 2035 64
` Exhibit 2036 69
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Exhibit 1035-00005
`
`
`
`Richard P. Meyst 7/21/2017
`
`Page 5
`
` Los Angeles, California
` Friday, July 21, 2017
` 9:09 a.m.
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. My name
`is Fritz Sperberg and I'm a videographer with DTI.
`The court reporter is Shanda Gabriel also of DTI at
`20750 Ventura Boulevard, Woodland Hills, California.
` Today's date is July 21, 2017 and the time
`is now 9:09 a.m.
` Our location is 1888 Century Park East in
`Los Angeles, California.
` Counsel, please identify yourselves and
`state whom you represent.
` MR. HAMILTON: Joseph Hamilton. With me is
`Nate Kassebaum, both of Perkins Coie, representing
`patent owner Fontem.
` MR. GABRIC: Good morning. Ralph Gabric
`from Brinks Gilson representing the petitioner, R.J.
`Reynolds Vapor.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The witness is Richard
`Meyst.
` Would the reporter please swear in the
`witness.
`///
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Exhibit 1035-00006
`
`
`
`Richard P. Meyst 7/21/2017
`
`Page 6
`
` RICHARD MEYST,
` having been first duly sworn, was
` examined and testified as follows:
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: You may begin.
` MR. GABRIC: Thank you.
`
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. GABRIC:
` Q. Good morning, Mr. Meyst.
` A. Good morning.
` Q. Nice to see you again, sir.
` A. Ditto.
` Q. You're here to give a deposition in
`connection with an inter partes review with respect
`to the '548 patent, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. All right. And the '548 patent is in the
`same family as the '742 patent?
` A. Yes, it is.
` Q. Okay. And you gave a deposition with
`respect to an IPR involving the '742 patent about a
`month ago, right?
` A. Sounds about right.
` Q. Give or take. Beginning of June.
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`
`7 8
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Exhibit 1035-00007
`
`
`
`Richard P. Meyst 7/21/2017
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. Pardon?
` Q. It was the beginning of June --
` A. Okay.
` Q. -- sometime.
` And you -- you recall you testified in that
`deposition about a reference we referred to as Hon
`'043, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And the Hon '043 reference, that
`same reference is at issue in this IPR, correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Okay. And you would agree with me, what
`you said in this -- that prior deposition in the
`'742 IPR regarding how Hon '043 operates, Hon '043
`operates for the -- in the same way with respect to
`this IPR as well, correct?
` A. I believe so. It's the same patent.
` Q. Fair enough.
` And why don't I just go ahead and mark it.
`We'll mark as Exhibit 1028 in this IPR, the
`deposition you gave in the '742 IPR. And it's dated
`June 7, 2017.
` (Exhibit 1028 was marked for
` identification and attached
` hereto.)
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Exhibit 1035-00008
`
`
`
`Richard P. Meyst 7/21/2017
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`BY MR. GABRIC:
` Q. Ask you if you can identify whether that's
`your deposition transcript in the '742 IPR.
` A. I believe it is my deposition transcript.
` Q. All right. Now --
` MR. HAMILTON: I just want to put on the
`record, Mr. Meyst made some corrections to this
`transcript that don't appear to be included.
` MR. GABRIC: Oh, I -- I wasn't even aware
`of that. I apologize.
` MR. HAMILTON: No, that's all right. I
`don't think they're of any substance, but I just
`want to make sure that's on the record.
` MR. GABRIC: Appreciate it. I'm always the
`last to learn things, Joe.
`BY MR. GABRIC:
` Q. Now, I'm going to show you what's been
`marked as Exhibit 1001 in this IPR, the '548 IPR.
` (Exhibit 1001 was previously
` marked for identification and is
` attached hereto.)
`BY MR. GABRIC:
` Q. And for the record, this is the '548
`patent, correct?
` A. Yes.
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Exhibit 1035-00009
`
`
`
`Richard P. Meyst 7/21/2017
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. "Yes"? All right.
` And the '548 patent has claims at the end,
`claims 1 through 14, correct?
` A. You're correct.
` Q. Okay. And claims 1 through 14 are directed
`to the embodiment of the '548 patent depicted in
`Figures 17 and 18, correct?
` MR. HAMILTON: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, they're described I
`think in those embodiments. That doesn't mean it's
`limited to those embodiments, however.
`BY MR. GABRIC:
` Q. Okay. But you would agree with me, Figures
`17 and 18 fall within the scope of claims 1 through
`14?
` MR. HAMILTON: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Figures 17 and 18 contain
`elements described in the claims, yes.
