`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FONTEM HOLDINGS 1 B.V.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01268
`Patent 8,365,742
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSES TO PATENT OWNER'S MOTION FOR
`
`OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. ROBERT H.
`
`STURGES RE-FILED PURSUANT TO BOARD’S ORDER OF
`
`SEPTEMBER 14, 2017 (PAPER 45)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s Scheduling Order (Paper 11) and Board’s Order of
`
`September 14, 2017 (Paper 45), R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (“Petitioner”)
`
`hereby re-files Petitioner’s Responses to Patent Owner Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.’s
`
`(“P.O.”) Motion for Observations on Cross-Examination of Dr. Robert H. Sturges.
`
`Pursuant to Paper 45, Petitioner’s re-filed Responses delete reference to Sturges’
`
`1692 Transcript (Ex. 2029).
`
`I.
`
`Airflow in Hon 043
`
`Response to Observation No. 1: P.O.’s observation relies upon out of
`
`context and incomplete testimony, and is not supported by the cited testimony. In
`
`Ex. 2030, 18:24-20:14, which includes additional context omitted by P.O., Dr.
`
`Sturges is referring to Hon 043’s large diameter droplets, which Hon 043
`
`distinguishes from small diameter droplets. See Ex. 1003 at 11 (“After the
`
`atomization, the large diameter droplets stick to the wall under the action of eddy
`
`flow and are reabsorbed by the porous body 27 via the overflow hole 29, whereas
`
`the small diameter droplets float in stream and form[] aerosols, which are sucked
`
`out via the aerosol passage 12, gas vent 17 and mouthpiece 15.”). In Ex. 2030,
`
`20:2-10, Dr. Sturges testified that “the droplet” (that is, Hon 043’s large diameter
`
`droplets, referred to as “the droplet” or “those droplets” in this line of questioning)
`
`is reabsorbed by Hon 043’s porous body. In Ex. 2030, 20:11-14, Dr. Sturges
`
`testified that Hon 043 does not suggest that “the droplet[s]” (that is, Hon 043’s
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`large diameter droplets) passing through Hon 043’s overflow hole 29 would enter
`
`the porous body without being reabsorbed. With respect to Hon 043’s small
`
`diameter droplets, Dr. Sturges testified in Ex. 2016, 100:9-16 that those droplets
`
`“pass from the cavity in the atomizer to the downstream end of the atomizer
`
`through the porous body.” This testimony is relevant to Petition (Paper 2) at 15-
`
`16, 25-29, 34-35, Opposition (Paper 24) at 31-40 and 43-45, Reply (Paper 30) at
`
`15-20, Ex. 1015 (Sturges Petition Declaration) at ¶¶ 47-49 and pp. 32-35, 38-39,
`
`Ex. 1020 (Sturges Supplemental Declaration) at ¶¶ 9-13, Ex. 1027 (Sturges Reply
`
`Declaration) at ¶¶ 33-45, 54 and 67, and Ex. 2015 (Meyst Declaration) at ¶¶ 42-46,
`
`76-79, and 91-94. The testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that (1) a
`
`PHOSITA would have understood that Hon 043 does not require an exit hole at the
`
`downstream end of the atomizer in order for the small diameter droplets to exit or
`
`for the Hon 043 device to otherwise properly function, and (2) does not support
`
`P.O.’s contention that Hon 043 purportedly “teaches away” from placing a wick in
`
`the airflow path as taught by Whittemore.
`
`Response to Observation No. 2: P.O.’s observation relies upon out of
`
`context and incomplete testimony, and is not supported by the cited testimony. In
`
`Ex. 2030, 47:1-14, Dr. Sturges testified that he does not know the purpose for the
`
`“arch space under the bold [sic, bulge] section” illustrated in Fig. 6 of Hon 043.
`
`However, regardless of its purpose, Dr. Sturges testified elsewhere that the arch
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`space under the bulge does not depict an exit hole. See Ex. 1027, ¶¶ 34-45; Ex.
`
`1034, ¶6. This testimony is relevant to Petition (Paper 2) at 15-16, 25-29, and 34-
`
`35, Opposition (Paper 24) at 31-40 and 43-45, Reply (Paper 30) at 15-20, Ex. 1015
`
`(Sturges Petition Declaration) at ¶¶ 47-49 and pp. 32-35, 38-39, Ex. 1020 (Sturges
`
`Supplemental Declaration) at ¶¶ 9-13, Ex. 1027 (Sturges Reply Declaration) at ¶¶
`
`33-45, 54 and 67, and Ex. 2015 (Meyst Declaration) at ¶¶ 42-46, 76-79, and 91-94.
