`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01301
`Patent No. 6,939,392
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. VIGOR YANG, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UTC-2003.001
`
`GE v. UTC
`Trial IPR2016-01301
`
`

`

` U.S. Patent No. 6,939,392
`IPR2016-01301
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`
`QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 1 
`
`III.  MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 6 
`
`IV.  RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................. 7 
`
`A.  Unpatentable Subject Matter ................................................................. 7 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`The Meaning of Claim Terms ............................................................. 10 
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 10 
`
`V. 
`
`THE ’392 PATENT ....................................................................................... 11 
`
`VI.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 17 
`
`A. 
`
`“fuel stabilization unit” (Claims 13-19, 21, 22, 26, 28, 31,
`49-51, and 53) ...................................................................................... 17 
`
`B. 
`
`“high temperature” (Claims 7, 8, 21, and 50) ..................................... 23 
`
`VII.  PETITIONER’S ASSERTED ART .............................................................. 25 
`
`A. 
`
`Spadaccini (U.S. Patent No. 6,315,815) .............................................. 25 
`
`B.  Wilmot (International Pub. No. WO 02/16743 A1) ............................ 26 
`
`VIII.  OPINIONS ..................................................................................................... 30 
`
`A. 
`
`The Combination of Spadaccini and Wilmot ...................................... 31 
`
`1.  Wilmot Considers Additives Desirable and Employs
`Them in a Cost-Effective System ............................................. 31 
`
`2. 
`
`Inserting Spadaccini’s Deoxygenator into Wilmot’s
`System Would Add Cost and Complexity ................................ 35 
`
`B. 
`
`The Claimed “Fuel Stabilization Unit” (Claims 13-19, 21,
`22, 26, 28, 31, 49-51, and 53) ............................................................. 43 
`
`
`
`i
`
`UTC-2003.002
`
`

`

` U.S. Patent No. 6,939,392
`IPR2016-01301
`The Claimed “High Temperature Oil System” (Claims 7, 8,
`21, 22, and 28) ..................................................................................... 46 
`
`The Claimed Fuel Temperatures (Claims 9-11, 17-19, 27-31,
`and 38-41) ............................................................................................ 48 
`
`The Claimed Fuel Stabilization Unit “Downstream” of a
`Heat Generating Sub-System (Claim 15) ............................................ 50 
`
`The Claimed “Stored Fuel Being Configured to Receive
`Heat” (Claim 39) ................................................................................. 53 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`IX.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 55 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UTC-2003.003
`
`

`

` U.S. Patent No. 6,939,392
`IPR2016-01301
`
`I, Dr. Vigor Yang, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Patent Owner, United Technologies
`
`Corporation, as an independent expert and technical consultant in this proceeding
`
`before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Although I am being
`
`compensated at my hourly rate for the time I spend on this matter, no part of my
`
`compensation depends on the outcome of this proceeding. I have no other interest
`
`in this proceeding.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`2.
`I received my Ph.D. degree in Mechanical Engineering from the
`
`California Institute of Technology in 1984, M.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering
`
`from the Pennsylvania State University in 1980, and B.S. degree in Power
`
`Mechanical Engineering from the National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan, in 1976.
`
`3.
`
`I am currently the William R. T. Oakes Professor and Chair of the
`
`Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering at Georgia Institute of
`
`Technology, a position I have held since January 2009. I also serve as the
`
`Secretary for the Section of Aerospace Engineering of the U.S. National Academy
`
`of Engineering.
`
`4.
`
`Prior to joining Georgia Institute of Technology, I taught at
`
`Pennsylvania State University from July 1985 to December 2008, serving as an
`
`
`
`1
`
`UTC-2003.004
`
`

