Paper No. 43
`Trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2018-01442
`Patent 9,695,751 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: October 30, 2019
`____________
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01442
`Patent 9,695,751 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`BRIAN E. FERGUSON, ESQUIRE
`DANIEL MUSHER, ESQUIRE
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`2001 M Street, N.W.
`Suite 600
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`DAVID L. HOLT, ESQUIRE
`Fish & Richardson
`1000 Maine Street, S.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`
`MICHAEL J. VALAIK, ESQUIRE
`Barlit Beck LLP
`Courthouse Place
`54 West Hubbard Street, Suite 300
`Chicago, IL 60654
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing Wednesday, October 30,
`2019, at 9:32 a.m., by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01442
`Patent 9,695,751 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
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`THE USHER: All rise.
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Good morning.
`
`MR. FERGUSON: Good morning.
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Good morning.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: Good morning. Judge Jung, can you hear me?
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Yes, I can hear you. Can you hear me?
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: I’m clear.
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. Oh, please be seated.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: It looked like we just had to shuffle hearing
`
`rooms. Is everyone pretty much set in there, Judge Jung?
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Yes, we have a full room. I believe it’s like around
`15 or 16 people.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: Okay. Great. I can see everybody now. So is
`everyone ready? So thank you very much for being patient while we shifted
`the room this morning to accommodate everyone and most of all, let me not
`forget because we don’t do it enough, thanks to John Dill and his staff there
`that makes this happen as quickly and as efficiently as they did. Thanks.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: All right. Good morning to everyone. This is
`our final oral hearing for IPR2018-01442. The Patent No. is 9,695,751.
`And just a few administrative matters before we begin. First of all, Judge
`Jung is up there and he will be with you in the courtroom and he will run the
`clock because I can’t do it from here, and also we have Judge McMillin on
`the west coast today and myself remote. So let me get the party’s
`appearances please for Petitioner and if you could speak into the microphone
`so we could hear you better.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01442
`Patent 9,695,751 B2
`
`
`MR. FERGUSON: Yes. Good morning, Your Honors. Brian
`Ferguson with Weil, Gotshal & Manges on behalf of Petitioner, General
`Electric.
`
`MR. VALAIK: Mike Valaik, Your Honors, for Barlit Beck on behalf
`of the Patent Owner, United Technologies Corporation.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: Mr. Valaik, are you doing all of the speaking
`duties today?
`
`MR. VALAIK: Yes, I am.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: Great. Thank you. All right. The only notes I
`have before we begin is just to remember whenever you’re speaking to
`speak into the microphone and explain any of the slides by slide number so
`that -- we have them in front of us here on our computers, Judge McMillin
`and I remotely, and same thing with any exhibits. Refer to them by exhibit
`number. Please make sure we’re looking at them as well because I can’t see
`everything that you can see in the hearing room. Each party has 60 minutes
`this morning and you may reserve whatever you’d like for rebuttal, if you
`wish. Petitioner, you could have a short rebuttal after Patent Owner and then
`we will also -- I’m willing to allow a brief surrebuttal as well from Patent
`Owner. Probably, I will keep track or Judge Jung will give you a warning
`when you’re reaching the end of your argument time. So with that, I don’t
`have anything else and Petitioner, if you’d like to go and let us know if you
`want to reserve any time.
`
`MR. FERGUSON: Yes, thank you. Good morning, Your Honors.
`Can you -- first of all, can you hear me okay?
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: I can hear you perfect.
`
`MR. FERGUSON: Thank you. If it sounds perfect, I’ll reserve 15
`
`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
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01442
`Patent 9,695,751 B2
`
`minutes and Judge Jung, would you like a set of slides, paper slides?
`
`JUDGE JUNG: No, thank you. I’m all right.
`
`MR. FERGUSON: Okay. Great. Great. Okay. Good morning,
`Your Honors. This IPR presents two challenged claims after the disclaimer
`of several of the other claims that were being challenged. These claims
`ultimately challenge or claim nothing more than a conventional geared turbo
`fan engine. UTC has recognized that it cannot get claims that are directed
`towards geared turbo fan engine directly, so what they’ve done is come up
`with names such as power density for features of turbo fan engines that are
`indisputably well known in the industry.
`
`But regardless of whether you call it a power density or a thrust
`density, there is nothing unique or non-obvious about what is set forth in the
`claim and I would like to start with Slide 8. Now, Slide 8 contains an image
`from the ‘751 Patent. This is the supposed invention with respect to the
`power density and that is that the so called power density in the disclosed
`gas turbine engine is much higher than in the prior art. That’s what is
`alleged in the patent.
