Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 1‐13
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Space Exploration Technologies Corp.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Blue Origin LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 8,678,321
`Filing Date: June 14, 2010
`Issue Date: March 25, 2014
`Title: SEA LANDING OF SPACE LAUNCH VEHICLES AND ASSOCIATED SYSTEMS AND
`METHODS
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MARSHALL H. KAPLAN, PH.D.
`
`Inter Partes Review No. ______
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‐i‐
`
`
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 1 of 142
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 1‐13
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Space Exploration Technologies Corp.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Blue Origin LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 8,678,321
`Filing Date: June 14, 2010
`Issue Date: March 25, 2014
`Title: SEA LANDING OF SPACE LAUNCH VEHICLES AND ASSOCIATED SYSTEMS AND
`METHODS
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MARSHALL H. KAPLAN, PH.D.
`
`Inter Partes Review No. ______
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‐i‐
`
`
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 1 of 142
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 1‐13
`
`I, Marshall H. Kaplan, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`A.
`1.
`
`Qualifications and Experience
`
`I have over 45 years of technical experience in the aerospace field,
`
`which includes extensive expertise in the area of rocketry and in launch vehicle
`
`engineering and systems. I am currently the Chief Executive Officer, Founder, and
`
`Principal Instructor of Launchspace, Inc., a leading aerospace training and
`
`consulting firm and a Visiting Professor of Aerospace Engineering at the University
`
`of Maryland.
`
`2.
`
`In my role at Launchspace, I have drawn on my industry experience
`
`to develop dozens of courses covering a wide range of aerospace topics, including
`
`courses titled “Launch Vehicle Systems Design and Engineering,” “Introduction to
`
`Reusable Launch Vehicles,” and “Advanced Launch Systems, Reusables.” At the
`
`University of Maryland, I am developing a graduate course on launch vehicles. I
`
`was previously a tenured Professor of Aerospace Engineering at the Pennsylvania
`
`State University where I taught “Aerospace Vehicle Design” and “Dynamics and
`
`Control of Aerospace Vehicles.” Through my academic work and my training
`
`programs, I have taught hundreds of classes and thousands of students and
`
`1
`
`
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 2 of 142
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 1‐13
`
`professionals. To be an effective teacher, I have kept my finger on the pulse of
`
`the industry, remained cognizant of the knowledge base of other practitioners
`
`and academics, and had the opportunity to observe the competency and
`
`ingenuity of everyone from first year aerospace students to outstanding
`
`professionals in the space industry, allowing me to accurately ascertain the skill
`
`level necessary to practice in a complex field.
`
`3.
`
`Through Launchspace, I also serve as a consultant to industry,
`
`academic, and government clients on a variety of aerospace projects. For
`
`example, I am currently engaged as a Senior Advisor to the Defense Advanced
`
`Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Experimental Spaceplane 1 (XS‐1) project,
`
`which involves the development of a reusable first stage of a space access vehicle.
`
`4.
`
`Prior to founding Launchspace, I was the Chief Engineer on both the
`
`EER Systems’ Conestoga 1620 expendable launch vehicle (ELV) (1992‐1993) and
`
`the fully reusable Kistler K‐1 two‐stage‐to‐orbit (TSTO) reusable launch vehicle
`
`(RLV) (1993‐1994). As launch vehicle Chief Engineer on the Kistler K‐1 vehicle, I
`
`was responsible for all technical design activities, launch operations, staging
`
`events, and recovery of vehicle stages. I also consulted on numerous other
`
`launch vehicle and other aerospace projects for the General Accounting Office
`
`2
`
`
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 3 of 142
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 1‐13
`
`(now Government Accountability Office), the National Research Council Study
`
`Group on Single‐Stage‐to‐Orbit Launch Vehicle Technologies, the Office of the
`
`Secretary of Defense, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
`
`5. My consulting activities included evaluating expendable and reusable
`
`launch vehicle designs and providing analysis and guidance on vehicle and
`
`satellite control and reentry projects. For example, in conjunction with my work
`
`for the National Research Council, I provided technical advice and performed
`
`feasibility analyses related to the reusable, single‐stage‐to‐orbit Advanced
`
`Technology Demonstrator X‐33 Program. I was also tasked by the Office of the
`
`Secretary of Defense to evaluate various domestic launch vehicle companies,
`
`including SpaceX, for their ability to deliver payloads to orbit. I have held
`
`numerous other professional positions, which involved the design or analysis of
`
`launch vehicles and/or vehicle control systems, and I have received a number of
`
`professional awards and honors for my work in the aerospace field. Additional
`
`details of my qualifications and experience are available in Exhibit A, my
`
`curriculum vitae.
