`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2016-01692
`Patent 9,326,548 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: October 26, 2017
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, KRISTINA M. KALAN, and
`KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent 9,326,548 B2
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`RALPH J. GABRIC, ESQUIRE
`ROBERT MALLIN, ESQUIRE
`YUEZHONG FENG, Ph.D., ESQUIRE
`Brinks, Gilson & Lione
`NBC Tower
`455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive
`Chicago, Illinois 60611-5599
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`MICHAEL J. WISE, ESQUIRE
`JOSEPH HAMILTON, ESQUIRE
`Perkins Coie
`1888 Century Park East
`Suite 1700
`Los Angeles, California 90067-1721
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, October 26,
`2017, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent 9,326,548 B2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: Good afternoon. We will now hear argument
`in case number IPR2016-01692, R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company versus
`Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., which concerns U.S. patent number 9,326,548. I
`am Judge Kokoski, and Judge Kalan and Judge McGraw are appearing
`remotely. At this time we would like counsel to state their appearances for
`the record, starting with counsel for petitioner.
`MR. GABRIC: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Ralph Gabric on
`behalf of petitioner. With me is Robert Mallin.
`MR. WISE: Good afternoon, Your Honor. My name is Michael
`Wise. I'm with Perkins Coie here on behalf of the patent owner. With me is
`my partner, Joe Hamilton.
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: Before we begin, I just want to remind the
`parties that whatever is projected on the screen will not be visible to Judges
`Kalan and McGraw. When you refer to an exhibit on the screen, please state
`the slide or page number to which you are referring for the record. This is
`also important for clarity in the transcript.
`In order to keep this hearing focused on the merits of the case, we
`ask counsel not to interrupt the other side to make objections. Any
`objections can be discussed during response and rebuttal time.
`Petitioner bears the burden of proof that the claims at issue are
`unpatentable and may proceed first. You have a total of 45 minutes and may
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent 9,326,548 B2
`
`reserve some of that time for rebuttal. How much would you like to reserve,
`if any?
`
`MR. GABRIC: Your Honor, I would like to reserve 20 minutes
`for rebuttal. I have a set of -- there's only one of you today here in person. I
`have a set of slides that we could hand up. I'll try to do a good job of
`referring to the slide number for our remote judges.
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: You can start when you are ready.
`MR. GABRIC: Thank you, Your Honor. This is a straightforward
`case of obviousness. The independent claims are obvious over the
`combination of Hon '043 and Whittemore. And based on the briefing, it
`doesn't appear that the dependent claims add anything patentable, and it
`appears that the dependent claims will rise and fall with the independent
`claims. So I'm going to focus on the independent claims today, and in
`particular claim 1 to keep things relatively simple.
`This is claim 1. I'm on slide 2. On the left-hand side is claim 1.
`And there are three independent claims, claims 1, claim 8 and claim 11.
`Now, claim 1, like claims 8 and 11, is directed to an electronic cigarette.
`And that cigarette includes a battery assembly, an atomizer assembly and a
`liquid storage component. Now, the dispute focuses on the structure of the
`atomizer assembly. And I have highlighted the particular limitations that
`seem to be where the fight is really focused.
`The atomizer assembly includes a porous component set on a
`frame having a run-through hole. It also includes a heating wire wound on
`the porous component and in the flow path.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent 9,326,548 B2
`
`
`Now, the run-through hole limitation is in all the claims, all three
`independent claims in some iteration or form. The set on limitation is in
`claims 1 through 10 in some form. Now, claims 11 through 14 recite a fiber
`member instead of a porous component, but that's an immaterial distinction
`for today's purposes of this IPR. And finally, all of the claims require some
`iteration of the heating wire coil wound on the porous component/fiber
`member limitation. That's just some context for everybody.
`So what are we talking about? On the right-hand side is Figure 18
`which is the only embodiment described in the patent that relates to claims 1
`through 14. Now, Figure 18 illustrates the frame. It's 82. And that frame
`has a run-through hole 821. It's a hollow passageway through the frame.
`Now, the frame forms and protects the integrity of an atomization cavity
`which is located internal to the frame. That's where the heating wire 83 is
`located. There's also a porous component 81. And that porous component
`may have a wide range of rigidities. It may be soft and pliable. And that
`porous component is located on the frame 82. It's set on the frame 82. And
`also the porous component has a section that's wrapped in heating wire 83,
`and that portion is located within the atomization chamber.
