UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`General Electric Company,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`United Technologies Corporation,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01123
`Patent No. 9,121,368
`
`DECLARATION OF ERNESTO BENINI
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`General Electric Company,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`United Technologies Corporation,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01123
`Patent No. 9,121,368
`
`DECLARATION OF ERNESTO BENINI
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I, Ernesto Benini, declare as follows:
`
`Patent No. 9,121,368
`Case No. IPR2018-01123
`
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of United Technologies Corporation to
`
`offer technical opinions relating to the subject matter of U.S. Patent No. 9,121,368
`
`and various prior art references.
`
`2.
`
`In forming my opinions expressed in this declaration, I have relied on
`
`my education and experience in both academia and in consulting for industry. I
`
`have reviewed
`
`the Petition filed by General Electric Company and
`
`its
`
`accompanying exhibits, including the ’368 patent (GE-1001), Hall (GE-1005),
`
`Daly (GE-1006), Decker (GE-1007), Murphy (GE-1008), and the Declaration of
`
`Dr. Attia (GE-1003).
`
`3.
`
`I am providing this limited Declaration along with Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response to opine only on the following issues: (1) parameters used in
`
`designing turbofans, and (2) whether Decker or Murphy disclose or suggest a N/R
`
`ratio.
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of 114 Eur/hour for my work on
`
`this matter. My compensation is not dependent on the opinions I have provided or
`
`the outcome of the decision whether to institute inter partes review.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`5.
`
`I am a Professor in Mechanical Engineering at Padova University in
`
`Patent No. 9,121,368
`Case No. IPR2018-01123
`
`
`Padova, Italy. My current curriculum vitae is attached as UTC-2002.
`
`6.
`
`I earned my MSc. (1996) in Mechanical Engineering and my Ph.D.
`
`(2000) in Energy Technology from Padova University. My main research interests
`
`include turbomachinery, propulsion, jet engines, and optimization techniques. I
`
`have also done work in artificial intelligence, computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
`
`of internal and external flows, incompressible, compressible, and reacting flows,
`
`and aeroelasticity in turbomachines.
`
`7. My professional affiliations include Member ASME (American
`
`Society of Mechanical Engineers), AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and
`
`Astronautics), AHS (American Helicopter Society), ETN (European Turbine
`
`Network), Working Group “Condition Monitoring, Instrumentation and Control,”
`
`AHS (The Vertical-Flight Technical Society, formerly American Helicopter
`
`Society).
`
`8.
`
`In 2013, I received the Best Paper Award in Propulsion, AHS
`
`American Helicopter Society, “A New Methodology for Determining the Optimal
`
`Rotational Speed of a Variable RPM Main Rotor/Turboshaft Engine System;” Best
`
`Paper Award, IAENG International Conference on Systems Engineering and
`
`Engineering Management 2012, San Francisco, CA, “GeDEA-II: A Novel
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,121,368
`Case No. IPR2018-01123
`
`Evolutionary Algorithm for Multi-Objective Optimization Problems Based on the
`
`Simplex Crossover and The Shrink Mutation;” and “2012 Outstanding Reviewer,”
`
`Journal of Energy Engineering (http://ascelibrary.org/journal/jleed9).
`
`9.
`
`I am the author and co-author of approximately 250 scientific papers
`
`published in international peer-reviewed journals and congresses.
`
`10. My extensive experience with fans, the design of fans, and
`
`optimization techniques for improving the efficiency of fans/engines in operation
`
`is applicable to an analysis of the ’368 patent.
`
`III. VIEWPOINT OF A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`11.
`
`I have been informed that, for purposes of this proceeding, the
`
`relevant viewpoint is that of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective
`
`filing date of the 368 patent, which I have been informed is July 5, 2011. I
`
`understand that the technical expert retained by Petitioner in this matter, Dr. Attia,
`
`has offered an opinion about the level of ordinary skill in the art. Dr. Attia has said
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would include someone who has a M.S.
`
`degree in Mechanical Engineering or Aerospace Engineering as well as at least 3-5
`
`years of experience in the field of gas turbine engine design and analysis. (GE-
`
`1003 at ¶ 4.) My analyses and opinions below are given from the perspective of
`
`this person of ordinary skill in the art in these technologies in this timeframe,
`
`unless stated otherwise.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IV. PARAMETERS USED IN DESIGNING TURBOFANS
`12. As explained in the ’368 patent, the propulsive efficiency of a gas
`
`Patent No. 9,121,368
`Case No. IPR2018-01123
`
`
`turbine engine depends on many different factors, including the design of the
`
`engine and the fan that propels the engine.
