Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 36
` Entered: October 26, 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 9,121,412 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 36
` Entered: October 26, 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 9,121,412 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`General Electric Company (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1,
`“Pet.”), requesting institution of an inter partes review of claims 1–5 and 7–
`11 of U.S. Patent No. 9,121,412 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’412 patent”). United
`Technologies Corporation (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary
`Response (Paper 7, “Prelim. Resp.”) and a Disclaimer in Patent Under 37
`C.F.R. § 1.321(a) (Ex. 2008) that disclaimed claims 9 and 10. Upon
`considering these submissions, we instituted inter partes review of claims 1,
`2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 11 of the ’412 patent. Paper 9 (“Dec. on Inst.”).
`After institution, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 15, “PO
`Resp.”), to which Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 21, “Pet. Reply”).
`Petitioner proffered a Declaration of Reza Abhari, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003, “Abhari
`Declaration” or “Abhari Decl.”) with its Petition and a Reply Declaration of
`Dr. Abhari (Ex. 1034, “Abhari Reply Decl.”). Patent Owner proffered a
`Declaration of Dr. K. Mathioudakis (Ex. 2015, “Mathioudakis Declaration”
`or “Mathioudakis Decl.”). Also, deposition transcripts were filed for Dr.
`Abhari (Ex. 2013) and Dr. Mathioudakis (Ex. 1031).
`An oral hearing in this proceeding was held on July 24, 2017; a
`transcript of the hearing is included in the record (Paper 35, “Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claim 11 of the ’412 patent is
`unpatentable. We further determine that Petitioner has not shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 of the
`’412 patent are unpatentable.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`
`A. Grounds of Unpatentability at Issue
`We instituted inter partes review on the grounds that
`(1) claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), are
`anticipated by Davies1;
`(2) claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 11, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, are
`unpatentable over Davies in view of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill
`in the art; and
`(3) claim 5, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is unpatentable over Davies in
`view of Middleton2. Dec. on Inst. 14, 15, 18, 20, 24.
`B. Related Proceedings
`The parties indicate that there are no related proceedings involving the
`’412 patent. Pet. 1; Paper 5, 1.
`C. The ’412 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’412 patent relates to “an engine having a geared turbo fan
`architecture that is designed to efficiently operate with a high bypass ratio
`and a low pressure ratio.” Ex. 1001, 1:14–17. Figure 1 of the ’412 patent is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`1 D. G. M. Davies and D. C. Miller, A Variable Pitch Fan for an Ultra Quiet
`Demonstrator Engine, Proc. 1976 Spring Convention Seeds for Success in
`Civil Aircraft Design in the Next Two Decades (1976) (Ex. 1005).
`2 Peter Middleton, 614: VFW’s Jet Feederliner, 100 Flight International 725
`(1971) (Ex. 1006).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a schematic cross-section of a gas turbine engine. Id. at
`2:4. Gas turbine engine 20 includes fan section 22, compressor section 24,
`combustor section 26, and turbine section 28. Id. at 2:11–14. Fan section 22
`drives air along bypass flow passage B, and compressor section 24 drives air
`along core flow passage C. Id. at 2:18–21. Low speed spool 30 includes
`inner shaft 40 that is coupled to propulsor 42, low pressure compressor 44,
`and low pressure turbine 46. Id. at 2:28–30. Low pressure turbine 46 drives
`propulsor 42 through gear assembly 48, which allows low speed spool 30 to
`drive propulsor 42 at a different speed. Id. at 2:31–34.
`Gas turbine engine 20 defines a design pressure ratio with regard to an
`inlet pressure at inlet 60 and an outlet pressure at outlet 62 of the bypass
`flow passage B. Id. at 2:51–55. The design pressure ratio can be between
`1.1 and 1.35. Id. at 3:28–30.
`Figure 2 of the ’412 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 2 is a perspective view of a fan section. Id. at 2:5–6.
`Propulsor 42 includes rotor 70 having row 72 of blades 74 that extend from
`hub 76. Id. at 2:66–3:2. Blades 74 have root 78, tip 80, leading edge 82,
`and trailing edge 84. Id. at 3:2–5. In the embodiment of Figure 2, the
`number (“N”) of blades 74 is 10–16. Id. at 3:16–21.