`Now, how does this work? Pretty simple. Liquid travels through
`the porous component via capillary action to the heating wire 83 where the
`liquid is brought into direct contact with the heating wire and atomized. The
`user draws on the device, and from left to right, the atomized liquid gets
`pulled out through the device into the user's mouth.
`This is Hon '043, the primary reference we rely on. It too is
`directed to an electronic cigarette. Figure 6 -- I'm on slide 3. Figure 6
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent 9,326,548 B2
`
`illustrates Hon '043's atomizer assembly. There's a lot of similarities
`between the atomizer assembly of Hon '043 and the atomizer assembly of
`the claims. We are going to talk about a little bit of those.
`Hon '043 has an atomization cavity wall 25 that's relatively rigid
`material that acts as a frame. Just like the frame of the '548 patent, Hon
`'043's cavity wall forms and protects the integrity of an atomization cavity
`10, a hollow space within the frame, the cavity wall. The heating wire 26 is
`located in Hon's atomization cavity. It's element 26. Hon '043 also includes
`a porous body 27 which, like the porous component of the '548 patent, may
`be relatively pliable and soft. And, like the porous component of the '548
`patent, Hon '043's porous body is located on the cavity wall 25. It's
`positioned. It's set on that cavity wall.
`Now, Hon '043 also has ejection holes 24 going through the cavity
`wall. It's that horizontal section down below labeled 24. And like the
`run-through hole of the '548 patent, those ejection holes are hollow
`passageways that travel through the cavity wall.
`Now, the ejection holes 24 are aligned with airflow passages in the
`porous body just below those ejection holes. You can see those airflow
`passages. So how does Hon '043 work? In Hon '043, liquid travels through
`that porous body via capillary action into the vicinity of those air passages in
`the porous body that are aligned with the ejection holes in the cavity wall.
`The air pulls liquid droplets out of that porous body. Remember, liquid is in
`those pores of the porous body. The air flows through the passageway, pulls
`liquid droplets out of the porous body. That air flows through the ejection
`holes and empties into the atomization cavity.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent 9,326,548 B2
`
`
`So then what happens? Those droplets are heated by the heating
`wire, heating element 26, primarily by convective heat because when the air
`exits those ejection holes, it expands. There's a radial component, and that's
`a relatively large space in the atomization cavity. The heating wire occupies
`a small space. So primarily atomization occurs by convective heat. And a
`lot of those droplets, some may strike the heating element and be direct heat
`atomized, but most of them will miss it.
`Now, Hon recognizes that his atomization is not perfect. I have
`highlighted some of the text here. He says after the atomization, the large
`diameter droplets stick to the wall that are reabsorbed by the porous body.
`Those large diameter droplets are too big to form an aerosol. He
`acknowledges that I'm not atomizing everything. In fact, I'm accounting for
`the fact that I don't, and they will get reabsorbed through the porous body.
`Now, the small droplets, he says, will be carried away in an aerosol, go
`through the porous body, get pulled out of the device into the user's mouth.
`So that's how Hon '043 works. The only thing missing from Hon '043 is he
`hasn't wrapped his heating wire on the porous body on the porous
`component.
`I want to explain to you why it is obvious to modify Hon '043 to do
`just that. One skilled in the art looking at Hon '043 would say to themselves,
`especially in view of the fact when Hon himself acknowledges that I have
`large diameter droplets that don't atomize, this not very efficient. I'm
`wasting energy. I'm heating by convective heat instead of direct heat. Air is
`not a good thermal conductor. Not all my droplets are hitting the
`atomization wire. There must be a better way. How can I get that liquid to
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent 9,326,548 B2
`
`the wire to heat it by direct heat, get more liquid to that wire, get better
`atomization? That's the problem that would have confronted one of skill in
`the art.
`
`When we go to slide 4, Whittemore provides that solution that one
`skilled in the art would be looking for. This is Whittemore. Again, I'm on
`slide 4. Whittemore discloses a vaporization device and he has a wick
`wrapped in heating wire. And the way Whittemore works is he pulls liquid
`from that liquid reservoir, liquid X, pulls it through the wick and brings that
`liquid into direct contact with the heating element for direct heat. That is
`much more efficient than spraying liquid at the heating wire. Whittemore
`uses a wick and transports it and directly delivers it to the heating wire.
