throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`In re U.S. Patent No. 6,939,392 (challenged claims 20, 32-37, 42-48, 54-57)
`
`Filed:
`
`Sep. 8, 2003
`
`Issued:
`
`Sep. 6, 2005
`
`Inventors: He Huang, Scott F. Kaslusky, Thomas G. Tillman, Timothy D.
`DeValve, Luca Bertuccioli, Michael K. Sahm, Louis J. Spadaccini,
`Robert L. Bayt, Foster Philip Lamm, Daniel R. Sabatino
`
`
`Assignee: United Technologies Corporation
`
`Title:
`
`
`System and Method for Thermal Management
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD, PTAB
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S.P.T.O.
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`I, Dr. Gerald Voecks, make this declaration at the request of the General
`
`Electric Company in connection with the petition for inter partes review submitted
`
`by Petitioner for U.S. Patent No. 6,939,392 (the “392 Patent”). All statements
`
`made herein of my own knowledge are true, and all statements made herein based
`
`on information and belief are believed to be true. Although I am being
`
`compensated for my time in preparing this declaration, the opinions articulated
`
`
`
`GE-1003.001
`
`

`
`herein are my own, and I have no stake in the outcome of this proceeding or any
`
`related litigation or administrative proceedings.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have reviewed the relevant
`
`portions of the following documents:
`
`GE-1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,939,392 to Huang et al. (“392 Patent”)
`
`GE-1002
`
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,939,392
`
`GE-1004
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Gerald Voecks
`
`GE-1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,315,815 to Spadaccini et al. (“Spadaccini”)
`
`GE-1006
`
`GE-1007
`
`GE-1008
`
`GE-1009
`
`GE-1010
`
`GE-1011
`
`GE-1012
`
`GE-1013
`
`GE-1014
`
`GE-1015
`
`PCT Application No. WO 02/16743 A1 to Wilmot and Ott
`(“Wilmot”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,317,877 to Stuart (“Stuart”)
`
`Richard W. Baker, Membrane Technology and Applications
`(McGraw-Hill 2000) (“Baker”)
`Munir Cheryan, Ultrafiltration and Microfiltration Handbook
`(Technomic 1998) (“Cheryan”)
`J.D. Seader & Ernest J. Henley, Separation Process Principles
`(John Wiley & Sons 1998) (“Seader”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,709,492 to Spadaccini et al. (“492 Patent”)
`
`L.J. Spadaccini & H. Huang, On-Line Fuel Deoxygenation for
`Coke Suppression, ASME GT-2002-30071 (Jun. 2002)
`U.S. Patent No. 3,412,560 to Gaubatz (“Gaubatz”)
`
` JACK D. MATTINGLY, ELEMENTS OF GAS TURBINE PROPULSION
`(McGraw-Hill 1996)
`S. Darrah, Jet-Fuel Deoxygenation, Interim Report for Period
`March 1987 – July 1988, 648-056/04168 (U.S. Gov’t Printing
`Office 1989)
`
`
`
`2
`
`GE-1003.002
`
`