`Also, a chord dimension (“CD”) is the length between leading edge 82
`and trailing edge 84 at tip 80 (id. at 3:5–7), and a circumferential pitch
`(“CP”) is equivalent to the arc distance between tips 80 of neighboring
`blades 74 (id. at 3:7–10). According to the ’412 patent, a “solidity value is
`defined as a ratio (R) of CD/CP (i.e., CD divided by CP).” Id. at 3:22–25.
`The solidity value can be between 0.6 and 1.1. Id. at 3:25–26. Propulsor 42
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`also can be described in part by calculation of a ratio of N/R (id. at 3:37)
`between 8 and 28 (id. at 3:37–38).
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 11 of the ’412 patent are at issue. Claim 11
`depends from independent claim 9, which has been disclaimed. Ex. 2008.
`Thus, of the claims at issue, claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole
`independent claim.
`A gas turbine engine comprising:
`1.
`a spool;
`a turbine coupled to drive the spool;
`a propulsor coupled to be driven by said turbine through
`said spool;
`a gear assembly coupled between said propulsor and said
`spool such that rotation of said spool drives said propulsor at a
`different speed than said spool,
`wherein said propulsor includes a hub and a row of
`propulsor blades that extend from said hub, and said row includes
`a number (N) of said propulsor blades that is no more than 16,
`and the propulsor is located at an inlet of a bypass flow passage
`having 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;
`wherein 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.
`
`Ex. 1001, 4:39–62.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`II.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016)
`(upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard).
`In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted “spool” to refer to at
`least a shaft. Dec. on Inst. 8. Neither party presents post-institution
`arguments or evidence regarding the term “spool.” See PO Resp. 14–23;
`Pet. Reply 9–11. Thus, based on our review of the complete record, we do
`not perceive any reason or evidence that compels any deviation from our
`prior interpretation of “spool.”
`Patent Owner proposes interpreting (1) “solidity,” (2) “wherein said
`row of propulsor blades has a solidity value (R) defined as CD/CP,” and
`(3) “pressure ratio . . . with regard to an inlet pressure and an outlet pressure
`of said bypass flow passage.” PO Resp. 14–23. Petitioner replies to Patent
`Owner’s proposed interpretation of “a bypass flow passage having 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.” Pet. Reply 9–11.
`For purposes of this Decision, we need only analyze “solidity value
`(R)” which appears in the phrase “wherein said row of propulsor blades has
`a solidity value (R) defined as CD/CP,” recited by claim 1. See Vivid
`Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
`(Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent
`necessary to resolve the controversy).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`
`A. “solidity value (R)” (claim 1)
`
`Petitioner does not propose an interpretation of “solidity value” or
`“wherein said row of propulsor blades has a solidity value (R) defined as
`CD/CP.” See Pet. 15–20. Petitioner, however, states that “[s]olidity is
`defined in the claims as the chord dimension at the tip of the blade (CD)
`divided by the circumferential pitch at the tip of the blades (CP)” (id. at 3 n.1
`(citing Abhari Decl. ¶ 38)), that “ratio of the chord dimension (CD) to the
`circumferential pitch (CP) is known in the art as solidity” (id. at 8 (citing
`Abhari Decl. ¶ 38)), and that “[s]olidity is a well-known design parameter
`that characterizes how much area the blades sweep through” (id. at 9 (citing
`Abhari Decl. ¶ 39)).
`Patent Owner proposes giving “solidity” and “wherein said row of
`propulsor blades has a solidity value (R) defined as CD/CP” an “[o]rdinary
`meaning, synonymous with the ratio CD/CP, taken at the tips of the
`propulsor blades.” PO Resp. 15. Patent Owner contends that the
`specification of the ’412 patent “clearly defines . . . ‘solidity.’” Id. (citing
`Ex. 1001, 3:24–26, 4:9–21). Patent Owner also argues that one of ordinary
`skill in the art would understand that the specification “uses the conventional
`definition of fan solidity.” Id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 1002, 96–97; Ex. 2013,
`18:7–25; Mathioudakis Decl. ¶¶ 19–21; Ex. 2020, 3). Patent Owner further
`points to the language of claim 1. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 4:54–62).
