`
`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 9,121,412 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Oral Hearing Held: July 24, 2017
`____________
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, SCOTT A. DANIELS and
`GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DAVID J. LENDER, ESQUIRE
`ANISH DESAI, ESQUIRE
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP
`1300 Eye Street, NW, Suite 900
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3314
`
`M. ANDREW HOLTMAN, PH.D., ESQUIRE
`JASON E. STACH, ESQUIRE
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20001-4413
`
`MICHAEL J. VALAIK, ESQUIRE
`Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott, LLP
`Courthouse Place
`54 West Hubbard Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, July 24,
`2017, commencing at 1:01 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE JUNG: This is the oral hearing for Case IPR2016-00952,
`between Petitioner General Electric Company and Patent Owner United
`Technologies Corporation. To specify for the record, the Petitioner
`challenges the claims in U.S. Patent number 9,121,412. Starting with
`Counsel for the Petitioner, and followed by Counsel for the Patent Owner,
`please state your names for the record?
`MR. LENDER: Good afternoon. David Lender for the Petitioner,
`GE; and I think I'm going to leave 10 minutes for rebuttal.
`JUDGE JUNG: Thank you.
`MR. VALAIK: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Mike Valaik, Bartlit
`Beck, for the Patent Owner; and I have with me Andy Holtman from
`Finnegan, Henderson.
`JUDGE JUNG: Welcome, Mr. Valaik. As stated in our order, each
`party has 30 minutes of total time to present its position in this case. So,
`with that said, Counsel for Petitioner, you may proceed when you are ready.
`MR. LENDER: Thank you. Good afternoon. The ’412 Patent claims
`a geared turbofan engine with ranges of bypass flow passage pressure ratios
`and N/R ratios. However, nowhere does the patent claim that these ranges
`are particularly critical, or produce some new and unexpected results
`discovered by the patent. In fact, the patent simply states that, "The engine
`may be designed with a particular design pressure ratio," and says it can be
`anywhere between 1.1 and 1.35.
`Similarly, there is nothing novel about an N/R ratio between 8 and 16,
`or between 18 and 28. In fact, UTC disclaimed claim 9 which covers that
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`exact same ratio. So, despite some of the arguments that I'm going to be
`going through today, they know that Davies discloses those claim ranges.
`And our position is that the claims that are at issue are unpatentable based on
`Davies, either because it's anticipated by Davies, or rendered obvious based
`on Davies, and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`Now, there essentially, are three key disputed issues between the
`parties, as pertains to whether Davies invalidates the ’412 Patent. The first
`is whether, as we assert, Davies discloses a solidity of 0.74, and therefore an
`N/R range within the claim range, or whether Davies only disclose a solidity
`of 0.83 which would result in an N/R ratio that's slightly outside the range.
`The second is whether the claim bypass flow passage pressure ratio is
`substantially equivalent to the fan pressure ratio disclosed in Davies, or it
`would be obvious based on Davies. And the third relates to claim 11, which
`is whether a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to increase the tip
`chord dimension and thereby meet the N/R ratio in claim 11.
`So, I'm going to start with the first issue, that's on slide 3. As you can
`see, Davies describes an engine the M45SD-2 with a fan diameter of 5 feet,
`and a blade chord for 14 blades of 10 inches at the tip.
`Slide 4, as Dr. Abhari explained in his declaration, these dimensions
`convert to a solidity value of 0.74 and an N/R ratio of 18.9 both within the
`claimed ranges of the ’412 patent. Now, UTC argues that this disclosure in
`Davies should be ignored because Davies, elsewhere, disclosed a solidity of
`0.83 and you can see that on slide 5.
`However, unlike the section of Davies that we rely upon which
`expressly ties the fan diameter and chord dimensions to the M45SD-02,
`nowhere does Davies tie this 0.83 value to that engine. In fact, the section
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`that leads up to this discussion is called General Design Philosophy, and
`talks about achieving a design pressure ratio of "say, 1.27."
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Mr. Lender, if I can come in here for a second.
`MR. LENDER: Yes.
`JUDGE JUNG: About Davies, your contention is that it’s talking
`
`about one engine, the M45SD. Is that correct?
`MR. LENDER: Oh, no. Actually, Davies discusses multiple engines
`and the one we actually are focused on is the M45SD.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. So it sounds like when I read Davies, it
`introduces several engines in the beginning, and the M45H, for example, is
`an operational engine, and then the M45SD that's kind of in contention,
`that's the demonstrator engine that's developed from the M45H. Is that
`correct?