`
`The testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that Dr. Sturges’ deposition and
`
`declaration testimony concerning Hon 043’s failure to disclose an open exit hole is
`
`credible and reliable, and regardless of the purpose for the “arch space under the
`
`[bulge] section,” it is not an exit hole.
`
`Response to Observation No. 3: P.O.’s observation relies upon out of
`
`context and incomplete testimony, and is not supported by the cited testimony. In
`
`Ex. 2030, 78:15-79:4, Dr. Sturges testified that Figs. 1-3 in Hon 043 do not show
`
`the bulge 36 deforming when it is inserted into the liquid supply. In Ex. 2030,
`
`79:5-8, Dr. Sturges testified that bulge 36 could deform if it was made of a “softer”
`
`or “less rigid material [] than liquid supply.” In Ex. 2030, 22:12-24:1, Dr. Sturges
`
`also testified that Hon 043 shows the liquid supply “deforming” when contacted by
`
`Hon 043’s bulge. In Ex. 2030, 38:7-39:1, Dr. Sturges testified that, because of the
`
`cavity wall, “one would not expect a significant deformation [of Hon 043’s porous
`
`body] under gravity.” This testimony is relevant to Petition (Paper 2) at 15-16,
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Opposition (Paper 24) at 20-42, Reply (Paper 30) at 11-20, Ex. 1015 (Sturges
`
`Petition Declaration) at ¶¶ 44-49 and pages 31-35, Ex. 1020 (Sturges Supplemental
`
`Declaration) at ¶¶ 4-13, Ex. 1027 (Sturges Reply Declaration) at ¶¶ 23-45, and Ex.
`
`2015 (Meyst Declaration) at ¶¶ 42-46, 66-88, and 98-100. The testimony is
`
`relevant because it demonstrates that Hon 043’s drawings are consistent with Dr.
`
`Sturges’ opinions concerning how the PHOSITA would have understood the
`
`teachings of Hon 043, including the extent to which Hon 043’s porous body would
`
`deform but for the support provided by the cavity wall, and the lack of an exit hole.
`
`Response to Observation No. 4: P.O.’s observation further confirms the
`
`motivation for modifying Hon 043 as taught by Whittemore. In Ex. 2030, 75:9-
`
`76:20, Dr. Sturges testified that the second piezoelectric supplies energy to “some”
`
`of the liquid droplets that are ejected from Hon 043’s ejection holes by either direct
`
`or indirect energy transmission, and that “one skilled in the art at the time of the
`
`‘742 patent was filed [would have understood] that direct transfer of energy from
`
`the piezoelectric element to the liquid droplets was more efficient than indirect”
`
`transfer of energy. This testimony is relevant to Petition (Paper 2) at 18-19,
`
`Opposition (Paper 24) at 13-14 and 48-49, Ex. 1027 (Sturges Reply Declaration) at
`
`¶¶ 62-64, and Ex. 2015 (Meyst Declaration) at ¶¶ 98-100. The testimony is
`
`relevant because it supports Dr. Sturges’ opinion that a PHOSITA would have
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`been motivated to modify Hon 043 by adding Whittemore’s wick in order to obtain
`
`reliable and consistent direct transfer of heat energy.
`
`Response to Observation No. 5: (Deleted pursuant to the Board’s Order of
`
`September 14, 2017 (Paper 45))
`
`Response to Observation No. 6: P.O.’s observation relies upon out of
`
`context and incomplete testimony, and is not supported by the cited testimony. Dr.
`
`Sturges accurately characterizes Hon 043’s disclosure with respect to the short and
`
`long stream ejection holes. In Ex. 2030, 31:25-32:6, Dr. Sturges testified that,
`
`according to Hon 043, the short- and long-stream ejection holes differ in size and
`
`that, in the figures, the short ejection holes are not shown with a corresponding
`
`portion through a part of the porous body. In Ex. 2030, 13:24-16:24, Dr. Sturges
`
`also explained that “the reduced pressure of the high-speed stream” in Hon 043’s
`
`ejection holes functions to deliver liquid into Hon 043’s atomization cavity 10.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Petition (Paper 2) at 15-16, 15-29, Opposition (Paper
`
`24) at 45-50, Reply (Paper 30) at 22-25, Ex. 1027 (Sturges Reply Declaration) at
`
`¶¶ 52, 57-60, and Ex. 2015 (Meyst Declaration) at ¶¶ 37 and 98. The testimony is
`
`relevant because it demonstrates that Dr. Sturges’ opinions regarding fluid flow in
`
`Hon 043 are credible and reliable.