`Claim 1 recites “wherein said row of propulsor blades has a solidity
`value (R) defined as CD/CP that is between 0.6 and 0.9.” Ex. 1001, 4:59–
`60. Similarly, now disclaimed independent claim 9 recites “wherein said
`row of propulsor blades has a solidity value (R) defined as CD/CP.” Id. at
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`6:9–10. Thus, according to the claims, “solidity value (R)” is defined as
`“CD/CP,” or chord dimension CD divided by circumferential pitch CP.
`Also, as pointed out by Patent Owner (PO Resp. 15), the specification
`of the ’412 patent states that the “solidity value is defined as a ratio (R) of
`CD/CP (i.e., CD divided by CP).” Ex. 1001, 3:24–25; see also
`Mathioudakis Decl. ¶ 19 (Patent Owner’s declarant testifying that the ’412
`patent defines solidity as the ratio of CD and CP). Patent Owner also quotes
`a portion of the specification that describes chord dimension CD as the
`“length that extends between the leading edge 82 and the trailing edge 84 at
`the tip” (Ex. 1001, 3:5–7) and circumferential pitch CP as “equivalent to the
`arc distance between the tips 80 of neighboring propulsor blades” (id. at 3:8–
`10). PO Resp. 15. In view of these portions of the specification, we find
`that the ’412 patent provides a clear, deliberate, and precise definition of
`“solidity value.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Any
`special definitions for claim terms or phrases must be set forth with
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision). Also, as discussed above,
`claim 1 similarly relates “solidity value” to “CD/CP.” Compare Ex. 1001,
`4:59–60 with id. at 3:24–25.
`Patent Owner relies on the prosecution history of the ’412 patent to
`argue that “chord and pitch dimensions are inherent in reported solidity
`value.” PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 1002, 96–97). The cited portion of the
`prosecution history is a Final Office Action, in which the Examiner states
`that CD, CP, and solidity are parameters “inherent in all turbofan blades”
`because “all fan blades have chords as claimed and all fan blades have a
`circumferential spread of the blade tips.” Ex. 1002, 96–97. The Examiner’s
`statements in the cited portion of the prosecution history do not indicate
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`clearly that chord and pitch dimensions are inherent in solidity, as argued by
`Patent Owner. The cited portion of the prosecution history, however,
`indicates that the Examiner must have applied a definition of “solidity
`value” that is the same as in the claims at issue in this proceeding. See id.
`That same definition appears in the then-rejected claims, and the Examiner
`stated “all fan blades have a circumferential spread of the blade tips.” See
`id. The prosecution history, thus, indicates the claimed definition was
`applied to the blade tips.
`Further, based on the full record, we agree with Patent Owner that
`“there is no dispute that the ’412 patent describes and claims a solidity value
`measured at the tips of the fan blades.” PO Resp. 16 (citing Pet. 9; Ex. 1001,
`4:56–59; Abhari Decl. ¶ 38; Ex. 2013, 133:5–134:4; Mathioudakis Decl. ¶
`20). For example, Petitioner states that the “[’]412 [p]atent describes and
`claims a solidity value as measured at the tip of the fan blade.” Pet. 9 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 4:56–59).
`Additionally, we find that both parties’ declarants agree that “solidity”
`as used in the ’412 patent corresponds to its well-known conventional
`definition. See Abhari Decl. ¶ 38 (testifying that the “ratio of the chord
`dimension (CD) to the circumferential pitch (CP) is known in the art as
`solidity”), ¶ 39 (stating “[s]olidity is a known design parameter that
`characterizes how much area the blades sweep through”); Ex. 2013, 18:7–25
`(Dr. Abhari testifying that solidity is “generally understood” in his field);
`Mathioudakis Decl. ¶ 19 (testifying solidity is “well-known in the art and
`there is only one commonly accepted way of calculating solidity”). We
`agree with both parties’ testimonial evidence that “solidity” corresponds to
`its well-known conventional definition. That same evidence regarding
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`“solidity” provides no reason for interpreting “solidity value” in a manner
`deviating from its definition in the claims and the specification.
`In view of the above, we interpret “solidity value (R)” as CD/CP
`where CD or chord dimension is the length that extends between the leading
`edge and the trailing edge at the tip, and CP or circumferential pitch is
`equivalent to the arc distance between tips of neighboring blades. Ex. 1001,
`3:5–10.