`

` U.S. Patent No. 6,939,392
`IPR2016-01301
`assistant professor, an associate professor, a professor, a distinguished professor,
`
`and finally as the John L. and Genevieve H. McCain Chair in Engineering at
`
`Department of Mechanical Engineering. Before my work at Pennsylvania State
`
`University, I was a research fellow in jet propulsion at the California Institute of
`
`Technology from July 1984 to June 1985. I was a visiting associate professor at
`
`the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering of the Princeton
`
`University in the Fall of 1992.
`
`5.
`
`I have taught undergraduate and graduate courses in thermodynamics,
`
`fluid mechanics, heat transfer, gas turbine, propulsion, combustion, and
`
`mathematics. In my gas turbine class, for example, we discuss the flow path and
`
`thermodynamic cycles in aircraft gas turbine engines, and I introduce my students
`
`to the subjects of coking and cooling. My research includes decades of work on
`
`fluid and combustion dynamics in gas-turbine and rocket propulsion and power-
`
`generation systems, which has obliged me to closely follow scholarly and technical
`
`developments relevant to the problems of fuel coking and chamber cooling (heat
`
`transfer), which are major issues for both gas-turbine and rocket propulsion
`
`systems.
`
`6.
`
`I have established, as the principal or co-principal researcher, more
`
`than 69 research projects, including nine Department of Defense Multi University
`
`
`
`2
`
`UTC-2003.005
`
`

`

` U.S. Patent No. 6,939,392
`IPR2016-01301
`Research Initiative (DoD-MURI) projects, and I have been awarded more than
`
`$32.5 million to date in research funding.
`
`7.
`
`I have published 12 books, 7 dedicated journal issues, 14 book
`
`chapters and 184 refereed journal publications. These books include
`
`(1) Combustion Instabilities in Gas Turbine Engines: Operational Experience,
`
`Fundamental Mechanisms, and Modeling, Progress in Astronautics and
`
`Aeronautics, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Vol. 210, 2005,
`
`657 pages; (2) Synthesis Gas Combustion: Fundamentals and Applications, CRC
`
`Press, 2009, 403 pages; (3) Gas Turbine Emissions, Cambridge University Press,
`
`2013, 368 pages; and (4) Turbine Aerodynamics, Heat Transfer, Materials, and
`
`Mechanics, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, American Institute of
`
`Aeronautics and Astronautics, Vol. 243, 2014, 694 pages.
`
`8. My peer-refereed journal publications include 85 papers on the
`
`subjects of combustion, energetics, and materials, as well as 70 papers concerning
`
`aeronautics and astronautics, and 25 papers on fluid mechanics. Also included are
`
`ten comprehensive reviews in the topical areas of propulsion, combustion, and
`
`energetics. The work on swirl-stabilized combustion, published in 2009 (Progress
`
`in Energy and Combustion Science, Vol. 35, pp. 293-364) with direct application
`
`to gas turbine engine technology, is one of the top three most downloaded papers
`
`
`
`3
`
`UTC-2003.006
`
`

`

` U.S. Patent No. 6,939,392
`IPR2016-01301
`in combustion from ScienceDirect during 2005-2015, with 13,955 downloads as of
`
`August 1, 2015.
`
`9. Many of my papers deal with gas turbine combustion dynamics and
`
`system dynamics. These include papers titled (1) “Robust Feedback Control of
`
`Combustion Instability with Modeling Uncertainty” (2000); (2) “Wide-Range
`
`Robust Control of Combustion Instability” (2002); (3) “System Performance and
`
`Thermodynamic Cycle Analysis of Air-Breathing Pulse Detonation Engines”
`
`(2003); (4) “Large-Eddy Simulation of Combustion Dynamics of Lean-Premixed
`
`Swirl-Stabilized Combustors” (2003); (5) “Bifurcation of Flame Structures in a
`
`Lean-Premixed Swirl-Stabilized Combustor: Transition from Stable to Unstable
`
`Flame” (2004); (6) “Effect of Swirl on Combustion Dynamics in a Lean-Premixed
`
`Swirl-Stabilized Combustor” (2005); (7) “A Generalized Model of Acoustic
`
`Response of Turbulent Premixed Flame and Its Application to Gas-Turbine
`
`Combustion Instability Analysis” (2005); (8) “A Systematic Analysis of
`
`Combustion Dynamics in a Lean-Premixed Swirl-Stabilized Combustor” (2006);
`
`and (9) “Anomaly Detection in Aircraft Gas Turbine Engines” (2006). My papers
`
`have been cited more than 11,500 times according to Google Scholar Citations as
`
`of April 2017.
`
`10.
`
`I was the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Propulsion and Power
`
`(2001-2009) published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
`
`
`
`4
`
`UTC-2003.007
`
`

