`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 9
` Entered: October 27, 2016
`
`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 BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, HYUN J. JUNG, and
`RICHARD E. RICE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes
`review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that
`the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.”
`Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response and
`for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has shown that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least
`one of the challenged claims, and we institute an inter partes review of
`claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 11 of the ’412 patent.
`A. Related Proceedings
`The parties indicate that there are no related proceedings involving the
`’412 patent. Pet. 1; Paper 5, 1.
`B. 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.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`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 32 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.
`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.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`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 extend between root 78 and tip 80 and
`have leading edge 82 and trailing edge 84. Id. at 3:2–5. In Figure 2, a
`number (“N”) of blades 74 is no more than 16 but can be 10–16. Id. at 3:16–
`21.
`
`Also, a chord dimension (“CD”) is a length between leading edge 82
`and trailing edge 84 at tip 80 (id. at 3:5–7); a circumferential pitch (“CP”) is
`equivalent to the arc distance between tips 80 of neighboring blades 74 (id.
`at 3:7–10); a solidity value is defined as a ratio (“R”) of CD/CP (id. at 3:22–
`24); and propulsor 42 defines a ratio of N/R (id. at 3:37). The solidity value
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`can be between 0.6 and 1.1 (id. at 3:25–26), and the ratio N/R can be
`between 8 and 28 (id. at 3:37–38).
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–5 and 7–11 of the ’412 patent. Of the
`challenged claims, claims 1 and 9 are independent. Patent Owner states that
`it has disclaimed claims 9 and 10. PO Resp. 26 (citing Ex. 2008). Claim 1
`is reproduced below:
`1.
`A gas turbine engine comprising:
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`
`D. Challenges
`Petitioner challenges:
`(1) claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as anticipated
`by Davies1;
`(2) claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 11, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as
`unpatentable over Davies in view of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill
`in the art;
`(3) claim 5, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as unpatentable over Davies in
`view of Middleton2; and
`(4) claims 1, 3, and 4, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as unpatentable over
`Schaefer3 in view of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. 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). Only
`those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent
`
`
`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 John W. Schaefer et al., NASA Technical Memorandum X-3524:
`Dynamics of High-Bypass-Engine Thrust Reversal Using a Variable-Pitch
`Fan (1977) (Ex. 1009).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g,
`Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`Petitioner proposes interpretations for “spool,” “propulsor,” and
`“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. 15–19. Patent
`Owner proposes interpretations for “pressure ratio . . . with regard to an inlet
`pressure and an outlet pressure of said bypass flow passage” (Prelim. Resp.
`14–23) and “spool” (id. at 23–25). Patent Owner also states that it “agrees
`that a ‘propulsor’ as used in the ’412 patent covers a ‘fan having a rotor and
`fan blades arranged circumferentially around a hub’” but “does not believe
`construing ‘propulsor’ is necessary for the Board to resolve the Petition.”
`Id. at 25.
`For the purposes of determining whether Petitioner has demonstrated
`a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenges, we address the
`parties’ arguments regarding the term “spool” only. Petitioner contends that
`“one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the term ‘spool’ in
`claim 1 refers to the connecting shaft” based on its analysis of the claims and
`specification. Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1001 at 2:28–30, 2:35–37, 4:40–43; Ex.
`1003 ¶¶ 56–57). Patent Owner responds that “spool” must include a
`propulsor and turbine as described in the specification of the ’412 patent.
`Prelim. Resp. 23–25 (citing Ex. 1001 at 2:28–37, 2:45–48; Ex. 1014).
`Claim 1 recites “a spool; a turbine coupled to drive the spool; a
`propulsor coupled to be driven by said turbine through said spool,” and in
`the context of claim 1, we agree with Petitioner that the term “spool” refers
`to at least a shaft. Both parties cite to portions of the specification that
`indicate, for example, “low speed spool 30 generally includes an inner shaft
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`40 that is coupled with a propulsor 42 . . . and a low pressure turbine 46”
`(Ex. 1001 at 2:28–30). The present record, however, does not indicate that
`“spool” must always include a propulsor and turbine, as suggested by Patent
`Owner’s arguments. Thus, for the purposes of this Decision, we
`preliminarily determine that the term “spool” refers to at least a shaft.