`
`On Slide 9, we have demonstrated that that is absolutely not so. This
`is the Gliebe prior art reference, GE 1005. We demonstrated without
`rebuttal that the Gliebe engine has the power density ranges -- two of the
`engines have power density ranges well within the claimed range of the ‘751
`Patent, in particular Claim 1. Again, this was not rebutted and this is just
`one piece of prior art that demonstrates the so called advantages of the ‘751
`were well known. And --
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: Mr. Ferguson, let me just -- in looking at Slide 9,
`I just want to make clear, if I’m correct, that this citation on the right side 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
`25
`26
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01442
`Patent 9,695,751 B2
`
`from Dr. Attia and it is not specifically from the Gliebe reference, correct?
`
`MR. FERGUSON: Yes, that’s correct. GE 1003 which is the box of
`text is
`Dr. Attia’s testimony with respect to the engines that are disclosed in the
`Gliebe invention.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: So did he -- these -- are these -- so power density
`is not stated per se in the Gliebe reference?
`
`MR. FERGUSON: Right. That is correct, Your Honor. The term
`“power density” itself is not used in the Gliebe reference. It’s also not used
`in the Knip reference. One of the reasons for that it’s a misnomer. As Dr.
`Attia also testified, it’s not a power density. It’s a thrust density because it’s
`identified as pounds force over cubic inches. So that’s not a power density,
`it’s a thrust density and it was known, well known, in the art. And as I move
`up to Slide 10 and 11, I’ll demonstrate this. It was well known in the --
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: And --
`
`MR. FERGUSON: -- art.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: Sorry. Let me ask just one more question.
`
`MR. FERGUSON: Sure.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: Did he have to calculate -- I can’t remember.
`Did he calculate these dates as -- dates -- did he calculate these power
`densities, the 4.2 and 5.13 or were those -- he calculated those from Gliebe?
`
`MR. FERGUSON: Right. Yes, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: All right.
`
`MR. FERGUSON: Gliebe gives the takeoff thrust -- it was 61,500
`for both engines. So the takeoff thrust, sealable take-off thrust, was already
`in Gliebe and then Gliebe contains, just like Knip, a two dimensional cross-
`
`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
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01442
`Patent 9,695,751 B2
`
`sectional picture or drawing of the two images on an X, Y axis and I it, I
`believe, is undisputed that you can take a two dimensional design, as long as
`you have the dimensions shown, and you can calculate the volume
`therefrom. So a person of ordinary skill in the art would have readily been
`able to do that looking at Gliebe just like a person of ordinary skill would
`that with respect to Knip.
`
`If I may, I’ll move on. Slide 10 contains the -- a quote from the ‘751
`Patent and this is really what the patent describes as the advantage of the
`power density. It’s that because of this so called invention, you have fewer
`low pressure turbine stages and, as a result, of course if you have fewer
`stages, the low -- the turbine itself is smaller and it has a reduced volume
`and that results in improved engine efficiency and, of course, the weight is
`less. Those are what the ‘751 says is the advantage of the patent, the claims.
`Well --
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: Mr. Ferguson, is the -- is power density just sort
`of, in general, a way of defining efficiency?
`
`MR. FERGUSON: As it’s described in the patent, that’s correct. It’s
`that you, at least with respect to the thrust, if -- really what it is, is thrust
`density and yes, it’s that you can produce the same amount of thrust with a
`smaller overall engine. And, in fact, the place where the engine becomes
`smaller is the particularly the low pressure turbine because the low --
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: (Indiscernible).
`
`MR. FERGUSON: Because according to the invention, the low
`pressure turbine has fewer stages than in a -- than in conventional engines
`and --
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: Is that the major –issue, is the reduction -- I get
`
`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
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01442
`Patent 9,695,751 B2
`
`it, right. We have -- that’s with the geared turbo fan. I think there’s plenty
`of evidence in the record and from other cases that we’ve done as well that
`the geared turbo fan is efficient and the question I have is, and I know
`there’s other evidence that may speak to this, but overall is -- when we
`reduce the size of the engine, is the major component of that engine that gets
`reduced in size, is it the turbine because you’re reducing these numbers of
`stages?
`
`MR. FERGUSON: Precisely correct, Your Honor, and you don’t
`have to take my word for that. I’ll move up to Slide 11. There is objective
`evidence of prior art in the record that describes that exact concept. The first
`is the Wilfert piece of prior art. That’s GE 1022. This is shown on Slide 11.
