`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No.
`Filed: January 27, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00952
`Patent No. 9,121,412
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,121,412
`Case No. IPR2016-00952
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Background ...................................................................................................... 6
`
`III. Claim Construction ........................................................................................14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“solidity” And “wherein . . . said row of propulsor blades has a
`solidity value (R) defined as CD/CP” .................................................15
`
`“pressure ratio . . . with regard to an inlet pressure and an outlet
`pressure of said bypass flow passage” ................................................17
`
`IV. The Prior Art Does Not Anticipate Or Render Obvious The Claimed
`Solidity Values And Ratios Of N/R, Together With All Other Claimed
`Features ..........................................................................................................23
`
`A. Davies Cannot Anticipate Because The Only Solidity Value
`Disclosed By Davies Results In An N/R Ratio Outside Of The
`Claimed Range ....................................................................................24
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Because Davies Uses The Same Conventional Definition
`Of Solidity As The ’412 Patent, Its Stated Solidity Value
`Precludes Anticipation ..............................................................24
`
`Petitioner Improperly Ignores Davies’s Expressly
`Disclosed 0.83 Solidity Value In Favor Of Its Inaccurate
`Derived Value ...........................................................................26
`
`Davies Discloses Only One Fan Design And One
`Solidity Value Of 0.83 For Its Demonstrator Engine ...............31
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Has Presented No Obviousness Argument Based On
`N/R Ratio For Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, And 8 ...........................................33
`
`C. An Ordinary Artisan Would Not Modify Davies To Obtain The
`“N/R ratio . . . between 15 And 16” Required By Claim 11 ...............34
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner Improperly Asserts The Obviousness Of The
`Claimed N/R In Isolation, Without Considering The
`Invention As A Whole ..............................................................35
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`2.
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,121,412
`Case No. IPR2016-00952
`
`Petitioner’s Modification Of Davies Would Render Its
`Demonstrator Engine Inoperable For Its Intended
`Purpose ......................................................................................37
`
`Petitioner Fails To Provide A Reason For Modifying
`Davies To Achieve The Claimed Invention, Or Even A
`Credible Means To Achieve The Claimed Parameter
`Ranges .......................................................................................39
`
`V.
`
`The Prior Art Does Not Anticipate Or Render Obvious The Claimed
`Bypass Flow Passage Pressure Ratios, Together With All Other
`Claimed Features ...........................................................................................44
`
`A. Davies Does Not Anticipate The Claimed Bypass Flow
`Pressure Ratio ......................................................................................44
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, And 8 Are Not Obvious ......................................46
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner Improperly Asserts The Obviousness Of The
`Claimed Bypass Flow Passage Pressure Ratio In
`Isolation, Without Considering The Invention As A
`Whole ........................................................................................46
`
`2. Modifying Davies To Incorporate The Claimed Bypass
`Flow Passage Pressure Ratios Would Not Have Been
`Obvious .....................................................................................47
`
`VI. Conclusion .....................................................................................................67
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,121,412
`Case No. IPR2016-00952
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Federal Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 33, 44
`
`Bayer Pharma AG v. Watson Labs., Inc.,
`183 F. Supp. 3d 538 (D. Del. 2016).................................................................... 40
`
`Cal. Med. Prods., Inc. v. Tecnol Med. Prods., Inc.,
`921 F. Supp. 1219 (D. Del. 1995) ................................................................. 45, 46
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ........................................................................................ 14
`
`Gillette Co. v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.,
`919 F.2d 720 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ................................................................ 36, 37, 47
`
`In re Applied Materials, Inc.,
`692 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 63
`
`In re Gordon,
`733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ................................................................ 38, 39, 44
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 40
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................. 33, 34, 37
`
`In re Shuman,
`361 F.2d 1008 (C.C.P.A. 1966) .................................................................... 52, 61
`
`In re Wertheim,
`541 F.2d 257 (C.C.P.A. 1976) ............................................................................ 63
`
`In re Zletz,