`
`13. Before the July 2011 filing of the ’368 patent, factors employed in fan
`
`design included:
`
`• number of fan blades (N): the number of blades in the fan
`
`• chord dimension (CD): the distance between the leading edge and the
`
`trailing edge of a single fan blade at a given fan radius (can be measured
`
`anywhere along the fan blade, including at its tip)
`
`• chord pitch (CP): the arc distance between neighboring fan blades at a given
`
`fan radius (can be measured anywhere along the fan blade, including at its
`
`tip)
`
`• solidity (R): the ratio of CD/CP (called “tip solidity” if both CD and CP are
`
`measured at the blade tip)
`
`14. The blades used in modern gas turbine engines have complex
`
`geometries that vary from root to tip. The blades twist and vary in both chord
`
`dimension and blade thickness along the length of the blade from root to tip. As a
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,121,368
`Case No. IPR2018-01123
`
`result, solidity values usually vary along the span of the blade. The ’368 patent
`
`claims solidity at the tip of the fan blade.
`
`15. Fan Blade Aspect Ratio was a known fan-design parameter before
`
`July 2011. The Fan Blade Aspect Ratio (the ratio of fan diameter (Dfan) to
`
`maximum chord dimension (CD))1 describes the physical shape of a single blade.
`
`Essentially, the Fan Blade Aspect Ratio provides a summary of the blade’s shape
`
`at its widest point; its height and width. Fan Blade Aspect Ratio is a parameter of
`
`an individual blade, and it does not address the cascade of blades or the
`
`interactions between multiple fan blades.
`
`
`1 Decker defines Fan Blade Aspect Ratio as “the radial height or span of the airfoil
`
`portion of the blade divided by its maximum chord.” (GE-1007.008, ¶ 0013).
`
`Other references define it as the “ratio of blade height to chord.” (See, e.g., UTC-
`
`UTC-2003, N.A. Cumpsty, Compressor Aerodynamics, at 49 (Longman Scientific
`
`& Technical, 1989); UTC-2004, D.G. Wilson & T. Korakianitis, The Design of
`
`High-Efficiency Turbomachinery and Gas Turbines, at 364 (MIT Press, 5th ed.
`
`1991.) For the purpose of this declaration, I use Decker’s definition. But the
`
`opinions I have expressed in this declaration would not change if the Cumpsty or
`
`Wilson definition of Fan Blade Aspect Ratio were applied.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,121,368
`Case No. IPR2018-01123
`
` The ’368 patent introduced for the first time to my knowledge the
`
`16.
`
`ratio of N/R as another fan design parameter. The N/R ratio describes the entire
`
`fan system, not just a single blade. It accounts for both the number of blades and
`
`the amount of space between blades, thereby describing the total amount of space
`
`available for air to flow between the fan assembly’s blades. In other words, the
`
`N/R ratio describes the cascade effect of the fan blades and space between the fan
`
`blades—what the air (fluid flow) sees when entering the fan assembly. Setting the
`
`N/R ratio will impact the fluid flow as air passes through the fan. Based on my
`
`years of work in the field, as well as my review of documents in connection with
`
`the preparation of this declaration, I am not aware of recognition or use of the N/R
`
`ratio in fan design prior to July 2011 (when UTC filed the application from which
`
`the ’368 patent claims priority).
`
`17. The inventors of the ’368 patent disclosed that controlling the N/R
`
`ratio helps reduce propulsive losses that result from the complexity of shock within
`
`the fan because of the supersonic speeds at the outer radial portions of the blades.
`
`(’368 patent at 3:47-4:15.) The inventors disclosed a combination of specific
`
`parameters, including particular ranges of the N/R ratio—e.g., an N/R ratio from 9
`
`to 16—that improve engine efficiency. (’368 patent at 4:52-62.) Based on my
`
`years of work in the field, as well as my review of documents in connection with
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,121,368
`Case No. IPR2018-01123
`
`the preparation of this declaration, I am not aware of any similar teachings in the
`
`art before July 2011.
`
`18. The N/R ratio and the Fan Blade Aspect Ratio describe different
`
`parameters in fan design. The N/R ratio describes what the air or fluid flow sees as
`
`it enters the fan, and it accounts for the entire cascade of blades and fan system.