`
`6.
`
`I am the author of more than one hundred technical papers and
`
`reports on various aspects of space technology and systems engineering,
`
`3
`
`
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 4 of 142
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 1‐13
`
`additional details of which can be found in Exhibit A. As one example, I was the
`
`lead author of “A Systems Approach to Developing an Inexpensive Fully‐Reusable
`
`Two‐Stage Launch Vehicle,” which was presented in 1995 by the American
`
`Astronautical Society Conference and published as AAS‐95‐026. I am also the
`
`author of several books, including “Modern Spacecraft Dynamics and Control”
`
`and “Space Shuttle: America’s Wings to the Future.”
`
`7.
`
`I received a Ph.D. in Aeronautical and Astronautical Sciences from
`
`Stanford University in 1968, as well as a M.S. in Aeronautics and Astronautics
`
`from Massachusetts
`
`Institute of Technology
`
`in 1962.
`
`
`
`I completed my
`
`undergraduate degree in Aeronautical Engineering from Wayne State University
`
`in 1961 (cum laude).
`
`8.
`
`I am an expert in atmospheric flight, having received an Aeronautical
`
`Engineering degree, in addition to personal flight experience. I hold a private pilot
`
`multi‐engine license with an instrument rating, and over the past 40 years, have
`
`accumulated over 4,000 hours of flight time. I have also taught courses in control
`
`theory and aircraft autopilot design.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 5 of 142
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 1‐13
`
`
`9.
`
`I am being compensated for the time I have spent on this matter at
`
`the rate of $400 per hour. My compensation does not depend in any way upon
`
`the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`B. Materials Considered
`10.
`
`The analysis that I provide in this Declaration is based on my
`
`education and experience in the aerospace and aeronautics fields, as well as the
`
`documents I have considered including U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321 (“‘321”) (Ex.
`
`1001), which states on its face that it issued from an application filed on June 14,
`
`2010 and claims priority to two provisional patent applications (Nos. 61/218,009
`
`and 61/187,243) filed on June 17, 2009 and June 15, 2009, respectively. I also
`
`reviewed the file wrapper for the ‘321 patent (Ex. 1002).
`
`11.
`
`I reviewed various documents dated prior to June 2009 describing
`
`the state of the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ‘321 patent. As
`
`explained below, some of these documents are relied upon as actually disclosing
`
`the limitations of the ‘321 patent, while others are being relied upon primarily for
`
`background purposes. The prior art documents that I rely upon in this Declaration
`
`as actually disclosing the limitations of the claims are:
`
`5
`
`
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 6 of 142
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 1‐13
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1003
`
`Title of Document
`
`Yoshiyuki Ishijima et al., Re‐entry and Terminal Guidance for Vertical‐
`Landing TSTO (Two‐Stage to Orbit), A Collection of Technical Papers
`Part 1, AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit,
`A98‐37001 (“Ishijima”)
`
`1004 U.S. Patent No. 5,873,549 to Jeffery G. Lane et al. (“Lane”)
`
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 5,927,653 to George E. Mueller et al. (“Mueller ‘653”)
`
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 6,024,006 to Bjørn Kindem et al. (“Kindem”)
`
`1007
`
`Jack Waters, et al., Test Results of an F/A‐18 Automatic Carrier Landing
`Using Shipboard Relative GPS, Proceeding of the ION 57th Annual
`Meeting and the CIGTF 20th Biennial Guidance Test Symposium (2001)
`(“Waters”)
`
`1008 U.S. Patent No. 6,450,452 to Robert B. Spencer et al. (“Spencer”)
`
`
`This Declaration also cites the following additional prior art documents for
`
`purposes of describing the relevant technology, including the relevant state of the
`
`art at the time of the alleged invention of the ‘321 patent:
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1009
`
`Title of Document
`
`LUCY ROGERS, IT’S ONLY ROCKET SCIENCE: AN INTRODUCTION IN PLAIN ENGLISH
`(2008).