`MR. LENDER: That's my understanding.
`JUDGE JUNG: So, why would Davies focus on any other engine in
`the following sections? If they are talking about the demonstrator engine,
`why would they take a sidebar and talk about another engine?
`MR. LENDER: Well, in this particular section, what they are doing
`here is -- what they are talking about is the general design philosophy, right?
`JUDGE JUNG: Right.
`MR. LENDER: So, they are making points about solidity, how it ties
`to fan pressure ratio, they are actually tying these values together, but when
`they actually are talking about the M45SD, they actually have a section,
`right, that's right here on the screen. This is the section, on slide number 6,
`where they actually call it engine definition.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`
`So, unlike the section that UTC relies upon, which is the discussion of
`general design philosophy, they make it clear right here, when they are
`talking about the actual engine definition, and here you can see engine
`definition has an inner pressure ratio of 1.18 and an outer tip ratio of 1.27.
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. LENDER: And the reason why this is important is because, as I
`mentioned, you can see that in the design pressure ratio which, for you to
`serialize the part where they say: well, it can be, say 1.27, here, you can see
`when they talk about the actual design structure itself, it says the inner is
`1.18 and the 1.27 is the outer, and that means what we know is based on
`that, the actual design pressure ratio is going to be somewhere between those
`two.
`
`You know, in this case Dr. Abhari talks about a ratio of between 1.21
`and 1.24. And why that's important, is because this confirms how we know
`that the solidity and N/R ratios that we are relying on are the actual ones for
`that engine. The reason why is because Dr. Abhari, undisputed, talks about
`the fact that solidity and fan pressure ratio are interrelated.
`Here is his testimony upon the screen in slide 7. He also relies on GE
`1032, 1030 different exhibits that he cites to. The reason why this is
`important is because Davies, we know, correlates a design pressure ratio of
`1.27 with a solidity value of 0.8 or 0.83, but a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would know that if it's a lower solidity value, it would have a lower
`design pressure ratio, which correlates exactly with what we are saying. It's
`a lower pressure ratio of, say, 1.2 to 1.4 which would correlate with a
`solidity of 0.74, precisely what we were talking about.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. So, another follow-on question about Davies:
`It could also be read that the engine definition is just where the engine
`design starts, and then the following pages are a discussion about where the
`designs should go. So, for example, the discussion about the fan, it's talking
`about how do you go from a non variable pitch fan, such as the M45H to the
`variable pitch fan of the M45SD, so isn't it possible that the later numbers
`are the actual numbers for the M45SD demonstrator engine?
`MR. LENDER: Your Honor, the only place where the disclosure
`makes it clear as to what the diameters are of the M45SD is what we see on
`the screen, which is right here, the outer end of 1.27 and 1.18, and then when
`it talks about the diameter of the fan, and the chord tip length. It actually
`says it right there, it's tied exactly to the M45SD, that's exactly what Dr.
`Abhari relied upon. He relied upon the actual disclosure in the article that
`makes it absolutely clear those dimensions are tied to the M45SD, which is
`the engine we are talking about.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. How do you square deriving at a solidity
`value from the rotor dimensions, with the actual listed solidity values?
`There's a line, for example, page 7 of Exhibit 1005 that says, "The transonic
`blade design was required with a tip solidity 8,” and then following that page
`there is on page -- excuse me -- page 8 of Exhibit 1005, what Davies calls a
`list of the “main features of a chosen design.”
`MR. LENDER: Again, Your Honor, that's what I have on the screen,
`slide 5, this is in the section that follows Section 4, general philosophy, and
`it talks about a design pressure ratio of say 1.27, an approximation. That's
`what they actually put into this chart. And you can see here, they give you
`the root pressure, and the tip pressure, and they are coming with this: say
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`pressure ratio of 1.27. That doesn’t correlate with the actual dimensions that
`they tied to the M45SD, because when they talk about those particular
`dimensions, they give you the diameter, they give you chord tip length, that
`equates to a number.
`And again, if you read Davies as a whole, you have to read the
`disclosure as a whole, as one of ordinary skill in the art would, they would
`only come to the conclusion that, okay, if the design parameters tell you that
`the design pressure ratio was somewhere between 1.21 and 1.27, which is
`what it says, you know it would be lower, that would tie to a lower fan
`pressure ratio, lower than what you see here. So, we think when you read
`the disclosure in its entirety, one would conclude that what it actually says
`are the parameters for the M45SD, are in fact what they are.