`BY MR. GABRIC:
` Q. Okay. And -- and Figures 17 and 18 in the
`'548 patent, those are the same Figures 17 and 18
`found in the '742 patent? And I'm happy to give you
`that patent if you want it.
` MR. HAMILTON: Objection. Form.
` MR. GABRIC: Let me show you what's been
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Exhibit 1035-00010
`
`
`
`Richard P. Meyst 7/21/2017
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`marked as Exhibit 2002 in this IPR. And it's the
`'742 patent.
` MR. HAMILTON: Thank you.
` MR. GABRIC: You're welcome.
` (Exhibit 2002 was previously
` marked for identification and is
` attached hereto.)
`BY MR. GABRIC:
` Q. Do you recognize that patent?
` A. I have seen it before, yes.
` Q. Fair enough. And Figures 17 and 18 of the
`'742 patent, those are the same figures that are
`Figures 17 and 18 in the '548 patent, correct?
` A. I believe so, yes.
` Q. All right. And at your deposition in the
`'742 IPR, you testified about Figures 17 and 18,
`correct?
` MR. HAMILTON: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I believe I did, yes. I'm
`just noticing there are some little differences
`between the figures because all the numbers aren't
`called out.
`BY MR. GABRIC:
` Q. I see. So the '548 patent has some
`reference numerals that are not included in the
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Exhibit 1035-00011
`
`
`
`Richard P. Meyst 7/21/2017
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`corresponding figure of the '742 patent?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Other than that, do you see any other
`differences?
` A. I haven't studied it, but I believe they're
`the same specification.
` Q. Okay. And the devices depicted -- strike
`that.
` Figures 17 and 18 of the '742 patent, those
`depict an atomizer, correct?
` A. These are components of an atomizer.
` Q. Right. And that's also true with respect
`to Figures 17 and 18 of the '548 patent?
` MR. HAMILTON: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
`BY MR. GABRIC:
` Q. Okay. And do the components illustrated in
`Figures 17 and 18 of the '742 patent and Figures 17
`and 18 of the '548 patent, do they work in the same
`way?
` A. I believe so, yes.
` Q. Now, you've been deposed quite a few times
`over your career, correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. All right. And you generally understand
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Exhibit 1035-00012
`
`
`
`Richard P. Meyst 7/21/2017
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`the ground rules, correct?
` A. I believe so.
` Q. All right. And -- and I just want to
`remind you of a few things that are fairly
`important.
` In these proceedings it's important that
`you don't discuss your testimony with counsel during
`breaks. You understand that?
` A. I do.
` Q. And I'll try to do a better job than I did
`last time of not talking over you, and -- and you
`should try not to talk over me. Let's let each
`other get our questions and answers out
`respectively. Okay?
` A. I understand the process, yes.
` Q. All right. Any reason you can't testify
`truthfully and accurately today?
` A. No.
` Q. All right. Now, I want to ask you a few
`questions about Figures 18 -- Figure 18 of the '548
`patent if you want to get that in front of you.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Could you describe for me how these
`components -- what role they play in atomizing
`liquid?
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Exhibit 1035-00013
`
`
`
`Richard P. Meyst 7/21/2017
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. Yes.
` Q. Could you do that, please?
` A. I will.
` Q. Thank you.
` A. Well, we could start with the item marked
`83, which is the heating wire. And that is the
`device where an electricity can put energy in to
`effect change and phase of the materials. So it's
`the energy input.
` 81 is a porous component that the wire
`heating element is wrapped around. And that
`transports liquid to the wire for atomization.
` And what is labeled as 821, which is a
`hole, that is the location where an air stream
`passes through the hole and then onto the -- the
`heating wire that's wrapped around the porous
`component.
` And 82 -- let me check something here.
`Just bear with me for a moment.
` Q. Yeah, sure. Take your time.
` A. I'm just looking for, in the specification,
`where it identifies the -- what they're calling item
`number 82. That's interesting. Because in Figure 6
`of the patent, it says 82 is the electric heating
`rod, and that's obviously not correct.
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Exhibit 1035-00014
`
`
`
`Richard P. Meyst 7/21/2017
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. Yeah. You're looking for 82? I'm just
`trying to help you out. Column 5, line 65.
` A. It's also called out in other places where
`82 is identified as another component. The frame.
`I thought so. Okay. 82 is the frame. And the
`frame provides structural integrity for this.
` Q. What do you mean "structural integrity"?
` A. Well, it's a rigid component.
` Q. What's a rigid component?
` A. 82 is a rigid component.
` Q. Okay. And what -- what does it provide
`structural integrity for?
` A. Well, we should probably look and see what
`the specification says.
` Q. Probably a good starting place.