`This is a direct quote from Wilfert that, “A geared engine improves
`propulsive efficiency and hence, improves fuel consumption and it decreases
`noise and weight at the same time.” So that’s the introduction from Wilfert
`that the general principles of geared turbo fan engines is that they have better
`efficiency with decreased noise and weight.
`
`And then on Slide 12, this is another quote from Wilfert that, “A fan
`drive gear system,” a geared turbo fan engine, “allows the LPC and LPT to
`run at higher and more appropriate speeds and that reduces length, weight,
`and cost for the same specific work output.” That is saying for the same
`amount of thrust, for the same amount of work that the engine would
`normally do, you can do it with a geared fan in a shorter, lighter, and,
`according to this, more cost-effective engine. And to answer your question,
`Your Honor, about where do these savings in size and weight come from, as
`Wilfert teaches, they come from the reduction in LPT stages that result, from
`being able to use a geared turbo fan as opposed to a standard direct derive
`
`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
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01442
`Patent 9,695,751 B2
`
`fan.
`And on Slide 13 there’s another example of this. This is the Brines
`
`reference which is dated in 1990. So 20, almost 30 years now, 20 years
`before the patent is filed here and it describes the same concept, that a
`geared fan can have, for the same type of bypass engine, can have a 3 Stage
`LPT whereas an ungeared engine would produce a much larger engine with
`an 8 Stage LPT. So this -- again, this is the general concept. They’ve tried
`to package it and use this term “power density,” but it was known in the art
`that this one of the advantages of a geared engine generally. And --
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: But these prior art references were not
`specifically -- there’s no disclosure in them, I think this is where Dr.
`Spakovsky was focusing his efforts, was there’s no disclosure of this
`particular ratio. Let’s leave DEV aside for the moment, but in these
`references there’s no disclosure of that particular definition “efficiency of
`thrust”. Where (indiscernible) thrust then?
`
`MR. FERGUSON: I mean, I agree, Your Honor, that word, quote,
`unquote, “power density” is not in these references, but I think that can
`become a philosophical discussion because I do believe these references
`teach what everyone in the industry knew about geared turbo fan engines,
`that you get a smaller engine as a result of the reduction in the stages in the
`LPT and, as a result, you can produce the same amount of thrust with a
`smaller engine. I mean, to me, that is exactly what the concept of the thrust
`density or power density is and that’s why, briefly, Your Honors, we believe
`that this ultimately is a result effective variable because the industry knew
`that a geared engine produces the same thrust with a smaller and lighter
`engine and that the place where that savings occurs, the savings in terms 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
`25
`26
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01442
`Patent 9,695,751 B2
`
`the volume and weight, is in the LPT. That’s demonstrated by the slides
`I’ve just shown, Slides 12 and 13, and it would have been --
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: So we have --
`
`MR. FERGUSON: -- entirely expected.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: So we have thrust. Whatever thrust you want to
`take -- I mean, we know -- forgive me if I’m wrong, but -- and I don’t want
`to get into result effective variables yet. We have questions about that as
`well. But when you have your thrust, is it true that it depends on the size of
`the aircraft, depends on the size of the amount of thrust you need. And let’s
`just keep it at sea-level takeoff for the moment. To get off the ground, they
`need a certain amount of thrust and that was known or could be figured out
`depending on the size of the aircraft. Is that right?
`
`MR. FERGUSON: I would disagree with some of that, Your Honor,
`and I would like to point to Slide 5 which contains Claim 1. And the reason
`for my disagreement is that Slide 5 shows that Claim 1 is not directed
`towards an engine that’s on any type of particular airplane whatsoever. It’s
`just simply a gas turbine engine and that gas turbine engine has a power
`density at sea-level takeoff thrust. As Dr. Attia testified, the engine itself,
`engines itself, have rated sea-level takeoff thrust and cruise thrust and it then
`becomes up to an airplane manufacturer to decide if that particular engine or
`a group of those engines, may be able to use on a particular aircraft in order
`to have that aircraft be able to fly. But the engines themselves have their
`own rated takeoff thrust and that is exactly what’s claimed in the ‘751. It’s
`not claiming that this particular engine has to be mated to any type of
`aircraft whatsoever. This could be a single-prop aircraft; it could be a plane
`that flies 6,000 miles overseas. There’s just no --
`
`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
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01442
`Patent 9,695,751 B2
`
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: So if you --
`
`MR. FERGUSON: -- specification.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: If you disagree with -- so you disagree with
`Patent Owner’s -- the argument that they raised with respect to Knip not
`being -- Knip was focused on -- it talked a lot about quadjets and the 500
`passenger, that’s a big aircraft, and that’s one of their arguments. So you
`disagree with that?