`893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ............................................................................ 14
`
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................. 34, 43, 46
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Janssen Prod., L.P. v. Lupin Ltd.,
`109 F. Supp. 3d 650 (D.N.J. 2010) ..................................................................... 40
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,121,412
`Case No. IPR2016-00952
`
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 40
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 14
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 44
`
`Motorola, Inc. v. Interdigital Tech. Corp.,
`121 F.3d 1461 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 24
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 22
`
`Plas-Pak Indus., Inc. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG,
`600 F. App’x 755 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................... 39, 44
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni,
`158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 22
`
`Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc.,
`550 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................ 4, 35, 46
`
`Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Techs., Inc.,
`607 F.3d 784 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...................................................................... 26, 44
`
`Scientific Plastic Prods., Inc. v. Biotage AB,
`766 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 40
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions
`Kingston Tech. Co. v. Imation Corp.,
`
`IPR2015-00066, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2016) ......................................... 62
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................................ 44
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .............................................................................................. 4, 35, 46
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,121,412
`Case No. IPR2016-00952
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .................................................................................................passim
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ................................................................................................... 14
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,121,412
`Case No. IPR2016-00952
`
`
`The principal focus of U.S. Patent No. 9,121,412 is “identifying and
`
`changing appropriate design factors to reduce losses” in a geared turbofan engine,
`
`which the ’412 patent explains has been a “complex and elusive task.” (’412
`
`patent at 1:14-17, 1:27-31.) To accomplish this task, the ’412 patent details and
`
`claims a specific combination of features that includes the following four
`
`parameters:
`
`a propulsor tip solidity (R) from 0.6 to 0.9;
`
`a number of propulsor blades (N) that is no more than 16;
`
`a ratio of N/R of 8-16 or 18-28; and
`
`a pressure ratio across an engine bypass flow passage of 1.1-1.35.
`
`The novelty of the ’412 patent lies in the unique combination of these design
`
`features, a combination not found in the art of record and not apparent to those of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Davies, the reference at the center of instituted Grounds 1-3, lacks two of
`
`these four parameters. First, using the tip solidity and blade count expressly
`
`disclosed by Davies yields an N/R ratio outside of the claimed range. And second,
`
`Davies does not discuss any pressure ratio across an engine bypass flow passage,
`
`let alone one within the range recited in the ’412 patent’s claims. Petitioner’s
`
`attempts to back-fill Davies’s holes through strained claim constructions,
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,121,412
`Case No. IPR2016-00952
`
`unnecessary and inaccurate calculations, and unsupported assumptions about the
`
`reference should be rejected.
`
`Ground 1, Petitioner’s sole anticipation ground (claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8),
`
`depends on Petitioner’s contention that a person of ordinary skill would have
`
`ignored Davies’s express teachings. According to Petitioner, an ordinary artisan
`
`would have derived a propulsor tip solidity of 0.74 from Davies, despite Davies’s
`
`express disclosure of a different tip solidity. Davies specifically says that, for its
`
`variable-pitch-fan demonstrator engine to work, “a transonic blade design was
`
`required with a tip solidity of .8 to maintain the shock system within the blade
`
`passage.” (GE-1003.007 (emphasis added).) Davies then goes on to specify a 0.83
`
`tip solidity as a “main feature” of its engine design, resulting in an N/R ratio of
`
`16.87, outside of the claimed range.1 Moreover, Patent Owner’s expert has now
`
`demonstrated that other “main features” expressly disclosed by Davies show that
`
`
`1 In the Institution Decision, the Board questioned whether Davies calculated its
`
`0.83 tip solidity value in the same way that the ’412 patent calculates tip solidity,
`
`based on the evidence at the time. (Decision at 10.) In Section IV.A.1, Patent
`
`Owner now shows that Davies expressly uses the same, well-known formula for
`
`calculating solidity as the ’412 patent. Petitioner’s own expert concedes this fact,
`
`and the fact that there is only one conventional definition of solidity.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`U_S_ Patent No. 9,121,412
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00952
`
`Davies’s blade tip solidity could not be 0. 74.
`
`(UTC—2015 111157-60, 62.) A person
`
`of skill would have understood this, and would not have credited the derived 0.74
`
`value nor disregarded Davies’s stated 0.83 value.