`

` U.S. Patent No. 6,939,392
`IPR2016-01301
`(AIAA). I was serving as the editor-in-chief in 2003-2004, when we celebrated the
`
`centennial of flight. We released a special issue, titled A Century of Aerospace
`
`Propulsion and Power Technologies. The special issue and subsequent issues
`
`included papers on fuel and propellants, jet fuel additives (including anti-coking
`
`additives), rocket propulsion technology, and gas turbine technology, all of which I
`
`personally invited, reviewed, and published.
`
`11.
`
`In addition, I was the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Propulsion and
`
`Energetics (2009-2012) published by the Joint Army, Navy, NASA, and Air Force
`
`(JANNAF) Interagency Propulsion Committee.
`
`12.
`
`I currently serve as a co-editor of the Aerospace Book Series of the
`
`Cambridge University Press (2010-present) and an associate editor of the
`Combustion Science and Technology (2007-present). I have also served on the
`
`editorial advisory boards of virtually all the major journals in the fields of
`
`propulsion, combustion, and energetics. These include AIAA Progress in
`
`Astronautics and Aeronautics; Progress in Energy and Combustion Science;
`
`Combustion and Flame; JANNAF Journal of Propulsion and Energetics; Journal
`
`of Aeronautics, Astronautics, and Aviation; Journal of Chinese Institute of
`
`Engineers; International Journal of Fluid Machinery and Systems; Combustion,
`Explosion, and Shock Waves; Chinese Journal of Aeronautics; and Acta
`
`Mechanica Sinica.
`
`
`
`5
`
`UTC-2003.008
`
`

`

` U.S. Patent No. 6,939,392
`IPR2016-01301
`13. An Academician of Academia Sinica (Taiwan) and a Member of the
`
`U.S. National Academy of Engineering, I am a Fellow of the American Society of
`
`Mechanical Engineers (ASME), the American Institute of Aeronautics and
`
`Astronautics (AIAA), and the Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS). In 2016, I
`
`received the von Kármán Lectureship in Astronautics Award from the American
`
`Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). In 2014, I won the Worester
`
`Reed Warner Medal from the American Society of Engineers (ASME), and I
`
`received a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Joint Army, Navy, NASA, and
`
`Air Force (JANNAF) Interagency Propulsion Committee. I have also won the
`
`Propellants and Combustion Award (2009), the Pendray Aerospace Literature
`
`Award (2008), and the Air-Breathing Propulsion Award (2005) from the American
`
`Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). In 2013, I received the William
`
`R. Marshall Award from the Institute for Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems.
`
`14. More details regarding my background and experience are provided in
`
`my curriculum vitae, attached as UTC-2004.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`15.
`I understand that this proceeding involves U.S. Patent No. 6,939,392
`
`(“the ’392 patent”). In forming my opinions, I have considered, among other
`
`things, a Petition for Inter Partes Review of claims 1-5, 7-19, 21, 22, 25-31, 38-41,
`
`49-51, and 53 filed by General Electric Company (“Petitioner”) dated June 28,
`
`
`
`6
`
`UTC-2003.009
`
`

