Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 39
` Entered: August 2, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00526
`Patent 7,966,807 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 39
` Entered: August 2, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00526
`Patent 7,966,807 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00526
`Patent 7,966,807 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`General Electric Company (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1,
`“Pet.”), requesting institution of an inter partes review of claims 1–20 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,966,807 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’807 patent”). United
`Technologies Corporation (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary
`Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”). Upon considering these submissions,
`we instituted inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’807 patent. Paper 9
`(“Dec. on Inst.”).
`After institution, Patent Owner filed a Disclaimer in Patent Under 37
`C.F.R. § 1.321(a) that disclaimed claims 1–3 (Ex. 2025) and filed a
`Response (Paper 17, “PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 31, “Pet.
`Reply”). Petitioner proffered a Declaration of Magdy Attia, Ph.D. (Ex.
`1003, “Attia Declaration” or “Attia Decl.”) with its Petition and a Reply
`Declaration of Dr. Attia (Ex. 1024, “Attia Reply Decl.”) with its Reply.
`Patent Owner proffered a Declaration of Zoltán S. Spakovszky, Ph.D. (Ex.
`2017, “Spakovszky Decl.”) and a Declaration of Dr. Amir Faghri (Ex. 2023,
`“Faghri Decl.”). Also, deposition transcripts were filed for Dr. Spakovszky
`(Ex. 1025), Dr. Faghri (Ex. 1027), and Dr. Attia (Ex. 2020).
`An oral hearing in this proceeding was held on May 8, 2017; a
`transcript of the hearing is included in the record (Paper 38, “Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 4–20 of the ’807 patent are
`unpatentable.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00526
`Patent 7,966,807 B2
`
`
`A. Grounds of Unpatentability at Issue
`We instituted inter partes review on the grounds that, under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103, (1) claims 1–14 are unpatentable over U.K. Patent Application
`GB2041090 A to Young, published September 3, 1980 (Ex. 1005, “Young”)
`and (2) claims 1, 4, 8, and 15–20 are unpatentable over U.K. Patent
`GB1516041 to McGarry, published June 28, 1978 (Ex. 1006, “McGarry”).
`Dec. on Inst. 20, 28–29.
`Because Patent Owner has filed a Disclaimer in Patent Under 37
`C.F.R. § 1.321(a) that disclaims claims 1–3 of the ’807 patent (Ex. 2025),
`we agree with the parties that only claims 4–20 are at issue. See PO Resp. 4
`(stating “only claims 4–20 are at issue”); Tr. 3:22–23 (Petitioner’s counsel
`stating “[c]laims 1 to 3 were disclaimed by Patent Owner and so what
`remains at issue is 4 through 20”).
`B. Related Proceedings
`The parties indicate that there are no related proceedings involving the
`’807 patent. Pet. 1; Paper 5, 1.
`C. The ’807 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’807 patent relates to “a system for cooling static structures of gas
`turbine engines.” Ex. 1001, 1:6–7. Figure 2 of the ’807 patent is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00526
`Patent 7,966,807 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 2 is a schematic view of a portion of a gas turbine engine. Id.
`at 1:37–38. Engine 10 includes low-pressure turbine section 22 that includes
`vane 32. Id. at 1:64–2:1, 2:24–26. Vane 32 is a static component of engine
`10. Id. at 2:24–27. First boundary wall 28 and second boundary wall 30
`define a gas flowpath (id. at 2:13–15), and fan bypass duct 24 defines a fan
`bypass flowpath (id. at 2:15–16).