`
`1010 U.S. Patent No. 8,047,472 to Vance D. Brand et al. (“Brand”)
`
`1011
`
`STEVEN J. ISAKOWITZ, JOSEPH P. HOPKINS & JOSHUA B. HOPKINS, INTERNATIONAL
`
`6
`
`
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 7 of 142
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 1‐13
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Title of Document
`
`REFERENCE GUIDE TO SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEMS (4th ed. 2004)
`
`1012 MARSHALL H. KAPLAN, SPACE SHUTTLE: AMERICA'S WINGS TO THE FUTURE (2nd
`ed. 1978).
`
`1013 NASA, http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle (last visited Aug.
`13, 2014).
`
`1014
`
`Ed Memi, A Step To The Moon: DC‐X Experimental Lander Set Up
`Boeing For Future NASA Work. BOEING FRONTIERS, 8‐9.
`http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2008/aug/i_history.p
`df (last visited Aug. 13, 2014).
`
`1015 William Gaubatz, et al., DC‐X Results and the Next Step, American
`Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA‐94‐4674 (1994).
`
`
`II.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`12.
`
`I understand that an assessment of claims of the ‘321 patent should
`
`be undertaken from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art as of
`
`the earliest claimed priority date, which I assume to be June 15, 2009 (the date of
`
`the earliest provisional application listed on the face of the ‘321 patent).
`
`13.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art as of June 2009
`
`would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in aeronautical and/or
`
`aerospace engineering (or equivalent degree) with at least five years of practical
`
`experience in launch vehicle systems engineering, including implementing aspects
`
`7
`
`
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 8 of 142
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 1‐13
`
`of a space launch vehicle’s ascent flight sequence, staging, dynamics, control,
`
`navigation, and landing sequences. Alternatively, a person having a bachelor’s
`
`degree in a different engineering or scientific field could have qualified as one
`
`having ordinary skill in the art provided such person had at least ten years of
`
`practical experience in the development and implementation of space launch
`
`vehicle systems, operations, flight sequences, rocket propulsion, and navigation.
`
`14. Although my qualifications and experience exceed those of the
`
`hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art defined above, my analysis and
`
`opinions regarding the ‘321 patent have been based on the perspective of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art as of June 2009.
`
`III.
`
`STATE OF THE ART OF THE RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY AT THE TIME OF THE
`‘321 PATENT FILING
`
`15.
`
`The ‘321 patent, which is entitled “Sea Landing of Space Launch
`
`Vehicles and Associated Systems and Methods,” discloses a system and methods
`
`for sea‐based landing of a space launch vehicle. (‘321 patent (Ex. 1001),
`
`Abstract.) In particular, the ‘321 patent describes a vehicle capable of placing a
`
`payload into space and recovering a booster stage of the vehicle. (See, e.g., id. at
`
`1:42‐44.)
`
`8
`
`
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 9 of 142
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 1‐13
`
`
`16.
`
`The ‘321 patent is generally focused on a flight profile of the vehicle
`
`during descent (see id. at Fig. 1; 3:10) that includes orienting a space launch
`
`vehicle to a tail‐first orientation and vertically landing the vehicle on a landing
`
`structure in a body of water (see id. at 4:3‐6; 4:55‐57; 8:65‐9:2; Fig. 1). In this
`
`section, I provide a brief background of the state of reusable launch vehicle
`
`technology prior to June 2009 pertinent to the ‘321 patent.
`
`Origins of Space Flight
`
`A.
`17. As correctly recognized by the ‘321 patent, rocket powered launch
`
`vehicles have carried payloads into space for many years. ( Id. at 1:49‐54.)