`JUDGE JUNG: Are you arguing that Davies required a 0.8, or a 0.83
`solidity, but they are only able to achieve a 0.74?
`MR. LENDER: No. What they are discussing is, they are discussing
`a 0.83 design philosophy, when you tie that -- that 0.83 is tied to the 1.27,
`but nowhere does it say that this information is tied to the engine we are
`talking about. But they absolutely correlate solidity with the pressure issue.
`What we are saying is that if you look at the actual disclosures as it's tied to
`the engine that we are talking about, it gives you different dimensions, and
`when you tie those together, that results in a fan pressure ratio that's lower
`than -- that's in this chart, which correlates with a lower solidity. So that the
`calculated solidity value actually lines up perfectly with the fan pressure
`ratio as calculated by Dr. Abhari.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`
`JUDGE JUNG: I see. Is there any portion that Davies indicates that
`they were trying to achieve a 0.8 solidity but they have to settle for 0.74
`solidity instead?
`MR. LENDER: I'll take another look at Abhari, but I don't believe so,
`I think what it talks about is it's clearly, there's no question that solidity, fan
`and pressure ratio are interrelated factors, there's no dispute here. They
`disclose a general design philosophy in Section 4 that says, you can use, say
`1.27, and talks about what that means, and talks about what the solidity
`values would be when tied to a 1.27.
`But when they talk about the engine design, they are very clear as to
`what the parameters are, and what we are saying is if you calculate that it
`ties in perfectly with a lower solidity value precisely as Dr. Abhari
`calculated it.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. I'd look forward to --
`MR. LENDER: Okay.
`JUDGE JUNG: And just to confirm my understanding of Davies
`because I did not find any statement that said, or seems to indicate that, they
`were trying to achieve 0.8, but ended up with 0.74 instead.
`MR. LENDER: Again, I'll take a look at the break, I'm not aware of
`any, but I will take a look at the break, when I get back up.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. LENDER: Okay. Let me move briefly to the bypass flow
`passage pressure ratio, that's the second issue. And you can see on slide 8,
`this is in the claim language, the propulsor is located at the inlet of the
`bypass flow passage having a pressure ratio that's between 1.1 and 1.35, and
`the only difference between the fan pressure ratio and the bypass flow
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`passage pressure ratio is based on total losses between P4 on the chart which
`is just after the fan exit guide vanes, and then the output of the bypass flow
`passage which is P2.
`So, it's our position that only structures that are located between P4
`and P2 are relevant to any losses or any differential between the fan pressure
`ratios in Davies and the bypass flow passage pressure ratios in the ’412
`Patent.
`JUDGE JUNG: Just to clear up one thing, your petition can be read
`that, as saying that the bypass pressure ratio is the same thing as the bypass
`flow pressure ratio that's described in the ’412 specification. Is that correct?
`MR. LENDER: I think we used a short version of it, but I think we
`are all talking about it, it's the same duct. I mean, it's not really in dispute
`that fan pressure path is like the first part of the duct, and then there's the
`entire duct, but we are talking about the entire duct here, which is a P1 to P2
`on our chart here.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. So, I should understand your petition, when it
`says bypass pressure ratio --
`MR. LENDER: We are talking about --
`JUDGE JUNG: -- that's the first two, the bypass flow passage, the
`first (crosstalk)?
`MR. LENDER: Correct. Yes. Yes. I think in the opening brief we
`used the shortened version, and in the reply we were much -- we used the
`entire phrase but, yes, it's the same thing.
`JUDGE JUNG: And do you agree that the spec defines the bypass
`flow pressure ratios?
`MR. LENDER: I'm sorry?
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Do you agree that the claims and the spec define
`what a bypass flow passage pressure ratio is?
`MR. LENDER: Yes. Yes, we do. Yes, we do. You know, the issue,
`just to jump ahead, but the issue -- one of the main issues that we are having
`is that, okay, where is the inlet measured. We say the inlet is measured at
`the fan or is coterminous with the fan, and they say, well, no, it's actually
`somewhere upstream at the fan nacelle. They are obviously doing that
`because they want to include structures upstream, but everywhere in the
`patent, the spec, the claim, the pictures, they all define the inlet to the fan,
`flow passage pressure ratio as being coterminous with the fan itself.