`Engine 10 also includes vapor cooling assembly 26 at low-pressure
`turbine section 22. Id. at 2:9–10. Vapor cooling assembly 26 includes
`vaporization section 34 that extends into vane 32 and condenser section 36
`that is located away from the gas flowpath. Id. at 2:30–33. Condenser
`section 36 extends fully or at least partially into fan bypass duct 24. Id. at
`2:33–35. Vapor cooling assembly 26 is sealed and contains a working
`medium. Id. at 2:56–57. Vaporization section 34 absorbs thermal energy
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00526
`Patent 7,966,807 B2
`
`from the gas flowpath, which causes the working medium in vaporization
`section 34 to evaporate, and relatively cooler air in fan bypass duct 24
`causes the vaporized working medium to condense. Id. at 2:63–3:2. The
`working medium, thus, moves between vaporization section 34 and
`condenser section 36, “in order to transfer the thermal energy between the
`locations where evaporation and condensation occur.” Id. at 3:2–5.
`“Thermal energy added to air in the fan bypass flowpath raises the
`temperature and pressure of that air, which contributes to thrust output of the
`engine 10.” Id. at 4:3–6.
`C. Illustrative Claim
`The ’807 patent has 20 claims, all of which Petitioner challenges, and
`Patent Owner disclaims claims 1–3. Of the remaining claims, claims 4 and 8
`are independent. Claim 4 is reproduced below:
`4. A heat transfer system for use in a gas turbine
`engine, the system comprising:
`a turbine flowpath defined by at least one boundary wall;
`a non-rotating component that extends into the turbine
`flowpath;
`a vapor cooling assembly comprising:
`a vaporization section configured to accept thermal
`energy from the non-rotating component;
`a condenser section located outside the turbine
`flowpath; and
`a working medium sealed within the vapor cooling
`assembly, wherein cyclical evaporation and condensation of the
`working medium
`transports
`thermal energy
`from
`the
`vaporization section to the condenser section; and
`a fan bypass flowpath defined by at least one duct wall,
`wherein the condenser section of the vapor cooling assembly is
`at least partially exposed to the fan bypass flowpath such that
`thermal energy is dissipated from the condenser section to air in
`the fan bypass flowpath.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00526
`Patent 7,966,807 B2
`
`
`II.
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016)
`(upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard).
`Other than the terms discussed below, we determine that an express
`interpretation of any other term is not necessary for the purposes of this
`Decision. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
`(Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and
`only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).
`A. “turbine flowpath” (claims 4 and 8)
`Petitioner proposes interpreting “turbine flowpath” as “the core
`flowpath through a gas turbine” because its proposed interpretation would be
`the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art and is consistent with an
`embodiment described in the specification. Pet. 16 (citing Attia Decl.
`¶¶ 53–54). Petitioner also states that it uses an alternate, narrower
`interpretation of “turbine flowpath” as the “section of the core flowpath that
`runs through the turbine section” to analyze Young and McGarry. Id. at 16–
`17. For purposes of the Decision on Institution, we preliminarily interpreted
`“turbine flowpath” as the “section of the core flowpath that is downstream of
`the combustor.” Dec. on Inst. 8.
`Patent Owner proposes interpreting “turbine flowpath” to mean “the
`portion of a turbine where combustion gases flow.” PO Resp. 16, 17, 22;
`see also Tr. 18:24–19:2 (Patent Owner’s counsel arguing “we believe that
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00526
`Patent 7,966,807 B2
`
`turbine flowpath has to be defined within the turbine section and . . . has to
`be within the turbine section”). Patent Owner relies on the plain language of
`the claims in light of the specification, extrinsic evidence, and Petitioner’s
`use of the term. PO Resp. 17. Patent Owner argues that the specification of
`the ’807 patent differentiates the turbine section from other sections (id. at
`18 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:64–2:1,)), “describes the engine flowpath in terms of
`sections, including the ‘turbine flowpath’” (id. at 19–20 (citing Ex. 1001,
`1:42–45, 2:13–15; Spakovszky Decl. ¶¶ 28–30)), and shows a non-rotating
`component extending into a portion of a turbine where combustion gases
`flow, not extending into a compressor, combustor, exhaust section
`downstream of the turbine, or another portion of the engine flowpath (id. at
`20–21 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:35–38, Figs. 1, 2)). Patent Owner asserts that one
`of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the specification’s use of
`“section” and “turbine section.” Id. at 19 (citing Spakovszky Decl. ¶¶ 22–
`24, 28).
