Case IPR 2015-01341
`Declaration of John F. Grabowsky
`
`
`
`
`Submitted on behalf of Seymour Levine
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`
`
`THE BOEING COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SEYMOUR LEVINE
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01341
`
`Patent RE039,618
`
`_________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JOHN F. GRABOWSKY IN SUPPORT OF PATENT
`OWNER’S RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`06012-00001/7793006.1
`
`LEVINE
`Ex. 2011
`
`
`Declaration of John F. Grabowsky
`
`
`
`
`Submitted on behalf of Seymour Levine
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`
`
`THE BOEING COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SEYMOUR LEVINE
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01341
`
`Patent RE039,618
`
`_________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JOHN F. GRABOWSKY IN SUPPORT OF PATENT
`OWNER’S RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`06012-00001/7793006.1
`
`LEVINE
`Ex. 2011
`
`
`
`I, John F. Grabowsky, declare as follows:
`
`Case IPR 2015-01341
`Declaration of John F. Grabowsky
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Patent Owner Seymour Levine as
`
`an expert witness to provide testimony in the above-captioned Inter Partes Review
`
`proceeding including on issues relating to the validity of U.S. Reissue Patent
`
`RE39,618 (“the ’618 patent”) entitled Remote, Aircraft, Global, Paperless
`
`Maintenance System. I make this Declaration based upon facts and matters within
`
`my own knowledge.
`2.
`
`In this IPR, I understand that the Patent Office has instituted a review
`
`of claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 14 and 16 of the ’618 patent based on various combinations
`
`of references.
`3.
`
`In preparation for this declaration, I have reviewed and am now
`
`familiar with the following materials:
`a. The ‘618 patent including the specification and claims (Ex.
`
`1001);
`b. Petition for Inter Partes Review of the ’618 patent dated June
`
`4, 2015;
`c. Declaration of Dr. Albert Helfrick in Support of Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE 39,618 (Ex. 1002);
`d. Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review of the ’618
`
`patent dated December 21, 2015;
`e. Aeronautical Radio, Inc., Design Guidance for Onboard
`
`Maintenance System: ARINC Characteristic 624-1 (1993)
`
`(“ARINC 624-1”) (Ex. 1014);
`f. Ward, Power Plant Health Monitoring-The Human Factor,
`
`Royal Aeronautical Society, Tenth Annual Symposium (1992)
`
`(“Ward”) (Ex. 1015);
`
`06012-00001/7793006.1
`
`-1-
`
`LEVINE
`Ex. 2011
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2015-01341
`Declaration of John F. Grabowsky
`
`g. Aeronautical Radio, Inc., Flight Management Computer
`
`System: ARINC Characteristic 702-6 (1994) (“ARINC 702-6”)
`
`(Ex. 1016);
`h. Farmakis et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,714,948 (“Farmakis”) (Ex.
`
`1021);
`i. Chetail, Le CFM 56-6 Sur A320 A Air France, NATO
`
`Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development,
`
`June 1988 (“Chetail”) (Ex. 1018);
`j. Dyson, Commercial Engine Monitoring Status At GE Aircraft
`
`Engines, NATO Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and
`
`Development, June 1988 (“Dyson”) (Ex. 1019).
`
`4.
`
`In making the statements, and reaching my opinions and conclusions
`
`stated herein, I have considered the documents cited above in the context of my
`
`own education, training, knowledge, and personal and professional experience,
`
`including knowledge of the state of the art and the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the subject matter described
`
`and claimed in the ’618 patent (i.e., 1995).
`
`5.
`
`I am being compensated for my time in connection with this IPR at a
`
`rate of $500 per hour. My compensation is in no way dependent on, nor affects,
`
`the substance of my statements in this Declaration. I have no direct financial
`
`interest in the ’618 patent.
`
`06012-00001/7793006.1
`
`-2-
`
`LEVINE
`Ex. 2011
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2015-01341
`Declaration of John F. Grabowsky
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`6.
`
`I have more than 45 years experience in the aerospace industry. I
`
`earned a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering from Lehigh University in
`
`1969 and have worked in both the defense and commercial aerospace sectors
`
`throughout my career. I was most recently the Chief Technology Office of
`
`AeroVironment, Inc., where, among other responsibilities, I assisted
`
`in
`
`establishing technical direction for Unmanned Aircraft Systems.
`
`7.