`
`GE-1016
`
`GE-1017
`
`GE-1018
`
`GE-1019
`
`GE-1020
`
`GE-1021
`
`GE-1022
`
`GE-1023
`
`GE-1024
`
`GE-1025
`
`GE-1026
`
`GE-1027
`
`GE-1028
`
`GE-1029
`
`The American Heritage Dictionary. 4th ed. 2000. Print.
`(Excerpt)
`R.L. Bucknell, Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Florida Research and
`Development Center, “Influence of Fuels and Lubricants on
`Turbine Engine Design and Performance”, Technical Report
`AFAPL-TR-73-52 (June 1973)
`ROBERT N. HAZLETT, THERMAL OXIDATION STABILITY OF
`AVIATION TURBINE FUELS (ASTM 31 001092-12 1991)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,696,156 to Burr et al. (“Burr”)
`
`W. F. Taylor, Deposit Formation from Deoxygenated
`Hydrocarbons. I. General Features, 13 IND. ENG. CHEM., PROD.
`RES. DEV. 133 (1974)
`W. F. Taylor, Deposit Formation from Deoxygenated
`Hydrocarbons. II. Effect of Trace Sulfur Compounds, 15 IND.
`ENG. CHEM., PROD. RES. DEV. 64 (1976)
`W. F. Taylor, Deposit Formation from Deoxygenated
`Hydrocarbons. 3. Effects of Trace Nitrogen and Oxygen
`Compounds, 17 IND. ENG. CHEM., PROD. RES. DEV. 86 (1978)
`W. F. Taylor, Deposit Formation from Deoxygenated
`Hydrocarbons. 4. Studies in Pure Compound Systems, 17 IND.
`ENG. CHEM., PROD. RES. DEV. 86 (1980)
`Greg Hemighaus et al., Aviation Fuels, Technical Review (FTR-
`3), Chevron Products Company (2007)
`Spadaccini, Deposit Formation and Mitigation in Aircraft Fuels,
`123 J. OF ENG. FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER 741 (2001)
`T. Edwards et al., Supercritical Fuel Deposition Mechanisms,
`32 IND. ENG. CHEM. RES. 3117 (1993)
`H. Huang et al., United Technologies Research Center, East
`Hartford CT 06108, Endothermic Heat-Sink of Hydrocarbon
`Fuels for Scramjet Cooling, AIAA 2002-3871 (2002)
`U.S. Patent 4,649,114 to Miltenburger et al.
`
`D.G. Bessarabov et al., Use of Nonporous Polymeric Flat-Sheet
`Gas-Separation Membranes in a Membrane-Liquid Contactor:
`Experimental Studies, 113 J. MEM. SCI. 275 (1996)
`
`
`
`3
`
`GE-1003.003
`
`

`
`GE-1030
`
`GE-1031
`
`T. Matsumoto et al., Novel Functional Polymers:
`Poly(dimethylsiloxane)-Polyamide Multiblock Copolymer. VII.
`Oxygen Permeability of Aramid-Silicone Membranes as a Gas-
`Membrane-Liquid System, 64 J. APPLIED POLY. SCI. 1153 (May
`9, 1997)
`EP 0791383 A1 to S. Hamasaki et al.
`
`GE-1032
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,979,362 to Vershure
`
`GE-1033
`
`GE-1034
`
`JACK L. KERREBROCK, AIRCRAFT ENGINES AND GAS TURBINES
`(MIT Press 1977)
`WS Hampshire Inc. Teflon PTFE Data Sheet
`
`
`
`2.
`
`In forming my opinions expressed below, I have considered the
`
`documents listed above, as well as my knowledge and experience based upon my
`
`work in this area as described below.
`
`3.
`
`The application that led to the issuance of the 392 Patent was filed on
`
`September 8, 2003. It was a continuation-in-part of application filed on April 4,
`
`2003. I am familiar with the technology at issue and am aware of the state of the
`
`art around April 2003. Based on the technology disclosed in the 392 Patent, it is
`
`my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would include someone who
`
`has a chemistry degree and experience in the design and operation of thermal
`
`management in aircraft, or a person with an engineering degree and experience
`
`with the chemical properties of jet fuel and its use in aircraft. Thus, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would be either (i) a person with at least a M.S. degree in
`
`aerospace or mechanical engineering and 3-4 years of experience with the
`
`
`
`4
`
`GE-1003.004
`
`

`
`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. I was a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as of April 2003. My analyses and opinions below are
`
`given from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art in these
`
`technologies in this timeframe, unless stated otherwise.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND COMPENSATION
`4.
`I am currently an independent consultant providing my advice and
`
`expertise to numerous organizations. These include the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
`
`(JPL), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the National
`
`Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) under the Department of Energy. I am also
`
`a Visiting Associate Scientist at California Institute of Technology.
`
`5.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae (CV) is attached to this declaration as
`
`GE-1004.
`
`6.
`
`I obtained my Bachelor of Arts in Education, with a major in
`
`Chemistry, in 1962. Thereafter, I earned my Masters in Inorganic Chemistry from
`
`the University of South Dakota in 1967, and my Ph.D. in Inorganic Chemistry
`
`from Montana State University in 1972. In relevant part, my studies ranged from
`
`nonmetallic compound reactions and property identification (MA) to
`
`organometallic chemistry involving catalytic dimerization via photochemical
`
`
`
`5
`
`GE-1003.005
`
`