`Patent Owner also argues its interpretation gives meaning to the words
`“turbine” and “flowpath.” Id. at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1014, 20, 51–52;
`Spakovszky Decl. ¶¶ 23, 28–30, 34). Patent Owner cites the understanding
`of others in the industry. Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 2012, 3:6–7). Patent Owner
`additionally contends that Dr. Attia conceded that turbofan engines generally
`have sections, including a turbine section (id. at 18 (citing Attia Decl. ¶ 22;
`Ex. 1014, 22)) and that the “traditional meaning of ‘turbine flowpath’ is
`defined by the geometry of the turbine” (id. at 22 (citing Ex. 2020, 84:7–
`17)).
`
`Patent Owner further contends that the preliminary construction of
`“turbine flowpath” is too broad because it would cover portions upstream
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00526
`Patent 7,966,807 B2
`
`and downstream of the turbine section and is not supported by the record.
`PO Resp. 23–26 (citing Dec. on Inst. 5–8; Attia Decl. ¶¶ 53, 80; Spakovszky
`Decl. ¶¶ 28–34; Ex. 2020, 78:1–5, 79:8–20). Patent Owner additionally
`argues that Petitioner’s broader proposed interpretation of “turbine
`flowpath” as “the core flowpath through a gas turbine” is contrary to the
`specification of the ’807 patent, reads “turbine” out of the claims, substitutes
`“engine” for “turbine,” and is inconsistent with how it is used in other
`documents. PO Resp. 26–29 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 18; Ex. 2003, 2:17–20;
`Ex. 2012, 3:6–7; Ex. 2013, 1–2; Ex. 2024, 4:20–21). Patent Owner further
`asserts that “core flowpath” does not appear in the ’807 patent, and “turbine
`flowpath” would have been understood as “common terminology in the field
`to refer to the portion of a turbine where combustion gases flow.” Id. at 29.
`Petitioner replies that the specification of the ’807 patent uses
`“combustion flowpath” and “turbine flowpath” interchangeably (Pet. Reply
`5–6 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:9–29, Fig. 2)), the specification does not support
`Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation (id. at 6 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:63–65)),
`and Patent Owner ignores intrinsic evidence (id. at 6–7 (citing Ex. 1001,
`3:30–50, claims 6, 10; Ex. 1025, 30:4–31:19; Ex. 1027, 17:15–18:6)).
`Based on our review of the full record, we are persuaded to revise our
`preliminary interpretation and adopt Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation
`of “turbine flowpath” to mean “the portion of a turbine where combustion
`gases flow” for the reasons that follow.
`Independent claim 4 recites a system comprising “a turbine flowpath
`defined by at least one boundary wall” and “a non-rotating component that
`extends into the turbine flowpath.” Ex. 1001, 4:50–54. Similarly,
`independent claim 8 recites a system comprising “a turbine flowpath defined
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00526
`Patent 7,966,807 B2
`
`by at least one boundary wall” and “a static component that extends into the
`turbine flowpath.” Id. at 5:9–12. Claim 11 depends indirectly from claim 8
`and recites “wherein fluid at the turbine flowpath adjacent to the
`vaporization section of the vapor cooling assembly is at a higher pressure
`than fluid at the bypass flowpath adjacent to the condenser section of the
`vapor cooling assembly.” Id. at 5:32–6:3.