`
`Response to Observation No. 7: (Deleted pursuant to the Board’s Order of
`
`September 14, 2017 (Paper 45))
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Response to Observation No. 8: P.O.’s observation relies upon out of
`
`context and incomplete testimony, and is not supported by the cited testimony.
`
`P.O. ignores the testimony that immediately follows the cited testimony. In Ex.
`
`2030, 68:7-69:20, Dr. Sturges testified that liquid is vaporized by Whittemore’s
`
`wire-wrapped wick and exits at Whittemore’s outlet 5. This testimony is relevant
`
`to Opposition (Paper 24) at 45, Reply (Paper 30) at 21, Ex. 1027 (Sturges Reply
`
`Declaration) at ¶¶ 54, 67, and Ex. 2015 (Meyst Declaration) at ¶¶ 92, 104. The
`
`testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that the PHOSITA would have
`
`understood that the function of Whittemore’s wire-wrapped wick is to
`
`vaporize/atomize liquid, not reabsorb vaporized/atomized liquid. Thus, the
`
`PHOSITA would not have been concerned that a wire-wrapped wick as taught by
`
`Whittemore would reabsorb vaporized/atomized liquid droplets, nor would the
`
`PHOSITA have otherwise been discouraged from modifying Hon 043 to include
`
`Whittemore’s wire-wrapped wick.
`
`Response to Observation No. 9: P.O.’s observation relies upon out of
`
`context and incomplete testimony, and is not supported by the cited testimony.
`
`P.O. ignores that the proposed combination solves the slipstream problem, not by
`
`eliminating the slipstream but instead by compensating for the slipstream by
`
`delivering liquid directly to Hon 043’s heating element using a porous wick as
`
`taught by Whittemore. (Remaining text deleted pursuant to the Board’s Order of
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`September 14, 2017 (Paper 45). This testimony is relevant to Opposition (Paper
`
`24) at 50-51, Reply (Paper 30) at 25, Ex. 1027 (Sturges Reply Declaration) at ¶¶
`
`57-60 and 67, Ex. 2015 (Meyst Declaration) at ¶ 104. The testimony is relevant
`
`because it demonstrates that the PHOSITA would have been motivated to
`
`compensate for slipstream (and address the problem of liquid droplets bypassing
`
`Hon 043’s heating wire) by modifying Hon 043 to include Whittemore’s wire
`
`wrapped wick so that liquid is delivered to, and brought into direct contact with,
`
`the heating element.
`
`II. Whether Hon 043’s Porous Body Is “Supported By” The Cavity Wall
`
`Response to Observation No. 10: The interpretation of “supported by” in
`
`IPR2015-00859 (Exhibit 1011) was an uncontested preliminary construction, and
`
`is not binding in this IPR. Dr. Sturges’ proposed construction is consistent with
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation of “supported by.” In Ex. 2030, 82:9-83:3,
`
`Dr. Sturges testified that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term
`
`“supported by” is “[t]o hold up, to serve as a foundation or prop for, carry all or
`
`part of the weight of, or give strength to.” This testimony is relevant to Opposition
`
`(Paper 24) at 8-11, 19-20, Reply (Paper 30) at 5-20, Ex. 1011 at 15-16, Ex. 1015
`
`(Sturges Petition Declaration) at ¶¶ 41-50, Ex. 1020 (Sturges Supplemental
`
`Declaration) at ¶¶ 4-11, Ex. 1027 (Sturges Reply Declaration) at ¶¶ 6-48, and Ex.
`
`2015 (Meyst Declaration) at ¶¶ 25-30, 50. The testimony is relevant because it
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`demonstrates that Hon 043’s cavity wall provides various types of support for the
`
`porous body, including weight bearing support and thus Hon 043 discloses the
`
`“supported by” limitation under either party’s proposed constructions.
`
`Response to Observation No. 11: P.O.’s observation relies upon out of
`
`context and incomplete testimony, and is not supported by the cited testimony. In
`
`Ex. 2030, 39:22-40:1, just prior to the testimony cited by P.O., Dr. Sturges testified
`
`that the cavity wall in Hon 043 supports the porous body by “hold[ing] up at least
`
`the weight of the top part of the porous body.” In Ex. 2030, 38:7-39:1, Dr. Sturges
`
`testified that the cavity wall in Hon 043 supports the porous body, thereby
`
`preventing the deformation of the porous body under the force of gravity. In Ex.