`Or you can see that here in the patent specification, on slides 12 and
`13, you can see it in the picture of Figure 1, which is on slide 14, you can see
`that the area upstream of the fan is not marked as part of the bypass flow
`passage, it's B, it's all downstream of the fan. Even UTC's own expert, at
`page 16 of its declaration says that the second path B is after the air passes
`the fan.
`So, we think it's pretty clear from the patent, that the inlet they are
`talking about is a point that is coextensive with the fan, not the nacelle,
`which is upstream of the fan. And in fact we can say that nowhere in the
`’412 Patent does it illustrate the fan nacelle, or talk about the fan nacelle, it
`consistently discloses the inlet that's coextensive with the fan case.
`So, therefore, it's our position that structures that are upstream in the
`fan, or for that matter that are downstream of the bypass passage, shouldn’t
`be included. But that's what UTC's expert is trying to rely on to argue that
`they are not substantially equivalent. And just briefly, I'll put up on the
`screen, you can see on slide 16, the expert points to the elongated core cowl,
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`but that's downstream of the bypass flow passage outlet, so it's completely
`irrelevant.
`Similarly, on slide 17, UTC's expert identified a bunch of features that
`are upstream of the fan, so before we get to the fan bypass ratio. So, all
`these things you see on the screen are also completely irrelevant. They also
`point to things as slide 18, the stator vane things, but any pressure losses
`associated with the stator vanes would already be accounted for in the fan
`pressure ratio, and therefore wouldn't account for a difference between the
`fan pressure ratio and the bypass flow passage pressure ratio. Again, the
`only things that would matter are the things that are located between the exit
`of the fan guide vanes, and the output of the bypass flow.
`Now, slide 19, this is the document relied upon by UTC's expert, to
`try to quantity the purported pressure losses. However, the only ones that
`would be relevant here are those associated with the bleeds/leakage or the
`duct/nozzle, that's the stuff that I've highlighted, because everything else
`would fall either before or after the bypass flow that we are concerned about.
`Now, based on this document it shows that the relevant potential
`losses would be less than 7 percent, and because Davies discloses an outer
`pressure ratio of 1.27, the corresponding bypass flow passage ratio based on
`the document that UTC's own expert relies upon, would be 1.18 which falls
`within claim 1 and claim 4 and comes just outside claim 2, but based on our
`obviousness arguments we would say it doesn’t matter. And we'll get to that
`in a minute.
`In fact, even if you included everything that they claim should be
`included, you'd still get to the same place, because the math would still work
`out to be within the ranges of claim 1 and claim 4, and just be right outside
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`of claim 2. So, briefly, let me just talk about our obviousness argument, it
`has been known for years that optimizing to a low fan pressure ratio results
`in improved fuel efficiency as well as reduced noise.
`UTC's expert doesn’t dispute any of that, we took his deposition and
`he agreed with everything that I'm about to say. He admitted that the
`importance of minimizing losses in the bypass flow passage was known
`before the ’412 Patent, that's up on slide 20. In fact, the goal is always to
`minimize pressure losses in the bypass duct to improve propulsor efficiency,
`again, not disputed by UTC's expert. That's at pages 19 and 20 of his
`deposition.
`Also the Institution Decision correctly stated that a low fan pressure
`ratio correlates with the low noise which would provide another reason for a
`person of ordinary skill in the art to have a low fan pressure ratio, and
`therefore a low bypass flow passage pressure ratio; again, not disputed by
`UTC's expert. That's at page 18 of his deposition.
`And in fact, as was pointed out I believe in the Institution Decision,
`Davies, itself says that a quieter engine can be achieved with a high bypass
`ratio and a low fan pressure ratio. Therefore, the optimal engine would have
`the fan pressure ratio be substantially equivalent to the bypass flow passage
`ratio, and a person of ordinary skill would know how to optimize the bypass
`duct to minimize pressure losses.
`There's also nothing critical about the claimed bypass flow passage
`pressure ratio. To the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art would know
`that in selecting a fan pressure ratio, and thereby bypass flow passage
`pressure ratio is just a matter of routine optimization. Dr. Abhari talked
`about that, the Mattingly Book, we cited several things for that. And again,
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`UTC's own expert, at page 47, admitted that for decades engine designers
`have been designing fan pressure ratios for engines.
