trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00531, Paper No. 41
`June 20, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00531
`Patent 8,511,605 B2
`____________
`
`Held: May 4, 2017
`____________
`
`
`
`(Reporter via telephone due to scheduling issues)
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE: HYUN J. JUNG, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, May
`4, 2017, commencing at 2:43 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`*Hearing recorded telephonically due to scheduling issue and
`transcribed to the best of our transcriber's ability
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00531, Paper No. 41
`June 20, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00531
`Patent 8,511,605 B2
`____________
`
`Held: May 4, 2017
`____________
`
`
`
`(Reporter via telephone due to scheduling issues)
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE: HYUN J. JUNG, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, May
`4, 2017, commencing at 2:43 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`*Hearing recorded telephonically due to scheduling issue and
`transcribed to the best of our transcriber's ability
`
`
`
`
`ANISH DESAI, ESQ.
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00531
`Patent 8,511,605 B2
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICHAEL J. VALAIK, ESQ.
`Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP
`Courthouse Place, 54 West Hubbard Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00531
`Patent 8,511,605 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE JUNG: We are here for Case IPR
`2016-000531, between General Electric Company and United
`Technologies Corp., and the '531 case pertains to U.S. Patent
`Number 8,511,605.
`We start with counsel stating your names for the record.
`MR. DESAI: Anish Desai from Weil, Gotshal &
`Manges on behalf of Petitioner.
`MR. VALAIK: Michael Valaik, Bartlit Beck, for
`United Technologies Corp.
`JUDGE JUNG: I think from the trial hearing order,
`each party has 30 minutes of total time to present its case, and the
`Petitioner has the burden to show unpatentability of the
`challenged claims, so he will go first, followed by the Patent
`Owner, and Petitioner may reserve time to rebut Patent Owner.
`Mr. Desai?
`MR. DESAI: Thank you, Your Honor. I will reserve
`ten minutes for rebuttal. Thanks.
`Good afternoon, Your Honors. My name is Anish
`Desai, and I represent Petitioner General Electric in this IPR
`directed at the '605 patent, 8,511,605. The claims that were
`challenged originally were claims 1, 2, 7 through 11. Claims 1
`and 2 have been disclaimed by Patent Owner, so all that remain is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00531
`Patent 8,511,605 B2
`
`claims 5 -- I'm sorry, claims 7 through 11. I have those claims 7
`through 11 here on slide 2.
`Just to quickly rehash what's in claim 1, even though it's
`been disclaimed, this is a claim directed to a gear turbofan engine
`having a low stage count, low pressure turbine and a bypass ratio
`of greater than 10. It is undisputed that the prior art at issue,
`Willis, the QCSEE engine, that report, it's a report from 1979, and
`it documents a gear turbofan engine that meets every single
`limitation of claim 1, but, in fact, there are a number of prior art
`references spanning decades, multiple decades, that disclose a
`gear turbofan engine that falls within the scope of claim 1. They
`were also included in our IPRs on the '605 patent, and they are
`not at issue anymore because the claims have been disclaimed.
`None of this prior art was submitted to the Patent Office during
`the prosecution of the '605 patent.
`Dependent claims 7 through 11, the other limitation is
`directed to an axially movable fan nozzle and the functions of
`adjusting nozzle exit areas, adjusting pressure ratio, and reducing
`fan instability. Now, I have highlighted in slide 2 the words
`"axially movable," because that's the only limitation that's not
`found in the Willis report. In claims 7 through 11, everything
`else is found in the Willis report. It just does not disclose an
`axially movable nozzle.
`Now, the variable area fan nozzle to perform the
`claimed functions has been known in the art for decades.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00531
`Patent 8,511,605 B2
`
`Different types of variable area fan nozzle structures that can be
`used to perform the claimed functions have also been known in
`the art for decades. So what's the contribution to the art in these
`claims? I submit there is absolutely no contribution whatsoever.