`
`I am the named inventor on a patent directed to an aircraft flight data
`
`acquisition and transmission system for commercial aircraft. My Curriculum
`
`Vitae detailing my experience and qualifications is attached as Exhibit 2012.
`
`II. ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`8.
`
`Based on the technologies disclosed in the ’618 patent, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have at least a B.S. degree in electrical, systems, or
`
`computer engineering, or an FAA Mechanic Certificate with an airframe rating in
`
`accordance with 14 CFR part 65.71 and 65.85; as well as either an M.S. or
`
`equivalent work experience, such as 3-5 years of experience in avionics.
`
`9.
`
`As a result of my more than 45-years’ experience in the aerospace
`
`industry, I am very familiar with technology at issue. Accordingly, I am qualified
`
`to provide expert opinions on the technology described in the ’618 patent as well
`
`as the teachings of the cited references.
`
`06012-00001/7793006.1
`
`-3-
`
`LEVINE
`Ex. 2011
`
`
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A. Claim Construction Standard
`
`Case IPR 2015-01341
`Declaration of John F. Grabowsky
`
`10.
`
`I understand that in this Inter Partes Review, claims are to be given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as would be
`
`read by a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of the invention.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`11.
`
`I have an understanding of the term “obviousness” based on my
`
`experience with patents and based upon explanations provided to me by counsel in
`
`this and other matters.
`
`12.
`
`I understand that to establish obviousness, one must construe the
`
`scope of the prior art, identify the differences between the claims and the prior art,
`
`and determine the level of skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention.
`
`There then must be an explicit, cogent reason based on the foregoing why it would
`
`be obvious to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`13.
`
`It is my understanding that the analysis of the prior art with respect to
`
`a determination of obvious/non-obviousness includes evidence relevant to the
`
`finding of whether there is a teaching, motivation, or suggestion to select and
`
`combine the references relied on as evidence of obviousness, though the analysis
`
`is not limited to these issues. It is my further understanding that the motivation,
`
`suggestion or teaching may come explicitly from statements in the prior art, the
`
`06012-00001/7793006.1
`
`-4-
`
`LEVINE
`Ex. 2011
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2015-01341
`Declaration of John F. Grabowsky
`
`nature of the problem to be solved or may be found explicitly or implicitly in
`
`market forces, design incentives, the interrelated teachings of multiple patents,
`
`known needs or problems in the art of the invention, and/or the background
`
`knowledge, creativity, and common sense of a person of ordinary skill.
`
`14.
`
`It is my understanding that reconstructive hindsight based on the
`
`invention to defeat the validity of the claimed invention is not permitted. Further,
`
`whether a reference teaches away from the claimed invention must be considered
`
`when determining a case of obviousness. The combination of references must
`
`either expressly disclose the claimed invention as a whole, or suggest to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art modifications needed to meet all the claim limitations.
`
`15.
`
`It is also my understanding that certain secondary considerations
`
`(including commercial success, long felt need in the industry, failure of others,
`
`commercial acquiescence, copying, praise for the invention, professional approval
`
`and recognition of the invention publications) are to be considered in determining
`
`whether patent claims are non-obvious. In support of patent validity, there must be
`
`a nexus between the claimed invention and the evidence of the secondary
`
`consideration.
`
`06012-00001/7793006.1
`
`-5-
`
`LEVINE
`Ex. 2011
`
`
`
`IV. PRIOR ART
`
`Case IPR 2015-01341
`Declaration of John F. Grabowsky
`
`A. Combination of Ward and ARINC 624-1 with ARINC 702-6
`
`16. Ward is a paper discussing the history and progress of condition
`
`monitoring systems for aircraft, including aircraft engines. It is expressly
`
`concerned with gathering information to enable the timely and efficient
`
`maintenance of the aircraft and/or systems on the aircraft. See, e.g., Ex. 1015 at 8.
`
`Ward is not concerned with any other aspect of aircraft operation.
`
`17. ARINC 624-1 is an ARINC report titled Design Guidance for
`
`Onboard Maintenance System. It provides guidance on the design of an onboard
`
`maintenance system (OMS), which includes as its central component a central
`
`maintenance computer (CMC). See, Ex. 1014 at § 3.1. The sole focus of this
`
`documents is aircraft maintenance.