`Under the case law and the case that we cited was Titanium Metals,
`778 F.2d 775, also the Applied Materials case at 692 F.3d 1289. The
`Federal Circuit says: that disclosures in the prior art that are close to the
`claim ratios can render them obvious where the claim ratios are just the
`outcome of optimization, and there is nothing about the claim ratios that are
`critical or produce a new and unexpected result that is different than what is
`in the prior art.
`So, it's our position that Davies, therefore, either anticipates all the
`claims of the ’412 Patent, or because at least for claim 2 as I mentioned, it's
`slightly outside the range, that it would be obvious to optimize and therefore
`get within that range.
`Just briefly, in my last minute of time, I'll just talk briefly about our
`claim 11. I think I can do this relatively quickly. Davies -- our position
`discloses an N/R ratio -- an N/R of 18.9; claim 11 actually the range is 15 to
`16. It's our position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand that it's routine to adjust the blade chord dimension, to optimize
`the operation of the fan, particularly to improve efficiency and stability.
`Dr. Abhari said that at paragraphs 94 and 95 in his original
`declaration, and relied on the Murphy GE Patent which was issued back in
`1992. The blade tip chord dimension of different sizes was known in the art
`well before the ’412 Patent, which is just a design choice, the same GE
`1021, it talks about blade chord ranges of 8 to 12. And it's our position that
`if you just increase the blade chord line from 10 to 12 you would essentially
`
`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
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`get a solidity of 0.09, an N/R ratio of 15.7, and therefore you would render
`claim 11 obvious.
`Unless there are other questions, I'll sit down and reserve the rest of
`my time for rebuttal. Thank you.
`JUDGE JUNG: Nothing from me at this point.
`MR. VALAIK: Judge, do you need a hard copy of the arguments
`
`also?
`JUDGE JUNG: No. Thank you. But did you provide one for the
`
`Court Reporter?
`MR. VALAIK: I did.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. That's good.
`MR. VALAIK: May I approach, Your Honor?
`JUDGE JUNG: Yes, you may. Yes. Proceed when you are ready,
`Mr. Valaik.
`MR. VALAIK: The next time Your Honors are getting on an airplane
`crossing that jet bridge, look to the right, look into that fan nacelle. And
`when you see one of these modern fan blades, it's really a thing of beauty.
`They have these complex leading edges that you see, and particularly at the
`tip. When you get incoming air, you have at the tip, that fan blade spinning
`supersonically, and of course it abuts, or adjacent to that duct wall.
`You have these confluence of factors, where this is a really important
`area of the blade. And so when we talk today about solidity, and N/R ratios,
`bypass flow passage pressure ratio, let's not lose sight of the forest, if you
`will, while we are down here in the weeds. Because this is a complex
`system in this fan blade operates. And specific parameters for that fan blade
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`which the ’412 Patent claims, are really important to give you a highly
`efficient reliable fan blade.
`So, briefly I just want to review some of those features here in claim 1
`as the Board is familiar. First you have no more than 16 fan blades, we have
`our bypass flow passage pressure ratio, solidity, which the Board is familiar
`with now, and then the N/R ratio, which was actually a brand new concept,
`claimed in the ’412 Patent, and that column 4, lines 9 through 21 of the
`specification that talks about how that enhances propulsive efficiency and
`reduces performance debits. This is Figure 2 of the patent. I think the
`parties agree that the ’412 Patent claims a conventional definition of solidity
`chord over circumferential pitch.
`I now want to move to Davies and solidity, and just join the issue, if
`you will, and that is Petitioner's position is that their 0.74 tip solidity is for
`the M45SD-2, and that 0.83 tip solidity that we talk -- that's got to be for
`some other engine. They don't identify what that engine is, but their position
`has to be -- Davies, to somehow talking about two fans with these different
`tip solidities.
`And so we've highlighted here, on the slide, the cover page of Davies,
`it talks about a fan, while it's talking about its justification for variable pitch:
`the fan. Now, as the Board is familiar, one of the main features of the
`chosen design is the tip solidity of 0.83, it's very clear in Davies, and in fact
`this table that we rely on for the 0.83 tip solidity, is talking about various
`chosen design main features of the fan.
`And if the Board can look at the bottom, I have the clip that comes
`under the table; and that talks about a scale model which I'll come back to
`later. Tip solidity is very important, as Judge, you asked GE's Counsel a
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`question, Davies talks about to keep that shock within the passage. And
`what's shock? Shock is a discontinuity in that pressure flow, that
`importantly results in performance debits, and noise emissions. And Davies
`was focused on noise, it was an altered -- a quiet demonstrator they were
`trying to develop. And so Davies tells you, you need, it is required to have a
`tip solidity of 0.8 to keep the shock within the passage. That's very
`important.
