R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANYDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 31, 202014918926 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2020) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/918,926 10/21/2015 Rajesh Sur R60999 11470US.1 (1098.2) 8085 26158 7590 03/31/2020 WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP ATTN: IP DOCKETING P.O. BOX 7037 ATLANTA, GA 30357-0037 EXAMINER JENNISON, BRIAN W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3761 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/31/2020 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): BostonPatents@wbd-us.com IPDocketing@wbd-us.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAJESH SUR and STEPHEN B. SEARS Appeal 2019-005633 Application 14/918,926 Technology Center 3700 Before JILL D. HILL, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. HILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 6–8, 10–12, and 14–16, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 2–5, 9, 13, and 17 have been cancelled. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., a subsidiary of RAI Innovations Company. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-005633 Application 14/918,926 2 BACKGROUND Appellant’s invention relates to a power supply for an aerosol delivery device. Sole independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative: 1. A control body coupleable with a cartridge to form an aerosol delivery device, the cartridge being equipped with a heating element and containing an aerosol precursor composition, the control body being coupleable with the cartridge to form the aerosol delivery device in which the heating element is configured to activate and vaporize components of the aerosol precursor composition, the control body comprising: a power source connected to an electrical load that includes the heating element when the control body is coupled with the cartridge, the power source comprising: a supercapacitor configured to provide power to the electrical load, wherein the supercapacitor is a hybrid capacitor; a DC-to-DC converter connected to the supercapacitor, between the supercapacitor and electrical load; and a snubber circuit connected in parallel with the supercapacitor and thereby forming a parallel combination, the DC-to-DC converter being connected in series with the parallel combination of the snubber circuit and supercapacitor; and a microprocessor configured to operate in an active mode in which the control body is coupled with the cartridge, the microprocessor in the active mode being configured to direct power from the supercapacitor to the heating element to activate and vaporize components of the aerosol precursor composition. Appeal 2019-005633 Application 14/918,926 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Rusan US 7,750,606 B2 July 6, 2010 Fernando US 2009/0230117 A1 Sept. 17, 2009 Lekatsas US 2012/0068626 A1 Mar. 22, 2012 Ampolini US 2014/0270727 A1 Sept. 18, 2014 REJECTION Claims 1, 6–8, 10–12, and 14–162 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Fernando, Ampolini, Rusan, and Lekatsas. Final Act. 2. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Fernando discloses most of the limitations of claim 1 including a control body having a power source containing a supercapacitor, except that that control body is not coupled to a cartridge. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that Ampolini discloses a control body coupled to a cartridge and considers that it would have been obvious to couple the control body of Fernando to a cartridge to vaporize a liquid in the cartridge. Id. at 2–3. The Examiner also finds that Fernando does not disclose a snubber circuit connected in parallel with the supercapacitor and a DC-to-DC converter connected in series with the snubber circuit and supercapacitor. Id. at 3. The Examiner finds that Rusan discloses a snubber circuit connected in parallel with a supercapacitor, and that Lekatsas 2 The Examiner’s inclusion of claims 9, 13, and 17 in the heading of the rejection appears to be a typographical error in that these claims are canceled. See Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-005633 Application 14/918,926 4 discloses a DC-to-DC converter connected in series with a snubber circuit and supercapacitor. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the circuit of Fernando to include a snubber circuit connected in parallel with the supercapacitor to suppress voltage spikes and absorb excess currents, and to include a DC-to-DC converter connected in series with the snubber circuit and supercapacitor to step up or step down the voltage before it reaches the load. Id. Appellant argues, inter alia, that the supercapacitor of Fernando is not a hybrid capacitor. Appeal Br. 4. In response, the Examiner finds that “[t]here are three types of supercapacitors: Electrostatic Double Layer Capacitor (EDLC) which contain a nanoporous material such as carbon nanotubes, Electrochemical pseudocapacitors (EPC) and Hybrid capacitors which are a combination of EDLC and EPC.” Ans. 3 (emphasis added). According to the Examiner, Fernando discloses “an electrochemical double layer capacitor (which qualifies as the EPC as an EPC contains, by definition, an