`
`18. ARINC 702-6 is an ARINC characteristic titled Flight Management
`
`Computer System. Its purpose is to set forth “the characteristics of a Flight
`
`Management Computer System [(FMS)],” which is “designed to provide
`
`performance data and fuel management display and control functions, and
`
`navigation and guidance to a desired flight plan based on energy efficient
`
`profiles.” Ex. 1016 at §§ 1.1-1.2. The FMS includes two major components, the
`
`flight management computer (FMC) and the Control/Display Unit (CDU).” Id. at
`
`§ 1.4. I am familiar with FMCs and the role they play on an aircraft. The FMC is
`
`06012-00001/7793006.1
`
`-6-
`
`LEVINE
`Ex. 2011
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2015-01341
`Declaration of John F. Grabowsky
`
`designed to provide its information to the pilot so that the pilot can manage the
`
`flight plan and track the progress of the flight. None of the functions of the FMC
`
`relates to aircraft maintenance and, to the extent information is sent to the ground,
`
`none of that information is intended to facilitate maintenance. See, for example,
`
`the list of downlink message in Attachment 8B, Section 4. None of these
`
`messages relates to maintenance. Ex. 1016 at p. 81.
`
`19.
`
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art looking to solve
`
`problems with existing aircraft maintenance systems and develop an aircraft
`
`maintenance systems, such as the one claimed in the ’618 patent, would not have
`
`looked to ARINC 702-6 for solutions. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`not, therefore, have been motivated to combine this document with Ward and
`
`ARINC 624-1, which are maintenance-focused documents. There are many
`
`systems onboard a commercial airplane with many that are generally unrelated.
`
`See, the list of “Related Documents” in ARINC 624-1, which lists fifteen related
`
`ARINC and other documents, but does not list ARINC 702-6. Ex. 1014 at §1.4.
`
`In my opinion, therefore, it is incorrect to say, as Dr. Helfrick does, that just
`
`because a commercial aircraft might have both the CMC described in ARINC
`
`624-1 and the FMC described in ARINC 702-6, one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have been motivated to combine these references in solving the problems
`
`addressed by the claimed invention. See, Helfrick Decl. at ¶ 103.
`
`06012-00001/7793006.1
`
`-7-
`
`LEVINE
`Ex. 2011
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2015-01341
`Declaration of John F. Grabowsky
`B. Combination of Ward and ARINC 624-1 with Farmakis
`
`20. Farmakis is a U.S. patent titled Satellite Based Aircraft Traffic
`
`Control System. It is directed exclusively at “tracking and control of aircraft and
`
`other vehicles” and it discloses downloading GPS and other position data solely
`
`for the purpose of allowing the air traffic control facility to “continuously
`
`monitor[] and track[] [the] aircraft.” Ex. 1021 at 1:13-15; 4:32-36. Farmakis is
`
`unrelated to aircraft maintenance and does not disclose or even refer to aircraft
`
`maintenance or an aircraft maintenance system.
`
`21.
`
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art looking to solve
`
`problems with existing aircraft maintenance systems and develop an aircraft
`
`maintenance systems, such as the one claimed in the ’618 patent, would not have
`
`looked to Farmakis for solutions. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not,
`
`therefore, have been motivated to combine this document with Ward and ARINC
`
`624-1, which are maintenance-focused documents. In my opinion, therefore, it is
`
`incorrect to say, as Dr. Helfrick does, that just because all of these references
`
`disclose transmitting data from an aircraft to the ground during flight, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references in
`
`solving the problems addressed by the claimed invention. See, Helfrick Decl. at ¶
`
`106. Moreover, communication of data from the aircraft to the ground is, at best,
`
`06012-00001/7793006.1
`
`-8-
`
`LEVINE
`Ex. 2011
`
`
`
`incidental to Ward and ARINC 624-1, which, as discussed above, are directed
`
`Case IPR 2015-01341
`Declaration of John F. Grabowsky
`
`more broadly to aircraft maintenance systems.
`
`C. Combination of Dyson and Chetail
`
`1.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`22.
`
`I understand that Petitioner has proposed a construction for the term
`
`“maintenance advice” to mean “problem-specific maintenance information, such
`
`as trends, alerts, or isolation of faults.” I disagree with this construction because it
`
`does not adequately reflect how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`this term in light of the specification of the ’618 patent.
`
`23. The specification describes maintenance advisories, which
`
`I
`
`understand to refer to the messages containing the claimed “maintenance advice.”
`
`According to the specification of the ’618 patent, maintenance advisories do more
`
`than just relay alerts and other fault information received from the aircraft. It
`
`describes them as “represent[ing] the latest diagnostic procedures and problem
`
`specific maintenance information” ’618 patent at 7:1-2. The maintenance
`
`advisories are “based on an expert system for fault isolation that will save both
`
`time and money in getting a safe to fly aircraft back in service.” Id. at 3:35-39.