`

` U.S. Patent No. 6,939,392
`IPR2016-01301
`2016, and related exhibits (including the declaration of Dr. Gerald Voecks
`
`(GE-1003)). I have also considered the ’392 patent (GE-1001) and its file history
`
`(GE-1002), and the exhibits and materials referenced in this declaration, including
`
`Dr. Voecks’s deposition transcript (UTC-2002). In forming my opinions
`
`expressed in this declaration, I have also relied on my education and experience.
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`16.
`I have been asked to provide my opinions in response to certain
`
`portions of Dr. Voecks’s declaration (GE-1003). I understand that April 4, 2003, is
`
`the earliest priority date of the ’392 patent, which was filed on September 8, 2003.
`
`The opinions I express in this declaration are therefore from the perspective of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art in the 2003 time period. Based on discussions
`
`with Patent Owner’s counsel, I understand that the following legal principles apply
`
`in this proceeding.
`
`A. Unpatentable Subject Matter
`
`17. Counsel has informed me that this proceeding will focus primarily on
`
`whether claims 1-4, 7-19, 21, 22, 26-31, 38-40, 49-51, and 53 cover unpatentable
`
`subject matter. In particular, to show the unpatentability of any claim of the ’392
`
`patent, I understand Petitioner has the burden of showing that the subject matter
`
`recited in the claims was either anticipated or obvious in light of the prior art and
`
`the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
`
`
`
`7
`
`UTC-2003.010
`
`

`

` U.S. Patent No. 6,939,392
`IPR2016-01301
`I also understand that there is a set process as follows: a) the claims of
`
`18.
`
`a patent are properly construed, b) then, you must compare the claim language to
`
`the prior art on a limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that the subject matter of a patent claim is anticipated
`
`when a single item of prior art teaches each and every element recited in the claim.
`
`The prior art also needs to disclose the elements as they are arranged in the claim.
`
`Merely disclosing the elements is not enough. Moreover, the disclosure must
`
`enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention recited in
`
`the claim without undue experimentation.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that, in some cases, a prior art reference can be
`
`considered to disclose an element of the claim even if the reference does not
`
`expressly teach it. But for a so-called “inherent” disclosure, I understand the
`
`missing element must necessarily be present in the reference, despite the reference
`
`failing to expressly disclose it.
`
`21.
`
`I am informed that a patent claim that is not anticipated might still be
`
`unpatentable if the subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art in light of the prior art at the time of the invention. The claimed subject
`
`matter as a whole must be considered when determining obviousness.
`
`Additionally, I understand that this obviousness analysis takes into account the
`
`scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the claimed subject
`
`
`
`8
`
`UTC-2003.011
`
`

`

` U.S. Patent No. 6,939,392
`IPR2016-01301
`matter and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention. I am further informed that there must be clear reasoning for why the
`
`claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the invention.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that multiple prior art references or teachings can be
`
`combined to show that a patent claim would have been obvious. When taking this
`
`approach, I understand that the proponent of obviousness must show that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason or motivation to combine the
`
`references in the way the elements are recited in the claim. The prior art references
`
`themselves may provide a suggestion, motivation, or reason to combine, but other
`
`times the rationale for combining two or more prior art references may be from
`
`common sense or common knowledge in the art. It is also my understanding
`
`through counsel that the combination of familiar elements according to known
`
`methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that the required reason or motivation can come from
`
`different sources - like the prior art - but it cannot come from the challenged
`
`patent’s own disclosure. I understand that a single prior art reference, in view of
`
`the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, can
`
`render a patent claim obvious if the proponent meets its requisite burden of proof.
`
`
`
`9
`
`UTC-2003.012
`
`