`
`excitation (Ph.D.). I conducted my post-doctorate research at JPL from 1972 to
`
`1974. My post-doctoral experience introduced me to photochemical reactions of
`
`gases on solid surfaces, which then led me to embark on an almost entirely
`
`engineering-oriented series of projects.
`
`7.
`
`After completing my post-doctorate, I was employed by the California
`
`Institute of Technology (Caltech) at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). Initially,
`
`I was responsible for improving the performance of the heterogeneous catalysts
`
`employed in the production of hydrogen from gasoline via catalytic partial
`
`oxidation. This was part of a NASA project in which the catalytic reactor was to
`
`be integrated with the internal combustion engine onboard a commercial vehicle to
`
`reduce emissions. Success in this project led to the development of novel catalytic
`
`systems for two-stage combustion for gas turbines and hydrogen production from a
`
`wide variety of fuels for fuel cell and heat engine applications. Novel catalyst
`
`systems and associated reactor designs were developed for these projects over the
`
`period from 1974 through 1990. During this period, I participated in the
`
`implementation of hydrogen production systems into an automobile, an airplane
`
`and into a regenerative fuel cell system. I became involved in NASA’s life support
`
`system development for the Space Station and became lead in the development of
`
`in situ sensors for life support system controls. I retired from JPL in 1998 and was
`
`thereafter employed by General Motors Company (GM) until 2004. During this
`
`
`
`6
`
`GE-1003.006
`
`

`
`period I was responsible for the development of onboard fuel processing for fuel
`
`cell vehicles, for both methanol and gasoline fuels. I later became Chief Scientist
`
`for advanced technology for automobile fuel cell systems. Since then, I have again
`
`become involved in NASA’s quest for in situ resource utilization for space
`
`applications to assist in human exploration, currently as a Co-Principal Investigator
`
`for a Mars 2020 mission. I have also become involved in the advancement of
`
`technologies that will help enable California to meet its future electrical demands
`
`and requirements.
`
`8.
`
`At both JPL and GM, a significant amount of my work dealt with
`
`hydrogen production from a wide range of fuels, employing reactor designing,
`
`novel heterogeneous catalyst development, fuels’ properties and delivery
`
`familiarization and heat exchange and transfer problems. These activities included
`
`working with vehicle and fuel cell systems and integration. Prevention of carbon
`
`formation in catalyst beds, on reactor walls, in fuel preheat sections, and under
`
`high temperature and pressure conditions was integral to these operations. The
`
`catalyst development expertise carried over into working on catalytic activation of
`
`heavy artillery liquid propellant and mono and bi-propellants for space engines.
`
`My work also has involved membrane-related activities, which arose in the
`
`development of various in situ sensors for Space Life Support Systems and in fuel
`
`cleanup, as well as in developing PEM and alkaline membrane fuel cells, and most
`
`
`
`7
`
`GE-1003.007
`
`

`
`recently with ceramic membranes in solid oxide electrolysis. I participated in a
`
`Caltech project to incorporate membranes into a bioreactor in which
`
`reactant/oxygen separation was achieved for a continuous feed bioreactor system.
`
`This work resulted in a patent of the reactor design used in the experiments. My
`
`background in chemistry has been a great assistance in the development of various
`
`engineering solutions to systems ranging from heat engines, two-stage combustion
`
`applications, fuel cell/electrolysis and life support system operations.
`
`9. My research and work has led to over forty-two publications, twenty
`
`patents, and numerous awards. These awards include the NASA Exceptional
`
`Service Award for my work in fuel cell fuel processing. I have also earned four
`
`JPL Group Achievement Awards for work in the Solar Thermal Parabolic Dish
`
`Project, development of Adsorbers For Wide-Field Planetary Camera-2, design,
`
`assembly and operation of a PEM Regenerative Fuel Cell System, and
`
`development of Liquid Gun Propellant technology. Throughout my career, I have
`
`belonged to the American Chemical Society, the Society of Automotive Engineers,
`
`and American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. I formed and led the In
`
`Situ Sensor Sessions in the IECEC meetings for three years and lead a session in
`
`each of the DOE-sponsored Fuel Cell Seminars, as well as review papers at the
`
`annual DOE Fuel Cell Merit Review meetings.
`
`10.
`
`I am being compensated for my time expended in connection with this
`
`
`
`8
`
`GE-1003.008
`
`