`
`The Fan Blade Aspect Ratio describes the geometric and structural characteristics
`
`of a single, given fan blade. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would not have looked at the Fan Blade Aspect Ratio of a single blade as the
`
`equivalent of N/R ratio (the space between the blades throughout the cascade)
`
`because they are two different things that represent different physical phenomena.
`
`Also, the different ratios serve entirely different purposes.
`
`19. Decker illustrates that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know
`
`that a ratio of Dfan to CD is a known geometric parameter of a single blade. Decker
`
`expressly defines the ratio of Dfan to CD is known as Fan Blade Aspect Ratio: “the
`
`fan blade aspect ratio is the radial height or span of the airfoil portion of the blade
`
`divided by its maximum chord.” (GE-1007 at ¶ 13). A person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art reading Decker, other general literature, and the ’368 patent would
`
`understand the ratio of Dfan to CD describes an entirely different parameter—Fan
`
`Blade Aspect Ratio, which is concerned with the geometric shape of a single
`
`blade—than the N/R ratio of the ’368 patent, which is concerned with the fluid
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,121,368
`Case No. IPR2018-01123
`
`flow throughout the entire system. I was surprised when reading both the Petition
`
`and Dr. Attia’s Declaration that neither identified the relationship of Dfan to CD as
`
`describing the well-known parameter of Fan Blade Aspect Ratio.
`
`V. DECKER
`20. Decker provides N and R values for two particular embodiments in its
`
`specification. Decker does not, however, mention or suggest the ratio N/R.
`
`21. Decker provides two separate embodiments for fan design. The first
`
`embodiment is shown in Figs. 1-4 and described in Paragraphs 76 and 82. In this
`
`first embodiment, Decker discloses a fan with 20 fan blades (N=20) and tip solidity
`
`(R) of about 1.17 and no greater than about 1.2. (GE-1007 at ¶¶ 76, 82.)
`
`22. Decker’s second embodiment is shown in Figs. 5-6 and described in
`
`Paragraphs 77 and 85. In this second embodiment, Decker discloses a fan with 18
`
`fan blades (N=18) and tip solidity (R) of 1.05 or greater than about 1.0. (GE-1007
`
`at ¶¶ 77, 85.)
`
`23. Decker does not disclose or suggest N/R ratios for either of these two
`
`embodiments. Further, as explained below, if one were to calculate an N/R ratio
`
`using the N and R values associated with Decker’s embodiments, those N/R ratios
`
`would fall outside the ranges claimed in the ’368 patent.
`
`24.
`
`I disagree with the Petitioner’s statements (on pages 15-16 of the
`
`Petition) that Decker discloses a fan having N and R values that provide an N/R
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,121,368
`Case No. IPR2018-01123
`
`ratio that overlaps the range claimed in the ’368 patent. A person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would understand Decker’s two embodiments present separate fan
`
`designs and would not mix the N and R values from those two embodiments.
`
`Thus, although Decker’s claims 1 and 18 refer to a fan having 18-20 fan blades and
`
`ranges of solidity values from 1.0-1.2, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand the 18-blade fan to have the solidity values of the first embodiment
`
`described in Paragraphs 76 and 82, and the 20-blade fan to have the solidity values
`
`of the second embodiment described in Paragraphs 77 and 85—neither of which
`
`would provide N/R ranges overlapping the range claimed in the ’368 patent.
`
`25. The N/R ratios resulting from specific (R) values provided in each of
`
`Decker’s two embodiments is 17.1—above the range “from 9 to 16” claimed in the
`
`’368 patent.2 And calculating N/R ratios across the ranges of (R) values provided
`
`in each of Decker’s two embodiments provides N/R values ranging from 16.7-18.1
`
`(for the 20-blade embodiment)3 and 16.4-17.8 (for the 18-blade embodiment)4—
`
`
`2 For Decker’s first embodiment, dividing N=20 by R=1.17 equals 17.1. For
`
`Decker’s second embodiment, dividing N=18 by R=1.05 equals 17.1.