`Disclaimed claim 1 recites a “system for an engine” (id. at 4:24),
`instead of a “heat transfer system for use in a gas turbine engine” like
`independent claims 4 and 8 (id. at 4:50, 5:9). Also, claim 1 recites “a non-
`rotating component extending into an engine flowpath, wherein the engine
`flowpath is a gas turbine combustion flowpath” (id. at 4:24–27), not a “non-
`rotating” or “static component” that “extends into the turbine flowpath,” like
`claims 4 and 8 (id. at 4:53–54, 5:12). Thus, we determine that claims 4 and
`8 have a narrower scope than claim 1, and the narrow scope indicates
`“turbine flowpath” is meant to be narrower than “engine flowpath” and
`“combustion flowpath.” See Tr. 22:14–20 (Patent Owner’s counsel stating
`that “turbine flowpath is narrower”).
`We also determine that the claims alone do not indicate that “turbine
`flowpath” has a meaning other than its ordinary and customary meaning.
`Furthermore, we determine that Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation of
`“turbine flowpath” as the portion of a turbine where combustion gases flow
`is consistent with the claims, in that such a portion can be defined by at least
`one boundary wall and would be at a higher pressure than fluid at a bypass
`flowpath, and is the ordinary customary meaning for that term.
`Turning next to the specification, Patent Owner relies on portions of
`the specification that describe “non-rotating structures that extend into a gas
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00526
`Patent 7,966,807 B2
`
`flowpath (typically a combustion or turbine flowpath);” that explain gas
`turbine 10 as including a fan section, low-pressure compressor section, high-
`pressure compressor section, combustor section, high-pressure turbine
`section, and low-pressure turbine section; and that discuss Figure 2 as
`showing “a gas flowpath (e.g., combustion o[r]1 turbine flowpath)” between
`boundary walls 28, 30. See PO Resp. 18–21 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:35–38,
`1:42–45, 1:64–2:1, 2:13–15, Figs. 1, 2). Petitioner does not cite any portion
`of the specification that indicates that “turbine flowpath” has a meaning
`other than its ordinary and customary meaning. See Pet. 16–17; Pet. Reply
`5–7. Petitioner, however, points to parts of the specification that it believes
`indicate a meaning that is inconsistent with Patent Owner’s proposed
`interpretation. Pet. Reply 5–7 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:9–29, 2:63–65, 3:30–50,
`Fig. 2). The cited portions describe a “gas flowpath (e.g., combustion o[r]
`turbine flowpath)” (Ex. 1001, 2:13), “combustion gas flowpath” (id. at 2:18,
`20, 21–22, 64, 3:30), and “combustion flowpath” (id. at 2:25–26).
`We find that the specification of the ’807 patent describes a “gas
`flowpath” as “typically a combustion or turbine flowpath” in its general
`description of its invention. Ex. 1001, 1:44–45; see also id. at 2:13–14
`(describing “a gas flowpath (e.g., combustion o[r] turbine flowpath)”).
`Based on that description, we find that “gas flowpath” is used generically to
`refer to the “combustion flowpath” or the “turbine flowpath.” Further,
`because the ’807 patent uses “or” in the phrase “a combustion or turbine
`
`
`1 The uncorrected phrase reads “combustion of turbine flowpath.” Ex. 1001,
`2:13–14. Both parties, however, understand that the specification should
`have used “or,” not “of.” See PO Resp. 19–20 (quoting Ex. 1001, 2:13–15
`and correcting “of” to be “or”); Pet. Reply 6 (quoting the same phrase and
`correcting “of” to be “or”).
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00526
`Patent 7,966,807 B2
`
`flowpath,” we find that the ’807 patent indicates there is a distinction
`between the two flowpaths. The specification alone, however, does not
`indicate to what extent the terms “combustion flowpath” and “turbine
`flowpath” are coextensive with each other.
