`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 14‐15
`
`
`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 1117
`Page 1 of 98
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 14‐15
`
`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 1117
`Page 2 of 98
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 14‐15
`
`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 1117
`Page 3 of 98
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 14‐15
`
`(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 that 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 1117
`Page 4 of 98
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 14‐15
`
`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 1117
`Page 5 of 98
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 14‐15
`
`
`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 patent”)
`
`(Ex. 1101), 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. 1102).
`
`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 1117
`Page 6 of 98
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 14‐15
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1103
`
`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”)
`
`1104 U.S. Patent No. 5,873,549 to Jeffery G. Lane et al. (“Lane”)
`
`1105 U.S. Patent No. 6,158,693 to George E. Mueller et al. (“Mueller ‘693”)
`
`
`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.
`
`Title of Document
`
`1106 U.S. Patent No. 5,927,653 to George E. Mueller et al. (“Mueller ‘653”)
`
`1107 U.S. Patent No. 6,024,006 to Bjørn Kindem et al. (“Kindem”)
`
`1108
`
`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”)
`
`1109 U.S. Patent No. 6,450,452 to Robert B. Spencer et al. (“Spencer”)
`
`1110
`
`LUCY ROGERS, IT’S ONLY ROCKET SCIENCE: AN INTRODUCTION IN PLAIN ENGLISH
`(2008).
`
`1111 U.S. Patent No. 8,047,472 to Vance D. Brand et al. (“Brand”)
`
`6
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1117
`Page 7 of 98
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 14‐15
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1112
`
`Title of Document
`
`STEVEN J. ISAKOWITZ, JOSEPH P. HOPKINS & JOSHUA B. HOPKINS, INTERNATIONAL
`REFERENCE GUIDE TO SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEMS (4th ed. 2004)
`
`1113 MARSHALL H. KAPLAN, SPACE SHUTTLE: AMERICA'S WINGS TO THE FUTURE (2nd
`ed. 1978).
`
`1114 NASA, http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle (last visited Aug.
`13, 2014).
`
`1115
`
`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).
`
`1116 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
`
`7
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1117
`Page 8 of 98
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 14‐15
`
`experience in launch vehicle systems engineering, including implementing aspects
`
`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. 1101),
`
`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 1117
`Page 9 of 98
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 14‐15
`
`
`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. 1110) 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., id. 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. 1112 at 436; Ex. 1113 at 9‐
`
`9
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1117
`Page 10 of 98
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 14‐15
`
`10 (Introduction).) By 2011, when the Space Shuttle program ended, it had made
`
`over 100 flights. (Ex. 1114.)
`
`19.
`
`In the past half century, 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 1117
`Page 11 of 98
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 14‐15
`
`explored. (See Ex. 1110 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. 1110 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. 1112 at 429‐430.) As of 2008, rockets
`
`with up to five stages have been developed and launched. (Ex. 1110 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. 1113 at 9‐10 (Introduction).)
`
`11
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1117
`Page 12 of 98
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 14‐15
`
`
`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. 1112 at 188‐202.)
`
`25. As explained in U.S. Patent No. 5,927,653 to George E. Mueller et al.
`
`(“Mueller ‘653”) (Ex. 1106), 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. 1106 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 U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,450,452 to Spencer (“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. 1109 at 1:39‐42.) As a
`
`result of the massive costs of expendable vehicles—which are incurred over and
`
`12
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1117
`Page 13 of 98
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 14‐15
`
`over again with each launch—those skilled 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. 1106 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.
`
`1103 at 193; see also Ex. 1113 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 1117
`Page 14 of 98
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 14‐15
`
`
`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. 1115.) 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. 1116 at 3, Fig. 3.)
`
`14
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1117
`Page 15 of 98
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 14‐15
`
`
`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. 1112 at 432; Ex. 1113 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 1117
`Page 16 of 98
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 14‐15
`
`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.
`
`1113 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. 1106 at 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 1117
`Page 17 of 98
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 14‐15
`
`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. 1113 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 1117
`Page 18 of 98
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 14‐15
`
`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. 1111), 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. 1103). 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 1117
`Page 19 of 98
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 14‐15
`
`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. 1104
`
`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. 1107.)
`
`19
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1117
`Page 20 of 98
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 14‐15
`
`
`43.
`
`For example, the Sea Launch consortium was established in 1995,
`
`and its first launch was in March of 1999. (Ex. 1112 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. 1107 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. 1106 at 3:49‐56; 26:28‐65; Ex. 1113 at 39‐41.)
`
`20
`
`Space Exploration Technologies; NEW PETITION
`Exhibit 1117
`Page 21 of 98
`
`
`
`Declaration of Marshall H. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321, Claims 14‐15
`
`IV.
`
`THE ‘321 PATENT