`
`MR. FERGUSON: I agree that Knip talks about the fact that the
`engines will be designed -- will be considered for use on such an aircraft, but
`there’s no description of any detail about that aircraft. It’s very generic,
`number one. Number two, the description in Knip discusses that you would
`have four engines on that plane. So I don’t think you can just -- the point,
`again, as like what Dr. Attia said, you look at the sea-level takeoff thrust of
`the engine itself and then decide how many or if that engine can then be used
`for a particular aircraft.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: Is that what Dr. Attia is saying when he’s talking
`about cycle efficiency? Is he saying that we’re just looking at the aircraft? I
`mean, I looked at -- I read in detail, the depositions as well as the declarant’s
`testimony and it seems to me his, Dr. Attia’s, rebuttal to what I thought was
`a very reasonable and good argument by Dr. Spakovsky was that he’s
`focused on the cycle efficiency of this engine which I think is what you’re
`saying is the same thing that’s in the claim? I mean, we’re talking about,
`you know, in some respects, a theoretical cycle efficiency without being
`attached to an aircraft. Is that what we’re talking about?
`
`MR. FERGUSON: Well, precisely. That’s exactly what Claim 1
`says. It’s not limited to any type of aircraft at all and, in fact, the ‘751 Patent
`
`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
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01442
`Patent 9,695,751 B2
`
`never mentions anywhere the type of aircraft that this invention is to be
`utilized for. So Knip’s sea-level takeoff thrust is what it is and whether -- if
`it falls within the scope of the claims then it invalidates the claims regardless
`of what aircraft it may or not be able to be used with.
`
`I’d like now to turn to Knip. This sounds like a good transition.
`There are really, I think, two issues with respect to Knip. The first is the
`volume calculation of the turbine section and then the second is the sea-level
`takeoff thrust calculation, and I’ll start with the volume. I’m on Slide 20
`now. Slide 20 shows the Figure 13 from Knip that I think we’re all probably
`familiar with now. This shows the cross-sectional diagram of the engine as
`a whole. The radius of the components and the length of the engine itself
`are shown in inches. And from this, Dr. Attia was able to calculate, as a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would, the volume of the turbine section
`itself.
`
`And Dr. Spakovsky -- I’m on Slide 24 now. Dr. Spakovsky agreed
`with this. We asked him at his deposition, GE 1051 at page 2 of the depo,
`“You’ve looked at Figure 3. Does it disclose the length of the components?”
`He said, “Yes.” “Does it disclose the radius or height?” He said, “The
`approximate height.” “Can you multiply those together to get the area?”
`“Yes.” “And then can you calculate the volume from that cross-section
`area?” “Yes.” So there’s no doubt that it can be done by looking at that
`figure.
`
`And Dr. Attia used -- I’m on Slide 32 now to summarize his
`testimony, Dr. Attia used publicly available software that was available at
`the time of the ‘751 filing. He was able to generate this three dimensional
`model of the turbine section from his measurements and he calculated 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
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01442
`Patent 9,695,751 B2
`
`turbine section to be 6,157 cubic inches. UTC did not question the choice of
`his software to do that. Did not question that you can use software to do
`that. What they did question is whether or not Figure 13 is -- has enough
`resolution to be able to determine the point of entry or what they call the
`boundary of the high pressure turbine and we believe that Dr. Attia was able
`to show that yes, you can.
`And I’m now going to jump up to Slide 39.
`This is, again, Figure 13 from Knip on the right, GE 1006 at page 16, and
`Dr. Attia’s testimony about it. That Knip discloses a schematic that’s
`similar to the schematic in the ‘751 and it illustrates the boundaries of the
`components including the HPT that has two stages.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: Mr. Ferguson, did this -- I believe, just on
`recollection of the testimonies, that Dr. Attia answered one of Patent
`Owner’s criticisms about the resolution here by saying that his error
`measurements of 10 percent accounted for that. Is that your position?