`
`III. ANTICIPATION CHALLENGE
`To prevail in its anticipation challenge based on Davies, Petitioner
`must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See 35
`U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). In finding a claim anticipated, “[t]he
`identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the
`patent claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed.
`Cir. 1989), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by Robert Bosch LLC
`v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., 659 F.3d 1142, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Moreover, “[a]
`claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is
`found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
`reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631
`(Fed. Cir. 1987).
`A. Anticipation of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 by Davies
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are anticipated by
`Davies (Ex. 1005), with citations to its disclosure, a claim chart, and the
`Abhari Declaration. Pet. 20–33. Patent Owner responds with citations to
`Davies and its Mathioudakis Declaration. PO Resp. 23–33, 44–46.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`
`1. Davies (Ex. 1005)
`Davies is titled “A Variable Pitch Fan for an Ultra Quiet
`Demonstrator Engine.” Ex. 1005, 33. It describes “a need for a new quiet
`aircraft” that “may be achieved with cycles of high by-pass ratio and low fan
`pressure ratio.” Id. According to Davies, a variable pitch fan has the
`advantage of flexibility of control. Id. Davies goes on to list many other
`advantages of a variable pitch fan. Id. at 4.
`Davies describes the variable pitch fan of a “demonstrator engine,
`called M45SD-02, its design philosophy both aerodynamic and mechanical,
`its construction, . . . and some early test results from the engine running.”
`Id. at 5. In a section titled “Engine Definition,” Davies states that the “basis
`of the demonstrator engine is the M45H-01,” which was altered to
`incorporate the variable pitch fan. Id. Figure 1 of Davies is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`Figure 1 shows the “general arrangement of the M45SD-02 engine.”
`Id. at 5, 19. The M45SD-02 has a “Fan Outer P.R.” of 1.27 and a “Fan Inner
`
`
`3 Citations to Davies are to the exhibit page numbers in the lower right
`corner of each page.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`P.R.” of 1.18. Id. at 5. Davies states that the “precise choice of pressure
`ratio . . . is not particularly important.” Id.
`In a section titled “Outline of Fan Blade Design Philosophy,” Davies
`states that variable pitch fans “proposed and constructed to date . . . have all
`been based on an aerodynamic design philosophy which has followed the
`state-of-the-art of fixed pitch fans in general” and that variable pitch fans
`have “several further geometric constraints.” Id. at 6. Davies describes that
`the “requirement of reverse thrust via fine pitch implies that the blade
`solidity must be less than unity” and “[i]n order to achieve a design pressure
`ratio of say 1.27:1 . . . , a transonic blade design was required with a tip
`solidity of .8.” Id. at 7. Davies then “lists the main features of the chosen
`design which emerged from the above.” Id. Some of the main features are a
`“Tip Speed” of “1027 ft/sec,” a “Pressure Ratio Tip” of “1.36:1,” a
`“Pressure Ratio Root” of “1.18:1,” and a “Solidity Tip” of “0.83.” Id. at 8.
`After listing the main features, Davies states that the “test results of a 0.35
`scale model are discussed later.” Id.
`In a later section titled “Fan Blade Retention,” Davies states “[h]aving
`established the blade geometry and its speed of rotation, in the manner
`described above, the blade weight and the centrifugal force . . . can be
`computed.” Id. at 9. Davies also states “[t]o illustrate the magnitude of the
`[fan blade retention] problem, the M45SD-02 [variable pitch] fan diameter is
`5 ft. (1.5 m),” and the “blade chord for 14 aluminum blades ranges from 6
`in. (15 cm) at the hub to 10 in. (25 cm) at the tip.” Id. Figure 9 of Davies is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 9 shows the “complete V.P. fan assembly.” Id. at 13, 20.
`Davies describes the hub structure, the pitch change mechanism, the pitch
`control, rig testing of a model fan, the demonstrator engine, and
`demonstrator engine testing. Id. at 11–16.
`2. Independent Claim 1
`Petitioner contends that Davies discloses each of the elements of
`claim 1. Pet. 22–30 (citing Abhari Decl. ¶¶ 66, 71–77, 80–82; Ex. 1005 at 4,
`5, 9, 19, Fig. 1). In particular, for “a ratio of N/R is between 8 and 16 or
`between 8 and 28,” Petitioner states that “Davies discloses that the M45SD-
`02 has a fan section having a fan diameter of 5 feet and including 14 blades,
`with each blade having a chord dimension (CD) at the tip of 10 inches.” Id.