` A. Well, the frame does a number of things, as
`it says in column 5 of the '548 patent.
` The porous component is set on the frame,
`so it supports and specifically contains that porous
`component so that it can't move relative to the
`other components.
` It also creates the space for atomization,
`which doesn't have a number. But -- and the hole
`through it where air can come through, it also
`creates that passageway.
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Exhibit 1035-00015
`
`
`
`Richard P. Meyst 7/21/2017
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. So how does the frame contain the porous
`component?
` MR. HAMILTON: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I don't know if I said
`"contain." It's set upon the element of the porous
`component where the wire is wrapped around, passes
`through a hole. Actually, two holes in the side of
`the -- the frame. And because it's in there, it
`cannot go up, down, sideways, or whatever. It's
`totally contained and constrained in that location.
`BY MR. GABRIC:
` Q. So when you say it's contained in that
`location, the porous component, because of these
`holes in the cavity wall, cannot move at all?
` MR. HAMILTON: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, if you were to crush
`this with pliers, it could move, certainly.
` But the purpose of that is to keep the
`heating element and the wire aligned with the hole
`so that the air coming through hits on that.
` There's likely other parts of this, because
`it is the atomizer component of Figure 19. And so
`in Figure 19 we don't see any detail, but we know
`that the atomizer shown in Figure 18 is in 19. And
`it doesn't show how it connects with the porous
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Exhibit 1035-00016
`
`
`
`Richard P. Meyst 7/21/2017
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`bulge, but the -- the frame keeps the porous
`component oriented around the atomization cavity,
`lines it up with the hole. You could probably pull
`it out of there and destructively remove it. But
`it -- it can't go anywhere. There's no space for it
`to move in any direction.
`BY MR. GABRIC:
` Q. Why -- why does the porous component
`require the frame to keep it in place?
` A. Why does the porous component require the
`frame?
` Q. Right.
` A. Well, if there wasn't a frame, what would
`the porous component be doing? Would it be hanging
`out waiting? It's part of the device, so it's part
`of the structure.
` Q. What if those -- and these are basically
`two cylinders we're -- well, strike that.
` Figure 18, you have a portion of the frame
`inside of the porous component. You see that?
` A. I guess you could say it's inside, yeah.
` Q. Okay. Is that portion of the frame keeping
`the porous component in place?
` A. Which portion?
` Q. The portion that's inside the porous
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Exhibit 1035-00017
`
`
`
`Richard P. Meyst 7/21/2017
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`component.
` A. Well, it's all keeping it. You can't break
`a piece of it away. I mean, the whole thing is
`providing a three-dimensional structure that meets
`up with the form factor of the porous component such
`that it holds it where it needs to be to affect its
`function.
` Q. I'm curious though, from the perspective of
`one skilled in the art, why is the internal portion
`of that frame, the portion that's internal to the
`porous component, why is it there? Why is it
`necessary?
` MR. HAMILTON: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: When you say "the internal
`component," are you speaking of the cylinder with
`the two holes in it that is part of item 82?
`BY MR. GABRIC:
` Q. Correct.
` A. Well, we could go back to the
`specification.
` Well, the porous component is not a
`rigid -- necessarily a rigid material. It could be.
`It could be -- have a wide range of properties.
` However, the purpose of having the frame
`with the porous component set on it, and "set on"
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Exhibit 1035-00018
`
`
`
`Richard P. Meyst 7/21/2017
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`has a specific meaning, as I'm sure you're aware.
`So it is a specific location where it needs to be.
`It's not sitting on top of it. It is set upon that
`and integrated into it by passing through the hole
`and having pieces on both sides of the holes, so
`it's a way of mounting it.
` Q. What -- what does the rigidity of the
`porous component have to do with why you would have
`this portion of frame positioned internal to the
`porous component?
` MR. HAMILTON: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I just mentioned that it
`is -- it could be -- based on testimony, it could be
`a very soft, pliable material. It needs to be
`supported in that function, in that position, in
`that location and that construction to work. So
`it's part of the design.
`BY MR. GABRIC:
` Q. And this patent, the '548 patent, doesn't
`contemplate a frame that omits the portion of the
`frame that's internal to the porous component,
`correct?
` MR. HAMILTON: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I didn't understand your
`question.
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Exhibit 1035-00019
`
`
`
`Richard P. Meyst 7/21/2017
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`BY MR. GABRIC:
` Q. Do you -- do you see any discussion in the
`'548 patent where the patentee contemplated, with
`respect to the components shown in Figure 18, that
`you could omit the portion of the frame that's
`located internal to the porous component?