`

` U.S. Patent No. 6,939,392
`IPR2016-01301
`It is further my understanding that a proper obviousness analysis focuses on what
`
`was known or obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, not just the patentee.
`
`B.
`
`The Meaning of Claim Terms
`
`24. Counsel for Patent Owner has informed me that a claim subject to
`
`inter partes review is to be interpreted consistent with the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the patent and its prosecution history. The words of the
`
`claim are to be given their plain meaning unless that meaning would be
`
`inconsistent with the patent and the prosecution history. For the claim terms
`
`highlighted below, I have determined definitions consistent with the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the ’392 patent and its prosecution history.
`
`25.
`
`If a term was not construed by Petitioner or Patent Owner, I have
`
`interpreted the claim elements as a person of ordinary skill in the art in 2003 would
`
`have done. I understand that, as a general matter, a claim should not be limited to
`
`a preferred embodiment, but that in certain cases, the scope of a claim term may be
`
`limited by a narrowing disclosure or by positions taken, such as by statements
`
`made during patent prosecution.
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`26.
`
`I understand that the technical expert retained by Petitioner in this
`
`matter, Dr. Gerald Voecks, has offered an opinion about the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the art. Dr. Voecks has said that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`
`
`10
`
`UTC-2003.013
`
`

`

` U.S. Patent No. 6,939,392
`IPR2016-01301
`include “either (i) a person with at least a M.S. degree in aerospace or mechanical
`
`engineering and 3-4 years of experience with the chemical makeup and properties
`
`of fuel used in aircrafts, or (ii) a person with at least a M.S. degree in chemistry or
`
`chemical engineering and 3-4 years of working experience with thermal
`
`management systems in aircraft.” (GE-1003, ¶ 3.) I have applied Dr. Voecks’s
`
`opinion about the level of ordinary skill in the art in my opinions below.
`
`V. THE ’392 PATENT
`27. The ’392 patent discusses and claims a thermal management system
`
`for a gas turbine engine in an aircraft. (’392 patent at abstract, 1:60-62.) The
`
`system of the ’392 patent cools engine components using fuel. Cooling
`
`components using fuel can improve their performance and also increases engine
`
`efficiency by warming the fuel, which results in easier combustion and improved
`
`thermal efficiency. (Id. at 2:42-49 (describing efficiency benefits), 8:49-56, 9:1-4
`
`(describing benefits of cooling turbines), 9:10-19 (discussing temperature
`
`conditions), 10:20-28 (describing efficiency benefits).)
`
`28. A known problem with using aviation fuels (which are kerosene-
`
`based fuels) to cool engine components is fuel coking. When oxygenated fuel is
`
`heated to temperatures above about 260°F, the formation of undesirable oxidative
`
`deposits, or “coking,” begins to occur. (Id. at 4:37-39.) Coking becomes
`
`significant at temperatures greater than about 325°F, which the ’392 patent
`
`
`
`11
`
`UTC-2003.014
`
`

`

` U.S. Patent No. 6,939,392
`IPR2016-01301
`describes as the “coking limit” of the fuel. (Id. at 2:50-67, 4:37-42, 8:63-66.) At
`
`ambient air temperatures, the average fuel has only about 70 parts per million
`
`(ppm) of oxygen. (Id. at 4:58-60.) Even fuel having only this small amount of
`
`oxygen can cause coking that can negatively impact engine performance by
`
`generating build-up (coke) within the engine and related systems. (Id. at 1:27-48,
`
`4:37-50, 4:58-60.)
`
`29. There are a number of ways to handle coking. Chemical additives
`
`(which are added to fuel either on the ground before flight or in the plane itself and
`
`which bind to and change the molecular structure of oxygen in the fuel), molecular
`
`sieves (which remove oxygen from fuel), and nitrogen sparging (which forces
`
`oxygen from fuel using nitrogen), have all been used in attempts to address the
`
`coking problem. (See GE-1005 at 1:50-65 (describing various methods); GE-1006
`
`at 2:19-25 (disclosing an additive-based system), 9:22-25 (same); GE-1015.003
`
`(noting various methods and concluding that “[e]conomic and system
`
`considerations favor nitrogen sparging”), .017).)
`
`30. These methods each have benefits, but each operates in a different
`
`way, using different hardware. Chemical additives (also known as chemical
`
`“getters”) include metals or alloys with chemically reactive surfaces. They react
`
`with dissolved oxygen in the fuel to form insoluble oxides. (GE-1015.009-.011.)
`
`Molecular sieves have a porous structure which can adsorb small molecules such
`
`
`
`12
`
`UTC-2003.015
`
`