`at 29–30 (citing Abhari Decl. ¶ 80; Ex. 1005 at 9). Petitioner uses that fan
`configuration to argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`that Davies discloses “a solidity value . . . that is equal to 0.74” and thus, “a
`ratio of N/R that is equal to 18.9.” Id. at 29–30 (citing Abhari Decl. ¶¶ 81–
`82); see also id. at 39 (stating, in connection with claim 11, that “Davies
`does not disclose a ratio of N/R between 15 and 16”).
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner responds that “Davies expressly discloses a value for
`fan tip solidity of 0.83,” that is “one of the ‘main features’ of Davies’s
`developmental engine.” PO Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 1005, 7–8). Patent Owner
`contends that, in Davies, the expressly disclosed solidity value of 0.83 and
`stated blade count of 14 results in an N/R value of 16.87 that is outside of
`the range for N/R recited by claim 1. Id. (citing Mathioudakis Decl. ¶ 56).
`Patent Owner argues that Davies uses the same conventional
`definition of solidity that is used in the ’412 patent. Id. at 24–26 (citing Ex.
`1005, 7; Ex. 2013, 133:5–134:4; Mathioudakis Decl. ¶¶ 19, 55, 68; Ex.
`2020, 3). Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner does not address the
`expressly disclosed solidity value of 0.83 and does not address Davies’s
`statement that “a transonic blade design was required with a tip solidity of .8
`to maintain the shock system within the blade passage.” Id. at 26–27 (citing
`Abhari Decl., 7; Ex. 2013, 135:10–16). Patent Owner further argues that
`Davies states that “high solidity tip sections . . . reduce shock losses” and
`that tip solidity is an “important consideration for the fan designer to
`maintain stability and a proper shock structure.” Id. at 28 (citing Ex. 1005,
`6; Mathioudakis Decl. ¶¶ 51–54, 58).
`Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill “would not have
`derived a new solidity value as Petitioner does, whether as a replacement for
`Davies’s expressly stated 0.83 value, or as an alternative to it”; “would have
`given weight to Davies’s statement that the 0.83 tip solidity value as one of
`several ‘main features’”; and “would view Davies’s report of the tip solidity
`value in hundredths as an indication of the precision and importance of the
`stated value.” Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 1005, 7–8; Mathioudakis Decl. ¶¶ 54, 62,
`69). Patent Owner also asserts that Petitioner’s derived solidity value of
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`0.74 “is substantially less than Davies’s ‘required’ tip solidity of 0.8” and
`“could result in spilling the shock over the tips of the blades,” instability,
`uncontrolled airflow separation, reduced engine performance, potentially
`unsafe operating conditions, and increased noise. Id. at 27–28 (citing Ex.
`1005, 7; Mathioudakis Decl. ¶¶ 51–54, 57–58).
`Patent Owner further asserts that Petitioner’s solidity value is derived
`from a section of Davies addressing “Fan Blade Retention,” not fan tip
`solidity, and that section provides fan diameter and tip chord values “‘to
`illustrate the magnitude of the problem’ of retaining the blades” and
`“contains approximations unsuitable for accurately calculating solidity.” Id.
`at 28–30 (citing Ex. 1005, 9–10; Mathioudakis Decl. ¶¶ 55, 57, 68–70).
`Patent Owner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art could calculate
`solidity from a hub chord value in the same section but the calculated value
`would also be different from the 0.83 identified “as a ‘main feature’ of its
`design,” thereby confirming the Fan Blade Retention section contains
`inaccurate numbers. Id. at 30–31 (citing Mathioudakis Decl. ¶¶ 59–60).
`Patent Owner also responds that Davies discloses a single fan design
`with a solidity value of 0.83 that is not limited to a scale model. Id. at 31–32
`(citing Ex. 1005, 8, 9; Ex. 2013, 136:25–137:7, 137:16–18; Mathioudakis
`Decl. ¶¶ 57, 61–66, 69), 33 (citing Mathioudakis Decl. ¶¶ 55, 62, 65, 66).
`According to Patent Owner, a “person of ordinary skill would know that this
`scale model would have the same solidity as the full-size fan” and “it is
`‘standard practice’ to test a scale model with geometric parameters identical
`to the corresponding full-scale engine.” Id. at 32–33 (citing Ex. 1005, 13–
`14; Mathioudakis Decl. ¶¶ 64, 67).