`Based on the description regarding vane 32, we also find that the
`specification of the ’807 patent uses “combustion gas flowpath”
`interchangeably with “combustion flowpath.” In particular, the specification
`describes that “airfoil-shaped vane 32 of a stator assembly at the low-
`pressure turbine section 22 extends into the combustion flowpath” (Ex. 1001,
`2:24–26) (emphases added), that “vapor cooling assembly 26 includes a
`vaporization section 34 that extends into the vane 32 and a condenser section
`36 that is located away from the combustion gas flowpath” (id. at 2:30–33)
`(emphases added), and that “[t]hermal energy absorbed by the vane 32 from
`the hot gases in the combustion gas flowpath heats the vaporization section
`34” (id. at 2:63–65) (emphases added). See also id. at 2:18–21 (describing
`Figure 2 as showing engine 10 with second boundary wall 30 “forming a
`boundary of both the combustion gas flowpath and the fan bypass duct 24”),
`2:21–23 (describing that the “combustion gas flowpath and the bypass duct
`24 can be spaced apart in alternative embodiments”). Because the
`specification describes vane 32 as extending into a combustion flowpath,
`having a section located away from the combustion gas flowpath, and
`absorbing energy from the combustion gas flowpath, we find that
`“combustion gas flowpath” is used interchangeably with “combustion
`flowpath.”
`Also, based on these same portions of the specification, we are not
`persuaded by Petitioner’s assertions that the ’807 patent’s description of
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00526
`Patent 7,966,807 B2
`
`“turbine flowpath” and “combustion flowpath” indicates that the two terms
`refer to the same flowpath, and that the specification fails to support Patent
`Owner’s proposed interpretation. See Pet. Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:9–
`29, 2:63–65, Fig. 2). The portions of the specification cited by Petitioner use
`the terms “gas flowpath,” “combustion gas flowpath,” and “combustion
`flowpath.” See Ex. 1001, 2:9–29, 2:63–65. They do not discuss “turbine
`flowpath.” See id. Also, as discussed above, we find that the specification
`describes a “gas flowpath” as “typically a combustion or turbine flowpath.”
`Id. at 1:44–45. We determine that the portions of the specification relied
`upon by Petitioner do not support clearly Petitioner’s position that “turbine
`flowpath” is the same as a “combustion flowpath.” See also PO Resp. 20–
`21 (arguing “turbine flowpath” is narrower); Tr. 22:19–20 (Patent Owner’s
`counsel arguing “[o]ur view is that turbine flowpath is narrower” and “[i]t’s
`confined to the turbine itself”).
`The same portions of the specification support Patent Owner’s
`proposed interpretation of “turbine flowpath” as “a section of the turbine
`through which combustion gases flow” that would refer to a smaller portion
`of the gas or combustion flowpath. The specification also describes a “vapor
`cooling assembly 26 located at the low-pressure turbine section 22.” Ex.
`1001, 2:9–10. It goes on to describe Figure 2 as “showing the vapor cooling
`assembly 26 in greater detail” and a “gas flowpath (e.g., combustion o[r]
`turbine flowpath) . . . between a first boundary wall 28 and a second
`boundary wall 30.” Id. at 2:10–15.
`Based on our review of the specification of the ’807 patent, we
`determine that Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation is consistent with the
`use of “turbine flowpath” in the specification.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00526
`Patent 7,966,807 B2
`
`
`Turning to the prosecution history, neither party relies on the
`prosecution history of the ’807 patent to argue for a meaning of “turbine
`flowpath.” See PO Resp. 17–26; Pet. Reply 5–7. The prosecution history
`(Ex. 1002) does not address the meaning of “turbine flowpath,” and thus,
`does not indicate that “turbine flowpath” was given a special meaning that
`would conflict with Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation of “turbine
`flowpath.”
`Having made the above evaluations, the parties’ arguments
`acknowledge that the intrinsic record fails to provide enough guidance for us
`to rely on it exclusively for the proper construction of “turbine flowpath.”
`Patent Owner cites to its Spakovszky Declaration (PO Resp. 17, 19, 21–25
`(citing Spakovszky Decl. ¶¶ 22–24, 28–34)) and provides patents, a patent
`application, and a paper as evidence regarding the meaning of “turbine
`flowpath” (see id. at 22 (citing Ex. 2012), 28 (citing Exs. 2002, 2003, 2012,
`2013, 2024)). Petitioner cites to its Attia Declaration and the depositions of
`Dr. Spakovszky and Dr. Faghri to argue the meaning of “turbine flowpath.”
`See Pet. 16 (citing Attia Decl. ¶ 53–54); Pet. Reply 6–7 (citing Exs. 1025,
`1027). We, thus, turn to the evidence submitted into the record to assist us
`in deciding between the parties’ conflicting positions regarding the
`interpretation of “turbine flowpath,” as would have been understood by one
`of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure.
`Patent Owner’s Declarant opines that “it would have been clear to an
`ordinarily skilled artisan that a ‘turbine flowpath’ is located within the
`‘turbine’” because a turbine “includes rotatable blades separated by non-
`rotating vanes” that “are located in the path of flow of combustion gases.”
`See Spakovszky Decl. ¶ 30 (citing Ex. 1014, 52, 70); see also Attia Decl.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00526
`Patent 7,966,807 B2
`
`¶ 26 (Petitioner’s Declarant stating “both the LPT and HPT are typically
`multi-staged with alternating rows of stationary vanes . . . and rotating
`blades”); Attia Reply Decl. ¶ 5 (Petitioner’s Declarant stating “a turbine
`includes one or more stages, with each stage including a row of stationary
`vanes and row of rotating blades”); Ex. 1025, 49:10–17 (Patent Owner’s
`Declarant testifying to similar understanding of turbine stages). The cited
`portion of Exhibit 1014 explains that “flow through a turbine first passes
`through stationary airfoils (often called inlet guide vanes or nozzles)” and
`“then passes through rotating airfoils (called rotor blades).” Ex. 1014, 70.
`We find that Exhibit 1014 supports Patent Owner’s Declarant and Patent
`Owner’s proposed interpretation of “turbine flowpath” as the “section of the
`turbine through which combustion gases flow,” in that it does not indicate
`that “turbine flowpath” would refer to a flowpath outside of a turbine. See
`Spakovszky Decl. ¶ 30; see also Ex. 1025, 19:20–21 (“The turbine flow path
`is the section in a gas turbine related to the turbine.”), 20:11–15 (When
`asked “it would be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that a turbine flow
`path is the flow path within the turbine section of a gas turbine engine,”
`Dr. Spakovszky answered “That’s correct.”); Ex. 2020, 84:1–11 (Petitioner’s
`Declarant testifying that turbine flowpath, “to me and to many engineers that
`I worked with, meant the geometric aspect of the turbine”).
`Patent Owner also cites to a paper from the American Society of
`Mechanical Engineers (“ASME”), titled “Turbine Preliminary Design Using
`Artificial Intelligence and Numerical Optimization Techniques” (Ex. 2013).
`PO Resp. 28. The Abstract describes a “software approach to the
`preliminary design of aircraft engine turbines,” that is used to “capture some
`basic turbine preliminary design knowledge, manipulate turbine design
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00526
`Patent 7,966,807 B2
`
`parameters” and “has yielded new insights into turbine design.” Ex. 2013, 1.
`The cited portion describes a computer program that “uses a simple set of
`input criteria that describes the turbine flowpath, the number of stages, and
`the stage work split.” Id. at 2. Based on the paper’s focus on designing a
`turbine of an aircraft engine and no other part of such an engine, we find that
`its use of “turbine flowpath” supports Patent Owner’s proposed
`interpretation of a “section of the turbine through which combustion gases
`flow.”
`Patent Owner further cites to patents and a patent application. PO
`Resp. 22, 28 (citing Exs. 2002, 2003, 2012, 2024). We find that (1) the cited
`portion of Exhibit 2002 states that the “hot turbine flowpath 13 extends
`downstream from an HPT inlet 31 of the HPT 22 to an LPT outlet 33 of the
`LPT 24” (Ex. 2002 ¶ 18), (2) the cited portion of Exhibit 2003 states that the
`“engine further includes a low pressure turbine section located aft of the
`high pressure rotor and having a low pressure turbine flowpath” (Ex. 2003,
`2:17–20), (3) the cited portion of Exhibit 2012 states that “[t]urbine blades
`20 radially extend across a turbine flowpath 22 which encloses a hot
`working gas flow 26 in turbine section 10” (Ex. 2012, 3:6–8), and (4) the
`cited portion of Exhibit 2024 states that the “low pressure turbine 26
`includes a low pressure turbine flowpath 28” (Ex. 2024, 4:20–21). We find
`that the cited patents and patent application also provide evidentiary support
`for Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation.
`Thus, from the evidence submitted by Patent Owner, we find that the
`relied-upon testimony of Dr. Spakovszky, ASME paper, patents, and patent
`application provide evidentiary support for Patent Owner’s assertion that the
`ordinary and customary meaning of “turbine flowpath,” as would have been
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00526
`Patent 7,966,807 B2
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the ’807
`patent, would be the “section of the turbine through which combustion gases
`flow” and would not include a flowpath outside of a turbine.
`In support of its opposing position, Petitioner points to its Attia
`Declaration. Petitioner’s Declarant opines that the “broadest reasonable
`interpretation of ‘turbine flowpath’ is the core flowpath through a gas
`turbine engine” and that the “core flowpath is the path through which air is
`compressed, mixed with fuel, and combusted in order to drive the rotating
`blades of the turbine.” Attia Decl. ¶ 53. It cites column 2, lines 24–29 of
`the ’807 patent specification as disclosing “an embodiment in which the
`non-rotating component (configured as a heat pipe) . . . extends into the core
`flowpath.” Id. ¶ 54. The cited portion of the specification describes vane 32
`that “extends into the combustion flowpath.” Ex. 1001, 2:24–26. It does not
`describe a “core flowpath” or “turbine flowpath.” Paragraphs 53–54 of the
`Attia Declaration also cite Exhibit 1014 as support that a “core flowpath”
`would be “the path through which air is compressed, mixed with fuel, and
`combusted in order to drive the rotating blades of the turbine,” but the cited
`portion describes compressors, combustor or main burner, and turbines. See
`Ex. 1014, 49–52. It does not support adequately that one of ordinary skill in
`the art would understand “turbine flowpath” to be the “core flowpath
`through a gas turbine engine.”
`Furthermore, Dr. Attia’s deposition testimony indicates that “turbine
`flowpath” would be narrower than “core flowpath.” See Ex. 2020, 53:4–13
`(Dr. Attia stating “when you say ‘engine flow path,’ that, by itself, is the
`core flow path . . . the patent qualifies it by saying that what is really
`intended here is the gas turbine combustion flow path . . . when you add the
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00526
`Patent 7,966,807 B2
`
`word ‘combustion,’ then my interpretation of that is everything starting from
`the entry plane of the combustion chamber and downstream of it.”); 56:2–3
`(“the turbine flow path is, has the same meaning as gas turbine combustion
`flow path”), 58:2–3 (“‘combustion flow path’ cannot possibly mean the flow
`within the combustion chamber”), 78:1–5 (“my understanding of what the
`patent [in claim 4] is trying to say is core flow path”), 84:1–11 (turbine
`flowpath, “to me and to many engineers that I worked with, meant the
`geometric aspect of the turbine”). We, thus, find insufficient support in the
`’807 patent specification, as discussed above, and insufficient evidence to
`support Dr. Attia’s conclusion that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`“turbine flowpath” is the “core flowpath through a gas turbine engine.”
`The Attia Reply Declaration states that the “plain and ordinary
`meaning of the term ‘turbine flowpath’ encompasses the flowpath
`downstream of the last stage of the turbine” because Exhibit 2012 describes
`a strut in a “relatively hot flowpath.” Attia Reply Decl. ¶¶ 4–5 (citing Ex.