`
`Petitioner therefore has failed to demonstrate anticipation of claims 1, 2, 4,
`
`5, 7, and 8. Because Petitioner presents no obviousness arguments addressing N/R
`
`for any of these claims, the claims should be found patentable.
`
`Ground 1 also fails for the additional reason that Davies does not disclose a
`
`bypass flow passage pressure ratio at all, much less one within the ’4l2 patent’s
`
`claimed range. To overcome this gap in Davies, Petitioner argues for a claim
`
`construction that is wholly divorced fiom the specification and claims of the ’412
`
`patent:
`
`Claim Limitation
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`
`bypass flow passage”
`
`. with regard to an inlet “Substantially equivalent to fan pressure
`.
`“pressure ratio .
`pressure and an outlet pressure of said ratio”
`
`Petitioner invites error. Applying the basic canons of claim construction, there is
`
`no way to construe “bypass flow passage” (which contains a fan) to mean the same
`
`thing as “fan.” For this additional reason, Davies cannot anticipate claims 1, 2, 4,
`
`5, 7, and 8.
`
`Grounds 2 and 3, Petitioner’s obviousness grounds, simply assume that
`
`Davies discloses the claimed NR Value, and therefore focus exclusively on
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,121,412
`Case No. IPR2016-00952
`
`whether the claimed bypass flow passage pressure ratio would have been obvious.2
`
`Accordingly, the Board need only reach the obviousness grounds if it finds that
`
`persons of ordinary skill in the art would have derived Petitioner’s 0.74 tip solidity
`
`value as Petitioner has done—which, as explained in Section IV.A, they would not
`
`have.
`
`As an initial matter, Petitioner’s obviousness argument concerning the
`
`claimed bypass flow passage pressure ratio is fatally flawed, addressing only this
`
`feature in isolation and flouting a bedrock principle of obviousness: a claim must
`
`be analyzed as a whole. 35 U.S.C. § 103; see also Sanofi-Synthelabo, 550 F.3d at
`
`1086. But even taking the bypass flow passage pressure ratio feature in isolation
`
`and ignoring the other claim elements, Petitioner still fails to demonstrate its
`
`
`2 The only exception is claim 11. Petitioner acknowledges that Davies does not
`
`disclose the N/R range recited in claim 11, yet contends that it would have been
`
`obvious. Petitioner’s contention, however, is legally flawed. It improperly attacks
`
`the N/R limitation in isolation, rather than the claim as a whole. 35 U.S.C. § 103;
`
`see also Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1086 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`It also fails to address the fact that Petitioner’s proposed modification would render
`
`Davies’s fan unable to provide reverse thrust—a “very attractive” feature of
`
`Davies’s engine design.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,121,412
`Case No. IPR2016-00952
`
`foundational premise: that the claimed “bypass flow passage” pressure ratio is
`
`“substantially equivalent” to Davies’s “fan pressure” ratio. They are not the same
`
`thing to a person of ordinary skill. Indeed, that is why Petitioner cannot argue
`
`“equivalence,” but instead goes to “substantial equivalence,” with no support for
`
`the definition of “substantial.” To establish “substantial equivalence,” Petitioner
`
`ignores all pressure losses occurring within the long inlet of Davies’s bypass flow
`
`passage, and measures pressure at the front of the fan, far downstream of the front
`
`of the bypass flow passage. Petitioner then ignores all pressure losses occurring
`
`between the fan and the end of the bypass flow passage by characterizing Davies’s
`
`passage as a “conventional” one that would have “negligible” pressure losses.
`
`Correctly construed, however, “pressure ratio . . . with regard to an inlet
`
`pressure and an outlet pressure of said bypass flow passage” means the ratio of the
`
`pressure at the inlet of the bypass flow passage to the pressure at the outlet of the
`
`bypass flow passage—thus, the claimed pressure ratio covers not just the fan, but
`
`also all of the structures in the bypass flow passage that could cause pressure
`
`losses, both before and after the fan.
