Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 7
`Entered: October 3, 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 IPR2017-01097
`Patent 8,572,943 B1
`____________
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 7
`Entered: October 3, 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 IPR2017-01097
`Patent 8,572,943 B1
`____________
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01097
`Patent 8,572,943 B1
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`General Electric Company (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to institute an
`inter partes review of claims 1–5, 8–13, and 15–20 of U.S. Patent No.
`8,572,943 B1 (“the ’943 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). United Technologies
`Company (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim.
`Resp.”).
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Upon consideration
`of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner
`has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the claims
`challenged in the Petition. For the reasons expressed below, we institute an
`inter partes review of claims 1–5, 8–13, and 15–20 of the ’943 patent.
`B. Additional Proceedings
`Petitioner states that to its knowledge, the ’943 patent is not asserted
`in any lawsuit. Pet. 1. Petitioner has also challenged certain claims of the
`’943 patent in separate proceeding IPR2017-01096. Id.
`C. The ’943 Patent
`The ’943 patent (Ex. 1001), titled “Fundamental Gear System
`Architecture,” describes a gear system for driving the fan of a gas turbine
`engine. Ex. 1001 1:1–18. Figure 2 of the ’943 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01097
`Patent 8,572,943 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 of the ’943 patent, above, depicts gear assembly 65 with input shaft
`40 and sun gear 62 driving intermediate gears 64, which in turn intermesh
`with ring gear 66 to drive fan 42. Id. at 5:61–6:2. Lubrication system 98,
`through main oil system 80, supplies lubrication to gears 62, 64, and 66 and
`in doing so, also cools the gears by removing heat generated in gear
`assembly 65 via line 88.1 Id. at 6:28–40.
`Also illustrated in Figure 2 is a flexible mount system designed to
`isolate gear assembly 65 and its components from misalignment due to
`externally applied forces. Id. at 6:3–5. Power is input to gear assembly 65
`from shaft 40 through flexible coupling 72 to sun gear 62, and flexible
`
`
`1 The ’943 patent refers to element 65 as both “gear box” and “gear
`assembly.” Compare Ex. 1001, 6:3 with id. at 6:45. We understand no
`substantive difference between the terminologies, so for purposes of
`consistency, we use “gear assembly 65” in this Decision.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01097
`Patent 8,572,943 B1
`
`mounts 76 support gear assembly 65 relative to external frame 36 so that
`forces applied by the external frame are not transferred to gears 62, 64, and
`66. Id. at 6:5–17.
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 10 are independent. Each of
`the challenged dependent claims 2–5, 8–9, 11–13, and 15–20 depend from
`respective independent claims 1 and 10. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed
`subject matter and is reproduced below:
`1. A fan drive gear system for a gas turbine engine comprising:
`a gear system configured to provide a speed reduction between a
`fan drive turbine and a fan;
`a mount flexibly supporting portions of the gear system radially
`extending from a static structure of the gas tur bine engine with
`respect to a central axis to accommodate radial movement
`between the gear system and the static structure; and
`a lubrication system configured to provide lubricant to the gear
`system and remove thermal energy produced by the gear
`system, wherein the lubrication system includes a maximum
`capacity for removing thermal energy from the gear system
`greater than zero and less than about 2% of power input into
`the gear system during operation of the engine.
`Ex. 1001, 8:25–40.
`E. The Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable on the
`following specific grounds.2
`
`
`2 Petitioner supports its challenge with Declarations of Dr. Magdy Attia,
`Ph.D (Ex. 1003) and Raymond Drago, PE (Ex. 1005). See infra.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01097
`Patent 8,572,943 B1
`
`
`References
`Wendus3 and McCune4
`
`Basis Claims Challenged
`§ 103 1–3, 8–12, 15 and 17–20
`
`Wendus, McCune, and Sheridan ’0095 § 103 4 and 13
`Wendus, McCune, and Sheridan ’6746 § 103 5 and 16
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`II.
`A. Legal Standards
`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).
`Claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would
`be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). If the specification
`“reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that
`differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] . . . the inventor’s
`
`
`3 Ex. 1020, Bruce E. Wendus et al., Follow-On Technology Requirement
`Study for Advanced Subsonic Transport, (2003), NASA/CR—2003-212467
`(“Wendus”).
`4 Ex. 1016, M.E. McCune, Initial Test Results of 40,000 Horsepower Fan
`Drive Gear System for Advanced Ducted Propulsion Systems, (1993)
`AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS,
`AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, June
`28th–30th, 1993, AIAA-93-2146 (“McCune”).
`5 Ex. 1009, U.S. Patent Appl’n. Publication No. 2008/0116009 A1 (May 22,
`2008) (“Sheridan ’009”).
`6 Ex. 1007, U.S. Patent No. 5,433,674 (July 18, 1995) (“Sheridan ’674).
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01097
`Patent 8,572,943 B1
`
`lexicography governs.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed.
`Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d
`1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). We apply this standard to the claims of the
`’943 patent.
`B. Thermal energy
`Petitioner contends that the claim term “thermal energy” is used in the
`specification synonymously with “heat.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:26–29,
`8:3–5). Petitioner contends further that the specification explains that the
`heat or thermal energy is due to power loss in the gear assembly, and “comes
`from input power that is not transmitted to output power (i.e., power loss).”
`Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 6:56–58). Patent Owner does not specifically dispute
`Petitioner’s interpretation and asserts that construction of this term is not
`necessary for our decision. See Prelim. Resp. 26.
`Our review of the specification as a whole and the claim language is
`consistent with Petitioner’s contention that “thermal energy” is synonymous
`with “heat,” and that heat and thermal energy in the gear assembly occurs
`due to power loss between input power and output power. Compare Ex.
`1001, 7:26–29, with id. at 8:1–3. To the extent it is necessary for purposes
`of our Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s interpretation.
`C. Lubrication system
`Patent Owner objects that Petitioner’s interpretation of the term
`“lubrication system” as lubricating simply the gear assembly, is overly
`narrow, and the term instead “should be construed consistent with the
`intrinsic record to mean ‘a system that provides lubricant flow to one or
`more rotating components of the gas turbine engine.’” Prelim. Resp. 22
`(citing Pet. 39–45).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01097
`Patent 8,572,943 B1
`
`
`Whether or not Petitioner’s interpretation is overly narrow, we are not
`persuaded, at this point in the proceeding that “lubrication system” needs to
`be explicitly construed. Claim 1 recites in part:
`a lubrication system configured to provide lubricant to the gear
`system and remove thermal energy produced by the gear system,
`Ex. 1001, 8:34–36. The specification of the ’943 patent is entirely consistent
`with this claim language, describing for example, “a lubrication system
`providing lubricant to the gear system and removing thermal energy from
`the gear system produced by the gear system.” Id. at 2:38–41. The
`specification also describes the lubrication system providing lubrication “to
`the rotating components of the gas turbine engine including the bearing
`assemblies 38.” Id. at 5:42–44.
`We agree with Patent Owner on one hand, that under the broadest
`reasonable interpretation, the term, “lubrication system” recited apart from
`its claimed functionality, is not expressly limited solely to providing
`lubrication to, and heat removal from, the “gear assembly.” See Prelim.
`Resp. 23 (Patent Owner’s specific contention is that “while the claims
`require the ‘lubrication system’ to serve ‘the gear system,’ the claims do not
`limit the recited ‘lubrication system’ to serving the gear system alone.”).
`The proposed claim construction on the other hand, adds further
`functionality and unclaimed structure, e.g. “one or more rotating
`components” not expressed in the claim. The explanations in the
`specification may aid our understanding of the claim language, but it is
`important not to read in claim limitations from the specification. See
`Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
`2004) (“The written description, however, is not a substitute for, nor can it
`be used to rewrite, the chosen claim language.”). As discussed above, we
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01097
`Patent 8,572,943 B1
`
`apply the broadest reasonable interpretation in our analysis, and it is unclear
`at this early point in the proceeding how a construction including additional
`functionality and structure clarifies the original claim language. Thus, we
`are not persuaded currently, to read specific components and additional
`functionality described in the specification into this limitation.
