`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