`
`matter at the rate of $250 per hour, plus reimbursement of any expenses I incur. I
`
`have no financial stake in the outcome of this matter, and my compensation is not
`
`contingent upon the outcome of this matter.
`
`III. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`11.
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether the
`
`claims of the 392 Patent are anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`12.
`
`I have been informed that in order for prior art to anticipate a claim
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the reference must disclose every element of the claim.
`
`13.
`
`I have been informed that a claimed invention is not patentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art. I also understand that
`
`the obviousness analysis takes into account factual inquiries including the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, the scope and content of the prior art, the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claimed subject matter, and any secondary
`
`considerations which may suggest the claimed invention was not obvious.
`
`14.
`
`I have been informed by legal counsel that the Supreme Court has
`
`recognized several rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to
`
`show obviousness of claimed subject matter. I understand some of these rationales
`
`include the following: combining prior art elements according to known methods
`
`
`
`9
`
`GE-1003.009
`
`

`
`to yield predictable results; simple substitution of one known element for another
`
`to obtain predictable results; use of a known technique to improve a similar device
`
`(method, or product) in a way; applying a known technique to a known device
`
`(method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; choosing
`
`from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success; and some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior
`
`art that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art
`
`reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`15. The following paragraphs regarding fuel-based thermal management
`
`and fuel deoxygenation are based on prior art to the 392 Patent and my
`
`understanding of and experience with such technology.
`
`A.
`Fuel-Based Thermal Management Systems
`16. Using fuel as coolant in an aircraft’s thermal management system was
`
`known in the art decades before the application resulting in the 392 Patent was
`
`filed. By the 1950s, it was well recognized that jet engines were considered to be
`
`the engine of the future in aircraft, particularly in the military. The power
`
`requirements, the environment of operation (high altitudes), engine materials, and
`
`speeds were being pushed to limits not considered for land operations. The
`
`
`
`10
`
`GE-1003.010
`
`

`
`realization was that engine designs had to be more compact. It also became
`
`apparent that relying only on air heat-exchangers was impractical from a
`
`mass/volume standpoint and that the onboard fuel could serve as an excellent heat
`
`sink. See R.L. Bucknell, Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Florida Research and
`
`Development Center, “Influence of Fuels and Lubricants on Turbine Engine
`
`Design and Performance”, Technical Report AFAPL-TR-73-52 (June 1973) (GE-
`
`1017), ROBERT N. HAZLETT, THERMAL OXIDATION STABILITY OF AVIATION
`
`TURBINE FUELS (ASTM 31 001092-12 1991) (GE-1018).
`
`17. By the 1960s, these design considerations prompted the investigation
`
`into using fuel onboard to serve as a means for controlling the higher temperatures
`
`of engine operation. Fuel-cooling could simultaneously provide more power for
`
`the engine, since the waste heat would be incorporated back into the fuel.
`
`Combustor designs, fuel delivery, and thermal management became integral in the
`
`aircraft and engine designs. High-temperature effects on engine metal life were
`
`also a prime consideration for employing advanced cooling concepts with fuel.
`
`Eventually, it became widely recognized to use fuel as a coolant for a variety of
`
`aircraft systems and components, including bleed air systems, oil systems, engine
`
`and nozzle casings, turbine blades, accessory drives, etc. Indeed, patents
`
`describing these exact applications of fuel-cooling predate the earliest priority date
`
`of the 392 Patent. See GE-1005, GE-1006, GE-1007, GE-1013; see also GE-1018.
`
`
`
`11
`
`GE-1003.011
`
`