`I want to just very briefly touch on the Institution Decision, because
`the Board had a question there at the bottom of this slide, the last sentence,
`whether 0.83 tip solidity was using the conventional definition, and in fact,
`this is in our Patent Owner response, page 25, from page 5 of Davies, there
`is the conventional definition for solidity, and the Petitioner's expert, in fact,
`agreed that Davies is using the conventional, well-accepted definition.
`Now, I want to address their 0.74 tip solidity, and it's important here
`to get context: where are we in Davies? This is Section 6, “Fan Blade
`Retention.” What does that mean? Well, you have at that tip of the blade,
`it's spinning supersonicly, and so there’s significant centrifugal force down
`near the hub, and so what Davies talks about here, they are going to just
`illustrate the magnitude of the problem, the problem here being centrifugal
`force.
`And GE's expert took these dimensions and they come up with their
`contrived tip solidity of 0.74. How do we know that's wrong? We know
`that's wrong for at least three reasons. First, Davies 0.83 tip solidity stated,
`and it's rather precise, it's in the hundreds.
`Second, these are approximations, and GE in their reply says: no, no,
`no, these aren’t approximations; it's rather clear in Section 6, where they are
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`making approximations. Well, the very sentence I have highlighted says that
`the fan is rotating at 4,000 rpm. No fan rotates exactly at 4,000 rpm, these
`are approximations. And perhaps most importantly, how do we know that
`0.74 is wrong? We come back to that section of Davies which says, 0.8 is
`required to keep the shock in the passage, and if the --
`JUDGE JUNG: Mr. Valaik, just to remind you. Can you describe
`what slide you're on for the benefit of my panel members?
`MR. VALAIK: Yes. I'm on slide 13 right now, and I apologize if I'm
`going too quickly. Yes, this slide 13 citing GE 1005 which is Davies and
`0.7. The shock results in flow separation, and if you think about that, it's
`antithetical the very purpose of Davies, which was this ultra quiet
`demonstrator engine. And I point out for the Board, our expert, Professor
`Konstantinos Mathioudakis -- for which I'll now apologize to the Court
`Reporter for that -- UTC 2015, paragraph 53 as well as paragraph 58, he
`talks about how the person ordinary skill would know that 0.74 is wrong,
`because of Davies' requirement here of 0.8.
`Moving now to slide 14; and we put this in there to give the Board a
`roadmap of GE's tip solidity argument really has been a bit of a moving
`target here. First, in the petition, GE said nothing about the disclosed 0.83
`tip solidity. So now we go into Dr. Abhari's deposition, this is after our
`POPR, and we asked Dr. Abhari what we'll see. He talks about, well, that
`0.83 goes for the scale model, and then finally in GE's reply we get to what
`Mr. Lender was talking about, this design philosophy versus the real engine,
`which we'll talk about as well.
`So, first, I said I'd come back to the scale model reference which
`appears below the table with the 0.83 tip solidity. We asked Dr. Abhari, and
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`he says, yeah, there's really two engines we have here in Davies. He says,
`there's the fan that's used in the engine, and then the fan that's used in the
`scale model. So, he's distinguishing between two things. And that clip at
`the bottom; and this is from UTC 2013, we expressly asked him about the
`0.83, and he says that's for the scale model.
`Well, I'm now on slide 17, paragraph 64 of UTC 2015, Dr.
`Mathioudakis' declaration, and key points, I'll just quite simply, the scale
`model replicates the actual demonstrator fan, that's why you have a scaled
`model down, so that when you run test results with the scale model, you are
`getting results that correlate exactly with your demonstrator engine. We
`pointed this out in GE's reply. They say nothing.
`What I now have on the screen, slide 18. On the left you have
`Petitioner's reply and on the right you have page GE 1005.5 from Davies,
`near the engine definition section that GE's Counsel was relying on. And
`this is interesting, now their theory is, that 0.83 goes with the general design
`philosophy or something, it doesn’t specifically say M45SD-02 therefore it
`doesn’t count, and specifically I've highlighted the sentence from their reply,
`and they say the tip solidity of 0.83 is disclosed in a section of Davies
`describing the general design philosophy for a variable pitch fan.
`Well, Davies itself says the VP fan o
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