`D. Maximum capacity
`Patent Owner argues that the proper understanding of “maximum
`capacity,” as recited for example in claims 1 and 11, should not ignore the
`word “maximum.” See Prelim. Resp. 24 (Patent Owner argues that “[i]n
`effect, [Petitioner] asks the Board to simply ignore the term ‘maximum.’”).
`Patent Owner asserts, further, that the claimed quantifications, e.g. in claims
`1 and 11 of thermal energy removal in the gear system at a range, “greater
`than zero and less than about 2% of power input,” associated with the term
`“maximum capacity,” give weight to Patent Owner’s argument that the term
`“maximum” should not be ignored. See id. at 25 (“This express
`quantification of the term ‘maximum capacity’ is consistent with the
`quantity recited in claims 1, 3, 11, and 12.”).
`We note that dependent claims 3 and 12 recite merely the word
`“capacity” without the word “maximum,” in association with a specific
`range of thermal energy removal from the gear system, i.e. a range “equal to
`less than about 1% of power input.” See Ex. 1001, 8:45–48, 9:35–38. In
`this respect, “maximum capacity” and “capacity” are juxtaposed with
`different ranges of power input in the context of the claims. Based on a
`reasonable reading of the claims, and in accordance with the plain and
`ordinary meaning of these terms as understood by one of skill in the art
`reading the claims in context, “maximum capacity” falls within a range of
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01097
`Patent 8,572,943 B1
`
`thermal energy removal “from the gear system greater than zero and less
`than about 2% of power input into the gear system,” and “capacity” as
`recited in claims 3 and 12, falls within a range of thermal energy removal
`from the gear system equal to less than about 1% of power input into the
`gear system.
`E. Other Constructions
`Petitioner offers constructions for several additional terms, namely
`“radially extending” (claims 1 and 10), “bypass ratio” (claim 18), and “fan
`pressure ratio” (claim 19). Pet. 24–29. We do not provide explicit
`constructions for these claim terms because doing so is not necessary for our
`determination of whether to institute inter partes review of the asserted
`claims. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
`(Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those terms which are in controversy need to be
`construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).
`III. ANALYSIS
`We turn now to Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability and
`Patent Owner’s arguments in its Preliminary Response to determine whether
`Petitioner has met the threshold standard of 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`A. Claims 1–3, 8–12, 15 and 17–20 — Alleged obviousness over
`Wendus and McCune
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–3, 8–12, 15 and 17–20 would have
`been obvious over Wendus and McCune. Pet. 30–57. On the current record,
`Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its
`assertion that claims 1–3, 8–12, 15 and 17–20 are obvious for the reasons
`explained below.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01097
`Patent 8,572,943 B1
`
`
`1. Wendus
`Wendus describes an Advanced Ducted Propulsor (“ADP”) concept
`engine “which would improve propulsive efficiency and reduce TSFC
`[thrust specific fuel consumption] by approximately another 9 percent.” Ex.