`
`18.
`
` As a result of incorporating fuels into the thermal management,
`
`issues stemming from the fuels breaking down chemically became a problem. Fuel
`
`at an elevated temperature (i.e., above 300 °F) undergoes chemical reactions
`
`resulting in carbonaceous deposits, which were initially termed “coke” for lack of a
`
`better definition. Knowledge of this problem and the reaction of hot hydrocarbon
`
`fuels on hot metal surfaces was known and experienced in the petroleum refinery
`
`industry for decades. In the case of turbine engine, the buildup of these deposits is
`
`potentially catastrophic to the operation of an engine and various components of
`
`the fuel system if this takes place more often than normal scheduled maintenance
`
`or replacement occurs, i.e., more often than mean time to failure (MTTF).
`
`Typically, carbon deposition occurs on hot metal surfaces such as within heat
`
`exchangers, nozzles, and metering valves where the temperatures could rise above
`
`800 °F, depending on the engine design/operation. The following factors can
`
`contribute to breakdown of fuel, particularly at elevated fuel temperatures (i.e.,
`
`above 300 °F): (1) the composition and surface treatment of the metal surfaces
`
`contacting the hot fuel, (2) the fuel composition, (3) additives in the fuel, and (4)
`
`the solubility/inclusion of air (namely oxygen) in the aviation fuel. See GE-1018
`
`.062-.121.
`
`19. The problems of carbon deposition gave rise to concerted efforts to
`
`investigate methods to eliminate, or at least to reduce, the decomposition of fuels.
`
`
`
`12
`
`GE-1003.012
`
`

`
`Early efforts determined that the fuel needed to be delivered at high pressures
`
`(above 600 psi) to the engine combustor chamber for efficient engine operation
`
`and to help control the dissociation of the fuel into lighter, more volatile,
`
`hydrocarbons (e.g., methane, propane, etc.) prior to fuel introduction into the
`
`combustion chamber. Also, modifying fuel compositions and properties—
`
`including the amount of aromatic, paraffinic, and cycloaliphatic species—
`
`improved the thermal stability of fuel to some extent. Similarly, fuel additives
`
`proved to be very effective for reducing the problem of carbon deposits in high-
`
`temperature environments. Much of the fundamental work examining fuel
`
`compositions was funded by the Air Force and NASA. Oil companies such as
`
`Shell, Exxon and Phillips also examined the thermal stability of different fuel
`
`compositions. See, e.g., W. F. Taylor, Deposit Formation from Deoxygenated
`
`Hydrocarbons. I. General Features, 13 IND. ENG. CHEM., PROD. RES. DEV. 133
`
`(1974) (GE-1020), W. F. Taylor, Deposit Formation from Deoxygenated
`
`Hydrocarbons. II. Effect of Trace Sulfur Compounds, 15 IND. ENG. CHEM., PROD.
`
`RES. DEV. 64 (1976) (GE-1021), W. F. Taylor, Deposit Formation from
`
`Deoxygenated Hydrocarbons. 3. Effects of Trace Nitrogen and Oxygen
`
`Compounds, 17 IND. ENG. CHEM., PROD. RES. DEV. 86 (1978) (GE-1022), W. F.
`
`Taylor, Deposit Formation from Deoxygenated Hydrocarbons. 4. Studies in Pure
`
`Compound Systems, 17 IND. ENG. CHEM., PROD. RES. DEV. 86 (1980) (GE-1023).
`
`
`
`13
`
`GE-1003.013
`
`

`
`20.
`
`In the table below, a generalized list of military fuels provides a
`
`review of the changes that have taken place over time to provide stable, high
`
`performance military jet engine operation.
`
`Greg Hemighaus et al., Aviation Fuels, Technical Review (FTR-3), Chevron
`
`Products Company (2007) (GE-1024.020, Figure 3.1)
`
`21. Civilian jet fuel properties are shown in the next table, providing a
`
`snapshot of the basic kerosene fuel properties.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`GE-1003.014
`
`