`The Supreme Court has told us in KSR, "a patent for a
`combination which only unites old elements with no change in
`their respective function withdraws what is already known in the
`field of its monopoly and diminishes the resources available to
`skilled men."
`So let me start with the '605 patent. Here on slide 3, I
`have an excerpt at column 1, lines 57 to 65. Essentially, the same
`text is repeated at column 2, lines 38 to 48, and this is the only
`disclosure in this patent about an axially movable nozzle. It says
`that the fan variable area is axially movable. That is it. There is
`no description. There is no illustration of a nozzle.
`Figure 1A is what I put up there, and if you take a close
`look -- a closer look at it, and there is no illustration of an axially
`movable nozzle. None of the other figures move either, okay?
`JUDGE DANIELS: Mr. Desai, what -- what -- would
`you tell me what occurs, just so I understand what is going on,
`when you have a high temperature, high pressure fluid that comes
`into the -- comes into the low pressure turbine, it expands hitting
`that turbine, which drives the fan – low pressure fan turbine,
`correct?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00531
`Patent 8,511,605 B2
`
`
`MR. DESAI: Correct. You're talking about the core of
`the engine. That's correct.
`JUDGE DANIELS: I'm talking about the core of the
`engine. So -- and is that -- is that low pressure -- excuse me, if
`the high pressure extends to the low pressure turbine, exhausts
`out the back of the outlet and into this exhaust area where this
`variable area nozzle is supposed to be (inaudible)?
`MR. DESAI: I have to correct you there, slightly.
`There are two nozzles in a turbofan engine, okay? For example,
`as I was just showing here, there is the fan bypass nozzle, which
`is the bypass area on top, and then there's the core nozzle, okay,
`which is what you were talking about, Judge DANIELS.
`JUDGE DANIELS: The core nozzle.
`MR. DESAI: The core nozzle does not have the
`variable area. In this patent and in all the prior art we're talking
`about, the variable area nozzle is the fan nozzle, not the core
`nozzle. And so the point being, in the prior art and in this patent,
`the same function is being described. You're changing the back
`pressure, okay, so you're reducing -- by restricting the -- the area
`of the nozzle, you're adjusting or expanding. You're changing the
`back pressure, which ultimately results in a change to the fan
`pressure ratio. And I'll get -- I'll quickly explain how this works
`in a few -- in a few later slides.
`But to go back to the disclosure in the '605 patent, the
`bottom line is the inventors of this patent did not invent a new
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2016-00531
`Patent 8,511,605 B2
`
`type of nozzle structure, okay? An axially movable nozzle is an
`old nozzle structure. It's decades old. They also didn't invent a
`new way of using this old nozzle structure. The '605 patent
`claims an old nozzle structure to perform the same function it was
`disclosed to perform in the prior art. Vary the nozzle exit area
`and adjust the pressure ratio.
`The experts agree on it, okay? Dr. Abhari has been the
`director of the Turbo Machine Laboratory in Zurich for more than
`a decade. He was an engineer that worked on the Lycoming ALF
`502, which is a geared engine. He is a clear expert in gas turbine
`engines. He explained in his declaration, at paragraphs 77 and
`78, he explained how the radial flaps and axial sleeves are known
`structures in the prior art to achieve the same function of varying
`the nozzle exit area.
`He reiterated his position on cross examination, at
`UTC-2019.128, he explained that the VAFN, a variable area fan
`nozzle, changes the nozzle area, which changes the back pressure.
`He said this. You can use radial, you can use axial, you can use a
`hybrid of the two. All of these are known in the art, and they are
`not recently known in the art, but these have been known in the
`art for -- I would submit for 40 years.
`So Dr. Mattingly -- we asked Dr. Mattingly, we asked
`
`him:
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00531
`Patent 8,511,605 B2
`
`
`"QUESTION: Do you believe that the '605 inventors
`described a new structure for axially movable variable area fan
`nozzles?
`"ANSWER: I don't know.
`"QUESTION: How does the axially movable nozzle in
`the '605 patent differ, if at all, from axially movable nozzles in
`the prior art that you are aware of?
`"ANSWER: I don't know.
`"QUESTION: Is the axially movable variable fan
`nozzle described in the '605 patent being used in a different way
`than how those axially movable nozzles have been used in the
`prior art?
`"ANSWER: I don't know."
`This is at GE-1033, page 89, line 9, to page 90, line 2.
`So the only difference between the QCSEE engine and
`the claims of the '605 patent is the type of nozzle, not the
`function, just the type, the structure, radial versus axial. This
`(inaudible) obviousness under KSR.
`So here is the Willis engine on slide 4, and you see
`there's a radial flap, and the function of the VAFN is thoroughly
`described in the Willis report. For example, at page 038, which is
`GE-1011, it talks about how you closed the nozzle to increase --
`to increase the pressure ratio during cruise, and when you open
`the nozzle for takeoff, you decrease the pressure.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00531
`Patent 8,511,605 B2
`
`
`Now, the point here is you close the nozzle at cruise,
`gives you a smaller exit area and a higher pressure ratio. You
`open the nozzle at takeoff, means larger exit area, lower pressure
`ratio. The whole goal here, higher efficiency at cruise, more
`stability margin during takeoff, okay? That's the whole flight,
`and this is described in the QCSEE report.
`So here's another piece of prior art. This is the Duesler
`patent, GE-1006. It issued in 1998. This is an alternative
`variable area fan nozzle structure. It's a sleeve that slides axially,
`okay?
`
`Now, to be clear, Mr. Duesler, in 1998, did not invent
`an axially movable nozzle, okay? It's much older than that. In
`his own patent, the Duesler patent, for example, cites a Rolls
`Royce patent from 1974, GE-1031, that discloses a translating
`sleeve that is used to vary the nozzle exit area. So Mr. Duesler's
`patent is not the first patent this has come up in; it's just the one
`we used, okay?
`And at column -- on slide 6, column 3, lines 1 to 12, it
`talks about the function, exactly the same as in the QCSEE report,
`okay? At cruise, the nozzle is stowed, meaning a small exit area
`and a higher pressure ratio. At takeoff, the nozzle is deployed,
`meaning larger exit area and a lower pressure ratio. The same
`exact function, different structure.
`So what are the reasons why someone would use an
`axially movable nozzle? We're on slide 7, okay? And here, on
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00531
`Patent 8,511,605 B2
`
`slide 7, one of the advantages -- and this is all expressed in the
`Duesler patent. Why would you use an axially movable nozzle?
`Well, because it's a continuous sleeve, it minimizes air flow
`leakage, okay, whereas the flap I showed you in the QCSEE
`engine, there's some gaps there, because there was four different
`parts, okay? So minimizing air flow leakage, again, that's about
`performance, efficiency, right? Any time you're losing pressure,
`you're -- you're talking about efficiency and performance. So
`that's one reason.
`There's more reasons, and Duesler itself says that the
`sleeve is relatively simple structurally, it's lightweight, and it
`overcomes aerodynamic, acoustic, and safety deficiencies in the
`prior art. This is on slide 8. This is GE-1006, column 3 at lines
`35 to 40.
`So how did Patent Owner respond to all this clear
`evidence of motivation? Well, on slide 10, they said, well,
`Duesler's nozzle structure has more parts, is heavier, and it's more
`complex. Then on slide 11, they said, well, it's louder, okay?
`Well, what's the basis for Dr. Mattingly's opinion that the nozzle
`in Duesler is more complex, heavier, and louder? He has none,
`okay? He's stating exactly the opposite of what is said in Duesler
`on slide 8, exactly the opposite.
`So we asked Dr. Mattingly:
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00531
`Patent 8,511,605 B2
`
`
`"QUESTION: In what context, before working on this
`case, have you come across an axially movable nozzle in a
`turbofan engine?
`"ANSWER: I have not."
`That was at GE-1033, page 80, lines 9 to 13.
`Well, since he had no experience with axially movable
`nozzles, we asked him:
`"QUESTION: What did you do to form your opinion to
`educate yourself about axially movable nozzles?"
`Then he said -- and this is at GE-1033, page 80, lines 5
`to 13, and he said:
`"ANSWER: I read the '605 patent, I read the Duesler
`patent, and I read the Willis report."
`Okay. Well, the Duesler patent says exactly the
`opposite of what he's saying about an axial (inaudible), right?
`The Willis report says nothing about axial nozzles. We agree.
`No dispute there. And I already showed you what the '605 patent
`says about axial nozzles. It says nothing. It just says the words
`"axial nozzles." So the bottom line is, there is just no basis for
`Dr. Mattingly's opinion.
`JUDGE: Mr. Desai, can you explain to me why
`(inaudible) issue that you brought up, why is a turbo -- why does
`a turbofan require (inaudible)?
`MR. DESAI: Well, I don't think the issue here is
`whether a turbofan engine is quieter than a different type of jet
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00531
`Patent 8,511,605 B2
`
`engine, which I guess would be like a turbo prop, for example.
`The issue is whether an axial sleeve reduces noise as compared to
`radial flaps, that's the issue, and our point being that the Duesler
`patent itself says, well, I'm comparing my axial nozzle -- axially
`movable nozzle to the prior art nozzle, and it has improved
`acoustic benefits. The exact reasons why it has the acoustic
`benefits, I couldn't tell you. That's what it states.
`JUDGE: Okay. So this particular (inaudible)
`differentiate, right, because (inaudible). Is that right?
`MR. DESAI: Well, we didn't depose him, but he
`submitted a short declaration purely on this issue of operability.
`JUDGE: So Duesler, with the -- with the -- he's saying
`that his axial -- axial reduction of the area is -- has acoustical
`benefits compared to the radial flap version?
`MR. DESAI: That's correct. The structure that they're
`using to reduce the nozzle area, you know, the continuous sleeve
`has acoustic benefits as compared to a radial flap. That is what is
`being said in the Duesler patent, correct.
`So -- again, so we have talked about the motivations, so
`let's talk about Patent Owner's other argument, which goes to
`inoperability, okay? So the first argument they have with the
`patent is that using Duesler's axial sleeve -- or the Duesler patent,
`combined with the Willis report, would be inoperable if they say,
`well, look, if you take the axial sleeve in Duesler and its other
`piece, called the thrust reverser mechanism, which uses a blocker
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00531
`Patent 8,511,605 B2
`
`door, if you take those two things and you incorporate them into
`the QCSEE engine, it's not going to work in what's called the
`reverse thrust mode, and this is slide 12, and this is a figure from
`Patent Owner's response.
`What they have done here is they have incorporated
`both the translating sleeve and the thrust reversing mechanism,
`called the blocker door assembly, they also called it that, but the
`point being here, there is no explanation anywhere in the record
`for why someone would incorporate Duesler's blocker door
`assembly, okay, into the QCSEE engine.
`The QCSEE engine uses a different kind of thrust
`reversing mechanism. It's a variable pitch fan, okay? So why
`would somebody double up on thrust reversing mechanisms?
`There's no reason for it. No one has ever explained that. So
`they're actually taking it from a prior art and adding it to the
`engine when they know and a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would know that it wouldn't work. So there is no reason to do it.
`And the simple fact is you don't have to, because the
`Duesler patent itself says that the thrust reversing mechanism, the
`blocker door assembly, and the translating sleeve are
`mechanically separate structures. They're not -- they're -- you
`don't need to take one with the other. They can come separately.
`And that's our whole point. That's the -- that's the argument
`we've been making, which is using a translating sleeve in place of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00531
`Patent 8,511,605 B2
`
`a radial flap would be obvious. It would be the substitution of
`one structure for another to produce a predictable result.
`The other argument --
`JUDGE DANIELS: I just want to be clear about this.
`So your submission is that there is -- that essentially all there is
`inthe replacement obviousness combination you all have made of
`the radial flap with the -- with the axial opening and closing
`mechanism or area -- the nozzle intake area without the blocker
`door.
`
`MR. DESAI: Correct, and --
`JUDGE DANIELS: Those two things do not work
`hand in hand in -- in the -- in the Duesler --
`MR. DESAI: Well, okay, to be clear, they are
`mechanically separate structures, and so in the Duesler patent,
`they use the thrust reversing mechanism, okay, so it is part of that
`nozzle, but it's not -- it's not -- you wouldn't be required to take
`the translating sleeve, and if you took it, you are automatically
`taking the other -- they are not mechanically integrated structures,
`okay? They are using the same nozzle, but they are not
`mechanically integrated structures.
`And so the next argument that Patent Owner makes
`after this -- after incorporating the blocker doors is to say, well,
`okay, if you take just the translating sleeve and you incorporate it
`into the QCSEE engine, well, that's going to be inoperable too,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00531
`Patent 8,511,605 B2
`
`okay? And the issue here is the QCSEE engine includes what's
`called a variable pitch fan for reverse thrust, okay?
`So what that means is you will adjust the pitch of the
`fan blade, and that reverses the flow through the engine, and the
`whole point of that is to stop the engine, right? There is different
`ways -- if you have ever landed on a runway and you hear that
`loud noise because something pops open on the engine, that's the
`thrust reversing mechanism, and there's two ways that you can do
`it. One is this variable pitch fan, where you reverse the pitch of
`the blade, and the other is this blocker door assembly. These are
`two different ways of reverse thrust.
`Now, Patent Owner says, their position is that axially
`movable sleeves and the variable pitch fan for reverse thrust are
`incompatible. That is their position. That is what Dr. Mattingly
`testified to on cross examination. I asked him, you know, these
`two things, it's your position they can't -- they can't be combined?
`And that's at GE-1033, page 133, lines 6 to 22, okay? He says:
`"It's just basic physics. You can't combine an axial sleeve with a
`variable pitch fan for reverse thrust."
`Well, as I've pointed out, Dr. Mattingly formed his
`opinions in this case without having any prior experience on this
`subject matter, and he's clearly wrong. Here we have, on slide
`14, a Rolls Royce patent --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00531
`Patent 8,511,605 B2
`
`
`JUDGE JUNG: I would note for the Patent Owner,
`Patent Owner objects to slide 14, 15, and I believe 17 and 18, of
`this slide deck.
`MR. DESAI: Right. I believe this was the subject of
`their motion to strike, and so I was going to deal with that after --
`in rebuttal, after I heard whether they were proceeding with --
`JUDGE JUNG: For the record, for the Panel, there are
`objections to this slide, the next slide, and slides 17 and 18.
`MR. DESAI: All right. Thank you, Judge.
`So this is a patent from 1974 which deals with the exact
`issue that we're talking about. Can you combine an axially
`movable sleeve with a variable pitch fan for reverse thrust? The
`answer is absolutely. Rolls Royce says you can. It says it in the
`abstract of this patent. It says, "If the fan is a variable pitch fan,
`the additional nozzle area can serve as additional intake area for
`the fan during operation in the reverse pitch mode."
`And they have a figure, and it's on slide 15, that shows
`that you slide out the nozzle, and there's extra intake area for
`reverse thrust, and this isn't the only patent. I mean, there's
`another one. There's -- this is slide 17 -- sorry, slide 18. This is a
`GE patent from 1974, okay? And this is an example of that
`hybrid-type nozzle that Dr. Abhari was referring to on his cross
`examination, where you have an axially movable portion and a
`radially movable portion.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00531
`Patent 8,511,605 B2
`
`
`And he said this is the -- here on column -- it's in
`GE-1032, column 2, lines 3 to 20, that this is an engine where it
`discusses a variable pitch fan, combined with an axially movable
`nozzle, to produce reverse thrust.