`
`MR. FERGUSON: He did testify to that, but I don’t believe we need
`to go anywhere near his 10 percent margin of error and here’s why. As he
`showed on -- so let me go to Slide 30 just to set the stage. Slide 30 shows
`the measurement that he took using his software in the orange and blue dots
`and lines. You can see he then overlaid that on top of the Knip figure to
`show it does match the overall shape of the turbine section in Knip. And
`now, Dr. Attia, when he calculated his turbine volume, put the left dots that
`delineate the entrance to the HPT, I’d say roughly midpoint between the exit
`of the combustor which is on the left and then the high pressure turbine on
`the right. That’s where he got the 6,157 cubic inches.
`
`Now, UTC criticized that in his rebuttal testimony. In his rebuttal
`declaration at Slide 33 he said, “Okay. I will extend those two dots to 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
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01442
`Patent 9,695,751 B2
`
`point that would be the maximum possible volume of the HPT,” and that’s
`shown on Slide 33 on the left and he recalculated the volume and it ended up
`being less than a 1 percent difference. He then, on Slide 34 calculated what
`he considered to be the minimum possible volume by moving the dots
`slightly and, again, this time, less than a 1 percent increase in the overall
`volume.
`
`
`So the point is that regardless of where precisely within that portion of
`the HPT you take the measurement, it does not change anything with respect
`to whether or not the power density is disclosed because the volume -- the
`turbine section volume does not change materially in any way.
`
`Now, the second argument that UTC makes is the argument that’s
`based on the Board’s claim construction. I’m on Slide 36 now. This is from
`the ID, and the Board correctly indicated that from the plane (indiscernible)
`in spec, “The volume of the turbine section begins at the leading edge of a
`first turbine vane,” and that is shown as -- on this figure that we’ve
`annotated, Figure 10 from the patent, this -- the leading edge is delineated in
`blue. The vane itself is outlined in blue. All right. UTC says, well, Knip
`doesn’t show any vanes or rotors and therefore, you -- we don’t know
`whether or not the entrance of Knip’s HPT has a vane or not.
`
`We believe that a preponderance of the evidence certainly shows
`otherwise. As Dr. Attia testified -- I’m on Slide 28 now -- this was his
`deposition testimony, UTC 2016 at pages 66 to 67. It’s true that Knip,
`Figure 13, does not show the details of the stators and vanes or the rotors
`and vanes and that’s because he did not want to crowd the picture which I
`think a person of ordinary skill in the art would find not unreasonable, but
`that the two points that are on the left do indicate the inlet of the HPT
`
`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
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01442
`Patent 9,695,751 B2
`
`because that coincides with the leading edge of the first stator because that is
`the first air foil in the HPT. That is commonly understood by a person of
`ordinary skill in the art. And if I may, I will now jump up to Slide 41.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: Let me just try to clarify something as well. So I
`know we’re going to get into a little bit as to both here and with Patent
`Owner’s counsel, this, the inlet, the -- I want to look at the claim for this a
`second. Hang on. I gotta -- the inlet -- the claim says “an inlet of a first
`turbine vane”. Let me just try and clarify, again, you can correct me if my
`understanding is not right. What’s claimed here is the inlet of a first turbine
`vane would be the non-rotating stator vanes that direct the air into a rotating
`fan -- maybe -- let’s not call it a fan. The rotating blades of the first turbine
`stage, right?
`
`MR. FERGUSON: Precisely. The turbine’s -- it’s well known in the
`art, and I’ll demonstrate this in a second, the high pressure turbines are made
`up of, depending on the number of stages, in order non-rotating stators
`which are also called vanes. They’re also called nozzles sometimes,
`followed by a rotating rotator which is a blade that spins. And the point of
`the stator is to have the air flow from the combustor, this is the hot gases,
`enter the turbine. The stator then directs that hot air onto those blades to
`make them spin and that is --
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: But other structures to do that as well, right?
`You don’t have to have a two -- you don’t have to have a stage. That’s been
`-- I think that’s sort of the information, the supplemental information we
`allowed to be submitted. There’s clearly some prior art that shows that, for
`example, that the combustor may actually have the directing vanes
`
`MR. FERGUSON: Your Honor, I --
`
`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
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01442
`Patent 9,695,751 B2
`
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: -- direct --
`
`MR. FERGUSON: I’m sorry. I’m sorry. Are you finished?
`
` JUDGE DANIELS: It’s all right. Go ahead.