`
`GE-1024.021, Figure 3.3
`
`22. The primary hydrocarbons that make up the fuel mixtures for jet
`
`engine operations are shown in the following table.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`GE-1003.015
`
`

`
`GE-1024.028, Figure 4.2
`
`
`
`23. Depending on the mix of these hydrocarbons, the tendency for
`
`unwanted carbon formation in the heated sections of the thermal management
`
`system will vary. Fuel additives, typically for military fuels, assist in providing
`
`thermal stability, as well in meeting operations under stringent conditions
`
`encountered by the military operations. See GE-1018.133-.143.
`
`24. Varying fuel composition and/or additives did not completely resolve
`
`the problems of carbon deposition at high fuel temperatures, however. See, e.g.,
`
`Spadaccini, Deposit Formation and Mitigation in Aircraft Fuels, 123 J. OF ENG.
`
`
`
`16
`
`GE-1003.016
`
`

`
`FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER 741 (2001) (GE-1025) (describing coke deposition
`
`rates in tests of Jet A, JP-8, and JP-8+ 100, which includes thermal stability
`
`additives). Plus, persons of skill in the art recognized that fuel additives increased
`
`the cost of fuel. See, e.g., GE-1006.003 at 20-23.
`
`B.
`Fuel Deoxygenation
`25. By at least the mid-1970s, it had been shown that oxygen dissolved in
`
`fuel may contribute to carbon formation. See, e.g., GE-1020. At sufficiently high
`
`temperatures, oxygen reacts to form free-radicals, which is followed by
`
`autoxidation reactions leading to carbon formation.1 See, e.g., GE-1015.008.
`
`Such reactions are of course more prevalent in oxygen-saturated fuel (i.e., fuel
`
`having approximately 70 ppm of oxygen). See, e.g., T. Edwards et al.,
`
`Supercritical Fuel Deposition Mechanisms, 32 IND. ENG. CHEM. RES. 3117 (1993)
`
`(GE-1026). But, when the amount of dissolved oxygen is reduced to 5 ppm or
`
`less, the problems of thermal decomposition via autoxidation (i.e., carbon
`
`deposition) become unimportant and fuel pyrolysis becomes the dominant
`
`mechanism of fuel decomposition. See, e.g., GE-1015.008. In the table below the
`
`effect of different oxygen concentrations on deposition rates and total deposits
`
`1 Carbon formation resulting from hot hydrocarbon fuels breaking down by any of
`
`several possible mechanisms (catalytic surfaces, free radical initiators, unstable
`
`compounds, high temperatures) is commonly referred to as “coking.”
`
`
`
`17
`
`GE-1003.017
`
`

`
`formed are reported.
`
`GE-1020.007, Table III
`
`
`
`26. But because the temperatures at which thermal breakdown of fuel
`
`occurs via pyrolysis (e.g., approximately 1000 °F for JP-8) is much higher than the
`
`temperature at which autoxidation reactions begin (e.g., approximately 300 °F),
`
`deoxygenated fuel can be heated to very high temperatures without significant
`
`carbon deposition issues. See, e.g., H. Huang et al., United Technologies Research
`
`Center, East Hartford CT 06108, Endothermic Heat-Sink of Hydrocarbon Fuels for
`
`Scramjet Cooling, AIAA 2002-3871 (2002) (GE-1027.004), GE-1026. This effect
`
`was all established well before the earliest priority date of the 392 Patent.
`
`27. Early efforts to deoxygenate fuel included research into nitrogen
`
`sparging, oxygen absorbers, and chemical getters were investigated for fuel
`
`deoxygenation, but each method appeared to be too onerous to be reduced to
`
`practice. See, e.g., GE-1015. By the priority date of the 392 Patent, a method of
`
`using membranes to filter the dissolved oxygen from the fuel was known and the
`
`ability to deoxygenate, or oxygenate, liquids via membranes of various
`
`
`
`18
`
`GE-1003.018
`
`