`

` U.S. Patent No. 6,939,392
`IPR2016-01301
`as oxygen, while excluding the larger molecules present in jet fuel. These
`
`materials have a high internal surface area available for adsorption due to the
`
`channels or pores which uniformly penetrate the entire volume of the solid
`
`(GE-1015.012-.016). Nitrogen sparging is a physical process which utilizes
`
`thermodynamic phase equilibrium to force dissolved oxygen out of the fuel by
`
`injecting nitrogen through oxygenated fuel (GE-1015.017-.028).
`
`31. The system of the ’392 patent also removes oxygen from the fuel
`
`before using it as a coolant, but does so using a new device that is different from
`
`the above systems. The ’392 patent calls this new device a “fuel stabilization unit”
`
`or “FSU.” (’392 patent at abstract, 1:60-2:2, 2:23-34, 4:8-11, 4:35-64, 5:8-10,
`
`5:48-52, FIGS. 2-7.)
`
`32. As shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, the oxygenated fuel flows into the FSU at
`
`inlet 57 (circled in red) and disperses into passages 50 formed by flow plates 27.
`
`(Id. at 5:32-36.) As the fuel flows through the FSU, it comes into contact with
`
`permeable membranes 42. Oxygen passes out of the fuel through the membranes,
`
`and out of the FSU through porous substrates 39 and out of the oxygen outlet 35
`
`(circled in blue), due to the pressure differential across the membrane and
`
`substrate. (Id. at 5:18-24, 5:38-47.) The deoxygenated fuel flows out of the FSU
`
`through fuel outlet 59 (circled in green). (Id. at 5:38-47.)
`
`
`
`13
`
`UTC-2003.016
`
`

`

`US. Patent No. 6,939,392
`IPR2016-01301
`
`
`
`(Id. at FIGS. 2-3 (annotated).)
`
`33.
`
`The ’392 patent describes multiple embodiments of the FSU, and each
`
`includes an assembly of flow plates 27, permeable composite membranes 42, and
`
`porous substrates 39. (Id. at 5:8—17, 5:48-52, 6:43-55, 7:4—27, 7:39—45,
`
`FIGS- 2-7.) In the annotated version of FIG. 3 below, I show the flow plates 27 in
`
`brown, the permeable composite membranes 42 in blue, and the porous substrates
`
`39 in yellow.
`
`14
`
`UTC—2003.0l7
`
`

`

` U.S. Patent No. 6,939,392
`IPR2016-01301
`
`Fuel flow through passages 50
`
`
`
`(Id. at FIG. 3 (annotated).)
`
`34. Fuel flows through passages 50 that are within flow plates 27. As the
`
`fuel flows through passages 50, a vacuum causes the dissolved oxygen in the fuel
`
`to be pulled through membranes 42 and then out of the FSU through the porous
`
`substrates 39. (Id. at 5:32-38, 5:59-65, 6:42-50.) Because the oxygen is removed,
`
`the FSU significantly increases “the exploitable cooling capacity of the fuel” (id.
`
`at 2:35-36, 2:46-67, 4:51-5:7) without the occurrence of coking.
`
`35. The FSU can be used in a thermal management system. The ’392
`
`patent provides an exemplary thermal management system in a gas turbine engine
`
`of an aircraft. (Id. at abstract, 4:8-11.) In the system described in the ’392 patent,
`
`
`
`15
`
`UTC-2003.018
`
`