`
`Sputnik 1, the first man‐made satellite, was launched into space over 50 years ago
`
`in 1957. (Lucy Rogers, It’s ONLY Rocket Science: An Introduction in Plain English
`
`(2008) (“Rocket Science”) (Ex. 1009) at 1.)
`
`18.
`
`In the years that followed, space flight blossomed, achieving
`
`numerous extraordinary milestones including manned space flights, sending men
`
`to the moon (and successfully bringing them back), and constructing Earth‐
`
`orbiting space stations. (See e.g., Ex. 1009 at 42‐43, 68‐71, 185‐189.) In 1981,
`
`NASA launched the Space Shuttle for the first time, marking the first partially
`
`reusable space launch vehicle ever to be put into service. (Ex. 1011 at 436; Ex.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 10 of 142
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 1‐13
`
`1012 at 9‐10 (Introduction).) By 2011, when the Space Shuttle program ended, it
`
`had made over 100 flights. (Ex. 1013.)
`
`19.
`
`In the 54 years between 1957 and 2011, the science of sending
`
`rockets into space became well‐known and widely understood. In particular, by
`
`2009 the basic flight sequence events claimed in the ‘321 patent, such as launch,
`
`stage separation, vehicle control techniques, and vertical powered landing had
`
`become routine in the industry.
`
`B.
`20.
`
`Space Launch Vehicles
`
`The goal of any space‐bound launch is to transfer a payload from the
`
`Earth’s surface to space. The payload is generally a very small (by mass) portion
`
`of the system that is initially launched, and typically includes people, satellites,
`
`space probes, telescopes, and/or equipment for research and experimentation.
`
`To send this payload into space, the launch system must create enormous thrust.
`
`This thrust is created by one or more rocket engines or other propulsion devices
`
`attached to a space launch vehicle.
`
`21.
`
`Since before the V‐2 rocket became the first rocket to reach the
`
`fringes of space in the 1940s, a great deal of research and development has been
`
`invested in “space launch vehicles,” and many avenues have been thoroughly
`
`10
`
`
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 11 of 142
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 1‐13
`
`explored. (See Ex. 1009 at 24‐26.) Fundamentally, launch vehicle designs can
`
`take two possible paths. They can utilize a single‐stage‐to‐orbit (“SSTO”) design
`
`or a multistage design. In a SSTO approach, the entirety of the vehicle that is
`
`launched is delivered to space. In contrast, a multistage launch vehicle contains
`
`multiple propulsive engines that are generally fired in stages, jettisoning stages as
`
`their propellant is expended. This allows the vehicle to shed dead weight as the
`
`upper stage ascends to orbit.
`
`22.
`
`The notion of rocket engine staging goes back at least to the 16th
`
`century, where a German manufacturer used them to allow fireworks to reach
`
`higher altitudes. (Ex. 1009 at 27.) Rocket engine staging has also long been in use
`
`in conjunction with space launch vehicles, including in the vehicle that launched
`
`Sputnik 1 in 1957—the R‐7 Semyorka. (Ex. 1011 at 429‐430.) As of 2008, rockets
`
`with up to five stages have been developed and launched. (Ex. 1009 at 28.)
`
`Reusable Launch Vehicles (“RLVs”)
`
`C.
`23. Due to the expense of manufacturing rocket motors, there has long
`
`been interest in their reuse. For example, an important motivation for the Space
`
`Shuttle project in the 1970s was to reduce costs of access to space by reusing
`
`launch vehicle components. (Ex. 1012 at 9‐10 (Introduction).)
`
`11
`
`
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 12 of 142
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 1‐13
`
`
`24.
`
`Even with cost savings derived from the partial reusability of the
`
`Space Shuttle, the cost of launching a vehicle into space remained massive. As a
`
`result, in the 1990’s, several initiatives to develop fully reusable launch vehicles
`
`were begun, including Kistler’s K‐1 launch vehicle. (Ex. 1011 at 188‐202.)