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`
`Petitioner replies that the “0.83 solidity value is disclosed in a general
`design philosophy section for a fan having a design pressure ratio of 1.27”
`and “is not correlated with the M45SD-02 fan.” Pet. Reply 2; see also id. at
`4 (citing Ex. 1005, 6, 7; Abhari Reply Decl. ¶ 8). Petitioner contends that
`one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the “M45SD-02 fan has a
`design pressure ratio of less than 1.27 and a tip solidity of 0.74 based on the
`fan blade dimensions disclosed in Davies.” Id. at 2; see also id. at 3–4
`(citing Pet. 29–30; PO Resp. 24, 26–31; Abhari Decl. ¶¶ 80–82; Ex. 1005,
`9).
`
`In particular, Petitioner argues that a table that lists a “design pressure
`ratio of 1.27 with tip and root pressure ratios of 1.36 and 1.18, respectively,
`and a tip solidity of 0.83” is “not labeled as data for the M45SD-02.” Id. at
`4. Petitioner also argues that the M45SD-02 does not have a design pressure
`ratio of 1.27 and “another table in Davies, which is specifically labeled for
`the M45SD-02, discloses a fan outer pressure ratio of 1.27 (i.e., tip) and fan
`inner pressure ratio of 1.18 (i.e., hub).” Id. at 5–6 (reproducing a portion of
`a table from Ex. 1005, 5; citing Abhari Reply Decl. ¶ 8). Petitioner, thus,
`argues that the “design pressure ratio of the M45SD-02 is between 1.18 and
`1.27.” Id. at 5.
`Petitioner contends that the “tip solidity of 0.83 is correlated with a
`design pressure ratio of 1.27” because the skilled artisan would understand
`that increasing solidity increases pressure ratio. Id. at 6 (citing Ex. 1032, 18;
`Abhari Reply Decl. ¶¶ 9–10). Petitioner also contends that, consistent with a
`lower design pressure ratio, the “actual dimensions of the M45SD-02
`disclose a 0.74 tip solidity,” not 0.83. Id. at 6–7 (citing Abhari Reply Decl.
`¶ 10). Petitioner further contends that Davies does not support Patent
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`Owner’s argument that the fan dimensions in Davies are approximations
`because Davies indicates clearly when parameters are approximations. Id. at
`7 (citing PO Resp. 29; Ex. 1005, 9).
`Petitioner also replies that Patent Owner’s Declarant provides
`conclusory testimony as to why the fan blade dimensions described in
`Davies cannot be used to calculate solidity and his assertions are inconsistent
`with prior art. Id. at 8. Petitioner contends that, in contradiction to Patent
`Owner’s Declarant, companies disclose fan blade dimensions (id. (citing Ex.
`1011, 61; Ex. 1027, 29; Mathioudakis Decl. ¶ 57)), the hub solidity of
`Davies is not near 1 (id. at 8–9 (citing Ex. 1005, 7, 8; Mathioudakis Decl. ¶
`60)), and Davies discloses two different fan designs (id. (citing
`Mathioudakis Decl. ¶ 62)).
`Claim 1 requires “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.” We agree with Patent Owner that Davies expressly discloses that
`one of the “main features of the chosen design” for its variable pitch fan is a
`“Solidity Tip” of 0.83. PO Resp. 24; Ex. 1005, 7–8. The complete record
`persuades us that the solidity value of 0.83 is for the M45SD-02
`demonstrator engine. Davies states that the “variable pitch [(“V.P.”)] fan
`about which this paper is concerned has many claims of merit” (Ex. 1005, 3)
`and after describing some advantages, that “we will now move on to
`describe the V.P. fan of a demonstrator engine, called M45SD-02” (id. at 5).
`Davies discusses the “aerodynamic design philosophy” of fixed pitch fans
`(id. at 6) and V.P. fans (id. at 6–8), at the conclusion of which Davies lists a
`“Solidity Tip” of 0.83. See also Mathioudakis Decl. ¶ 55. Davies also states
`that “[i]n order to achieve a design pressure ratio of say 1.27:1 . . . , a
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`transonic blade design was required with a tip solidity of .8” (id. at 7), which
`we find corroborates that Davies discloses a tip solidity of 0.83 for the V.P.