`

` U.S. Patent No. 6,939,392
`IPR2016-01301
`fuel flows through the FSU, and the FSU deoxygenates the fuel as it flows from
`
`the fuel tank to the engine. (See id. at 4:51-5:7, FIG. 1.)
`
`36. On the way from the tank to the engine, the fuel may be used to cool
`
`other engine systems. As illustrated in FIG. 1, the fuel may cool low temperature
`
`heat sources 24 (indicated in yellow) or may be pre-heated (for example, by
`
`preheater 13, which is indicated in purple) to a temperature below the coking limit
`
`before reaching FSU 16. (See id. at 3:1-15 (explaining that “diffusivity of oxygen
`
`through the membrane increase[s] with increasing temperature”), 4:35-50, 8:16-24,
`
`8:30-33, FIG. 1).) After deoxygenation in the FSU, the fuel may be heated to
`
`temperatures up to 900 degrees F without significant coking, which means that the
`
`fuel can be used to cool components of high temperature sources (i.e., those that
`
`raise the temperature of the fuel above the 325 degrees F coking limit). (See id.
`
`at 4:39-48, 8:38-48, 8:63-67, 9:10-19, 9:22-28, 9:33-41, 9:58-65, 10:12-19.) The
`
`high temperature heat sources are indicated in red below, and the engine fuel
`
`pumps and flow meters that may also be cooled by fuel are indicated in green.
`
`
`
`16
`
`UTC-2003.019
`
`

`

`US. Patent No. 6,939,392
`IPR2016-01301
`
` .
`
`Fuel Tenngp Below
`Tradifio
`Coking
`L n u o - - — — — — n -- - u u u — - n gn - n - -- . — p . u . .. o u n --- - - uu - n - — _ - - - . . u .u c o a- u . -u n n n g n — o a- n n-
`
`(Id. at FIG. 1 (annotated).)
`
`VI. CLAINI CONSTRUCTION
`
`37.
`
`I have been informed that it would be useful to provide some guidance
`
`in this proceeding with respect to certain terms. For each term addressed below, I
`
`considered each term’s context within the claim, each term’s use within the
`
`specification, the prosecution history, and my understanding of how a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand the term around the time of the
`
`invention. I have been informed that I must construe the claims using the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.
`
`A.
`
`“fuel stabilization unit” (Claims 13-19, 21, 22, 26, 28, 31,
`49—51, and 53)
`
`38.
`
`In my opinion, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “fuel
`
`stabilization unit” is “a fuel deoxygenating device including an assembly of flow
`
`1 7
`
`UTC—2003.020
`
`

`

` U.S. Patent No. 6,939,392
`IPR2016-01301
`plates, permeable composite membranes, and porous substrates.” I have reviewed
`
`the prosecution history (GE-1002) and find nothing inconsistent with my
`
`understanding of this term.
`
`39. At the time of the invention in 2003, the term “fuel stabilization unit”
`
`had no established meaning. Though other devices deoxygenated fuel before the
`
`invention of the FSU, as I described above, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would not have described those devices as “fuel stabilization units.” I do not recall
`
`hearing the term “fuel stabilization unit” until after 2003. Given my work at the
`
`time, particularly my gas-turbine and rocket propulsion research, in which coking
`
`was a major issue, I would expect to have heard the term had it been in use in the
`
`art and literature.
`
`40. An analysis of the scholarly literature confirms my recollection. I
`
`conducted a Google Scholar search on April 17, 2017, for “fuel stabilization unit”
`
`and either “engine” or “fuel.” Before 2003 there were no results. (See UTC-2005)
`
`Twenty-four results appear if patents are included in the search (see UTC-2006),
`
`but only one reference (unrelated to aeronautics), U.S. Patent No. 5,871,618, titled
`
`“Apparatus for Reclaiming Fuel from Waste Oil,” uses the term “fuel stabilization
`
`unit.” That patent describes a device that chemically treats oil byproducts, not one
`
`for removing oxygen from fuel. (See UTC-2007 at Title, abstract.) The other
`
`patents returned by the search are “referenced by” later patents that use “fuel
`
`
`
`18
`
`UTC-2003.021
`
`