`
`2016, 126:10-127:2; 186:23-187:15, Dr. Sturges testified that Hon 043’s cavity
`
`wall supports the weight of the liquid filled porous body, which “would sag rather
`
`like a horse’s back under the weight of gravity” without “the support of the cavity
`
`wall.” This testimony is relevant to Reply (Paper 30) at 8-11, Ex. 1027 (Sturges
`
`Reply Declaration) at ¶¶ 16-17, 21-22, 46-48, and Ex. 2015 (Meyst Declaration) at
`
`¶ 50. The testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that that Hon 043’s porous
`
`body is supported by the cavity wall even if, as P.O. alleges, the porous body also
`
`provides support for the cavity wall.
`
`Response to Observation No. 12: P.O.’s observation relies upon out of
`
`context and incomplete testimony, and is not supported by the cited testimony. In
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2030, 42:13-43:4, Dr. Sturges testified that a PHOSITA “could choose a
`
`material such that deformation, sagging, deflection of the porous body is not an
`
`issue.” (emphasis added). However, in Ex. 1027, ¶ 30 Dr. Sturges explained that a
`
`PHOSITA could also choose from “the wide range of possible materials identified
`
`in Hon 043 for the porous body.” “By providing the cavity wall, Hon 043 permits
`
`the wide range of design choices identified by Hon 043 such as, for example, low
`
`rigidity, compliant high molecule polymer foams for the porous body, which is
`
`used to transfer liquid from the liquid-supplying bottle to the atomization
`
`chamber.” This testimony is relevant to Opposition (Paper 24) at 25-30, Reply
`
`(Paper 30) at 11-15, Ex. 1020 (Sturges Supplemental Declaration) at ¶¶ 4-11, Ex.
`
`1027 (Sturges Reply Declaration) at ¶¶ 16, 23-32, 44-46, and Ex. 2015 (Meyst
`
`Declaration) at ¶¶ 66-69. The testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that
`
`the PHOSITA would have understood that, because of the support provided by
`
`Hon 043’s cavity wall, the porous body can be made from the wide range of
`
`materials identified in Hon 043.
`
`Response to Observation No. 13: P.O.’s observation relies upon out of
`
`context and incomplete testimony, and is not supported by the cited testimony. In
`
`Ex. 2030, 45:6-15, Dr. Sturges testified that “cavity wall would prevent
`
`compression or deformation of the porous body for the portion of the porous body
`
`along the length of the cavity wall.” This testimony is relevant to Petition (Paper
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`2) at 15-16, Opposition (Paper 24) at 20-25, Reply (Paper 30) at 11-15, Ex. 1015
`
`(Sturges Petition Declaration) at ¶¶ 44-45, Ex. 1027 (Sturges Reply Declaration) at
`
`¶¶ 23-32, and Ex. 2015 (Meyst Declaration) at ¶¶ 51-55, 70-75. The testimony is
`
`relevant because it demonstrates that Hon 043’s cavity wall 25 prevents both
`
`deformation and axial displacement of the porous body 27 relative to the cavity
`
`wall.
`
`Response to Observation No. 14: (Deleted pursuant to the Board’s Order of
`
`September 14, 2017 (Paper 45))
`
`III. Whether Hon 043 Discloses A Friction Fit Or Bonding Material
`
`Response to Observation No. 15: P.O.’s observation relies upon out of
`
`context and incomplete testimony, and is not supported by the cited testimony. In
`
`Ex. 2030, 21:10-22:11, Dr. Sturges testified that a friction fit requires “an
`
`interference between one body and another wherein one may be fitted into another
`
`or one may be in forcible contact with another.” In response to a hypothetical, Dr.
`
`Sturges agreed that “[i]f you had a flat body and then another body sitting on top of
`
`that flat body held on there by gravity,” then you “wouldn’t refer to that as a
`
`friction fit because there isn’t any fit defined” in the hypothetical. He then
`
`explained that a “fit” in engineering parlance, means that there is “a relationship
`
`between the inner and outer dimensions of the two parts respectively.” Thus, Dr.