`
`25. As explained in U.S. Patent No. 5,927,653 to George E. Mueller et al.
`
`(“Mueller ‘653”) (Ex. 1005), filed in 1996, “[o]ne of the most significant problems
`
`facing industry with respect to satellite deployment is the extremely high cost to
`
`transport the satellite to a desired orbit.” (Ex. 1005 at 1:29‐31.) Mueller reported
`
`that launching an unmanned satellite into orbit in 1996 could cost from $40
`
`million to $200 million, depending on the type of rocket required. (Id. at 1:31‐35.)
`
`A large portion of these costs is attributable to the booster stages, which are used
`
`to accelerate the payload into the upper atmosphere and, once their propellant is
`
`expended, are jettisoned as lacking any further utility. As Spencer explains, for
`
`expendable launch vehicles, these costs are incurred on every launch: “[i]f any
`
`portion of such a [expendable] stage is reusable at all, substantial reconstruction
`
`is generally required. The disposable nature of launch vehicle stages can be []
`
`expensive.” (Ex. 1008 at 1:39‐42.) As a result of the massive costs of expendable
`
`vehicles—which are incurred over and over again with each launch—those skilled
`
`12
`
`
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 13 of 142
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 1‐13
`
`in the art recognized that partially or fully reusable launch vehicles could result in
`
`substantial cost savings. Mueller therefore disclosed “a reliable, reusable and
`
`cost‐effective system for deployment of payloads to low Earth orbit.” (Ex. 1005 at
`
`2:23‐26 (emphasis added).)
`
`26.
`
`In pursuit of the major cost savings attributable to reusable launch
`
`vehicles over those that are expendable, industry has responded to this incentive
`
`with significant research, development, and system testing throughout the 1990’s
`
`and early 2000’s.
`
`D.
`27.
`
`Flight Sequences of RLVs
`
`The flight sequence of a reusable launch vehicle is generally divided
`
`into the following phases: launch, ascent, descent, and landing. ( See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1003 at 193; see also Ex. 1012 at 71‐82.) Multi ‐stage launch vehicles further
`
`include one or more separation phases between the ascent and descent phases.
`
`Each jettisoned booster stage then undergoes its own descent and landing phase.
`
`28.
`
`The launch, ascent, and separation operations described and claimed
`
`in the ‘321 patent are all conventional procedures that are common to all multi‐
`
`stage launch vehicles and, as discussed above, were each well known since the
`
`earliest days of the space race.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 14 of 142
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 1‐13
`
`
`29.
`
`Like launch, ascent, separation, and descent, the landing phase
`
`described and claimed in the ‘321 patent was well researched and well developed
`
`before the patent’s earliest priority date. Nearly all recovery strategies call for a
`
`controlled landing of the vehicle, that is, controlling the orientation (or attitude)
`
`and velocity of the vehicle. This control could be as simple as the use of a
`
`parachute to slow the vehicle’s descent. On the other end of the spectrum,
`
`vertical powered descent using the vehicle’s main engines (or alternative engines)
`
`can be used to control descent velocity and attitude. Each of these alternatives,
`
`among others, has been implemented in conventional landing procedures.
`
`30.
`
`For example the DC‐X, short for Delta Clipper or Delta Clipper
`
`Experimental, which was constructed and tested between 1991 and 1995,
`
`successfully demonstrated powered vertical landing. (Ex. 1014.) The DC‐X was
`
`an early unmanned prototype of a reusable single‐stage‐to‐orbit launch vehicle
`
`built by McDonnell Douglas, which used attitude control thrusters and retro
`
`rockets to control the descent, allowing the craft to begin reentry nose‐first, but
`
`then reorient to a tail‐first landing orientation and touch down on landing struts
`
`at its landing site. (Id.; see also Ex. 1015 at 3, Fig. 3.)
`
`14
`
`
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 15 of 142
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 1‐13
`
`
`31. Design considerations regarding the vehicle’s flight trajectory also
`
`come into play between the ascent and landing phases. These considerations
`
`depend in large part on the location where the vehicle will land. Orbital stages
`
`are typically able to control their re‐entry trajectory and can therefore select a
`
`landing site. For example, the Space Shuttle Orbiters controlled their reentry such
`
`that they could land at either Kennedy Space Center or Edwards Air Force Base.