`

` U.S. Patent No. 6,939,392
`IPR2016-01301
`stabilization unit” in their titles; the other patents do not use the term “fuel
`
`stabilization unit.” (See, e.g., UTC-2008.009.) I also conducted a Web of Science
`
`search for “fuel stabilization unit.” No refereed publication dating from prior to
`
`2003 with the term “fuel stabilization unit” was found in the database as of
`
`April 10, 2017. (See UTC-2009.) (Web of Science does not cover non-refereed
`
`publications.) Ten papers were returned using “fuel,” “stabilization,” and “unit” as
`
`key words. (See UTC-2009.) Detailed review of these ten papers, however,
`
`indicates that the term “fuel stabilization unit” was never used. I would expect to
`
`find this information in Google Scholar and/or Web of Science if it was available.
`
`Further, Dr. Voecks agreed in his deposition testimony that the term did not have
`
`an established meaning in 2003. (See UTC-2002 at 90:22-91:18.)
`
`41. Thus, in my opinion, “fuel stabilization unit” would not have had a
`
`common or established meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention. I understand that, legally, when a term does not have any
`
`accepted or established meaning in the art, it should be construed based on the
`
`specification.
`
`42. The specification of the ’392 patent explains a clear structure for the
`
`claimed “fuel stabilization unit.” Throughout, the “fuel stabilization unit” (or
`
`“FSU”) is described as a fuel deoxygenating device including an assembly of flow
`
`plates, permeable composite membranes, and porous substrates. For example, the
`
`
`
`19
`
`UTC-2003.022
`
`

`

` U.S. Patent No. 6,939,392
`IPR2016-01301
`specification states: “The FSU 16 includes an assembly of flow plates 27,
`
`permeable composite membranes 42, and porous substrates 39.” (’392 patent
`
`at 5:8-17; see also id. at 4:51-54 (“The FSU 16 is a fuel deoxygenating device that
`
`receives fuel either directly or indirectly from the fuel source.”), 5:48-52 (“[T]he
`
`assembly of flow plates 27, permeable composite membranes 42, and porous
`
`substrates 39 is shown.”), 5:50-52 (“As stated above, the FSU 16 comprises an
`
`assembly of interfacially-engaged flow plates 27, permeable composite
`
`membranes 42, and porous substrates 39.”), 6:42-55 (“[T]he flow plates
`
`27 . . . form a structure that, when assembled with the permeable composite
`
`membranes 42 define the passages 50. . . . The passages 50 are in fluid
`
`communication with the inlet 57 and the outlet 59. The vacuum is in
`
`communication with the porous substrates 39 . . . .”), 7:4-20 (referring to FIGS. 5
`
`and 6), 7:39-44 (“[T]he specific quantity of flow plates 27, permeable composite
`
`membranes 42, and porous substrates 39 for use with the FSU 16 are determined
`
`by the application-specific requirements of the system 10 . . . .”), FIGS. 2-7.)
`
`43.
`
`I have reviewed each FSU embodiment in the specification, and each
`
`includes an assembly of flow plates, permeable composite membranes, and porous
`
`substrates. (See id. at FIGS. 2-7.) The ’392 patent does not describe any
`
`embodiment that does not have these components. I also find no indication in the
`
`
`
`20
`
`UTC-2003.023
`
`

`

` U.S. Patent No. 6,939,392
`IPR2016-01301
`’392 patent that it contemplates an FSU that would not have each of these
`
`components.
`
`44.
`
`In my opinion, including the flow plates, permeable composite
`
`membranes, and porous substrates in the construction of “fuel stabilization unit”
`
`aligns with the specification’s repeated description of the fuel stabilization unit—a
`
`term that did not have an established meaning in the art before the ’392 patent as I
`
`explained above—and is also consistent with how the fuel stabilization unit
`
`actually deoxygenates fuel. As the ’392 patent explains, the flow plates define the
`
`passages through which the fuel travels,