`
`See also, id. at 7:61-65 (“The manufacturer’s facility 108 transmits expert system
`
`repair advisories to the aircraft’s 10 maintenance personnel. These include the
`
`06012-00001/7793006.1
`
`-9-
`
`LEVINE
`Ex. 2011
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2015-01341
`Declaration of John F. Grabowsky
`
`latest approved, problem specific, service manual data to efficiently and safely
`
`correct the aircraft’s problem.”)
`
`24.
`
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this to
`
`mean that the expert system takes the data from the aircraft and, in addition to
`
`calculating trends, issuing alerts and isolating any indicated faults, the system also
`
`makes some recommendation for an appropriate maintenance action.
`
`25. This is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the word
`
`“advice.” I have reviewed the dictionary definition cited by the Board in its
`
`Institution Decision and believe that definition number 3: “recommendation
`
`regarding a decision or course of conduct” is more consistent with how one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand this term in light of the specification
`
`than definition number 4, relied on by the Board, “information or notice given.”
`
`See Ex. 3001 at 3.
`
`26.
`
`In my opinion, the proper construction of the term “maintenance
`
`advice” is “problem-specific maintenance information, including recommended
`
`maintenance actions.”
`
`2.
`
`“Maintenance Advice” in the Combination of Dyson and
`Chetail
`
`27. Dyson describes a commercial engine monitoring system from GE
`
`Aircraft Engines. As described by Dr. Helfrick, Dyson discloses that software,
`
`called “GEM” for “Ground-based Engine Monitoring” can generate alert
`
`06012-00001/7793006.1
`
`-10-
`
`LEVINE
`Ex. 2011
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2015-01341
`Declaration of John F. Grabowsky
`
`messages and trends and plots based on aircraft data sent to the ground. See,
`
`Helfrick Decl. ¶ 83. I disagree with Dr. Helfrick’s conclusion that such data
`
`represents “maintenance advice” as claimed in the ’618 patent.
`
`28. The disclosed “alert messages and trend plots” tell a user what is
`
`happening, but do not provide any information about what to do in response to the
`
`alert or what maintenance might be suggested by the plotted trends. These “alert
`
`messages and trend plots” do not recommend any specific action. In my opinion,
`
`they do not provide any “advice” as that term would be properly understood by
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art and do not, therefore, satisfy the claimed
`
`“maintenance advice.”
`
`29. Similarly with Chetail, which describes Air France’s operational
`
`experience with “ground-based monitoring of jet-engine cruising data,” Ex. 1018
`
`at 15-1, there is no disclosure of “maintenance advice.” Chetail describes a
`
`system where engine data collected onboard an aircraft is transmitted to the
`
`ground using the ACARS system. The data is received by “the closest SITA
`
`ground-station” and then resent to the central computer at Air France. Id. at 15-2.
`
`Once in the Air France system, the data is processed by the GEM system, the
`
`same system used in Dyson, which “seeks to recognize commonplace errors as
`
`soon as they appear.” Id. at 15-3. Chetail describes the algorithm used to detect
`
`when a given parameter “is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold.”
`
`06012-00001/7793006.1
`
`-11-
`
`LEVINE
`Ex. 2011
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2015-01341
`Declaration of John F. Grabowsky
`
`Id. When this occurs, “a message is automatically sent by the central calculator”
`
`and “appears on screens in the Control Department” at the main maintenance
`
`base. Id. This appears to be the same “alert” referred to in Dyson.
`
`30. The message generated and sent by the Air France system described
`
`in Chetail and relied on by Dr. Helfrick as the claimed “maintenance advice,”
`
`simply alerts the maintenance personnel that some engine parameter has reached
`
`or exceeded some threshold. It does not, however, provide any information about
`
`what caused that parameter to exceed the threshold nor does it provide any advice
`
`as to what the maintenance personnel should do to correct it. In my opinion, this
`
`simple threshold exceedance alert does not provide any “advice” as that term
`
`would be properly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and does not,
`
`therefore, satisfy the claimed “maintenance advice.”
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that
`
`the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Executed March 28, 2016, at Maui, Hawaii.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`John F. Grabowsky
`
`06012-00001/7793006.1
`
`-12-
`
`LEVINE
`Ex. 2011
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