`1020, 13. The ADP engine includes a high bypass ratio and variable pitch
`fan with a core including a six-stage low pressure compressor powered by a
`single turbine. Id. at 16. Figure 4 of Wendus is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Id. at 17. Wendus’s Figure 4, above, depicts in diagrammatic form the ADP
`engine arrangement including a fan and six-stage low pressure compressor
`driven by a six-stage low pressure turbine through a gearbox having a 4.2
`reduction ratio. Id. at 17–18. Wendus describes the ADP fan drive gear
`system as a planetary gear system “sized for a maximum input shaft
`horsepower (hp) of 42,000 at takeoff and has an efficiency level at cruise of
`99.3 percent.” Id. at 18.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01097
`Patent 8,572,943 B1
`
`
`2. McCune
`McCune describes a fan drive gear system intended “to develop and
`demonstrate an advanced technology single rotation planetary gear system
`for use in ADP engines.” Ex. 1016, 2. Figure 1 of McCune is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`McCune’s Figure 1, above, illustrates a cross-section view of McCune’s
`reduction ratio gear arrangement including, a sun gear, planetary gears, and
`a ring gear. Id. at 3. McCune discloses further that the gear system is
`flexibly supported by an axial spline which is in turn supported by
`diaphragms such that, “[t]he combination of splines and diaphragms can also
`be used to maximize the load share in both the radial and axial directions
`through adjustment of springrates in each direction.” Id. McCune explains
`that an oil distribution system, i.e. a lubrication system, provides
`“lubrication and cooling” to the gear system. Id.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01097
`Patent 8,572,943 B1
`
`
`3. Claim 1
`Petitioner argues that both Wendus and McCune disclose a fan drive
`gear system, and at least Wendus’s gear system provides speed reduction
`between the engine turbine and the fan. Pet. 30–32. Petitioner argues that
`McCune teaches supporting the gear system with a flexible mount structure
`intended to reduce component wear and describes that with the flexible
`mount structure “extensive analysis was performed to ensure long life
`through optimizing system flexibility and load share.” Id. at 33 (citing Ex.
`1016, 10). Petitioner’s annotated version of McCune’s Figure 1, reproduced
`below, diagrammatically illustrates a ring gear flex mount within a red box.
`Id. at 37.
`
`McCune’s Figure 1, reproduced above with annotations by Petitioner,
`illustrates a cross-section view of a portion of McCune’s planetary gear
`system, with red arrows depicting the radial direction relative to a central
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01097
`Patent 8,572,943 B1
`
`axis of the gear system, and ring gear flex mount radially interposed between
`a ring gear and a static structure.
`Turning back to Wendus, Petitioner asserts that “Wendus describes
`the need for an advanced lubrication system for the ADP propulsor.” Id. at
`38 (citing Ex. 1020, 44). Petitioner relies also on McCune for its disclosure
`of an oil distribution system including “oil passages [] internal to the planet
`carrier walls and spray bars . . . used at each sun planet mesh for lubrication
`and cooling.” Id. at 38–39 (citing Ex. 1016, 3).
`With respect to the “maximum capacity for removing thermal energy
`from the gear system greater than zero and less than about 2% of power
`input into the gear system” limitation, Petitioner argues that “Wendus
`discloses that the ADP gearbox has an efficiency of 99.3%, and McCune
`discloses test results confirming the same.” Id. at 39 (citing Ex. 1020, 13
`(Table 1), 18; Ex 1016, 2. Based on this efficiency, Petitioner alleges that
`one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the relative thermal energy
`removed from the gear system is equal to or less than 1%, and therefore falls
`within the range recited in claim 1. Id. at 39–41.
`In support of its analysis Petitioner relies on excerpts from a
`mechanical engineering textbook as well as its declarant, Raymond Drago,
`arguing that “efficiency of a gearbox is a function of the power input to the
`gear system (PInput) and the power loss of the gear system (PLoss).” Pet. 39
`(citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 111; Ex. 1018, 201). Mr. Drago testifies further that the
`power loss in the gear system is well understood by those of skill in the art
`as equivalent to the thermal energy of the gear system. Ex. 1005 ¶ 111.
`Thus, Petitioner argues that
`[f]or a gear system that produces thermal energy equal to 0.7%
`of power input, it would have been obvious to a person of
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01097
`Patent 8,572,943 B1
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art to design the lubrication system to have
`a maximum capacity for removing thermal energy from the gear
`system greater than zero and less than about 2% of power input
`into the gear system.
`Pet. 40–41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 65–67, 112). Petitioner explains that “[i]t is
`well established in the prior art that the lubrication system of a gear system
`is sized based on the heat or thermal energy produced by the gear system.”
`Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 65–67, 112; Ex. 1018, 119, 199; Ex. 1013, 007;
`Ex. 1034, 003; Ex. 1035, 003).
`Based on the present record, we determine Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge of claim
`1 as unpatentable over Wendus and McCune.
`Patent Owner makes several distinct arguments with respect to
`Petitioner’s analysis and asserted prior art; we address these arguments in
`turn.
`
`(a) Whether Wendus and McClune disclose a
`“capacity” or “maximum capacity” of a gear
`system lubrication system
`Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s analysis and argues that
`“Wendus and McCune do not disclose the ‘capacity’ of a lubrication system,
`much less the ‘maximum capacity’ of such a system.” Prelim. Resp. 27–28.
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has “concoct[ed] a lubrication system
`capacity disclosure from what these references say about gear system
`efficiency.” Id. at 28.
`First, we agree with Patent Owner that neither Wendus nor McCune
`expressly disclose any particular capacity for an engine lubrication system.
`Petitioner however, relies upon its declarant, Mr. Drago, and Mr. Drago’s
`citation to various prior art references, to argue that a person of ordinary
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01097
`Patent 8,572,943 B1
`
`skill in the art would have known to size a lubrication system for a gear
`system relative to the thermal energy developed in the gear system. Pet. 41
`(citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 65–67, 112; Ex. 1018, 119, 199; Ex. 1013, 007; Ex.
`1034, 003; Ex. 1035, 003). This is so, Mr. Drago testifies, because “a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by weight and size
`concerns to design the lubrication to have a maximum capacity for removing
`thermal energy that equals the thermal energy produced by the gearbox.”
`See Ex. 1005 ¶ 113 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 66 (“[I]ncreasing the size of the heat
`exchanger, increases the volume and weight of the lubrication system. This
`is known to be undesirable on an aircraft engine.”); see also Ex. 1010, 1:54–
`59 (“The problem of elevated lubricant temperature can be addressed with
`larger, higher capacity heat exchangers. However larger heat exchangers are
`unacceptable because they contribute undesirable weight and consume
`precious space on board the engine or aircraft.”).
`Secondly, it is not clear that Petitioner has assumed that a Wendus-
`McCune lubrication system “does not allow for further capacity to service
`other rotating components of the propulsor,” as Patent Owner argues.
`Prelim. Resp. 29. Petitioner and its declarant’s analyses rely on the
`disclosures of Wendus and McCune, as alleged in context that, the gear
`system has a “99.3% efficiency.” Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1005, ¶ 111). From
`this, as discussed above, Petitioner contends that one of skill in the art would
`have known to size a lubrication system to cover a range of zero to 2% of
`power input, so as “to have a maximum capacity for removing thermal
`energy from the gear system greater than zero and less than about 2% of
`power input into the gear system.” Pet. 40–41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 65–67,
`112) (emphasis added). The Wendus and McCune disclosures as read by
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01097
`Patent 8,572,943 B1
`
`Petitioner, and Petitioner’s arguments based thereon, address the thermal
`energy in the gear system, and appear generally consistent with the language
`of claim 1 which recites “wherein the lubrication system includes a
`maximum capacity for removing thermal energy from the gear system
`greater than zero and less than about 2% of power input.” See Ex. 1001,
`8:36–39 (emphasis added).
`We acknowledge that Petitioner’s analysis does not include analysis
`relating to lubrication of additional components of the ADP engine apart
`from the gear system. See Prelim. Resp. 31 (Patent Owner argues that “GE
`never accounts for Wendus’s use of an integrated lubrication system to
`service its gearbox, along with the other propulsor components.”). Patent
`Owner has not, however, explained sufficiently how this renders erroneous
`Petitioner’s analysis with respect to sizing a lubrication system to account
`for the gear system. We appreciate that there may be other lubricated
`components in an aircraft engine besides the gear box, but the claim
`language, on its face, is directed to “a maximum capacity for removing
`thermal energy from the gear system.” Ex. 1001, 7:37–39. In this clause,
`“maximum capacity” is associated with “the gear system.” Whether or not
`Wendus or McCune’s oil systems supply lubricant to other engine
`components, it is not clear at this point in the proceeding that Petitioner’s
`apparent failure to account for other engine components apart from “the gear
`system” is a flawed analysis.
