`Paper No.
`Filed: May 24, 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 IPR2016-00952
`Patent No. 9,121,412
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner submits the following
`
`objections to certain exhibits submitted by Petitioner. Patent Owner’s objections
`
`apply equally to Petitioner’s reliance on these exhibits in any subsequently-filed
`
`documents. These objections are timely, having been served within five business
`
`days of service on Patent Owner. Patent Owner objects to the following exhibits:
`
`GE-1024 U.S. Patent Application No. 2009/0314881 to Sucui et al. (published
`Dec. 24, 2009).
`
`GE-1025 U.S. Patent No. 3,898,799 to Pollert et al. (1975).
`
`GE-1026 W.K. Lord et al., Flow Control Opportunities in Gas Turbine Engines
`(2000).
`
`GE-1027 Dale Rauch, Design Study of an Air Pump and Integral Lift Engine
`ALF-504 Using the Lycoming 502 Core (1972).
`
`GE-1028 U.S. Patent No. 3,820,719 to Clark (1974).
`
`GE-1029 David A. Sagerser et al., Reverse-Thrust Technology for Variable-
`Pitch Fan Propulsion Systems (1978).
`
`GE-1030 R.M. Denning, Variable Pitch Ducted Fans for STOL Transport
`Aircraft (1971).
`
`GE-1031 Deposition Transcript of K. Mathioudakis (April 20, 2017).
`
`GE-1032 N.A. Cumptsy, Compressor Aerodynamics (2004).
`
`GE-1033 Gunter Wilfert, Geared Fan, Aero-Engine Design: From State of the
`Art Turbofans Towards Innovative Architectures (March 3-7, 2008).
`
`GE-1034 Declaration of Reza Abhari Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412
`
`GE-1031
`
`Patent Owner maintains its objections made during the deposition of Dr.
`
`Mathioudakis. Patent Owner’s objections apply equally to Petitioner’s reliance on
`
`the transcript and the exhibits used during the deposition in any subsequently-filed
`
`documents.
`
`GE-1034
`
`Patent Owner objects to GE-1034 under Federal Rule of Evidence (“FRE”)
`
`401-403 as irrelevant and prejudicial, confusing, or a waste of time. Patent Owner
`
`also objects to GE-1034 in its entirety under FRE 702 because opinions contained
`
`therein are conclusory and lack sufficient explanation. The opinions are not based
`
`on sufficient facts or data, and are not the product of reliable principles and
`
`methods reliably applied to the facts of the case. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65. And until
`
`Petitioner provides Dr. Abhari for cross-examination, the entirety of GE-1034 is
`
`inadmissible hearsay.
`
`GE-1026, 1027, 1029, 1030, 1032, and 1033
`Patent Owner objects to GE-1026, 1027, 1029, 1030, 1032, and 1033 under
`
`FRE 901. Petitioner has not submitted evidence to authenticate these exhibits or to
`
`otherwise establish that they are what Petitioner claims them to be.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412
`
`GE-1024-1030, 1032, and 1033
`
`Patent Owner objects to GE-1024-1030, 1032, and 1033 under FRE 401-403
`
`as irrelevant or, in the alternative, prejudicial, confusing, and a waste of time.
`
`Petitioner lists GE-1005, 1006, and 1009 as the prior art at issue and alleges no
`
`other prior art references at issue. (See Petition at 13, “Statutory Grounds for the
`
`Challenges”.) It follows that Petitioner’s Reply cannot contend that GE-1024-
`
`1030, 1032, and 1033 are part of any challenge to the claims or contend that the
`
`claimed subject matter is disclosed anywhere in the exhibits. See 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4); 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(5).
`
`Additionally, to the extent Petitioner relies on any one of GE-1024-1030,
`
`1032, and 1033 for the truth of matters they assert, including, without limitation,
`
`alleged publication or purported publication dates, Patent Owner objects to them as
`
`inadmissible hearsay. FRE 802.
`
`For GE-1024-1026, 1028, 1029, 1032 and 1033, Petitioner’s Reply cites
`
`only small portions of those documents. Petitioner has not demonstrated these
`
`exhibits’ relevance to this proceeding, and even if some portions were deemed
`
`relevant, most of the exhibits are uncited and irrelevant or, in the alternative,
`
`prejudicial, confusing, and a waste of time. FRE 401-403.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412
`
`GE-1024-1034
`
`
`
`Patent Owner objects to each of GE-1034-1041 to the extent Petitioner
`
`attempts to use those exhibits to present or support new arguments beyond the
`
`scope of a permissible reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b).
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /Jeffrey C. Totten/
`Jeffrey C. Totten
`Reg. No. 65,229
`
`Back-Up Counsel for Patent
`Owner
`
`
`
`Dated: May 24, 2017
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing PATENT
`
`OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS was served
`
`electronically on May 24, 2017, on counsel of record for the Petitioner as follows:
`
`Anish Desai
`Brian E. Ferguson
`Christopher Pepe
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`GE.WGM.Service@weil.com
`
`
`By: /Valencia Daniel/
`Valencia Daniel
`Litigation Legal Assistant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 24, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`