`
`To create its M45SD-02 experimental engine, Davies made many significant
`
`alterations to the bypass flow passage of the M45H-01 engine on which it was
`
`based. A person of ordinary skill would have understood that the long, divergent
`
`inlet duct, large open-nose fan hub, repositioned core flow inlet, compressor
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,121,412
`Case No. IPR2016-00952
`
`diverter valve, thrust reverser outflow duct, converging outlet nozzle, and other
`
`new features that Davies added into its bypass flow passage before and after the
`
`fan would have caused significant losses. Simply put, the fan pressure ratio in
`
`Davies cannot stand as a proxy for the claimed pressure ratio across the bypass
`
`flow passage. Nor would an ordinary artisan have any motivation to adjust
`
`Davies’s bypass flow passage pressure ratio into the claimed range, much less a
`
`reasonable expectation that doing so would not move any of the other claim
`
`elements—including propulsor blade count, propulsor solidity, and N/R—outside
`
`of their claimed ranges.
`
`II. Background
`The invention of the ’412 patent relates to work in support of a Federal
`
`Aviation Administration effort “to accelerate development of environmentally
`
`promising aircraft technologies and sustainable alternative fuels.”
`
` (UTC-
`
`2014.002.) The ’412 patent seeks to improve the propulsive efficiency of gas
`
`turbine engines, and in particular geared turbofan engines. (’412 patent at 1:19-
`
`31.) It explains that propulsive efficiency depends on many different factors,
`
`“such as the design of the engine and the resulting performance debits on the fan.”
`
`(Id. at 1:19-22.) The engine and its fan operate in a dynamic, high-speed
`
`environment. As fast-moving air moves across the fan blades, discontinuities or
`
`shocks can arise “that arise in irreversible propulsive losses.” (Id. at 1:22-25.)
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,121,412
`Case No. IPR2016-00952
`
`This necessitates careful inlet and fan design. (UTC-2015 ¶¶51-53.) But the
`
`structures downstream of the fan also are important, because “physical interaction
`
`between the fan and air causes downstream turbulence and further losses.” (’412
`
`patent at 1:25-27; accord UTC-2015 ¶¶27, 31.) And, as the ’412 patent observes,
`
`“[a]lthough some basic principles behind such losses are understood, identifying
`
`and changing appropriate design factors to reduce such losses for a given engine
`
`architecture has proven to be a complex and elusive task.” (’412 patent at 1:27-
`
`31.)
`
`The solution offered by the ’412 patent reveals insights dependent on a
`
`complex combination of fan and engine parameters. It discloses that, by using this
`
`combination of parameters, each set within specific limits prescribed in the ’412
`
`patent, enhanced propulsive efficiency may be achieved. (Id. at 3:11-15, 4:9-12,
`
`4:17-21.) The parameters and limits include a propulsor tip solidity (R) from 0.6
`
`to 0.9, a number of propulsor blades (N) that is no more than 16, a ratio of N/R of
`
`8-16 or 18-28, and a pressure ratio across an engine bypass flow passage of 1.1-
`
`1.35.3
`
`
`3 The ’412 patent refers to both a “fan” and a “propulsor.” The parties agree that a
`
`fan is a type of propulsor. (See Petition at 16.)
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,121,412
`Case No. IPR2016-00952
`
`Although the Petition addresses these parameters and ranges in isolation, the
`
`invention relates to their combination. Because propulsor or fan tip solidity (R),
`
`the ratio of fan blade count-to-solidity (N/R) and the pressure ratio across the
`
`engine bypass flow passage are of particular contention in this proceeding, we
`
`describe each of these further below in the context of the ’412 patent.
`
`The fan described in the ’412 patent has multiple blades arranged radially
`
`around a rotor. (See id. at Fig. 2.) As shown below, each blade includes a root and
`
`a tip. (Id. at 3:2-5.)
`
`(Id. at Fig. 2.)