`B. Anticipation of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7–10 by Davies
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7–10 are anticipated by
`Davies (Ex. 1005), with citations to its disclosure, a claim chart for claims
`7–10, and a Declaration of Reza Abhari, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003, “the Abhari
`Declaration”). Pet. 20–34.
`Patent Owner states that it has disclaimed claims 9 and 10. PO Resp.
`26 (citing Ex. 2008).
`1. Davies (Ex. 1005)
`Davies is titled “A Variable Pitch Fan for an Ultra Quiet
`Demonstrator Engine.” Ex. 1005, 34. 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. Davies concerns a variable pitch fan and in particular,
`the variable pitch fan of a demonstrator engine, the M45SD-02. Id. at 3, 5.
`Figure 1 of Davies is reproduced below.
`
`
`4 Citations to Davies are to the exhibit page numbers in the lower, right
`corner of each page.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`
`
`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
`P.R.” of 1.18. Id. at 5. Davies states that the “precise choice of pressure
`ratio . . . is not particularly important.” Id. Davies also describes that the
`M45SD-02 has a “Solidity Tip” of 0.83, a “V.P. fan diameter” of 5 feet, and
`14 blades with a blade chord of 10 inches at their tips. Id. at 8–9.
`2. Independent Claim 1
`Petitioner contends that Davies discloses each of the elements of
`claim 1. Pet. 22–30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 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 Ex. 1003 ¶ 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 a ratio
`of N/R that is equal to 18.9.” Id. at 29–30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 81–82).
`Patent Owner responds that Davies does not disclose “a ratio of N/R is
`between 8 and 16 or between 18 and 28,” as recited by claim 1, because
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`“Davies also discloses a specific fan blade tip solidity of ‘0.83’ as among the
`‘main features of the chosen design.’” Prelim. Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 1005 at
`7–8). Patent Owner thus contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would understand Davies instead discloses a ratio of N/R that is 16.87. Id. at
`29.
`
`At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner’s argument is not
`persuasive because Petitioner uses the definitions of solidity value, chord
`dimension, and circumferential pitch found in the specification of the ’412
`patent to argue that the M45SD-02 engine of Davies discloses “a ratio of
`N/R . . . between 18 and 28,” as required by claim 1. See Ex. 1001 at 3:5–
`10, 3:22–24. The present record does not persuade us that Davies uses the
`’412 patent’s definition of tip solidity for the tip solidity of 0.83.
`Also, for a propulsor “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,” Petitioner
`contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “the axial
`location of the measurements is the same for both the fan inner and fan outer
`pressure ratios.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 74).
`Petitioner also contends that “Davies discloses a fan inner pressure
`ratio of 1.18 and a fan outer pressure ratio of 1.27.” Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex.
`1005 at 5). Petitioner asserts that Figure 1 of Davies “illustrates the
`measurement locations that define the fan inner and fan outer pressure
`ratios” and contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`that “the inlet pressure is at a position along the axis of the engine just before
`the fan blades, while the outlet pressure is at a position just after the fan exit
`guide vanes.” Id. at 26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 74, 75).
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`
`Petitioner further asserts that the pressure ratio of Davies and the
`claimed pressure ratio “are based on the same inlet pressure measurement
`location . . . but different outlet pressure measurement locations.” Id. at 28
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 76, 77; Ex. 1005, Fig. 1). Petitioner relies on the Abhari
`Declaration to argue that “Davies discloses . . . no structures between the
`exit guide vanes and the outlet of the bypass passage that are intended to
`modify the total pressure of the flow through the bypass passage” and that
`one of ordinary skill in the art “would understand that the pressure effect due
`to the bypass duct pressure losses would be negligible” so that the “total
`pressure just after the fan exit guide vanes will be substantially equivalent to
`the total pressure at the outlet of the bypass passage.” Id. at 28–29 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 77). Petitioner, thus, argues that the fan pressure ratio of Davies
`between 1.18 and 1.27 discloses “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.”
`Patent Owner responds that Davies does not disclose “a pressure ratio
`. . . with regard to an inlet pressure and an outlet pressure of said bypass
`flow passage,” as required by claim 1, because “Davies focuses on an
`entirely different pressure ratio: one that is limited to the ‘fan.’” Prelim.
`Resp. 31–32. Patent Owner argues that Davies does not describe a pressure
`ratio of a bypass flow passage and does not identify an inlet pressure or
`outlet pressure of a bypass flow passage. Id. at 32–33 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig.
`1). On the present record, Petitioner persuades us that Davies discloses the
`required pressure ratio with regard to inlet and outlet pressures of a bypass
`flow passage. Patent Owner’s arguments do not persuade us because
`Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`Davies discloses the recited pressure ratio of claim 1 based on the fan
`pressure ratio of Davies and its engine structure, and Patent Owner’s
`argument are not responsive to arguments made by Petitioner.
`Patent Owner also responds that the testimony in the Abhari
`Declaration is incorrect in that bypass duct pressure losses would be
`negligible. Prelim. Resp. 34. Patent Owner asserts that neither Davies nor
`Petitioner addresses pressure losses from structure, flow surfaces, and
`componentry, such as “the surface of the bypass flow duct . . . , an intake, an
`outflow nozzle, . . . fan exit guide vanes, fan static structures, pylon
`mounting structures, air bleed or exhaust ports, heat exchangers, and
`discontinuities . . . that cause air leakage.” Id. (citing Ex. 2007, 6, Fig. 10).
`The present record does not indicate that Petitioner failed to address pressure
`losses from structure, flow surfaces, and related componentry. Paragraph 77
`of the Abhari Declaration discusses the “conventional bypass duct” of the
`M45SD-02 engine of Davies and “duct losses.” See also Pet. 28–29 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 76–77). Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, Patent
`Owner’s argument does not persuade us.
`Patent Owner cites Exhibit 2007, asserted as disclosing total internal
`losses near 12% at the pressure ratios of Davies, and thus contradicting
`Petitioner’s assertion that bypass duct pressure losses would be negligible.
`Prelim. Resp. 35 (citing Ex. 2007 at 6, Fig. 10). We are not persuaded
`because the present record indicates that Exhibit 2007 generally describes
`aircraft that are “gas powered, and either turbofan or propeller propelled”
`(Ex. 2007 at 6) and does not specifically address the pressure losses of the
`engine of Davies.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner notes that Petitioner relies on the Abhari Declaration,
`which cites Exhibit 1016 but asserts that the declaration misinterprets
`Exhibit 1016 and that Exhibit 1016 is not relevant because it addresses an
`advanced propulsor for a hypothetical aircraft. Prelim. Resp. 35–36 (citing
`Pet. 28–29; Ex. 1003 ¶ 77). Patent Owner also argues that Exhibit 1011
`would require a “perfectly efficient duct with no losses whatsoever” to have
`its fan pressure ratio be the same as its bypass stream pressure ratio. Id. at
`36. We find that the cited paragraph of the Abhari Declaration, however,
`relies on these exhibits as examples to support its contention that duct losses
`above 2% would be understood as unacceptable. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 77. It does
`not rely on these exhibits to argue that the engine of Davies has the same
`duct losses as those described in the exhibits.
`Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner “overlooks that Davies’
`bypass flow passage converges toward its exit nozzle” thereby introducing a
`substantial difference between the fan pressure ratio of Davies and the
`claimed pressure ratio of a bypass flow passage. Prelim. Resp. 36–37 (citing
`Ex. 1005 Fig. 1). However, paragraph 77 of the Abhari Declaration
`discusses the “conventional bypass duct” of the M45SD-02 engine of Davies
`and that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that duct losses
`would not exceed 2%. See also Pet. 28–29 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 76–77).
`Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner’s argument is not
`persuasive.
`Patent Owner further responds that Davies does not disclose the
`recited spool because Petitioner relies on an erroneous construction of
`“spool” and Davies provides insufficient disclosure. Prelim. Resp. 50. For
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`the reasons described above regarding the term “spool,” these arguments are
`not persuasive on the present record.
`Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner
`has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge of
`claim 1 as anticipated by Davies.
`3. Dependent Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8
`Each of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 depend directly from claim 1. Claim 2
`recites “wherein said pressure ratio is between 1.2 and 1.3,” and Petitioner
`relies on its arguments for claim 1 that Davies anticipates by disclosing a
`bypass pressure ratio between 1.18 and 1.27. Pet. 30–31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶
`74–77, 83; Ex. 1005 at 5).
`Claim 4 recites “wherein the design pressure ratio is between 1.1 and
`1.2,” and Petitioner contends that “design pressure ratio” renders the claim
`unclear. Pet. 31. Petitioner also asserts that, if claim 4 refers to the pressure
`ratio of claim 1, then Davies anticipates by disclosing a bypass pressure ratio
`between 1.18 and 1.27. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 74–77, 84).
`Claim 5 requires low and high pressure compressor sections, low and
`high pressure turbine sections, and another spool. Petitioner argues that
`Davies discloses the limitations of claim 5. Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 24–28, 85, 86; Ex. 1005 at 4, 19, Fig. 1). Claims 7 and 8 concern the
`number of propulsor blades. In a claim chart, Petitioner argues that Davies
`discloses the limitations of claims 7 and 8. Pet. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 90;
`Ex. 1005 at 9). At this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner makes a sufficient
`showing that it has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge of
`claims 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner relies on its arguments for claim 1 for claims 2, 4, 5, 7,
`and 8. See Prelim. Resp. 28–37, 50–53. For the reasons above concerning
`claim 1, Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its
`challenge of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 as anticipated by Davies.
`4. Conclusion as to the Challenge Based on Davies
`On the present record, we determine that Petitioner has shown a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7,
`and 8 as anticipated by Davies.
`C. Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 11 over Davies
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 11 are rendered
`obvious by Davies (Ex. 1005), with citations to the disclosure of Davies and
`the Abhari Declaration (Ex. 1003). Pet. 34–41.
`Petitioner asserts that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`known that the choice of a fan pressure ratio value, and thus bypass pressure
`ratio, is a matter of routine optimization in the design of a turbine engine.”
`Id. at 34–35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 78, 79). Petitioner also argues that the ’412
`patent “does not disclose any criticality with regard to the bypass pressure
`ratio range.” Id. at 36. Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the
`art “would recognize that a low fan pressure ratio correlates with lower
`engine noise” (id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 78; Ex. 1005 at 3; Ex. 1011, 32)) and
`that “lower fan pressure ratio generally requires a high bypass engine ratio”
`(id. (citing 1003 ¶ 78; Ex. 1005 at 3; Ex. 1016, 22)). Petitioner, thus, asserts
`that “one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is routine to
`consider a range of fan pressure ratio . . . values when optimizing the engine
`design.” Id. at 37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 78; Ex. 1013, 6). Petitioner further
`contends that “a geared turbofan engine having a high bypass pressure ratio
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`would optimize at a low pressure ratio that falls within the claimed range.”
`Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 78, 79); see also id. at 37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 79;
`Ex. 1011 at 32, 34; Ex. 1013 at 6; Ex. 1016 at 18).
`Patent Owner responds that Petitioner does not provide any reason
`why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought “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.” Prelim. Resp. 38. Patent Owner argues
`Petitioner “offers no reason a person of ordinary skill would have considered
`the multitude of issues attendant to achieving the low pressure ratios taught
`by the ’412 patent.” Id. at 39.
`Petitioner, however, argues one of ordinary skill in the art “would
`recognize that a low fan pressure ratio correlates with lower engine noise”
`(Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 78; Ex. 1005 at 3; Ex. 1011, 32), which, on the
`present record, provides a reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to
`modify the engine of Davies to have a low fan pressure ratio and thus a low
`bypass flow passage pressure ratio according to Petitioner’s arguments.
`Moreover, Davis itself states that a quieter engine “may be achieved with
`cycles of high by-pass ratio and low fan pressure ratio.” Ex. 1005 at 3.
`Patent Owner also responds that other references teach against the low
`pressure ratios of the ’412 patent and “may well have led one of ordinary
`skill in the art to ‘optimize’ other engine parameters instead.” Prelim. Resp.
`39–40 (citing Ex. 2009 at 7, 11; Ex. 2010 at 6; Ex. 2011 at 5). This
`argument is not persuasive because Petitioner contends, and we agree for
`purposes of this decision, that one of ordinary skill in the art “would
`recognize that a low fan pressure ratio correlates with lower engine noise”
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`(Pet. 36) and Davies indicates low pressure ratios are related to quieter
`engines.
`Patent Owner also asserts that Davies teaches away from optimizing
`its fan pressure ratio to be between 1.1 and 1.35 because Davies states that
`the precise choice of pressure ratio is not particularly important. Prelim.
`Resp. 41. Patent Owner contends that Davies is silent on bypass flow
`pressure ratio. Id. at 42. Patent Owner, therefore, argues that one of
`ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify Davies to arrive at
`a bypass flow passage pressure ratio between 1.1 and 1.35. Id. We are not
`persuaded that Davies teaches away merely because it states that the precise
`choice of pressure ratio is not particularly important and it is silent on bypass
`flow pressure ratio. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`Claim 11 depends from independent claim 9 and recites “wherein said
`ratio of N/R is between 15 and 16.” Petitioner acknowledges that “Davies
`does not disclose a ratio of N/R between 15 and 16” but argues that the
`range would have been obvious based on Davies in view of the knowledge
`of one of ordinary skill in the art.” Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 93–96).
`Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art “would
`understand that the blade chord dimension can be varied in order to balance
`stability, efficiency, and weight of the fan section” (id. (citing Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 94–95), “would have recognized that increasing the chord length can lead
`to improved efficiency and stability margin” (id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 94; Ex.
`1021 1:30–33)), and “would therefore recognize that increasing chord length
`is a known design choice to improve stability of the fan section” and
`“increase solidity of the fan” (id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 95). Petitioner also
`asserts that selecting a blade chord dimension is a design choice based on
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`routine experimentation. Id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 95); see also id. at 35
`(arguing that the subject matter of claim 11 is a matter of design choice and
`the claimed N/R ratio has no criticality or unexpected result). On the present
`record, Petitioner makes a sufficient showing to demonstrate a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing in its challenge of claim 11.
`Patent Owner responds that Petitioner does not explain why one of
`ordinary skill would increase the chord length of the blades to achieve the
`claimed N/R ratio and that such modification would negatively impact other
`engine parameters. Prelim. Resp. 42–44 (citing Pet. 39–40; Ex. 1005 at 9–
`10; Ex. 1021). The argument is not persuasive because the fact that
`Petitioner’s proposed modification has both advantages and disadvantages
`does not necessarily obviate the asserted reason for modifying Davies.
`For the reasons above, we determine that Petitioner has shown a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8,
`and 11 as rendered obvious by Davies.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`
`D. Obviousness of Claim 5 over Davies and Middleton
`Petitioner contends that claim 5 is rendered obvious by Davies and
`Middleton (Ex. 1006), with citations to their disclosures and the Abhari
`Declaration (Ex. 1003). Pet. 41–43.