`2012, 1:66–2:1, 3:7–8, 3:16–21, Figs. 2, 3). Dr. Attia, however, states that
`“a turbine includes one or more stages, with each stage including a row of
`stationary vanes and row of rotating blades.” See id. ¶ 5. His description of
`a turbine does not indicate that a turbine further includes a downstream
`frame with struts, such as the one in Exhibit 2012, which is not a stage, vane,
`or rotating blade. The support strut of Exhibit 2012 is also not within his
`description of a turbine. In view of his description of a turbine as including
`stages, with each stage having vanes and rotating blades, Dr. Attia does not
`explain sufficiently why a turbine would be understood to include structure
`downstream of the stages, why “turbine flowpath” includes the flowpath
`downstream of the last stage of the turbine, and why one of ordinary skill in
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00526
`Patent 7,966,807 B2
`
`the art would understand turbine to include such a downstream strut or
`“turbine flowpath” to include a downstream flowpath. See id. ¶¶ 4–5; see
`also Ex. 2020, 84:1–11 (Dr. Attia stating that turbine flowpath, “to me and
`to many engineers that I worked with, meant the geometric aspect of the
`turbine”). Further, Dr. Attia does not cite to any part of the ’807 patent
`specification or other evidence that indicates “turbine flowpath” includes a
`flowpath outside of the turbine.
`Petitioner also points to the deposition transcripts of Dr. Spakovszky
`and Dr. Faghri. Pet. Reply 6–7 (citing Ex. 1025, 30:4–31:19; Ex. 1027,
`17:15–18:6). The cited portions concern support struts and a table in the
`’807 patent listing suitable media for use in a heat pipe, some of which
`would not be suitable for use inside a turbine. As discussed above, in view
`of the understanding of both parties’ declarants as to what a turbine is,
`Petitioner’s arguments based on a support strut outside of a turbine do not
`persuade us to extend “turbine flowpath” to include a component outside of
`the declarants’ understanding of turbine.
`In summary, we find that the evidence cited by Patent Owner
`indicates that the ordinary and customary meaning of “turbine flowpath,” as
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the
`entire disclosure of the ’807 patent is “a section of the turbine through which
`combustion gases flow.” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d
`1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Even under the broadest reasonable
`interpretation, the Board’s construction ‘cannot be divorced from the
`specification and the record evidence,’ and ‘must be consistent with the one
`that those skilled in the art would reach.’”).
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00526
`Patent 7,966,807 B2
`
`
`Accordingly, based on the complete record before us, we interpret
`“turbine flowpath” to mean “a section of the turbine through which
`combustion gases flow,” and we determine that “turbine flowpath” does not
`encompass a flowpath outside of a turbine.
`B. “gas turbine combustion flowpath” (claims 15 and 16)
`Claims 15 and 16 depend from claim 1, and claim 1 recites “a non-
`rotating component extending into an engine flowpath, wherein the engine
`flowpath is a gas turbine combustion flowpath.” Ex. 1001, 4:25–28, 6:10–
`17. In the Decision on Institution, we accepted Petitioner’s proposed
`interpretation of “gas turbine combustion flowpath” as the “section of the
`core flowpath that is downstream of the combustor.” Dec. on Inst. 7. Post-
`institution arguments and evidence do not directly address the interpretation
`of “gas turbine combustion flowpath.” See PO Resp. 16–34; Pet. Reply 5–8
`(arguing, inter alia, that “combustion flowpath” is interchangeable with
`“turbine flowpath”). Thus, based on our review of the complete record, we
`do not perceive any reason or evidence that compels any deviation from our
`interpretation of “gas turbine combustion flowpath” as the “section of the
`core flowpath that is downstream of the combustor.”
`
`III. CHALLENGES BASED ON YOUNG AND McGARRY
`To prevail in its challenge of claims 4–14 as unpatentable,
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