`
`The annotated figure above also illustrates fan “solidity,” a well-known term
`
`of art on which the ’412 patent relies. (Id. at 3:24-26; UTC-2015 ¶¶18-20.) Fan
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,121,412
`Case No. IPR2016-00952
`
`solidity numerically expresses how much area the blades sweep through, and is
`
`expressed as the ratio of a fan blade’s chord dimension (“CD” in Fig. 2 above) and
`
`its circumferential pitch (“CP” in Fig. 2 above). (See ’412 patent at Fig. 2, 3:24-
`
`26; UTC-2015 ¶19.) Blade chord is the length that extends between the leading
`
`edge and the trailing edge of a blade. (’412 patent at 3:5-10; UTC-2015 ¶19.)
`
`Circumferential pitch is equivalent to the arc distance between the tips of
`
`neighboring fan blades. (’412 patent at 3:5-10; UTC-2015 ¶19.) The ’412 patent
`
`adopts the conventional definition of solidity as chord dimension divided by
`
`circumferential pitch (CD/CP). (’412 patent at 3:22-25.) Fan solidity may be
`
`measured at any station along the diameter of a fan, but the ’412 patent focuses on
`
`the fan solidity at the tips of the fan blades. (See, e.g., id. at 3:5-10.)
`
`Persons of ordinary skill in the art recognize that fan solidity has a dramatic
`
`impact on the thrust and acoustic performance of turbofan engines. (UTC-2015
`
`¶¶21, 51.) As explained in the declaration of Dr. Kostas Mathioudakis, who has
`
`nearly thirty years of research and teaching experience relating to the performance
`
`and modeling of turbofan engines and other turbomachinery, supersonic fan blades
`
`create shock waves, and a fan’s solidity effects how the fan interacts with these
`
`shock waves. (UTC-2015 ¶¶2-6, 51-53.) Shock waves can be detrimental because
`
`they cause the air moving across the blades to behave in an uncontrolled manner.
`
`(UTC-2015 ¶¶51-53.) Those skilled in the art typically design fan blades to have a
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,121,412
`Case No. IPR2016-00952
`
`fan solidity and other parameters selected to avoid shock-induced air flow
`
`separation. (UTC-2015 ¶¶51-53.)
`
`For fan blades that move at speeds below Mach 1, designers will choose a
`
`precise range of solidity values intended to prevent shock waves from occurring in
`
`areas far away from the blade’s leading edges. (Id.) Once the precise ranges of
`
`solidity are determined, using a fan with solidity outside of those ranges could
`
`cause shock-induced separation or the formation of shock waves in undesired
`
`locations. (UTC-2015 ¶53.) This, in turn, will reduce performance and cause
`
`uncontrolled noise emissions. (Id.) Accordingly, engine designers are careful not
`
`to implement a fan that has a solidity outside of the specified ranges.4 (Id.) The
`
`’412 patent provides a specific range of solidity values for its fan.
`
`The ’412 patent also discloses a new, useful relationship that does not appear
`
`to have been recognized previously by anyone in the field for enhancing propulsive
`
`efficiency, namely, N/R. Specifically, the ’412 patent explains that relating the
`
`
`4 This point is illustrated in Petitioner’s primary reference, Davies, which says of
`
`its fan blade that “a transonic blade design was required with a tip solidity of .8 to
`
`maintain the shock system within the blade passage.” (GE-1003.007; UTC-2015
`
`¶54.)
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,121,412
`Case No. IPR2016-00952
`
`number of blades in the fan (N) with the fan’s solidity (R), in combination with
`
`other features, can enhance efficiency. (’412 patent at 4:9-12, 3:38-4:21.)
`
`As previously noted, however, careful fan design is only part of the recipe
`
`for increasing the propulsive efficiency of a gas turbine engine. Another engine
`
`component having a significant impact on efficiency is the bypass flow passage,
`
`which manages the airflow entering the engine, and contains the fan along with
`
`many other engine components and structures. (UTC-2015 ¶22-25.) The bypass
`
`flow passage is illustrated below.
`
`
`
`(’412 patent at Fig. 1; UTC-2015 ¶22.)
`
`As shown above, a portion of the air entering the engine passes into a core
`
`inlet and moves through one or more compressors. (’412 patent at 2:11-24, Fig. 1.)