`We determine, on this record, that based on Wendus and McCune’s
`disclosures of an efficiency of 99.3 percent, a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would have understood a power loss of about 0.7 percent exists in the
`gearbox and would have known to size a lubricating system to provide a
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01097
`Patent 8,572,943 B1
`
`maximum capacity for thermal energy removal between 0 and 2% of power
`input into the gear system.
`(b) Whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have combined McCune’s mounting structure with
`Wendus
`Patent Owner argues also that Petitioner has failed to support
`adequately the combination of Wendus and McCune. Prelim. Resp. 33–53.
`Specifically, Patent Owner contends that Wendus does not disclose a
`flexible mounting support for its gear system and that Petitioner has failed to
`provide a rationale for incorporating McCune’s flexible mounting structure
`into Wendus, and further failed to explain “both why and how a POSITA
`would have sought and implemented the combination of Wendus and
`McCune.”7 Id. at 34.
`As to why one of skill in the art would use McCune’s mounting
`structure in Wendus, Petitioner contends that flexibly mounting gears in a
`geared turbo-fan aircraft engine has been well known for decades. Pet. 32–
`33 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 102; Ex. 1011, 92, 94; Ex. 1012, 2, 1015, 10).
`Petitioner argues that the use of known mounting structures for a gearbox in
`
`
`7 Also, Patent Owner argues that Wendus does not express any desirability
`or necessity for a flexible mount structure for its gearbox and Petitioner has
`not provided sufficient reasoning “for why a POSITA would have
`incorporated a flexible mounting system into the Wendus design.” Prelim.
`Resp. 40, see also Prelim. Resp. 39 (“If Wendus desired the addition of a
`flexible gear system mounting apparatus, Wendus surely would have
`highlighted that intent.”). This argument is not persuasive as it attacks
`Wendus in isolation, whereas the asserted combination is predicated on a
`combination of the teachings of the two references. See In re Merck & Co.
`Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be
`established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
`upon the teachings of a combination of references”).
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01097
`Patent 8,572,943 B1
`
`a geared turbofan aircraft engine would have been nothing more than a
`“predictable use of a prior art flexible mount . . . according to [its]
`established functions.” Id. at 33. Also, Petitioner argues that McCune
`acknowledges the importance of reducing component wear to extend the
`longevity of the gear system, and points to McCune’s statement that
`“extensive analysis was performed to ensure long life through optimizing
`system flexibility and load share.” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1016, 10). Therefore
`Petitioner asserts, where flex mounts for gear systems were known to those
`in the art, “reducing component wear, which can eliminate the need for
`frequent inspections and part replacements, would have motivated a person
`of ordinary skill to utilize the flexible mount described in McCune in the
`ADP engine disclosed in Wendus.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 103; Ex. 1007,
`1:41–44).
`Patent Owner takes the position that Petitioner has failed also to
`explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate
`McCune’s mounting system into Wendus, omitting any explanation of the
`technical impact a mounting system would have on Wendus’s ADP engine.
`See Prelim. Resp. 46. This position has some merit. We are persuaded,
`however, for purposes of institution, that Petitioner has shown that one of
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood McCune’s mounting system
`to perform the same or similar function of balancing the gear load on the
`planetary gear system in Wendus, as it did in the same or similar ADP
`engine of McCune. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (“A
`court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of
`prior art elements according to their established functions.”). And, we are
`persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art, having these two
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01097
`Patent 8,572,943 B1
`
`references before him or her, would have understood that McCune’s
`mounting structure could be successfully incorporated into Wendus, between
`the gearbox and a static structure of the engine as shown in McCune, and
`perform the same load balancing function, leading to improved reliability
`and longer life of the gearbox. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 103 (Mr. Drago explains that
`“A flexible support structure reduces gear misalignment, which can reduce
`component wear and . . . ensure long life.”).