`
`(Ex. 1011 at 432; Ex. 1012 at 129‐30.) The ability to select a landing site for sub‐
`
`orbital booster stages, however, is more constrained. Two major descent and
`
`recovery strategies have been developed for booster stages of multistage
`
`reusable launch vehicles: down‐range recovery and toss‐back recovery.
`
`32. Down‐range recovery describes permitting the vehicle to generally
`
`follow its launch trajectory and land at a significant distance from the launch site.
`
`It has the important advantage that little to no propellant is required to maneuver
`
`the stage to the recovery site, which can significantly improve orbit‐bound
`
`payload capacity. A disadvantage of down‐range recovery is the need for a
`
`suitable recovery site in addition to the launch site.
`
`33. Conversely, toss‐back recovery involves a post‐separation burn of the
`
`booster‐mounted engine(s) causing the booster to land at a location relatively
`
`15
`
`
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 16 of 142
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 1‐13
`
`close to the launch site. Toss ‐back recovery can thus potentially use a single
`
`launch and recovery site, but significant propellant or fuel mass must be
`
`consumed during the toss‐back maneuver, which significantly reduces payload
`
`capacity relative to a down‐range recovery.
`
`34. Additionally, due to long‐standing safety concerns, the United States
`
`has historically interpreted launch safety regulations as not permitting the ascent
`
`phase of orbital vehicles to occur over land. (See, e.g., 14 C.F.R. § 417 et seq.; Ex.
`
`1012 at 28‐31) Landing at sea, of course, reduces the risk of accidental loss of life
`
`or property in the event of a vehicle malfunction or crash. Consequently, for
`
`launches from the United States, booster stage separation occurs over water,
`
`limiting the selection of down‐range landing options. Various recovery strategies
`
`have been developed taking into account this physical and regulatory backdrop.
`
`35. One example of the toss‐back recovery strategy is the Kistler
`
`Aerospace Corp. (“KAC”) K‐1 program. In the early 1990s, KAC began the
`
`development of a two‐stage‐to‐orbit (“TSTO”) fully‐reusable space launch vehicle,
`
`known as the Kistler K‐1 vehicle. The design was based on a vertical take‐off and
`
`vertical descent scenario. (See, e.g., Ex. 1005 Fig. 2; 6:17‐29; 3:57‐65.) The K‐1
`
`flight plan included down‐range, over‐water separation followed by a toss‐back
`
`16
`
`
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 17 of 142
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 1‐13
`
`descent phase in which the booster stage returned to near the launch site where
`
`it would be refurbished and then reused. (Id. at 3:49‐56, 26:28‐65.)
`
`36.
`
`The solid rocket boosters (“SRBs”) of the Space Shuttle employed the
`
`down‐range recovery strategy. The SRBs descended to a splashdown in the
`
`Atlantic Ocean after a down‐range, over‐water separation. They were then
`
`recovered by special tug boats, which returned them to land for refurbishing and
`
`re‐use. (Ex. 1012 at 9‐10 (Introduction), 41.)
`
`37. Where the goal is reusability, however, landing the booster stage in
`
`water (i.e. splashdown) can complicate the refurbishment process and increase
`
`costs. Exposure of the hot, precision‐manufactured rocket engines to cold and
`
`corrosive salt water can cause significant damage, particularly to liquid‐fuel rocket
`
`engines, which are significantly more complex than the solid‐fuel rocket engines
`
`used in the SRBs.
`
`E.
`38.
`
`Sea‐Based Landing of RLVs
`
`Landing on a structure floating on the surface of the water is the only
`
`straightforward option that exists in view of: (1) financial incentives to recover
`
`and reuse booster stages; (2) minimizing refurbishment time and expense; (3)
`
`17
`
`
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 18 of 142
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 1‐13
`
`sacrifices in payload capacity attributable to a toss‐back maneuver; and (4)
`
`regulatory limitations barring overland flight.