`
`compositions had been patented and published previously. See U.S. Patent
`
`4,649,114 to Miltenburger et al. (GE-1028), D.G. Bessarabov et al., Use of
`
`Nonporous Polymeric, Flat-Sheet Gas-Separation Membranes in a Membrane-
`
`Liquid Contactor: Experimental Studies, 113 J. MEM. SCI. 275 (1996) (GE-1029),
`
`T. Matsumoto et al., Novel Functional Polymers: Poly(dimethylsiloxane)-
`
`Polyamide Multiblock Copolymer. VII. Oxygen Permeability of Aramid-Silicone
`
`Membranes as a Gas-Membrane-Liquid System, 64 J. APPLIED POLY. SCI. 1153
`
`(May 9, 1997) (GE-1030), EP 0791383 A1 to S. Hamasaki et al. (GE-1031).
`
`28. For example, Louis J. Spadaccini, Richard A. Meinzer, and He Huang
`
`filed for a patent in 1999, which was granted in 2001, describing a method to
`
`deoxygenate fuel using permeable or porous membranes. See generally GE-1005.
`
`The method involves the implementation of a dense polymeric membrane which is
`
`oxygen permeable but which is impermeable to hydrocarbon liquids. See, e.g.,
`
`GE-1005 at 3:52-4:3. In principle, the membrane serves as a barrier across which
`
`the oxygen can pass via oxygen partial pressure differential, resulting when a
`
`vacuum or non-oxygen gas is present on the opposite side of the membrane across
`
`which the fuel flows. See, e.g., GE-1005 at 3:52-4:3, 7:54-8:2. This is commonly
`
`referred to as the solution-diffusion process and defined according to Fick’s law of
`
`diffusion. See, e.g., GE-1005 at 3:52-60. The principle involves membranes
`
`having tiny pores that allow molecules to cross via a synchronous mobility of
`
`
`
`19
`
`GE-1003.019
`
`

`
`gas/membrane motion.
`
`29.
`
`In general, there are several configurations for using polymeric
`
`membranes to remove dissolved gases from liquids that were known before the
`
`earliest priority date of the 392 Patent, including at least plate and frame, tubular,
`
`and spiral-wound. See, e.g., GE-1008.061-.069, GE-1009.013-.068, GE-1010.003-
`
`.004. Each configuration of the membrane has particular advantages and
`
`disadvantages, including surface area available for gas transport, structural stability
`
`and fabrication. Ideally, thin films of the desired membrane are preferred because
`
`the path through which the gas must be transported is short, but the membrane film
`
`must be free of ‘pinholes’ which would allow liquid to also travel through the film.
`
`Thin films of membranes may require support in order to accommodate the
`
`pressure and temperature used in the application and the support must not interfere
`
`with the gas transport.
`
`30. Plate and frame membrane configurations offer the ability to place a
`
`very thin membrane film onto a porous support. Very thin films can be supported
`
`on lightweight, open-frame (like honeycomb) material in a fashion that permits
`
`high surface area for exposure to the liquid as well as ease of transport of the gas,
`
`such that elevated temperatures and pressures can be more readily accommodated.
`
`This provides a smooth path across which the fuel can flow and the oxygen can be
`
`removed readily on the porous support side. Manifolding is simpler than with
`
`
`
`20
`
`GE-1003.020
`
`

`
`tubular configurations (see below) in that the inlet and exit of the flow channels
`
`can be designed for a wide range of flow rates, allowing equal flows through each
`
`of the independent channels during operation. Material compatibility can be
`
`managed by proper choice of the thin polymer film material with the support
`
`material, permitting long term operation with minimal stress at the support
`
`surfaces. Trades must be made with respect to the support blockage on the low
`
`pressure side of the film versus the thickness of the film that is supported in order
`
`to determine the design applicable to the degasification process.
`
`31. A tubular/tube and shell configuration, among the earliest designs put
`
`into practice, employs a series of small tubes which can provide a high surface area
`
`across which the oxygen can pass. These units have the lowest surface area-to-
`
`volume ratio making them less attractive for tight packaging. See GE-1009.031.
`
`Elevated temperatures and pressures may place unique limitations on the use of
`
`tubular configurations, namely tube length growth, the diameter can swell, and
`
`difficulty in manifolding of each of the tube ends at the entrance and exit at the
`
`shell ends. In the case of the liquid flowing through the shell side, interaction of
`
`the liquid with the surface of the polymer tubes may require inclusion of complex
`
`baffling in order to maximize contact with the tubes surfaces for high oxygen
`
`permeability.
`
`32. Spiral-wound is more commonly used in gas separation applications
`
`
`
`21
`
`GE-1003.021
`
`