`
`Sturges agreed that two parts that merely touch each other does not “necessarily
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`mean there is a fiction fit.” This testimony is relevant to Petition (Paper 2) at 15-
`
`16, Opposition (Paper 24) at 20-30, Reply (Paper 30) at 15, Ex. 1015 (Sturges
`
`Petition Declaration) at ¶ 45, Ex. 1027 (Sturges Reply Declaration) at ¶¶ 18-20, 23-
`
`32, and Ex. 2015 (Meyst Declaration) at ¶¶ 41, 56-62. The testimony is relevant
`
`because it establishes that a PHOSITA would have understood that Hon 043’s
`
`porous body and cavity wall do not merely touch each other but instead have “a
`
`relationship between the inner and outer dimensions of the two parts respectively”
`
`to prevent movement of the cavity wall and porous body relative to each other. As
`
`the PHOSITA would have understood, this relationship is achieved by either a
`
`friction fit or bonding material between Hon 043’s porous body and cavity wall.
`
`Response to Observation No. 16: P.O.’s observation relies upon out of
`
`context and incomplete testimony, and is not supported by the cited testimony. In
`
`Ex. 2030, 27:3-28:1, which P.O. did not cite, Dr. Sturges testified that the “sole
`
`function” of Hon 043’s lead wires is to “provide electricity to the heating wire,”
`
`that there “is no other teaching in [Hon 043] that they” provide any other function,
`
`and that the PHOSITA would not have understood that Hon 043’s wire leads could
`
`provide any other function. In Ex. 2030, 28:2-19, which P.O. also ignores, Dr.
`
`Sturges explained that, because the lead wires are flexible, “one wouldn’t expect”
`
`that the wire leads shown in Fig. 6 of Hon 043 to hold the heating wire in place.
`
`In Ex. 2030, 28:20-29:23, which P.O. also ignores, when asked whether the
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`flexible lead wires “could” hold the heating wire in place, Dr. Sturges responded
`
`“[t]hat depends on how the flexible wires are constrained themselves,” and merely
`
`acknowledged that “if the flexible wires are properly constrained, they could hold
`
`the heating wire in place.” In Ex. 1027, ¶18, Dr. Sturges explained that if Hon
`
`043’s porous body and cavity wall were permitted to move with respect to each
`
`other, this would result in misalignment of the ejection holes, movement of the
`
`heating wire and piezoelectric element, and displacement of the heating wire and
`
`piezoelectric element relative to the ejection holes. This testimony is relevant to
`
`Petition (Paper 2) at 15-16, Opposition (Paper 24) at 20-30, Reply (Paper 30) at 15,
`
`Ex. 1015 (Sturges Petition Declaration) at ¶ 45, Ex. 1027 (Sturges Reply
`
`Declaration) at ¶¶ 18-20, 23-32, and Ex. 2015 (Meyst Declaration) at ¶¶ 41, 56-62.
`
`The testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that, regardless of whether the
`
`wire leads play a role in holding the heating element in place, the PHOSITA would
`
`have nevertheless understood that a friction or bonding fit prevents Hon 043’s
`
`porous body and cavity wall from moving with respect to each other. Otherwise,
`
`the ejection holes would become misaligned, and the heating element (even if held
`
`in place by the wire leads) and piezoelectric element would become displaced.
`
`Response to Observation No. 17: (Deleted pursuant to the Board’s Order of
`
`September 14, 2017 (Paper 45))
`
`1. Dated: September 18, 2017
`
`2. Respectfully submitted,
`3.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4. /s/
`Ralph J. Gabric
`
`
`5. Ralph J. Gabric, Reg. No. 34,167
`6. Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`7. BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
`8. 455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive Suite
`3600
`Chicago, IL 60611-5599
`T: 312-321-4200
`F: 312-321-4299
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4)(i) et seq., the undersigned certifies that on
`
`September 18, 2017, a complete and entire copy of this PETITIONER’S
`
`RESPONSES TO PATENT OWNER'S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON
`
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. ROBERT H. STURGES RE-FILED
`
`PURSUANT TO BOARD’S ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2017 (PAPER 45)
`
`was served by Electronic submission through the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board End-to-End System and e-mail at the addresses below:
`
`Michael J. Wise, Lead Counsel (MWise@perkinscoie.com)
`Joseph P. Hamilton, Back-up Counsel
`(JHamilton@perkinscoie.com)
`Jenna M. DeRosier (JDeRosier@perkinscoie.com)
`Tyler R. Bowen, Back-up Counsel
`(TBowen@perkinscoie.com)
`Amy Candeloro (ACandeloro@perkinscoie.com)
`patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`
`Dated: September 18, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Yuezhong Feng
`/s/
`
`
`Yuezhong Feng (Reg. No. 58,657)
`Brinks Gilson & Lione
`NBC Tower – Suite 3600
`455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr.
`Chicago, Illinois 60611
`
`14
`
`
`