` A. Never thought of that. But it may be in
`there. I guess I would have to go back and read
`through the patent. But I don't believe that's the
`case. Would you like me to --
` Q. No, no, that's okay. It's fine. It's
`Friday. We all want to get out at a reasonable
`hour.
` Now, there's a -- is there a contacting fit
`between the frame 82 and the porous component 81?
` MR. HAMILTON: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: What do you mean by
`"contacting"?
`BY MR. GABRIC:
` Q. Do they touch each other?
` A. Well, they would have to touch each other
`at some point.
` Q. Okay. And do they touch each -- where do
`they touch each other according to Figure 18?
` A. Well, anyplace that the crosshatched item
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Exhibit 1035-00020
`
`
`
`Richard P. Meyst 7/21/2017
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`is in contact with item 82 is where they touch each
`other, where 81 and 82 are sharing a common border.
` Q. Now, under normal use of the device
`illustrated in Figure 18 by the user, say they're
`smoking it, and they're walking or trotting, would
`that porous component move whatsoever at all
`relative to the frame?
` MR. HAMILTON: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, as it's shown here, it
`would have no room to move anywhere.
`BY MR. GABRIC:
` Q. And what kind of fit would be necessary to,
`quote, have no room for it to move?
` A. Well, it could be line to line or it could
`be an interference fit.
` Q. What's an interference fit?
` A. That would be where one part is larger than
`another part that it's put inside.
` Q. And --
` A. Did I say that right? I'm not -- so an
`interference fit would be if the internal item is
`slightly larger than the external item that it's
`going into.
` Q. So, for example, with respect to Figure 18,
`an interference fit would be where the diameter of
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Exhibit 1035-00021
`
`
`
`Richard P. Meyst 7/21/2017
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`the internal -- of the portion of the frame internal
`to the porous component is slightly larger than the
`diameter of the porus component, so when they're
`stuck together you get an interfering fit?
` MR. HAMILTON: Objection. Form.
`BY MR. GABRIC:
` Q. Do you want me to try that again? It was a
`lot.
` A. Yeah. Well, I think we all know what an
`interference fit is, so I don't know what your point
`is.
` Q. Well, I'm actually a chemist, so I'm
`actually not pretending that I'm clueless. I
`actually am on this stuff.
` So could you explain to me what an
`interfering fit would be between the portion of the
`porous component 81 and the -- I'm sorry. Strike
`that.
` Could you explain to me what an interfering
`fit would be with respect to the portion of the
`frame 82 that's internal to the porous component of
`81?
` MR. HAMILTON: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, there's a couple things
`here that could be considered. It doesn't all have
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Exhibit 1035-00022
`
`
`
`Richard P. Meyst 7/21/2017
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`to be an interference fit.
` For instance, the distance that the porous
`component, which is number 81, the component part
`that has the wire wrapped around it, so if we look
`at it, it looks like a capital "I." Okay?
` Q. Uh-huh.
` A. The vertical part between the top and the
`bottom, if that was just slightly less than the
`outside diameter where the holes pass through, that
`would cause the cylinder portion to be touching and
`against the -- the frame.
` So, I mean, there's a number of ways.
`Basically one part -- the two parts don't have slot
`between them. There's no space with an interference
`fit. So one part -- it could be line to line, which
`is where the dimensions are identical, or it could
`be where one part is slightly bigger than the other.
` Q. And so for there to be an interference fit
`with respect to the porous component 81 and frame
`82, for example, the vertical portion of the "I,"
`the -- the external diameter of that vertical
`portion would be slightly greater than the diameter
`of the holes of the frame? That would be an example
`of a interfering fit?
` MR. HAMILTON: Hold on a minute.
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Exhibit 1035-00023
`
`
`
`Richard P. Meyst 7/21/2017
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I don't think you said that
`correctly, but why don't you read me back what you
`said.
`BY MR. GABRIC:
` Q. For there to be an interference fit with
`respect to the porous component 81 and the frame 82,
`for example, the vertical portion of the "I," the
`external diameter of that vertical portion would be
`slightly greater than the diameter of the holes of
`the frame. That would be an example of an
`interfering fit?
` MR. HAMILTON: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: The -- the -- the "I" portion
`doesn't really have a diameter. It goes across the
`hole, so it -- the -- that -- there's really not a
`clear definition of where the diameter of that
`would -- I guess I'm misunderstanding your question.
`BY MR. GABRIC:
` Q. Okay. Let's -- let's back up. And let's
`not -- I'm just going to ask you to describe it.
`And I want to focus on a different part of the
`porous component.