`Patent Owner argues that Mr. Drago’s testimony is conclusory and
`does not detail “which static structure, where the structure is located, how
`the connection could impact the design of that structure to carry the
`significant loads to be transmitted by the gear system, or how the axial or
`radial clearances within the gear system cavity may be impacted due to the
`incorporation of such a flexible system.” Prelim. Resp. 47. With the
`understanding that flexible mounts for such gear systems were apparently
`well-known in the art, these arguments alone, do not convince us on this
`record, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have had the technical
`knowledge and experience to accomplish such a substitution. We determine,
`on the record before us, that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on its assertion that claim 1 would have been obvious in view of
`Wendus and McCune.
`4. Claims 2, 3, 8, and 9
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence with respect
`to the challenged claims 2, 3 8, and 9, which depend from claim 1 and find
`Petitioner’s arguments persuasive at this stage of the proceeding with respect
`to these dependent claims as well. See Pet. 45–51 (citing Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 107,
`115–121, 123–124; Ex. 1007, 5:36–45; Ex. 1016, 3; Ex. 1020, 2–3, 16, 18).
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01097
`Patent 8,572,943 B1
`
`For example, claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the lubrication system
`includes a capacity for removing thermal energy equal to less than about 1%
`of power input into the gear system.” As discussed above, we are persuaded
`that Wendus arguably discloses that the efficiency of the gear system is
`greater than 99.3%, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood the relative thermal energy removed from Wendus’s gear system
`based on greater than 99.3% efficiency, is less than 1% of power input, and
`within the range recited in claim 3. See Section III. A. 3.
`Patent Owner’s arguments in its Preliminary Response relate
`essentially exclusively to the limitations of claim 1 and the base references,
`Wendus and McCune, that are the basis for the challenges in each ground.
`See Prelim. Resp. 52 (“This standing alone is fatal to the Petition.”).
`We determine on the record before us that Petitioner has shown a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claims 2, 3 8, and 9
`would have been obvious in view of Wendus and McCune.
`5. Claims 10–12, 15, and 17–20
`Independent claim 10 is similar to claim 1 including “a gas turbine
`engine,” “a gear system,” “a mount flexibly supporting the gear system
`radially extending from a static structure,” and “a lubrication system
`configured to provide lubricant to the gear system.” Ex. 1001, 9:11–30.
`However, instead of a “maximum capacity . . . greater than zero and less
`than about 2% of power input,” as in claim 1, claim 10 recites that the gear
`system has “an efficiency greater than about 98% to less [than] 100%.” Id.
`at 9:21.
`Petitioner asserts that Wendus discloses an efficiency, arguably
`pertaining to the gear system, of “99.3 percent.” Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1020,
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01097
`Patent 8,572,943 B1
`
`13, Table 1). In light of our understanding of Wendus, as discussed above,
`we are persuaded at this stage of the proceeding that this efficiency falls
`within the range recited in claim 10. Thus, for similar reasons as discussed
`above with respect to independent claim 1 we determine also that Petitioner
`has shown a reasonable likelihood that claim 10 is obvious in view of
`Wendus and McCune.
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence with respect
`to the challenged dependent claims 11, 12, 15, and 17–20, and find
`Petitioner’s arguments persuasive at this stage of the proceeding with respect
`to these dependent claims as well. See Pet. 51–57 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 70–
`80; Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 107–114, 117–119, 120–125, 126–136; Ex. 1016, 2; Ex.
`1020, 13, 16–18).
`We determine on the record before us that Petitioner has shown a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claims 10–12, 15,
`and 17–20 would have been obvious in view of Wendus and McCune.
`B. Claims 4 and 13 — Alleged obviousness over Wendus, McCune,
`and Sheridan ’009
`Petitioner asserts, as called for in both dependent claims
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