`
`There, it is pressurized before entering a combustor that mixes fuel with the
`
`pressurized air and ignites it. (Id.) The combustion gases leaving the combustor
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,121,412
`
`Case No. IPR20 1 6-00952
`
`then drive one or more turbines, which in turn power the fan and compressors-
`
`(Id-)
`
`Most of the air that enters an engine flows through the bypass flow passage
`
`(illustrated in blue above), Where the fan generates most of the engine’s thrust by
`
`forcing the air through a carefully tailored duct. (UTC-2015 1122-25, 27; see also,
`
`e.g., ’412 patent at Fig. 1, 3:32-36.) Depending on design requirements, bypass
`
`flow passages can be short, like the one illustrated in Figure 1 above, or they can
`
`be elongated,
`
`like the one shown below, from Petitioner’s primary reference,
`
`Davies:
`
`Bypass Flow
`
`Core Flow
`
`(GE-1005.019; UTC-2015 1179.)
`
`The pressure difference across the bypass flow passage is an important
`
`design consideration.
`
`(UTC-2015 111127-30.)
`
`It is influenced by the design and
`
`operation of the fan, as well as by the geometry and contents of the bypass flow
`
`passage itself. (UTC-2015 111123-25, 27-32.) For example, increasing or decreasing
`
`the outer diameter of the bypass flow passage can have a significant effect on
`
`12
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,121,412
`Case No. IPR2016-00952
`
`pressure. (UTC-2015 ¶25.) Indeed, the inlet of the bypass flow passage typically
`
`is designed to decrease the speed and pressure of the incoming airflow, and direct
`
`it properly in advance of the fan section. (UTC-2015 ¶¶90-91.)
`
`In addition, the air flowing through the bypass flow passage interacts with
`
`many different components and structures, resulting in pressure losses across the
`
`length of the bypass flow passage. (UTC-2015 ¶¶23-25.) Structures in the bypass
`
`flow passage, in addition to the inner and outer walls of the passage itself, typically
`
`include fan blades: a fan hub holding the blades of the fan, fan exit guide vanes, a
`
`core flowpath inlet, an exhaust duct and nozzle, pylon mounting structures, air
`
`bleed or exhaust ports, heat exchangers, noise suppression structures, measurement
`
`ports and sensors, and discontinuities between portions of the duct and its
`
`components that cause air leakage in the passage, among other things. (See UTC-
`
`2007.006, Fig. 10; GE-1013.006-.007; UTC-2015 ¶¶23-25.) The impacts on
`
`pressure losses and the engine’s thrust from these structures in the bypass flow
`
`passage can be substantial and difficult to predict. (See UTC-2015 ¶23-24, 43;
`
`UTC-2007.006, Fig. 10 (disclosing thrust losses between 10% and 12%).)
`
`Highlighting the importance of the bypass flow passage, the ’412 patent
`
`prescribes a specific range of permissible pressure changes across the bypass flow
`
`passage, in combination with its other claimed parameters. (’412 patent at 3:27-
`
`32.) This bypass flow passage pressure ratio takes into account not only the
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,121,412
`Case No. IPR2016-00952
`
`pressure increase across the fan section, but also the pressure losses and all other
`
`pressure changes occurring within the inlet section and the outlet section of the
`
`bypass flow passage.
`
`III. Claim Construction
`In inter partes review, the Board gives claims their “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed
`
`Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016). But in applying the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation standard, the words of the claim must be given their plain
`
`meaning consistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1989). The Board may not “construe claims during IPR so broadly that
`
`its constructions are unreasonable under general claim construction principles.”
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(emphasis in original). The specification of the ’412 patent is of particular
`
`importance to claim construction in this proceeding because it clearly defines
`
`central claim elements, namely, “solidity” and “wherein . . . said row of propulsor
`
`blades has a solidity value (R) defined as CD/CP,” as well as the “pressure
`
`ratio . . . with regard to an inlet pressure and an outlet pressure of said bypass flow
`
`passage.”
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`U_S_ Patent No. 9,121,412
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00952
`
`A.