`So this is the case in a nutshell on slide 5. One skilled in the art
`confronted with Hon '043 would be motivated to improve Hon '043 because
`of the atomization inefficiency. It relies primarily on indirect heat. And
`Whittemore teaches the solution to those problems. Whittemore tells one
`skilled in the art, hey, put a wick in there. Put a wick and transport liquid
`from the porous body 27 to the heating wire for direct contact, direct
`heating, more efficient atomization. And that's what's shown on the bottom
`of the slide. As Dr. Sturges testified, one skilled in the art would merely put
`some holes in the cavity wall, stick a wick in there, liquid gets transported
`from the porous body to the heating wire.
`JUDGE KALAN: So counsel, you disagree with patent owner's
`characterization of Hon atomizing the droplets simply by virtue of ejecting
`them into the atomization cavity; is that correct?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent 9,326,548 B2
`
`
`MR. GABRIC: That's correct, Your Honor. We absolutely
`disagree with it, and I will explain why. Before I do that, though, it doesn't
`matter. It really doesn't matter at the end of the day. Even if those droplets
`could be, quote, considered atomized, they are still too big, many of them.
`As Hon tells you, he leaves some behind. They stick to the cavity wall. So
`one skilled in the art would say, I can improve atomization. I can improve
`it. I could put a wick in here and deliver liquid directly to the heating wire
`and that will improve my atomization. So not only will I get atomization by
`the ejection holes, according to the patent owner, but I'm also going to get
`direct heat atomization by using that wick.
`So it really doesn't matter at the end of the day, but I'll tell you why
`we disagree. Hon himself acknowledges that those droplets ejected from the
`ejection holes are not atomized.
`JUDGE KALAN: Counsel, in Hon at the top of page 11, there's a
`phrase that says after the atomization, the large diameter droplets stick to the
`wall, whereas, the small diameter droplets float in stream, which would
`indicate that after this atomization -- droplets happen after atomization. And
`Hon also characterizes what is ejected into the cavity as a droplet. So do we
`need to discuss droplet a little bit more? Because it does appear that Hon
`characterizes something that has been atomized as a droplet.
`MR. GABRIC: Let me address, Your Honor -- and I'm on slide 3.
`And what Hon teaches us and one skilled in the art reading Hon, if you look
`at the porous body in the vicinity of the ejection holes, that's a porous body.
`Those are pores with liquid droplets in the pores. When air flows through
`past that porous body, it's going to pick up those liquid droplets, pull it out
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent 9,326,548 B2
`
`of the pores, and it shoots those liquid droplets through the ejection holes
`and into the atomization cavity.
`Now, every single -- and Hon calls those liquid droplets. What
`Hon says is that after those droplets are ejected into the atomization cavity,
`that's where atomization occurs. And in every single embodiment he
`discloses either a piezoelectric element or a heating element to conduct that
`atomization. Nowhere does he disclose an embodiment where he omits the
`piezoelectric element or the heating element. And if Hon thought that he
`was getting atomization from just the ejection holes, then he wouldn't have
`required any other atomizing element. But he always requires an atomizing
`element.
`And in fact, I'm jumping a little bit ahead of myself, but he
`discloses in his patent, and I'll look for it while patent owner is up, but he
`says when you have the heating element in there, okay, atomization is
`conducted solely by the heating element. Slide 60. I'm on slide 60, Your
`Honor. To simplify the design, the first piezoelectric element 23 on the
`atomizer 9 can be omitted, and the atomization of the nicotine solution will
`be made only by the heating element 26.
`Now, that's an embodiment that includes the ejection holes. So if
`he thought those ejection holes were atomizers, then this statement that
`atomization is only by the heating element 26 would be nonsensical. It
`doesn't square with what Hon '043 thought his device was. And what Hon
`'043 thought his device was is I'm merely ejecting droplets into the
`atomization cavity. Those droplets aren't small enough to form an aerosol. I
`have to atomize those droplets. I’ve got to make them small. I’ve got to
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent 9,326,548 B2
`
`form an aerosol. And I do that with my heating element and I do that with
`my piezoelectric element, one or the other or both. And then what that gives
`me is small droplets that get carried away in an aerosol, but I don't get
`anything because I still have large droplets that I didn't shrink, that I didn't
`make smaller, and those get left behind.