electrochemical double layer), a supercapacitor comprising nanoporous material (EDLC) or a combination of both. Fernando’s disclosure of a combination of both types of capacitor would mean Fernando discloses a hybrid supercapacitor.” Ans. 4 (citing Fernando ¶ 39). The Examiner also finds that Fernando’s “lithium- ion rechargeable battery is also considered a hybrid capacitor.” Id. Appellant responds that the Examiner incorrectly interprets Fernando’s disclosure. Reply Br. 4. According to Appellant, paragraph 39 of Fernando discloses that, for embodiments having two or more supercapacitors, “both of the supercapacitors may be electrochemical double layer supercapacitors, both may be supercapacitors comprising nanoporous Appeal 2019-005633 Application 14/918,926 5 material, or the set of two or more supercapacitors may include some supercapacitors of both types.” Id. Appellant asserts that the term “hybrid supercapacitor” does not encompass a collection of supercapacitors that include one or more EDLC-type supercapacitors and one or more EPC-type supercapacitors; but rather requires that the same capacitor exhibits both electrostatic and electrochemical capacitance, such as Appellant’s disclosed lithium-ion capacitor. Id. at 4–5. As to Fernando’s lithium-ion battery, Appellant contends that “Fernando makes a clear delineation between the use of a lithium-ion battery as a voltage source used in conjunction with the recited supercapacitors - not as a separate type of supercapacitor that could be included in the arrangements of two or more supercapacitors described in Fernando.” Id. at 4. Appellant has the better position. Fernando discloses that “the two or more supercapacitors may include a combination of electrochemical double layer supercapacitors and supercapacitors comprising nanoporous material.” Fernando ¶ 39. Thus, Fernando’s combination may include a first supercapacitor that is an electrochemical double layer supercapacitor and a second supercapacitor comprising nanoporous material, with both types of supercapacitors being in the same circuit. This is further evidenced by Fernando’s disclosure of types of supercapacitors, which include “an electrochemical double layer supercapacitor (referred to as an ‘EDL supercapacitor’)” having a double layer of conducting material with an insulating interface between the two layers, and “a supercapacitor using a nanoporous material instead of the conventional insulating barrier (referred to as a ‘nanoporous supercapacitor’).” Fernando ¶ 53. In an exemplary embodiment, Fernando discloses that “three nanoporous supercapacitors of Appeal 2019-005633 Application 14/918,926 6 1.4 V each are used in each stack. However, these could be replaced by two EDL supercapacitors of 2.5 V each.” Id. ¶ 61. Fernando discloses that different voltages can be used “by varying one or more of: the total number of supercapacitors used, the arrangement of the supercapacitors (either individual or in stacks); the type of supercapacitors; and the supply voltage.” Id. ¶ 68. We agree with Appellant that Fernando’s disclosure of “a combination” does not mean that an electrochemical double layer supercapacitor in the same circuit with a supercapacitor comprising nanoporous material results in a hybrid supercapacitor. See Reply Br. 4. Rather, consistent with the reference upon which the Examiner relies to set forth types of supercapacitors, we agree with Appellant that a “hybrid capacitor” has asymmetric electrodes, with one electrode exhibiting mostly electrostatic capacitance and another electrode exhibiting mostly electrochemical capacitance. See Reply Br. 5; Ans. 4. Fernando does not disclose a hybrid supercapacitor having asymmetric electrodes in which the same capacitor exhibits both electrostatic charge storage and electrochemical charge storage. We also agree with Appellant that Fernando’s lithium-ion battery, is not a “type of supercapacitor that could be included in the arrangements of two or more supercapacitors described in Fernando.” Reply Br. 4. Fernando discloses that a battery as a voltage source can be used in conjunction with supercapacitors. Specifically, Fernando discloses “the power supply comprising: a voltage source, two or more (i.e., at least two) supercapacitors, and appropriate switches between the voltage source and the two or more supercapacitors.” Fernando ¶ 10. In Fernando, “the two or more supercapacitors are connected for charging by the voltage source.” Id. ¶ 41. Appeal 2019-005633 Application 14/918,926 7 Thus, Fernando’s voltage source is similar to Appellant’s “source of energy E” that may be a lithium-ion battery “from which supercapacitor SC may be chargeable.” Spec. 20:20–25; Fig. 7. As such, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in finding that “Fernando teaches a supercapacitor that is a hybrid capacitor.” Reply Br. 3. For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 6–8, 10–12, and 14–16 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, and we do not sustain the rejection of these claims for the same reasons. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 6–8, 10– 12, 14–16 103 Fernando, Ampolini, Rusan, Lekatsas 1, 6–8, 10– 12, 14–16 Overall Outcome: 1, 6–8, 10– 12, 14–16 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation