`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR 2016-00862
`Patent 8,689,568 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: July 24, 2017
`____________
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, SCOTT A. DANIELS and GEORGE R.
`HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`

`

`IPR 2016-00862
`Patent 8,689,568 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`DAVID J. LENDER, ESQUIRE
`ANISH DESAI, ESQUIRE
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP
`1300 Eye Street, NW, Suite 900
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3314
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`M. ANDREW HOLTMAN, PH.D., ESQUIRE
`JASON E. STACH, ESQUIRE
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20001-4413
`
`MICHAEL J. VALAIK, ESQUIRE
`Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott, LLP
`Courthouse Place
`54 West Hubbard Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, July 24,
`
`2017, commencing at 2:18 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR 2016-00862
`Patent 8,689,568 B2
`
`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
`26
`27
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE JUNG: Take your seats, please. Thank you. This is the Oral
`Hearing for Case IPR 2016-00862 between Petitioner General Electric
`Company; and Patent Owner United Technologies Corporation. The
`Petitioner challenges the claims in U.S. Patent number 8,689,568. Starting
`with the Counsel for the Petitioner, and followed by Counsel for the Patent
`Owner, please state your names for the record?
`MR. DESAI: Anish Desai, here on behalf of the Petitioner, General
`Electric Company.
`MR. STACH: Jason Stach, Your Honor. I'm with Finnegan, on
`behalf of Patent Owner, United Technologies Corporation.
`JUDGE JUNG: Thank you. As stated in our order, the parties have
`about 30 minutes in total time to present its position in this case. Now, with
`all that said -- Oh. Actually, one more thing; the Petitioner does object to
`Patent Owner's slides 28 and 29, for the record. Counsel for Petitioner, you
`may proceed when you are ready.
`MR. DESAI: Thank you, Your Honor. I'll reserve 10 minutes for
`rebuttal. The ’568 Patent is directed to a cooling hole for an air flow which
`is a turbine blade. The basic structure of a cooling hole is an inlet on a first
`wall surface, a hole that extends through the wall, to an outlet on the second
`wall surface. Cooling holes are used in turbine blades to pass cooling air
`through the blade and provide a film of cool air over the surface of the blade.
`The main issue before the Board here is, in our view, a simple one.
`Does the prior art cooling hole in Bunker, disclose a straight and lateral
`downstream end that is coextensive with the trailing edges of a first and the
`second lobes? Bunker, in our view, clearly discloses such a cooling hole
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`26
`27
`
`IPR 2016-00862
`Patent 8,689,568 B2
`with this type of downstream end in Figure 5. Dr. Eaton explained this in
`his declaration, confirmed it during his deposition, and there is no expert
`testimony from the opposing side to rebut this point.
`To begin with, the reason the ’568 Patent was allowed was because
`the prior art that was before the Examiner did not disclose the straight and
`lateral downstream end, and what I have upon the screen is page 13 of Patent
`Owner's response, and the top is a 3D rendering of the prior art cooling hole,
`that was before the Examiner, and the bottom is the 3D rendering of the ’568
`Patent cooling hole.
`And what you'll see is both cooling holes have an inlet which is on the
`left side, a metering section, which is kind of the tube-like section, the small
`tube-like section; they also have the claim-diffusing sections that extend
`laterally and longitudinally. They have the lobes, the sidewalls, the edges.
`The difference between these two cooling holes with respect to the claim
`limitations is that downstream end, being a chevron shape in the top prior art
`one, and then the bottom the ’568 being straight and lateral.
`Bunker discloses the cooling hole with all of the claim limitations,
`including the straight and downstream end. Now, what I have here upon the
`screen is the ’568 Patent and Bunker, side-by-side. Figure 4 of the ’568
`Patent and Figure 2 of Bunker, and this is showing --
`JUDGE JUNG: Mr. Desai?
`MR. DESAI: Yes?
`JUDGE JUNG: For the record, this is slide 2? Correct?
`MR. DESAI: Slide 2. Correct. This is showing the side view with
`the basic aspects of the cooling hole. You have the inlet at the bottom left;
`the metering section, followed by the diffusing section and the outlet.
`Okay? On slide 3, we have top views of the cooling holes in Bunker, and in
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`26
`27
`
`IPR 2016-00862
`Patent 8,689,568 B2
`the ’568 Patent, and what you have here is one of the outer regions that
`described in Bunker, Figure 5, that has the diverging lobes, 86 and 88, the
`sidewalls and the edges, and the straight and lateral downstream end, just
`like the ’568 Patent.
`That's the key limitation that's really at issue here, is this downstream
`end; and on slide 4 I've highlighted that for you. It's a downstream end; it
`extends in a straight lateral direction, and the downstream end is at least
`axially coextensive with the trailing edges of the first and second lobes.
`This is Dr. Eaton's testimony on slide 5, and what he said in his
`declaration was that Figure 5 matches the Bunker, and matches Figure 5 of
`the ’568 Patent, and they both illustrate a downstream end that extends in the
`straight and lateral direction between the end of the troughs, 86 and 88, those
`are the lobes, and it's axially, it's coextensive with those trailing edges.
`He reaffirmed this at his deposition, that's at UTC 2003, 22, page 22,
`lines 8 to 13, and it says, "The hole is concluded at the straight line, right
`there, between 92 and 93." And let's skip ahead to slide 7, and you can see
`there, 92 and 93, you have a straight and lateral downstream end. So, he
`reaffirmed this at his deposition, and this is the only expert testimony on this
`issue of what is the downstream end in the Bunker cooling hole.
`Petitioner -- sorry, Patent Owner's expert, Dr. Faghri, did not offer any
`opinions refuting how the cooling hole in Figure 5 of Bunker is described by
`Dr. Eaton. And again, if we match up Figure 5 with the ’568 Patent here on
`slide 6, again you'll see the upstream end of the cooling hole was labeled
`158, the downstream end is 160. You have the trailing edges of the lobe,
`136 and 138, and the straight and lateral downstream end between the two.
`Again, Figure 5 of Bunker matches this exact structure. You have the
`lobes, 86 and 88, extending from the upstream end to the downstream end,
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR 2016-00862
`Patent 8,689,568 B2
`diverging laterally and longitudinally. And at the trailing edges you have a
`straight and lateral downstream end, the line between 92 and 93.
`Now, the only response -- As I mentioned, there's no expert testimony
`from Patent Owner at issue, the only response for Patent Owner, is attorney
`argument. And this is what we have on slide 8. And this, on the right, is an
`illustration that was in the Patent Owner's response at page 44, and what the
`Patent Owner did here, was they redrew the figure in Bunker.
`They took the line between 92 and 93, and they turned it from a dash
`line -- I'm sorry -- a solid line into a dotted line, and then because of that
`they argued that the blue line between 90 and 92 is the downstream end.
`There was no support for this argument in Bunker; there was no expert
`testimony to support this argument about how to interpret this figure in
`Bunker.
`So, let me move on to the other limitations in claim 1, and here on
`slide 9, we have the first and second lobe --
`JUDGE HOSKINS: Mr. Desai?
`MR. DESAI: Yes.
`JUDGE HOSKINS: This is Judge Hoskins. Before I let you move
`on, one of the issues that's evolved with respect to the downstream end is
`Bunker's description of it, is being chevron-shaped, well, Bunker's
`description of the outlet being chevron-shaped, and one of the Patent
`Owner's argument is, I must refer to the downstream end being chevron-
`shaped. And I think you take the position in your brief that doesn’t
`necessarily refer -- the chevron term does not necessarily refer to
`downstream end. But my question is, if it doesn’t refer to the downstream
`end in Bunker, what is chevron referring to in Bunker?
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR 2016-00862
`Patent 8,689,568 B2
`MR. DESAI: Well, I believe in Bunker there are numerous chevron-
`shaped downstream ends. I think it's Figures 1 -- I believe that Figure 1
`illustrates a series of downstream ends that are chevron-shaped, and our
`position is that Figure 5 illustrates a different type of downstream end which
`is not chevron- shaped, it's a straight and lateral line, that goes from the
`trailing edges of the lobes.
`So, where Bunker does describe some Chevron outlets, the one in
`Figure 5 is not a chevron outlet. I mean, it's clear from the figure itself that
`the downstream end is straight and lateral between the edges of the lobes.
`JUDGE HOSKINS: Thank you.
`MR. DESAI: Now, so if we move on to the other limitations, the first
`and second lobes diverge longitudinally and laterally, and then we have the
`first sidewall and the second sidewall. These are also clearly shown in
`Bunker, and Dr. Eaton testified to this as well, this is on slide 11. And what
`I'll do, I'll compare again, we can compare the figures of the two patents that
`show these features of the cooling hole. So here, on slide 12, this is the ’568
`Patent, and you see 104 is outer wall surface, the first and second edges of
`the cooling hole that are on the outer surface are 162 and 164.
`The first and second sidewalls are 132 and 134, but they are not
`actually shown. You cannot see them in this figure because -- and these
`sidewalls are particularly steep, in other words they are essentially
`perpendicular, so you can't see the sidewalls in this figure. And then the
`lobes are 128 and 130, shaded in purple. Now, in Bunker, Figure 5, here we
`have 82 is the outer wall surface, the first edge and the second edge are
`annotated here on slide 13, and now the first and second sidewalls here are
`colored in green, and the reason you can actually see them in this figure, as
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`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
`26
`27
`
`IPR 2016-00862
`Patent 8,689,568 B2
`opposed to the ’568 Patent, is because in this instance the sidewalls are not
`as steep, they are sloped. Okay.
`Now, of course that doesn’t matter, because the claims of ’568 Patent
`just require a first and second sidewall, there is no limitation in the claims
`about how steep the sidewalls should be. And then again, the lobes, 86 and
`88, are shaded in purple.
`So, how does Patent Owner respond? Patent Owner responds here on
`slide 14, by arguing that the -- I'm sorry -- on slide 15, that the lateral edge
`in the ’568 Patent is a component of the lobe, and by the Bunker the lateral
`edge is separate from each lobe. Now, our view is this argument doesn’t
`really make any sense, because these cooling holes are a single structure.
`The lobes, the sidewalls and the edges are all features not
`components, and in fact Bunker explains this in essence on slide 16, which is
`paragraph 70, "The passage holes of the invention are formed by electric
`discharge machining," which means you start with a structure, and etch your
`way until you get the desired shape. Ultimately the lobes, sidewalls, and
`edges in both Bunker and in the ’568 Patent are part of a single structure.
`The last limitations I'll go over are the metering section, extending
`downstream from the inlet, and again, go back to the first and second lobe,
`they are diverging longitudinally and laterally, now Patent Owner argues
`that it was improper on slide 18 here, to rely on different embodiments in
`Bunker to show the metering and the divergence limitations.
`Well, first of all, Figure 5 of Bunker alone illustrates the lobes that
`diverge laterally and longitudinally. Okay? It's uncontested the 86 and 88
`lobes, that meet the divergence limitations. So, the only issue is the
`metering section. Now, we agree the metering section is not shown in
`Figure 5, but of course Figure 5 is an illustration of a cooling hole. So, in a
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR 2016-00862
`Patent 8,689,568 B2
`text the Bunker confirms that Figure 5 has a metering section even though
`it's not specifically shown.
`And I'll start with slide 19 here, and on the right is Figure 2 of Bunker,
`and I know it's hard to see on the screen here, but 34 -- sorry -- 30 is the
`inlet, it's labeled No. 30, and the inlet bore is labeled 34. The inlet bore of
`34 is the claimed metering section.
`And we go to slide 20, Bunker explains here in paragraphs 42 and 43
`that each of the passage holes includes an inlet bore 34, okay, and then we
`skip over to slide 21, here in paragraph 52 of Bunker it's talking about
`Figure 5, specifically, and what it says, it tells you that there is an inlet bore,
`but it's just not specifically shown.
`So 52, paragraph 52 confirms that there is a metering section in the
`cooling hole that's shown in Figure 5, it's just not illustrated. And of course
`that makes perfect sense, because it is a cooling hole, and it must have the
`hole for the air to pass through it.
`I'm going to wrap up with claims 8 and 19 which are: the claims that
`require a third lobe in the cooling hole. These limitations, in our view, are
`obvious in view of Liang, which discloses a cooling hole with four lobes
`which are referred to as diffusing passages, and this is what's shown on slide
`29, and you have two lobes shown in purple, and then the additional lobes in
`the middle shown in green. And it's undisputed that Liang provides the
`motivation to use multiple lobes.
`It says that the forming of separate diffusion passages is used to
`minimize shear mixing. And what's shear mixing? That's the cooling air
`coming out of the hole can mix with the hot gas flow, and they are trying to
`avoid that for efficiency purposes, so there is a clear motivation described in
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR 2016-00862
`Patent 8,689,568 B2
`Liang, it's uncontested, to add an additional lobe to what's shown in the
`Bunker pattern, and that's to minimize shear mixing.
`Unless Your Honors have any further questions, I'll reserve the
`remaining time for rebuttal.
`JUDGE JUNG: I have no questions for Mr. Desai.
`(Discussion off the record)
`JUDGE JUNG: Are you ready, Mr. Stach?
`MR. STACH: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.
`JUDGE JUNG: You may proceed.
`MR. STACH: Hello, Your Honors. Again, my name is Jason Stach,
`I'm representing the Patent Owner, United Technologies Corporation, here.
`And you’ve heard some about the technology today, and I want to make sure
`that a few details are not lost in that. So, I'm going to first start discussing a
`little about the technology. I'm on slide 3 of our demonstratives, and here
`we see a turban blade, as depicted in the ’568 Patent. We've called out the
`cooling holes with the red box there, and the ’568 Patent tells us that there's
`actually a delicate balance that these cooling holes need to achieve in the
`environment that they are in.
`Hot gas is flowing across this turbine blade, and it gets so hot that it
`can actually melt the blade surface, melt the material, it can scorch the
`surface, so cooling air comes in within the blade through the interior, and
`then comes out these cooling holes. And in the ’568 Patent it teaches that it
`can create this film over the surface of the blade that we see here, and that
`film in the ’568 Patent can provide some benefits and examples are that it
`creates a buffer, if you will, between that hot gas that's flowing across the
`blade, and the actual surface of the component.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`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
`26
`27
`
`IPR 2016-00862
`Patent 8,689,568 B2
`And by providing that buffer the hot gas does not actually come into
`contact with the component, and the cooling air that is forming that film can
`actually cool the component directly. But there's a balance that needs to be
`achieved between over-cooling and under-cooling. If you under-cool it can
`melt the component and of course scorch it. If you over-cool it can expand
`and contract and cause what's called, in the ’568 Patent they talk about it as
`Thermo-Mechanical Fatigue. It creates cracks in the blade, and you end up
`with shortening the useful life of the blade.
`And I think it's important to understand that this is all operating in an
`engine that's moving, you know, at speeds of hundreds and hundreds of
`miles an hour, and so the gas is inside or moving at least those speeds. It's a
`very violent system, and you don't want to introduce undue turbulence into
`that system and disrupt the hot gas flow. It can harm the efficiency of the
`engine. And so, you want to end up with geometry for a cooling hole that is
`a balance of all these features, where you are not disrupting the existing
`system, providing sufficient cooling, and it's really the geometry that
`provides those benefits.
`And that's what's claimed in the ’568 Patent, and you see it on slide 4,
`this is how the ’568 Patent balances all of those parameters. Toward the top
`of the slide we see Figure 4 of the ’568 Patent, that's a side view of the
`cooling hole there, Figure 5 is a top-down view of the same cooling hole in
`the ’568 Patent, and then towards the bottom we see in red our 3D rendering,
`it's on page 14 of our Patent Owner's response.
`And I'll come back to that in a moment, but on slide 5, if we look at
`that slide, we have some features that we've colored in, in Figure 4 of the
`’568 Patent. Those features are all in the original figure we just color them.
`So, for example, the red H represents the hot gas flowing across the surface
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`26
`27
`
`IPR 2016-00862
`Patent 8,689,568 B2
`of the component, and that will be the surface of that blade that we saw. It's
`labeled the Second Wall Surface on our slide.
`And that gas is flowing across the component towards the bottom of
`the slide in light blue labeled the first wall surface, that's the interior of that
`turbine blade, that's where the cooling area is going to be coming up, and we
`can see on the lower-left of that figure, labeled C, you can the cooling fluid
`coming into that hole, and then the cooling fluid then exits toward the top-
`right, and we can see that it's being pulled down towards that surface or that
`component, hugging the component closely and creating that buffer that I
`mentioned previously.
`And it's really the geometry of the cooling hole that helps identify
`how that's going to flow. And if you go back to slide 4, we'll see in that 3D
`rendering that's consistent with the figures of the ’568 Patent, we've
`represented in blue the cooling airflow, and what you can see there, is that
`with this type of design, you end up not just having the cooling air flow out
`at either side of the lobes, but you actually get a nice diffusion across the
`entire width of the hole, and so through that central transition region. You
`end up with basically a better release of the cooling fluid onto the surface of
`the component.
`So, that background, I'll move to slide 6. And this is a very dense
`slide, it's a reference slide you don't need to read it right now, but I wanted to
`highlight that we have five different ways that we've shown that the
`Petitioner has not met their burden in this case. I'll talk about several of
`those today. The Bunker reference is the primary reference that's involved
`in all of them. Certainly it's the only reference in the anticipation ground,
`and then there are some obviousness grounds, actually one obviousness
`ground that relates to two claims, but also involves the Bunker reference.
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`26
`27
`
`IPR 2016-00862
`Patent 8,689,568 B2
`Moving to Bunker's ambiguity, if you are familiar with our briefs you
`are familiar with this issue, but on slide 8, you know, it's a long-held and
`long-standing principle that ambiguous references cannot anticipate, and that
`makes good sense. If it's not clear what it's disclosed, how could one of
`ordinary skill actually go and achieve the claimed invention if the reference
`is not clear?
`So, what I'm about to show you is a series of slides that come from
`Dr. Eaton's deposition, and what we learned at his deposition is that the
`world is not what it seemed in his declaration. In his declaration he talked
`about things being clear, he talked about features disclosed in figures in
`Bunker. When we got to his deposition, however, right out of the gate he
`started talking about how he finds all of the figures completely ambiguous.
`It's a completely different world than the picture that was originally painted
`in the declaration. It's a different world than what the Board saw and relied
`on in instituting this case, and it's a world that we can't ignore now.
`If we look at slide 9, I won't go through all of these quotes, they are
`here for the Board, but if we look at the second quote, I think all of the
`drawings in both patents are completely ambiguous, they do not specify a
`shape at all, and here one of the things he's talking about is the Bunker
`reference that's at issue in all of this --all of the grounds. He talked about
`Figure 1, how it only shows one view, it could be all sorts of different
`things, and then he talked about how the shape is important in these holes.
`When we showed him Figure 2 of Bunker, we started asking him
`about some features in there, in particular there's a plateau face that we
`asked him about, on this figure on slide 10, and he says, I don't know what
`58 is, I don't know what that face is. But then when we showed him and
`said, well, isn't that the front face of the plateau? His response was, well, no
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR 2016-00862
`Patent 8,689,568 B2
`one would make a thing that look like that -- this is on slide 11 now --
`because a face to me would imply a blockage that went all the way across
`there, and no one would do that. But I don't know actually, I looked at that
`for a long time myself, and this is not -- You know, we have given you some
`quotes here, and in the Patent Owner's response.
`This is not an instance where you grab a couple quotes and you try to
`run a mile with them, I would encourage the Board, to read through all of
`Dr. Eaton's testimony, especially the first-third and last-third or so, he
`touches on these ambiguity points, in fact, it's a central thrust of his
`testimony. It runs throughout his entire set of testimony.
`If you go to Figure 5, we showed him that, and then this is on slide 12
`of our demonstratives, we asked him: if you want to analyze the cooling
`effect of Bunker's Figure 5 embodiment, what would you need to do,
`because he wasn’t able to say? He said, well, the geometry of Figure 5
`would have to be specified exactly, would be the first step. And that's
`because it doesn’t specify it exactly.
`So, what did Dr. Eaton do? You know, when confronted with these
`ambiguities, these problems, what did he do to try to resolve them? Well, he
`told us at his deposition that he supplemented the record, he went out, he
`says he looked at pictures on the Web, and in his own book. He was trying
`to see what the cooling holes would look like. He also said he looked at a
`couple of real turbine blades that he had in his office, he was trying -- he told
`us at the deposition that he did all of this, all the way up through the night of
`his deposition, the night before, which was eight months after he filed his
`declaration, he was doing this because he told us: I wanted to be able to try
`to answer your questions today.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`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
`26
`27
`
`IPR 2016-00862
`Patent 8,689,568 B2
`A very different picture from what we have in his declaration, and I
`think it shouldn’t be lost that Dr. Eaton is not one of ordinary skill, he started
`working on cooling holes in the 1970s, he said for the last 10 years 30 to 40
`percent of his research has been in cooling holes. He is one of extraordinary
`skill brought into this proceeding by General Electric, as an expert, and he
`really is an expert in these proceedings. And yet, even as one of
`extraordinary skill looking at this -- looking at Bunker in 2016, he wasn’t
`able, based on its disclosure, to ascertain and understand what Bunker was
`disclosing in critical ways.
`GE's position in this proceeding is that one of ordinary skill, not of
`extraordinary skill, but of ordinary skill would have looked at Bunker in
`2012, five years earlier, and been able to easily achieve the claims of the
`’568 Patent, and that's just not credible on this record.
`So, on slide 14, Dr. Eaton again, "I use my engineering judgment on
`what they were attempting to draw." He's putting his mind, trying to get into
`the head of the people who were drawing these figures, to try to figure out,
`what they maybe were trying to do. Not what they drew, not what was
`actually disclosed, but what they were attempting to draw.
`There are two problems with that, one is ambiguity issue that I
`mentioned earlier; ambiguous references cannot anticipate, but the second is
`that to anticipate the reference has to disclose all of the elements within the
`four corners of the document, and it just simply doesn’t do so here. Dr.
`Eaton had to look well beyond the Bunker reference to try to figure out what
`was even being disclosed, and even then, if you read through that testimony
`that he provided, he says he would have to guess numerous times, he wasn’t
`able to answer questions about how changes would affect the cooling flow
`through the cooling holes if you were to modify them in various ways.
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR 2016-00862
`Patent 8,689,568 B2
`So, there is ample evidence here to say that this is just not a reference
`that can be used to find the claims are anticipated. But it wasn’t just Dr.
`Eaton, if we look on slide 15, the Examiner during prosecution, agreed that
`Bunker was ambiguous, and when I say prosecution, I'll take a step back.
`Bunker is a GE patent application that then published. So, same petitioner,
`same company as the petitioner here, they filed the Bunker patent
`application, it published as a publication, and when the Examiner finally got
`to look at it, the Examiner said, I don't understand what's being disclosed
`here.
`
`And I've got a number of quotes here on slide 15, but let's look at the
`second bullet, it says: Figures 2 through 6 are not a clear representation of
`the claimed valley and plateau, and how they are arranged for troughs. So
`that pulls in Figure 5 which is the primary embodiment that GE is relying on
`in this proceeding; the Examiner who looked at Bunker said: I don't
`understand that figure. And the third bullet says: the detailed description
`further fails to clarify the specific geometry of the invention.
`So the figures are ambiguous, and the text doesn't help me, is what the
`Examiner was telling GE, and then the Examiner went on saying: you know,
`this isn't my first cooling hole. He says: the Examiner, well versed in the
`film cooling art has made his best educated guess on the configuration of the
`plateau, valley and troughs, but cannot be certain that which is understood is
`what applicants attempted to be disclosed.
`Again, it's similar to what Dr. Eaton was saying about how I was
`trying to figure out what they intended, maybe, to draw. And that's just not
`sufficient here. But what did GE do in response? They amended Bunker's
`figures, they amended Figures 1 and 2, that's what those red Xs are on the
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`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
`26
`27
`
`IPR 2016-00862
`Patent 8,689,568 B2
`bottom of the amended figures, those aren’t actually part of the Bunker that's
`at issue in this proceeding.
`Presumably they could have relied on the issued Bunker patent that
`has the amended figures, instead, for some reason they chose the Bunker
`publication which doesn’t have those amended figures, doesn’t have all the
`additional explanation that they provided to the Examiner when they were
`trying to make the Examiner understand what was trying to be disclosed in
`Bunker. All we have are the figures that the Examiner said: I don't
`understand. And that's consistent with Dr. Eaton's testimony, and based on
`all of that, Bunker just cannot anticipate.
`Now I'd like to talk specifically about the downstream end. If we go
`to slide 18, it has on there some claim language, and the downstream end is
`part of the geometry that's reflected in the structure of these cooling holes
`that helps differentiate the ’568 cooling holes from Bunker's cooling hole.
`And in particular, I've underlined this "wherein" clause, "Wherein the
`downstream end is at least axially coextensive with the trailing edges of the
`first and second lobes." The axially coextensive language is significant here,
`as Mr. Desai was talking about earlier.
`If we go to slide 19, we can see how that looks visually. We have two
`lobes on either sides of the cooling hole, labeled towards the top and bottom
`of the figure. The axial direction is the left-right direction on the page.
`We've drawn in the trailing edges of those lobes, are labeled 136 and 138,
`and we've added some labels there. And then there's the downstream end,
`160, which we've colored in blue.
`Now to be axially coextensive with the trailing edges, that line has to
`be at least there, or extend farther to the right. That would be at least axially
`coextensive with the trailing edges of the lobes. If that line were drawn back
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`26
`27
`
`IPR 2016-00862
`Patent 8,689,568 B2
`closer into the metering section, and so to the left on the page, to the left
`from the ends of those lobes, that would not be at least axially coextensive, it
`would not meet the language of our claims.
`On slide 20, this is again that Figure 4 image that I showed you
`earlier, and it's specific geometry that really provides some of these
`wonderful cooling flow properties that we see reflected in the ’568 Patent.
`And on slide 21, we can see that it's partly due to this downstream
`end, and its configuration that we actually get this dispersion pattern that we
`see on slide 21 towards the bottom.
`Now, I'm going to show you -- Sorry, I thought I heard someone on
`the line. Now I'm going to show you that Bunker has a very different
`structure from this. And then because of its different structure, it functions
`differently, and we've claimed the ’568 Patent hole structurally, and Bunker,
`obviously, has structural differences and we'll show you those, but I think it's
`also helpful to understand that it causes the hole to operate in a different
`way.
`
`On slide 22, we see Figure 5 of Bunker that has troughs that go along
`the edges, they are labeled 86 and 88, has the valley that's shown at 90, and
`then the plate