` The porous component 81 that wraps around
`the portion of the frame that's internal to the
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Exhibit 1035-00024
`
`
`
`Richard P. Meyst 7/21/2017
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`porous component, you see that, the horizontal
`portion of the frame?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. What would be the relative diameters
`of the external portion of the frame at that
`location and the diameter of the -- internal
`diameter of the porous component 81 for there to be
`an interfering fit?
` A. Well, it could either be the diameter of
`the frame 82 is slightly bigger than the internal
`diameter of 81, or 81 could be slightly smaller than
`the diameter of the rigid part. So --
` Q. And does an interfering fit result in a
`friction fit?
` MR. HAMILTON: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: A friction fit implies that
`there's forces involved. I mean, it could be put
`together, for instance, you can put a bearing
`together by heating it up and it actually expands.
`You put it on a shaft and it will cool down and be
`tight on it. So that could be considered friction,
`I guess. It is pushing on it.
` I wouldn't call an interference fit
`necessarily a friction fit. It depends on how you
`put it together, I guess.
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Exhibit 1035-00025
`
`
`
`Richard P. Meyst 7/21/2017
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`BY MR. GABRIC:
` Q. Well, if Figure 18 has an interfering fit,
`the location between the porous component 81 and the
`frame that's -- the portion of the frame that's
`internal to the porous component, would that mean
`there's a friction fit at that location?
` MR. HAMILTON: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, we don't know about
`the -- the porous component. It may be somewhat
`elastomeric, so as you put it in there, it may be
`smaller than the outside diameter of the frame, but
`once it's in there, it could stretch out and just be
`a line-to-line contact.
`BY MR. GABRIC:
` Q. Well, what would one of ordinary -- what
`would one of ordinary skill in the art think looking
`at Figure 18? Would it be an interfering fit or
`not?
` MR. HAMILTON: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I think a person skilled in
`the art would look at this and say it doesn't make
`any difference.
`BY MR. GABRIC:
` Q. Why not?
` A. It doesn't change the function of the part.
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Exhibit 1035-00026
`
`
`
`Richard P. Meyst 7/21/2017
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`It doesn't alter what it is intended to do.
` Q. And one skilled in the art looking at
`Figure 18, would they understand there to be a
`friction fit between the porous component 81 and the
`frame 82?
` MR. HAMILTON: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Not necessarily. It could be
`line to line.
`BY MR. GABRIC:
` Q. What forces would one of ordinary skill in
`the art anticipate the device of the '548 patent
`would undergo in normal operation?
` MR. HAMILTON: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Are you speaking of just
`these components?
`BY MR. GABRIC:
` Q. Yeah, let's -- let's focus on Figure 18.
`What forces, if any, would one of ordinary skill in
`the art expect these pieces to be subject to during
`normal operation of this device?
` A. Gravity.
` Q. Any other forces?
` A. A force acting on it.
` Well, if you have an airstream passing
`through it, the air would have some momentum, have
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Exhibit 1035-00027
`
`
`
`Richard P. Meyst 7/21/2017
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`some energy, and as it hits the porous component
`with the wire, that could result in some forces.
`Depending on how it's put together, there may be
`some forces between 81 and 82, but not necessarily.
` Q. What --
` A. You can't -- you can't tell by looking at
`it. If it's a line to line, there's no forces if
`they're just touching.
` Q. And if it's an interfering fit, what forces
`would exist?
` MR. HAMILTON: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, depending on where the
`interference fit is. For instance, another place
`where you could have an interference fit is the hole
`that the wire-wound porous component passes through,
`that hole could be slightly smaller in diameter than
`the outside diameter of the porous component.
` However, the porous component, if it is
`somewhat elastic, once it's inside there, things are
`in equilibrium. It's all being held.
` So if you were to drop the device, there
`could be impact, I guess. If you were to go into
`space, you could have no gravity on it and then
`different, but --
`BY MR. GABRIC:
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Exhibit 1035-00028
`
`
`
`Richard P. Meyst 7/21/2017
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. So if one of ordinary skill in the art
`wanted to make the device or the components in
`Figure 18, is there any reason why they would opt
`for an interfering fit versus a contact fit or vice
`versa?
` A. I think it would really be up to them of
`what they wanted to do.
` Q. Well, and what would drive those -- that
`decision? What factors?
` A. Personal choice.
` Q. What do you mean by that?
` A. I chose to do it because I chose to do it.
` Q. Well --
` A. That's what I mean by that.
` Q. Well, why would one choose an interfering
`fit over a contact fit?
` A. Well, line to line would be maybe a little
`more difficult to maintain in terms of consistency
`of the parts. But like I said before, even if it
`wasn't an interference fit, it's not going to change
`the function of the device. It's going to work
`whether the porous component is slightly loose, line
`to line, or has an interference