`
`but is commonly used in reverse osmosis and ultrafiltration in the food industry.
`
`See GE-1008.066, .069. Diffusion rate of the polymer employed, which
`
`determines the surface area required for the oxygen removal rate, and mass/volume
`
`trade-off for packaging will determine which method is best applicable to
`
`deoxygenation of jet fuel in an aircraft application.
`
`33. Accordingly, by the earliest possible priority date of the 392 Patent in
`
`1993, persons of ordinary skill in the art already understood (1) that fuel could be
`
`used as a coolant in various components and systems of an aircraft, (2) that
`
`deoxygenated fuel could render carbon formation and deposition unimportant up to
`
`temperatures at which thermal breakdown by pyrolysis occurs, (3) that fuel could
`
`be deoxygenated effectively using polymeric membranes, and (4) that membranes
`
`could be configured in a limited number of well-known ways to degasify a liquid
`
`medium.
`
`C. The 392 Patent and Its Claims
`34. The 392 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 10/657,299,
`
`filed on September 8, 2003, which is a continuation-in-part of Application No.
`
`10/407,004 filed on April 4, 2003 (now U.S. Patent No. 6,709,492). The 392
`
`Patent consists of fifty-seven claims. Claims 1, 13, 27, 42, and 49 are independent.
`
`Each of the independent claims contains variations on several common elements,
`
`including:
`
`
`
`22
`
`GE-1003.022
`
`

`
` deoxygenating fuel (e.g., a “means for deoxygenating said fuel” or a
`
`“fuel stabilization unit”);
`
` transferring heat from a heat-generating subsystem of the aircraft to the
`
`fuel; and
`
` providing fuel to an energy conversion device (e.g., an “energy
`
`conversion device,” an “engine,” or “means for powering said aircraft”).
`
`I have illustrated these elements below with an annotated version of Figure 1 of the
`
`392 Patent. See also GE-1001 at 4:8-26.:
`
`GE-1001.003, Figure 1 (annotations in red)
`
`35. The dependent claims generally relate to: (1) specific devices/aircraft
`
`subsystems that use the fuel as a heat sink; (2) additional fuel-system components,
`
`such as a heat exchanger, fuel tank, pump, fuel injector, etc.; (3) specific
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`GE-1003.023
`
`

`
`construction details of the deoxygenation unit (e.g., flow plates, baffles, porous
`
`substrates, etc.); and (4) the type of heat exchangers.
`
`36.
`
`I have reviewed the file history for the 392 Patent. See GE-1002. I
`
`understand that while Spadaccini and U.S. Patent No. 6,415,595 (which is the U.S.
`
`counterpart to the Wilmot reference addressed in this Petition) are listed as
`
`references cited by Patent Owner during the prosecution of the application
`
`resulting in the 392 Patent, the Examiner never addressed or discussed either in an
`
`office action or otherwise. See id.
`
`V. MEANING OF CERTAIN CLAIM TERMS
`37. For a non-expired patent, I have been informed by legal counsel that a
`
`claim subject to an IPR is interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. This means that the
`
`words of the claim are given their plain meaning unless that meaning is
`
`inconsistent with the specification. I also understand that claims may include a
`
`“means-plus-function” limitation. Further, I understand that a limitation is
`
`presumed to be a “means-plus-function” limitation when it explicitly uses the term
`
`“means” and includes functional language. I understand that the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of a mean-plus-function limitation is the structure,
`
`material or act described in the specification as performing the entire claimed
`
`function and equivalents to the disclosed structure, material or act. Below I have
`
`
`
`24
`
`GE-1003.024
`
`

`
`provided a definition for certain claim terms consistent with the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretat

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket