Trials@uspto.gov
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
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