`1. Middleton (Ex. 1006)
`Middleton is an article describing the VFW 614 twin-turbofan 40-
`seater. Ex. 1006, 45. It includes an M45H powerplant. Id. A table on page
`11 of Middleton is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`The table lists “M45H Design Features.” Id. at 11.
`2. Claim 5
`Claim 5 recites that the gas turbine of claim 1 further comprises “a
`low pressure compressor section and a high pressure compressor section, . . .
`a low pressure turbine section and a high pressure turbine section, said low
`pressure compressor section and said low pressure turbine section are each
`coupled to be driven th[r]ough said spool, and said high pressure compressor
`section and said high pressure turbine section are each coupled to be driven
`through another spool.”
`
`
`5 Petitioner refers to the exhibit page numbers in the lower, right of Exhibit
`1006. This Decision also cites to the exhibit page numbers.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`
`In addition to the challenge of claim 5 as rendered obvious by Davies
`alone discussed above, Petitioner asserts that claim 5 is rendered obvious by
`Davies and Middleton. Pet. 41. In particular, Petitioner contends that
`“Middleton provides additional details of the architecture of the M45H-01
`engine, which is the basis for the M45SD-02 engine.” Id. at 41–42 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 88; Ex. 1005 at 5; Ex. 1006 at 11). Petitioner also contends that
`“based on Middleton, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`the M45H-01 engine is a two-spool engine,” thereby rendering obvious
`claim 5. Id. at 42–43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 87–89).
`Patent Owner relies on its arguments for claim 1 that Davies does not
`disclose “a ratio of N/R [that] is between 8 and 16 or between 18 and 28”
`and “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.” Prelim. Resp.
`44. For the reasons above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has made a
`sufficient showing for its challenge of claim 1 and Patent Owner’s
`arguments are not persuasive on the present record.
`Thus, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood
`of prevailing in its challenge of claim 5 as rendered obvious by Davies and
`Middleton.
`E. Obviousness of Claims 1, 3, and 4 over Schaefer
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 3, and 4 are rendered obvious by
`Schaefer (Ex. 1009), with citations to its disclosure and the Abhari
`Declaration (Ex. 1003). Pet. 41–43.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`
`1. Schaefer (Ex. 1009)
`Schaefer is a technical memorandum titled “Dynamics of High-
`Bypass-Engine Thrust Reversal using a Variable-Pitch Fan.” Ex. 1009, 1–
`26.
`
`A T55-L-11A turboshaft engine drives a fan. Id. at 5. Schaefer states
`that the “variable-pitch-fan engine . . . included the fan, the gearbox, the
`hydraulic equipment, the computer control systems, and the engine
`cowling.” Id. Figure 3 is reproduced below.
`
`
`6 Petitioner refers to the exhibit page numbers in the lower, right of Exhibit
`1009. This Decision also cites to the exhibit page numbers.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00952
`Patent 9,121,412 B2
`
`
`Figure 3 shows cross-sectional views of an engine and inlet hardware.
`Id. at 21.
`
`2. Claim 1
`Petitioner contends that Schaefer teaches or suggests a gear-driven fan
`engine but acknowledges that it “does not fully describe the conventional
`components of a gear-driven fan engine, including . . . the gear assembly . . .
`that enables the rotation of the spool to drive the fan at a different speed than
`the spool.” Pet. 44, 45 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 99; Ex. 1009 at 5; Ex. 1022, 2).
`Petitioner, however, asserts that the “basic components of a geared turbofan
`engine would have been obvious in view of the knowledge of a person of
`ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 99–100). Petitioner
`points to Schaefer’s description of a T55 engine and argues that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have known that the T55 engine is a two-
`spool gas turbine engine. Id. at 45–46 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 99; Ex. 1009 at 5,
`11; Ex. 1022 at 2).
`Petitioner also directs us to Figure 2 of Exhibit 1022, which shows
`“TURB2” coupled to “SHAFT2,” and asserts that a one of ordinary skill in
`the art “would understand that in the geared engine described by Schaefer,
`the free end of SHAFT2 w