`And so before I -- my last point before I reserve the rest
`of my time for rebuttal is that on slide 19 here, we have Patent
`Owner's response, page 1. This is the very first argument that
`was made in Patent Owner's response, okay, and it's shown here
`on slide 19. And at this time when they made this argument, the
`claims -- the only claims at issue in this IPR were claims 7
`through 11, directed to a variable area fan nozzle.
`The paragraph starts by listing out the features of the
`'605 patent, including the variable nozzle, and then it goes on to
`say: "After two decades of development, Patent Owner
`introduced its new family of high bypass ratio geared
`engines...the product is highly successful...the '605 patent is
`drawn to a specific refinement of this product line, claiming,
`among other things, a combination of design features Patent
`Owner correctly determined would be a recipe for success,"
`okay?
`
`The engine reference here is the PW1100-G. Clearly,
`the implication here is that the '605, claims 7 to 11, are
`nonobviousness because they have been commercially successful.
`Dr. Mattingly testified that this engine, the PW1100-G, does not
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00531
`Patent 8,511,605 B2
`
`include a variable area fan nozzle, let alone an axially movable
`nozzle, okay?
`I have no doubt that when Patent Owner submitted this
`response, it was aware that the engine itself does not include a
`variable area fan nozzle. The fact that Patent Owner would
`lead -- would be compelled to lead with a misleading argument of
`this nature just reaffirms the fact that the claims of the '605 patent
`include no contribution to the art at all and should be cancelled.
`Thank you.
`MR. VALAIK: Your Honor, may I proceed?
`JUDGE JUNG: Yes, you may proceed.
`MR. VALAIK: I want to start out, Your Honor,
`directly addressing the bulk of counsel's arguments here that what
`we have in the invention in the '605 patent was all known. KSR
`itself states: "Although common sense directs one to look with
`care at a patent application that claims as innovation the
`combination of two known devices according to their established
`functions, it can be important to identify a reason that would have
`prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to
`combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.
`This is so because inventions in most, if not all, instances rely
`upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed
`discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in
`some sense, is already known."
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00531
`Patent 8,511,605 B2
`
`
`And so, no, we didn't invent a variable area fan nozzle,
`but although our focus here today is on claims 7 through 11, that,
`of course, depends on claim 1, where you have the low pressure
`turbine, you have the gear, you have a limitation where the fan
`spins slower than the low pressure turbine, all of that enabling
`more thrust and increased bypass ratio.
`Now, I want to focus on the Willis/Duesler
`combination, and it's interesting we didn't see from counsel a very
`specific illustration of that combination, and a little bit of history
`of how we got here. In the Board's institution decision, the Board
`stated that our understanding is that Petitioner proposes
`incorporating a translating sleeve only, and then I have on the
`bottom of the screen here, on slide 3, in the reply brief, Petitioner
`confirmed that what they proposed here is translating sleeve only.
`And it's important to note that they don't talk at all --
`when they talk about incorporating this translating sleeve from
`Duesler, which moves axially, from the radial flaps we find in
`Willis, they don't say how it's done, they don't say how it's going
`to be attached, and this is going to be significant later in the
`presentation.
`Turning to slide 4, in the upper right-hand corner, what
`you have is Duesler Figure 2, and we have some color-coding
`there to illustrate the different parts, and you will see the
`translating sleeve in green, and then on the bottom, we have
`Willis. It's very important to stop here because Willis has a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00531
`Patent 8,511,605 B2
`
`reversible pitch fan. So Willis there on the bottom, we show the
`direction of travel moving forward, that's not going to change,
`and air is entering the front and going aft. But when the Willis
`engine lands, importantly, that fan reverses. That outlet becomes
`an inlet.
`Duesler, top right-hand corner, that doesn't have a
`reversible pitch fan, so that translating sleeve, that outlet, that is
`designed in a way to always act as an outlet. So here's
`Petitioner's specific combination, and as I said, no explanation at
`all of how you physically take that translating sleeve and replace
`it with the radial flaps.
`And as my colleague here, Mr. Coyne, explained
`earlier, this isn't Legos, this isn't Tinker Toys. This is jet engines,
`and they have no evidence which specifically shows how you
`would actually make this combination, and it was not shown in
`counsel's presentation.
`I'm on slide 5 now. Slide 5 shows Willis' variable area
`fan nozzle. Again, we're moving forward. We're in flight. The
`air flow is entering there through the front, and I've illustrated in
`the back those radial flaps, just coloring those in blue. Now, the
`fundamental purpose of Willis, as a demonstrator engine, was a
`development engine for a new network of airports in populated
`city centers, and to accomplish that, you really needed two things:
`effective reverse thrust and low noise.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00531
`Patent 8,511,605 B2
`
`
`Effective reverse thrust, we actually submitted as
`UTC-2020 that diagram of Reagan National Airport, showing the
`shortest runway, 5000 feet. Willis was planned to land on a
`runway of 2000 feet, a pretty ambitious goal there. To get there,
`Willis specifically notes at GE-1011, 19 and 20, you needed 35
`percent reverse thrust, 35 percent of forward thrust, and you
`needed to be able to get there when you land in 1.5 seconds. And
`our expert, Dr. Mattingly, talks about this at paragraph 64 of his
`declaration, UTC-2009. So that's the reverse thrust component.
`The second --
`JUDGE DANIELS: Counsel, so what you're trying to
`say is that of that you just described, whether it's a short runway
`landing or sudden decrease in thrust is in the claim. What we
`have got here is in claim 7, and I understand that claim 7 is
`dependent on claim 1 and causes a fan nozzle exit to vary the
`pressure ratio during operation.
`MR. VALAIK: In claim 7 specifically, Judge Daniels,
`you have the variable area fan nozzle that is axially movable.
`That is obviously for an engine in flight, landing, all conditions.
`Their specific combination here of Willis plus Duesler has to be
`operable; it has to function for the principle of operations for
`which Willis was intended.
`When you combine the actually translating sleeve from
`Duesler with Willis, it will not work; it defeats their combination.
`And so we submit that claim 7 has this limitation with that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00531
`Patent 8,511,605 B2
`
`variable area fan nozzle that needs to function in all flight
`conditions.
`Turning back to the noise component, Willis had a very
`aggressive goal for noise as well, 95 decibels in flight and 100
`decibels upon landing, and the Board is probably aware that
`decibels is a logarithmic scale, and so a five-decibel increase
`from 95 to 100 is significant.
`And so how is Willis going to accomplish this task?
`And I've brought up slide 6. This is now Willis in reverse thrust
`mode, and, again, the direction of travel is going forward. We
`have now just landed on the runway, and you'll see red stream
`lines that are now entering, and you'll see the radial flaps
`extended.
`Now, Dr. Mattingly talked about this in his declaration,
`and I want to take a brief digression here to address their attack
`on Dr. Mattingly. Dr. Mattingly has authored an important
`textbook in this field. Now, Petitioner cites liberally in this
`petition as well as other petitions -- indeed, Dr. Abhari, their
`expert, before he knew Dr. Mattingly was going to be our expert,
`they stated that "Dr. Mattingly's textbook is at the top of his
`desk," and he referred this to GE counsel, as well as
`Dr. Mattingly served distinguishedly in the Air Force for 20 years
`and taught at the Air Force Academy. The fact that he doesn't
`"have experience with variable area fan nozzles," as Mr. Coyne
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00531
`Patent 8,511,605 B2
`
`explained, there is really three folks that have the hands-on,
`real-world experience: GE, Pratt & Whitney, and Rolls Royce.
`Turning to those red stream lines though, it's very
`important that now the Willis demonstrator engine has landed, the
`air cannot simply just enter that back of the engine at this point.
`That reversible pitch fan is literally sucking the air in, and the air,
`as you'll see, does n
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
