R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 31, 2020

14918926 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2020)

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