`
`“solidity” And “wherein . . . said row of propulsor blades has a
`solidity value (R) defined as CD/CP”
`
` Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`Petitioncr’s Construction
`
`Ordinary meaning,
`
`synonymous with “The ratio of the chord dimension (CD)
`
`the ratio CD/CP, taken at the tips of the to the circumferential pitch (CP)
`
`is
`
`propulsor blades
`
`known in the art as solidity-”
`
`The
`
`’412 patent
`
`specification defines
`
`solidity consistent with that
`
`conventional definition: “The solidity value is defined as a ratio (R) of CD/CP (i. e.,
`
`CD divided by CP).” (’412 patent at 3:24-26.) Separately, the ’412 patent details
`
`that CD is “a length that extends between the leading edge and trailing edge at the
`
`tip,” conventionally known as chord dimension, and CP is “circumferential pitch
`
`(CP) that
`
`is equivalent
`
`to the arc distance between the tips of neighboring
`
`propulsor blades.” (See id. at 429-21.)
`
`A person of ordinary skill would recognize that the ’412 patent specification
`
`uses the conventional definition for fan solidity-
`
`(UTC-2015 1[1]19-21; see also
`
`UTC—2020.003 (defining solidity at “C/s, where s is the blade spacing, or pitch,
`
`and C is the chord”); GE-l002.096—.097 (Office Action asserting that chord and
`
`pitch dimensions are inherent in reported solidity value)_) Petitioner offers no
`
`alternative definition. Both technical experts agree that the ratio of chord length to
`
`circumferential pitch (CD/CP) is the common definition of the term, as used in the
`
`art.
`
`(UTC-2013 at 1827-25 (testifying that
`
`there was “no issue” and “no
`
`15
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,121,412
`Case No. IPR2016-00952
`
`ambiguity” with respect to the definition of solidity); UTC-2015 ¶19.) And there
`
`is no dispute that the ’412 patent describes and claims a solidity value measured at
`
`the tips of the fan blades. (GE-1001 at 4:56-59; Petition at 9; GE-1003 at ¶ 38;
`
`UTC-2015 ¶20; UTC-2013 at 133:5-134:4.)
`
`Even the challenged claims of the ’412 patent recite the same conventional
`
`definition for calculating solidity at the blade tips:
`
`[W]herein each of said propulsor blades extends radially
`between a root and a tip and in a chord direction between
`a leading edge and a trailing edge at the tip to define a
`chord dimension (CD), said row of propulsor blades
`defining a circumferential pitch (CP) with regard to said
`tips, wherein said row of propulsor blades has a solidity
`value (R) defined as CD/CP that is between 0.6 and 0.9,
`and a ratio of N/R is between 8 and 16 or between 18 and
`28.
`
`(’412 patent at 4:54-62.) Again, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Abhari, agrees that tip
`
`solidity “would be the c[h]ord length at the tip, divided by the blade pitch at the
`
`tip.” (UTC-2013 at 133:5-134:4; see ’412 patent at 18:7-25.)
`
`In sum, the ’412 patent expressly adopts and claims the conventional, well-
`
`accepted definition of fan solidity, and applies that definition at the tips of the
`
`propulsor blades. Petitioner agrees with the conventional definition, that this
`
`definition should apply for purposes of the Petition, and that “[s]olidity is a well-
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`U_S_ Patent No. 9,121,412
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00952
`
`known design parameter that characterizes how much area the blades sweep
`
`through.” (Petition at 8-9.)
`
`Accordingly,
`
`the Board should define “solidity” as having its ordinary
`
`meaning, synonymous with the ratio CD/CP, and “wherein... said row of
`
`propulsor blades has a solidity value (R) defined as CD/CP” as meaning solidity at
`
`the tips of the propulsor blades.
`
`B.
`
`“pressure ratio . . . with regard to an inlet pressure and an
`outlet pressure of said bypass flow passage”
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`
`The ratio of the pressure at the inlet of Substantially equivalent to fan pressure
`
`the bypass flow passage to the pressure ratio
`
`at the outlet of the bypass flow passage
`
`Claim 1 expressly recites “a pressure ratio that is between 1.1 and 1.35 with
`
`regard to an inlet pressure and an outlet pressure of said bypass flow passage.”5
`
`5 Consistent with this terminology, Patent Owner