`So, yeah, we strongly disagree with the notion that Hon's ejection
`holes are atomizers or the liquid coming out of Hon's ejection holes are
`atomized as Hon '043 uses that term as one skilled in the art would interpret
`this reference. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. We don't think it
`matters.
`So let's go back to slide 5. So the predicted result from this
`combination is that I'm going to have more efficient atomization, I'm going
`to deliver liquid to the heating element for atomization, create an aerosol,
`improve efficiency. And there are other Supreme Court-endorsed rationales
`that we pointed out in our briefing. This is the substitution, a simple
`substitution of Hon's wire-wrapped wick for the heating element. It's a
`simple combination, Hon's wick with the heating element of Hon '043 to get
`predictable results. We disclosed others or described or discussed other
`Supreme Court-endorsed rationales.
`So where does that leave us? Now, the patent owner doesn't
`dispute or argue that this combination yields predictable results. Patent
`owner's primary argument is that the proposed combination does not teach
`the set on limitation of claims 1 through 10 or the run-through hole
`limitation required of all the claims. And the patent owner is mistaken, and
`I'll briefly explain why.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent 9,326,548 B2
`
`
`I'm on slide 6. This is the set on limitation. I have got claim 1 up
`here, the porous component set on a frame. The parties dispute the meaning
`of set on. On the left side is the construction proposed by the patent owner.
`Slide 7, set on, held in place by. That's their proposed construction. What is
`the problem with that construction? Well, there's two problems. We are
`operating under the BRI, as everybody knows, broadest reasonable
`interpretation. And what the patent owner has done is gone to the dictionary
`and cherry-picked some narrow definitions of "set" and decides to ignore the
`broader definitions of "set" in the dictionary which I'll get to in a moment.
`The other problem with their proposed construction is they
`changed the word "on", a porous component set on a frame, they changed
`"on" to "by." So not only do they say set on a frame means held in place,
`not on a frame, but held in place by a frame. So they are basically rewriting
`the limitation. And as I'll discuss in a little bit, even under their proposed
`construction, the combination discloses this limitation. I'll get to that in a
`moment.
`Now, on the right-hand side is petitioner's proposed construction.
`Set on basically means sit on, that sit on or set on signifies position. A
`porous component sits on a frame, i.e., it is positioned located on the frame.
`That's the plain and ordinary meaning of set on under the BRI.
`Here is the dictionary definition. I'm on slide 8, set on, to cause to
`sit on. Definition number 8 as well, to cause to assume a specified posture
`or position. If you look at Figure 18, porous component is located on the
`frame, it's set on it, it sits on it, it's located on it, it’s positioned on it. That's
`all that this limitation requires.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent 9,326,548 B2
`
`
`This is the only discussion of set on to the relevant embodiment in
`the patent and it tracks the language of the claim. Porous component, I'm on
`slide 9, the porous component 81 is set on the frame 82. Look at Figures 17
`and 18, the porous component is located on the frame. The porous
`component 81 is located on the frame 82.
`JUDGE KALAN: So jumping ahead a little bit, is Hon set on its
`frame or set around its frame?
`MR. GABRIC: Well, I don't think there's a distinction. The
`porous body of Hon, I'm on slide 10 -- think of it this way in your mind's
`eye, think of two cylinders. You have a porous -- Hon is a porous cylinder,
`a porous body cylinder that can be very pliable and soft. Internal and in
`contact with the porous cylinder is the cavity wall, okay. So the cavity wall
`is internal and is supporting the porous body. The porous body is set on that
`cavity wall. It also surrounds it. They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I
`think -- I have to think this through, but I don't see a big difference.
`So there's really no -- all you have to do is look at the picture in
`Hon in Figure 6 on slide 10. The porous body is set on the cavity wall. It
`surrounds the cavity wall much like the porous component is set on the
`frame in the '548 patent to Figure 18. That porous component is a cylinder,
`and internal to that cylinder, you have a section, a horizontal section of
`cavity wall. The porous component is set on that cavity wall.
`This is pretty straightforward. Set on is just merely a location. It
`is on the cavity wall. It's on the frame.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent 9,326,548 B2
`
`
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: Counsel, if we were to accept the patent
`owner's construction of held in place by, is the porous component in Hon
`'043 held in place by the frame?
`MR. GABRIC: Yes, it is.
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: And how is that?