`fan of the M45SD-02 demonstrator engine.
`The full record also persuades us that the listed “Solidity Tip” is
`calculated in the same manner as described in the ’412 patent. Ex. 1005, 7;
`Ex. 2013, 133:5–134:4; Mathioudakis Decl. ¶¶ 19, 55, 68; Ex. 2020, 3.
`Davies describes and shows that its V.P. fan has 14 blades. PO Resp. 24;
`Ex. 1005, 9 (“14 aluminum blades”), 11 (“design problem associated with a
`V.P. fan hub, which has to restrain 14 blades . . . is not an easy one”), Fig. 9.
`The ratio of N/R using 14 blades and a tip solidity of 0.83, thus, would be
`14/0.83, which results in 16.87, a value that falls outside the recited range of
`“between 8 and 16 or between 18 and 28.” PO Resp. 24–25; see also Pet. 39
`(stating “Davies does not disclose a ratio of N/R between 15 and 16”).
`Davies does not disclose expressly a tip solidity of 0.74, and
`Petitioner does not cite to any portion of Davies that expressly discloses a tip
`solidity value of 0.74. See Pet. 29–30. Petitioner, instead, contends that,
`because Davies provides fan dimensions in the section titled “Fan Blade
`Retention,” a tip solidity value of 0.74 can be calculated from those
`dimensions. Id. (citing Abhari Decl. ¶¶ 80–82). Using a tip solidity value of
`0.74, the ratio of N/R would be 18.9 and thus, outside the recited range for
`N/R.
`
`The full record does not persuade us that one of ordinary skill in the
`art would use fan dimensions given to “illustrate the magnitude of the
`problem” of restraining blades in the hub to calculate a value of tip solidity,
`which has already been disclosed in a list of “main features of the chosen
`design” for the V.P. fan. The tip solidity of 0.83 comes immediately after
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`Davies discusses the “aerodynamic design philosophy” of fixed pitch fans
`(Ex. 1005, 6) and V.P. fans (id. at 6–8). Davies also states that “[i]n order to
`achieve a design pressure ratio of say 1.27:1 . . . , a transonic blade design
`was required with a tip solidity of .8.” Id. at 7. The fan diameter and blade
`chord at the tip, which Petitioner uses to calculate its tip solidity value, come
`from a discussion in Davies regarding the hub, in particular restraining V.P.
`blades in the hub. Id. at 9. Davies states, at the design speed, each aerofoil
`part exerts 15 tons of centrifugal force, and a “total restraint of about 40
`tons” would be required. Id. at 9–10.
`The numbers that Petitioner uses to calculate its tip solidity value are
`numbers that Davies uses “[t]o illustrate the magnitude of the problem” in
`designing its hub. Pet. 29–30; Ex. 1005, 9–10. Thus, we find that Davies
`gives fan dimensions sufficient to calculate that each fan blade exerts 15
`tons of centrifugal force and hence a needed “total restraint of about 40
`tons.” See id. We find that these statements would indicate to one of
`ordinary skill in the art that the numbers given for the fan dimensions are for
`purposes of estimating what the hub is required to restrain, and not sufficient
`for calculating tip solidity value, which was previously listed as 0.83 and as
`one of the “main features” after discussing aerodynamic design philosophy
`for its V.P. fan. See id. at 7–8; Mathioudakis Decl. ¶¶ 57, 69, 70 (“One
`would not attempt to use the approximate chord lengths and blade diameters
`in Section 6 to derive or interpret from Davies a substitute solidity value”).
`The Petition also does not explain sufficiently why one of ordinary
`skill in the art would understand Davies to disclose a tip solidity value of
`0.74 instead of the expressly disclosed tip solidity of 0.83. See Pet. 29–30
`(citing Abhari Decl. ¶¶ 80–82). The Petition and the cited portions of the
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`Abhari Declaration do not address the disclosed tip solidity of 0.83. See Pet.
`29–30; Abhari Decl. ¶¶ 80–82. Thus, given the entire context of Davies, a
`“Solidity Tip” of 0.83 as one of the “main features,” and Petitioner’s tip
`solidity calculated from fan dimensions given for illustration purposes, the
`full record does not persuade us that one of ordinary s
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