`
`3 A tip solidity of “about 1.17” and “no greater than about 1.2” yields N/R ratios of
`
`20/1.1=18.1 and 20/1.2=16.7.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,121,368
`Case No. IPR2018-01123
`
`again, above the range of “from 9 to 16” claimed in the ’368 patent. Decker
`
`explains that reductions in tip solidity (R) should be accomplished by reducing
`
`blade count while holding the chord dimension and fan diameter parameters
`
`constant. Decker explains, for example, that “the fan outer diameter is typically a
`
`given parameter” and that “reducing solidity by reducing the length of the chord is
`
`detrimental to turbofan efficiency.” (GE-1007 at ¶ 47.) Paragraph 50 of Decker
`
`says (emphases added):
`
`Accordingly, aerodynamic efficiency may be improved in the
`turbofan engine 10 illustrated in FIG. 1 by deriving the fan 14 from
`the pre-existing fan 60 and reducing the solidity at the airfoil tips by
`reducing the number of blades from twenty-two to either twenty or
`eighteen, for example, while maintaining substantially equal or
`constant the same ratio of the tip chord over the tip diameter C/D in
`the derived fan 14 as originally found in the preexisting fan.
`
`Paragraph 53 says (emphases added):
`
`The reduction in fan blade number while maintaining substantially
`constant the chord to diameter C/D ratio at the airfoil tips has
`significant advantages in the new turbofan including an increase in
`efficiency while maintaining adequate stability and stall margin, as
`
`
`4 A tip solidity of “about 1.05” and “greater than about 1.0” yields N/R ratios of
`
`18/1.01=17.8 and 18/1.1=16.4.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,121,368
`Case No. IPR2018-01123
`
`
`well as reducing noise, as well as reducing weight and cost due to the
`fewer fan blades.
`
`Paragraph 75 says (emphases added):
`
`[I]n two embodiments analyzed using modern computational flow
`dynamics analysis and tested, only twenty or only eighteen of the fan
`blades 32 may be used in the improved turbofan design, with the
`chord to diameter C/D ratio at the airfoil tips 46 being the same or
`equal in both species or designs. Although the individual fan blades
`may be scaled in size with the constant chord to diameter C/D ratio,
`the collective assembly of fan blades in the resulting turbofan cannot
`be scaled in view of the desirable reduction in tip solidity by the
`corresponding reduction in blade count.
`
`GE-1007.010, ¶¶ [0050], [0053], [0075] (emphasis added).) A person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would understand from these passages, and from Decker as a whole,
`
`that Decker teaches reducing tip solidity (R) by reducing blade number (N), while
`
`holding chord dimension (CD) and fan diameter (Dfan) constant.
`
`26. Reducing tip solidity (R) by reducing blade number (N), while
`
`holding chord dimension (CD) and fan diameter (Dfan) constant—as taught by
`
`Decker—will not change the ratio of N/R. According to Dr. Attia’s formulas, R =
`
`CD/CP = (CD * N)/(Dfan * π). (Pet., at 9; GE-1003 at ¶ 40.) Thus, if CD and
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`range. This is shown as follows:
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,121,368
`Case No. IPR2018-01123
`
`Dfan remain unchanged, any change in N will cause a proportional change in R,
`
`resulting in the same value for N/R ratio.
`
`27. For example, reducing tip solidity (R) by reducing the blade number
`
`(N) of Decker’s 20-blade or 18-blade to 16 blades, while keeping chord dimension
`
`(CD) and fan diameter (Dfan) constant (as suggested by paragraphs [0047] and
`
`[0092] of Decker), would still result in an N/R ratio of 17.1—outside the claimed
`
`R=CDCP 𝑎𝑛𝑑 CP=(Dfan∗𝜋)
`
`N
`𝑡ℎ𝑢𝑠, R= CD∗N
`
`CD (Dfan∗𝜋)=RN
`(Dfan∗𝜋) 𝑎𝑛𝑑
`For Decker’s 20-blade fan, with N=20 and R=1.17:
`NR= 201.17=17.1
`(Dfan∗𝜋)=RN=1.1720 = 0.0585
`CD
`R= CD∗N
`(Dfan∗𝜋)= 0.0585 16 =0.936
`NR= 160.936=17.1
`
`
`Reducing N from 20 to 16, while holding CD and Dfan constant,
`provides the same N/R ratio:
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,121,368
`Case No. IPR2018-01123
`
`
`Likewise for Decker’s 18-blade fan, with N=18 and R=1.05:
`NR= 181.05=17.1
`(Dfan∗𝜋)=RN=1.0518 = 0.0583
`CD
`R= CD∗N
`(Dfan∗𝜋)= 0.0583 16 =0.933
`NR= 160.933=17.1
`
`
`Reducing N from 18 to 16, while holding CD and Dfan constant,
`provides the same N/R ratio:
`
`
`28. Paragraph [0047] of Decker calls for “reducing the blade count to
`
`reduce solidity can improve turbine efficiency.” This statement does not, in my
`
`opinion, disclose or suggest optimizing the N/R ratio or suggest N/R is a result
`
`effective variable. This sentence suggests only reducing solidity by reducing blade
`
`count, but says nothing about a N/R ratio or its optimization. Further, paragraphs
`
`[0046], [0047], [0050, [0054], [0075] of Decker suggest reducing solidity by
`
`reducing blade count (N) while holding chord dimension (CD) and fan diameter
`
`(Dfan) constant. For the reasons explained in paragraphs 20-27, an ordinary artisan
`
`would understand that reducing Decker’s blade count while holding chord
`
`dimension and fan blade diameter constant would not change the ratio of N/R .