`MR. GABRIC: I will explain why. I'm on slide 11. We've got to
`keep in mind, the porous body of Hon '043 and the porous component of the
`'548 patent are made from the same materials. That's what slide 43 -- I'm
`sorry, slide 11 shows. And as both experts testified, these materials can be
`relatively compliant and soft.
`All right. This is Mr. Meyst. And what he did is he explained that
`the porous body -- I'm on slide 12. We asked him why would you have a
`portion -- and this is with respect to the '548 patent. Why would you have a
`portion of that frame 82 internal to porous component? He says, It can be
`very soft, pliable. It needs to be supported and yet function.
`And the reason it needs to be supported is when that is filled with
`liquid and is soft, pliable material, you've got gravity acting on the top part
`of the porous body. If you don't have that frame in there in the '548 patent or
`the cavity wall of Hon '043 internal to the porous body, that porous body is
`going to sag under the weight of gravity and impinge on the atomization
`cavity. So it is providing weight-bearing support, both the frame and the
`cavity wall of Hon '043. It is keeping the top portion of that porous body in
`place so under the weight of gravity it doesn't sag and impinge on the
`atomization cavity.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent 9,326,548 B2
`
`
`So, yes, it does help keep it in place. It prevents sagging,
`deformation of the porous bodies to prevent it from deforming and sagging
`into the atomization cavity. One of the major reasons you have the cavity
`wall is to protect the atomization cavity from the porous body sagging and
`deforming and impinging on that atomization cavity. It's keeping that
`porous body in place. It's keeping it at bay to protect that atomization
`cavity. That's why it's there.
`This is Mr. Meyst. He's testifying as to the '548 patent. Would the
`frame be providing any weight-bearing support for the porous component?
`Yes, in the direction of gravity. The red component is still holding up what
`would be at the top part, so gravity acting downward as it normally does,
`that would be providing a force in the downward direction due to the mass.
`He's talking about the upper portion of the porous body that's set on the
`frame.
`
`I asked him, What portion of the frame would be providing that
`support you are referring to? Well, I guess what we have called the
`horizontal component, the part that's internal to the porous body.
`This same logic applies to Hon '043. This is Dr. Sturges talking
`about the '043 patent. He says the case in which the porous body is full of
`liquid, but for the support of the cavity wall, it would sag rather like a
`horse's back under the weight of gravity.
`So, yes, even if you say it's got to hold the porous body in place,
`Hon '043 meets the limitation even under that, we think, unduly narrow
`construction.
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: What's holding the cavity wall in place?
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent 9,326,548 B2
`
`
`MR. GABRIC: Let's step back, okay. So we have a cylinder, a
`rigid cylinder -- you are asking about Hon '043. We have a rigid cylinder
`inside the porous component. And so that's the atomizer assembly, and that
`atomizer assembly is being held in place by some structure that both parties
`seem to agree is a seal somewhere holding it in the housing. Now, the
`porous body is being held in the housing by that structure, by a seal of some
`type. Okay, and then the cavity wall is inside. So it will be resting on the
`bottom portion -- I'm on slide 16. It would be resting on the bottom portion
`of the porous body, but then if you move up to the top portion, you have the
`cavity wall now supporting the top portion of the porous body. So they
`cooperate and work with each other to hold each other in place. It's not --
`JUDGE KALAN: Why is that seal insufficient to keep the porous
`component in its predetermined shape?
`MR. GABRIC: Well, because the seal would go around the
`perimeter of the porous body. Think in your mind's eye, I have that porous
`body that's full of liquid. If I don't have Hon '043's cavity wall there and that
`porous body is full of liquid, even though the seal is holding that porous
`body in place inside the housing, the internal portion of the porous body is
`going to sag. The seal is not going to hold the internal portion of the porous
`body. If that cavity wall isn't there and the porous body is full of liquid, it's
`going to sag under its own weight. It's going to buckle and impinge on the
`atomization cavity. That's why -- it's one of the reasons why the cavity wall
`is there, to provide support for that internal portion of the porous body, that
`interface of the cavity wall porous body interface. They are touching each
`other.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent 9,326,548 B2
`
`
`So I'm on slide 16, and so what you would have is you would have
`a seal around the perimeter of that porous body. If that porous body is full
`of liquid, the top part of that porous body, that seal is not going to do
`anything to prevent the porous body from sagging. Nothing whatsoever.
