`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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