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,121,368
`Case No. IPR2018-01123
`
`29. Decker calls for decreasing solidity values. For example, Decker
`
`explains that “it has been discovered that … a substantial improvement in
`
`efficiency while maintaining adequate stability and stall margin may be obtained
`
`by decreasing tip solidity, and not increasing tip solidity.” (GE-1007 at ¶ 46.)
`
`Decreasing Decker’s solidity values would bring any calculated N/R ratio even
`
`further away from the ’368 patent claims. For example, Decker’s second
`
`embodiment teaches a fan with 18 fan blades (N=18) and tip solidity (R) greater
`
`than about 1.0. (GE-1007 at ¶ 77.) Decreasing the tip solidity (R) to, for example,
`
`0.95, would result in an N/R value of 18.9—even further from the claimed range.
`
`30. Petitioner argues that an “alternative way” of expressing the N/R ratio
`
`claimed in the ’368 patent is “a ratio of the fan diameter [Dfan] to the blade chord
`
`dimension [CD].” (Pet. at 9; see also Pet. at 23-26.) Petitioner relies on Dr. Attia
`
`for this proposition. (Pet. at 9 (citing GE-1003 at ¶ 40.).) I disagree with this
`
`suggestion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would associate the ratio of Dfan
`
`to CD with an N/R ratio. The ratio of Dfan to CD is generally recognized in the art
`
`as Fan Blade Aspect Ratio. (See, for example, GE-1007 at ¶ 13; UTC-2003; UTC-
`
`2004.) As I explain in more detail in paragraphs 15-19 above, those of ordinary
`
`skill in art understand that N/R ratio and Fan Blade Aspect Ratio are different
`
`parameters, used to represent different physical phenomena, for different purposes.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,121,368
`Case No. IPR2018-01123
`
`N/R ratio and Fan Blade Aspect Ratio are not the same thing to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`31. For at least the foregoing reasons, it is my opinion that Decker does
`
`not teach or suggest a N/R ratio, let alone the specific ranges of N/R ratio recited in
`
`the claims of the ’368 patent.
`
`VI. Murphy
`32. Murphy addresses the creation of a damped, energy absorbing
`
`laminated airfoil. (Murphy at 2:17-31.) Murphy does not discuss or disclose the
`
`parameters N, R, or N/R.
`
`33. Neither N nor R can be determined from chord dimension (CD) and a
`
`fan diameter (Dfan), without further information. Further, as I explain in more
`
`detail in paragraphs 15-19 and 30 above, those of ordinary skill in art understand
`
`that N/R ratio and Fan Blade Aspect Ratio (the ratio of chord dimension (CD) and
`
`a fan diameter (Dfan)), are different parameters, used to represent different
`
`physical phenomena, for different purposes. Nothing in Murphy suggests the user
`
`of a N/R ratio to improve fan designs. Further, based on my personal knowledge,
`
`the N/R ratio was not known to those of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of
`
`the ’368 patent.
`
`34. Thus, although Murphy does disclose values for chord dimension
`
`(CD) and a fan diameter (Dfan), it is my opinion that those values would not have
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,121,368
`Case No. IPR2018-01123
`
`suggested the N/R ratio claimed in the ’368 patent to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art in July 2011.
`
`VII. CONCLUSION
`
`I declare that all statements made herein of my knowledge are true, and that
`
`all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and that
`
`these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and
`
`the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section
`
`1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 14, 2018________
`
`
`
`By: ____________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
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