`You need that cavity wall there to prevent sag. So I hope I have answered
`Your Honor's question.
`So I'm on slide 16, and while I'm here, I'm going to point out
`Mr. Meyst's testimony since we're talking about held in place. We asked
`him, all right, does the cavity wall of Hon '043 play any role in preventing
`movement of the porous body relative to the cavity wall? Well, you have a
`net fit. So the two parts work together in cooperation to form one part which
`doesn't allow for any movement.
`Basically, what Meyst is saying and what I'll explain in a moment
`is that the porous body and the cavity wall work together. They cooperate to
`hold each other in place, to prevent relevant movement to each other. And
`why is that important? One of the reasons it's important, if you look down
`the left-hand side of the figure on slide 16, you have those ejection holes in
`the cavity wall. And those ejection holes must be aligned with the airflow
`passages in the porous body because the airflow passages in the porous body
`pull out liquid droplets from the porous body and shoot it into the cavity
`wall ejection holes and into the atomization cavity. Those must maintain
`alignment.
`And the way that maintains alignment is you have a cavity wall
`holding that section of porous body with the passageway in place so they
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent 9,326,548 B2
`
`don't move with respect to each other. So the cavity wall is holding the
`porous body in place. It has to. This is physics.
`JUDGE KALAN: Counsel, if I can hop ahead to your slide 94
`where there is a blowup of the ejection hole alignment that you just
`discussed, do the ejection holes then have two separate components, one in
`the cavity wall and one through the porous body?
`MR. GABRIC: The ejection holes are the through passages in the
`cavity wall. And I'm not sure I'm answering your question. So you have the
`cavity wall there that has the ejection holes and then there is a passageway in
`the porous body, and those -- the ejection holes in the passageway need to
`align. Because if they didn't align, the passageway in the porous body
`would be trying to shoot liquid droplets in the atomization cavity, but you
`need the ejection holes to provide that access. So if they were misaligned,
`the cavity wall would block the droplets from getting into the atomization
`cavity.
`
`JUDGE KALAN: Do you need both portions to meet the
`limitation in the claim?
`MR. GABRIC: No. The claim just requires the frame with the
`run-through hole. I'm jumping way ahead because I'm running short on time
`here. And so what does run-through hole mean? There seems to be some
`debate about that. So let me go to slide 22. Having a run-through hole,
`frame having a run-through hole. What does run-through hole mean? I'm
`on slide 22, Your Honor. What does run-through hole mean?
`Well, the specification doesn't expressly define the term, but the
`patent owner did provide a definition during prosecution of the '548 patent.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent 9,326,548 B2
`
`I'm referring to Exhibit 1011 at 00014. And what did the patent owner say?
`This is an amendment dated November 20th. They said the claimed
`run-through hole 821 is a hole in a frame open only in the front/back
`direction as shown in Figure 18. So all that the run-through hole limitation
`requires is a hole through the frame that's open at the front and the back.
`All right. Slide 23, Hon '043 meets that definition. If you look at
`the ejection holes in the frame, I'm on slide 23, the vertical portion of the
`cavity wall that's in green, that is a hole in the frame and it's only open in the
`front and the back. In the front it is open to the air passageway that's in the
`porous body, and in the back it opens into the atomization cavity. So this
`notion that Hon '043's ejection holes are run-through holes just doesn't
`square with the definition that the patent owner provided during prosecution.
`Under the definition that they provided during prosecution, the ejection
`holes are run-through holes.
`The other thing I want to point out, and this was a bit of a dustup
`last week, is the claim construction they have offered in District Court.
`Exhibit 1040 at pages 23 and 24, they said it requires no construction or in
`the alternative, a run-through hole is a hollow space extending through.
`Well, if you look at the cavity wall of Hon '043, that ejection hole, that's a
`hollow space going through the wall of that cavity wall running through it.
`It meets the definition. And what is going through there, what's running
`through that wall? It's air and it's liquid droplets. So it's a run-through hole.
`Do I have six minutes of my 45 minutes left?
`JUDGE KOKOSKI: You're six minutes into your rebuttal time.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01692
`Patent 9,326,548 B2
`
`
`MR. GABRIC: Into my rebuttal time, all right. We've answered
`questions about weight-bearing support. Why don't I run through one other
`thing that I wanted to address briefly. I want to talk about airflow. I'm on
`slide 2 for the others who ar
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