`
`39.
`
`Indeed, this approach has been the subject of a number of published
`
`documents. For example, throughout the prosecution of the ‘321 patent, the
`
`claims were rejected over U.S. Patent No. 8,047,472 to Vance D. Brand et al.
`
`(“Brand”) (Ex. 1010), which disclosed a “reusable launch system” in which the
`
`lower stage “descends to touchdown on a barge in the ocean.” (Id. at 5:41‐43.)
`
`40. A similar technique was described in a 1998 publication by Yoshiyuki
`
`Ishijima et al., “Re‐entry and Terminal Guidance for Vertical‐Landing TSTO (Two‐
`
`Stage to Orbit),” AAIA Pub. No. 98‐4120
`
`(“Ishijima”) (Ex. 1003). Ishijima discloses a
`
`TSTO system in which the first stage lands
`
`on a “tanker on the sea” as shown in Figure
`
`1 of Ishijima shown at the right. (Id. at 192;
`
`id. at 193, Fig. 1.)
`
`Landing Procedures and Inter‐Flight Operations
`
`F.
`41. Nearly any recovery strategy calls for a controlled landing of the
`
`vehicle, that is, controlling the orientation (or attitude) and velocity of the vehicle.
`
`18
`
`
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 19 of 142
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 1‐13
`
`Like the ascent profile, the descent and landing profile described in the ‘321
`
`patent was well researched and well developed before the patent’s earliest
`
`priority date. As discussed above, the DC‐X demonstrated a launch, ascent,
`
`reorientation, and tail‐first powered vertical landing sequence. Such tail‐first
`
`landings require a reorientation maneuver as a result of the vehicle’s nose first
`
`orientation at launch. At least by the 1990s, vehicle designers had suggested
`
`other methods of effecting the reorientation of reusable launch vehicle stages.
`
`For example, the use of articulating aerodynamic control surfaces at the forward
`
`end of a stage for controlling rotation and stabilization during
`
`landing
`
`maneuvers was well‐known and understood. Such surfaces could be stowed
`
`during ascent, but deployed and used upon reentry of a booster stage. (Ex. 1004
`
`at 1:61‐67.) Other mechanisms for reorienting the vehicle include, for example,
`
`the use of attitude control thrusters or main engine gimbaling.
`
`42. After a reusable launch vehicle has landed, it is typically relocated to
`
`a facility where it can be refurbished before it is reused. Various methods for
`
`handling and transporting multi‐stage rockets have also been well developed
`
`prior to the earliest priority date of the ‘321 patent. (See, e.g., Ex. 1006.)
`
`19
`
`
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 20 of 142
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 1‐13
`
`
`43.
`
`For example, the Sea Launch consortium was established in 1995,
`
`and its first launch was in March of 1999. (Ex. 1011 at 541‐542, 547.) Sea Launch
`
`developed all of the technologies and systems for transferring a large space
`
`launch vehicle to, and launching it from, a seagoing platform. This technology
`
`includes the ability to make mid‐ocean transfers of launch vehicles between the
`
`launch platform and a command ship. (Ex. 1006 at 3:36‐45.) Such handling and
`
`transferring technology is equally applicable for transferring vehicles to or from a
`
`launch platform.
`
`44. Once a recovered vehicle has been transferred to a refurbishment
`
`facility, techniques that largely parallel rocket vehicle construction and assembly
`
`can be applied to ready the vehicle for reuse. Like rocket construction, such
`
`refurbishment techniques were well developed before the earliest priority date of
`
`the ‘321 patent. For example, the Space Shuttle program and the Kistler K‐1
`
`programs described above each had techniques and facilities in place to refurbish
`
`their vehicles. (Ex. 1005 at 3:49‐56; 26:28‐65; Ex. 1012 at 39‐41.)
`
`20
`
`
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 21 of 142
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 1‐13
`
`IV.
`
`THE ‘321 PATENT’S DISCLOSED SPACE LAUNCH VEHICLE FLIGHT SEQUENCE
`A.
`4
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