`
`MR. FERGUSON: Those exhibits, and I will talk about them as
`well, they’re UTC 2017 through 2019 and then the last set which is UTC
`2050 through 2053. If anything, all they do is prove our point that to a
`person of ordinary skill in the art, Knip’s disclosure of a 2 Stage HTP with
`no other description would indicate to that person of ordinary skill that that
`is a conventional high pressure turbine that has a stator at the entrance and
`then a rotator following that. And if it’s 2 Stage, it has stator, rotor, stator,
`rotor. That, I don’t think, can really be disputed that there may be, what I
`could call abnormal, or attempts at innovation to try to remove that stator,
`but ultimately persons of ordinary skill in the art would know that that would
`be abnormal, that would not be what you would consider that when a
`reference makes -- when a piece of prior art refers to an HPT or a 2 Stage
`HPT, it’s going to be conventional. It’s not going to have the stators missing
`from the beginning.
`
`Let me go to Slide 41. Now, Dr. Attia testified that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would naturally understanding that the beginning of
`the HPT coincides with the leading edge of the first turbine vane. This is
`GE 1046, paragraph 9. And he said, “That’s because this is the first
`component portion of the HPT to come in contact with the hot gas flow from
`the combustor.” That is demonstrated by objective evidence. On Slide 42,
`we have a figure from the Mattingly textbook, GE 1014. This is the book
`from 1996. This shows precisely what Dr. Attia just testified to, that in the
`high pressure -- in the gas turbine, the gas that exits the combustor flows to
`
`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
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01442
`Patent 9,695,751 B2
`
`the stationary blades, and they’re also called stators, vanes, or nozzles, and is
`directly tangentially against the rotating blade row called the rotors, or rotor
`blades, or buckets. So that is what we annotated in the figure. This is a
`conventional -- in this particular example, a conventional 1 Stage HPT.
`
`Now, that begs the question of well, what is a stage? And on Slide 45,
`Dr. Attia provided his definition. He provided it in several places, but this is
`in his rebuttal or his supplemental declaration. “A stage consists of a row of
`stationary stator vanes and a rotator with rotating airfoil blades.” Typical
`definition. GE’s or UTC’s expert agreed with that. He was asked at his
`deposition, GE 1051, he was asked numerous questions about this and he
`testified on page 23 to 24, “Turbines consist of stators and rotators. The first
`stator is usually called the nozzle guide vane and (indiscernible).” He also
`testified that it was common in 1987, the date of Knip, to use for stators and
`high pressure turbines. That’s on page 24 to 25, Slide 47.
`
`And then on Slide 48, I think it really locks down. His testimony on
`page 40, “Typically a stage is defined as a stator and rotor. Every stage,
`typical definition, has a stationary and a rotating blade row.” “Are you able
`to tell me how many stators and rotators a 2 Stage high pressure turbine
`would have?” “With that definition, there would be two stators and two
`rotors.” That’s exactly what Dr. Attia said. That is the common
`understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: Mr. Ferguson, one of the concerns that I am
`looking at would -- I would agree with you on one hand that Dr. Attia has
`been consistent in this. One of the concerns I have is that this was not set
`out very well, at least in my opinion, in my recollection, in the petition. In
`other words, we’ve got claim one that talks about the very specific beginning
`
`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
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01442
`Patent 9,695,751 B2
`
`of this turbine and I -- what I’d like you to maybe talk about is where in the
`petition you address that particular limitation and the support for that
`because I think that it’s important that we make sure that its there, we did
`receive a lot of good input from you and you did a good claim construction,
`I think, and that doesn’t seem to be at issue here. The question I’m really
`looking for is whether or not this was in the petition to begin with.
`
`MR. FERGUSON: Yes, Your Honor. I’m going to refer to Dr.
`Attia’s initial declaration. This is GE 1003. There is a section in the
`declaration at paragraph 69, 70, 71 where he discusses the claim
`construction or definition of the very term, the volume of the turbine section.
`Now, he begins with his definition that, quote -- paragraph 69,
`“A turbine stage is comprised of a stationary airfoil followed by a rotating
`airfoil. Both airfoils together comprise a single stage.”
`
`Now, he discusses in particular the last portion of the limitation about
`what does the last rotating airfoil mean because there was some confusion
`about that with reference to the term rotating airfoil stage, but I think that
`sets forth that a person of ordinary skill would understand a stage has
`stationary airfoil, a vane, followed by a rotating airfoil. And then when he
`provides his description of Knip, obviousness in view of Knip, at paragraph
`96, for example he states that -- well, the -- not 96. I apologize. It’s
`paragraph -- for example, paragraph 92 he discusses the fact that Knip has,
`in Figure 13, a 2 Stage HPT which is consistent with the definition that he’s
`given of what a stage comprises and then paragraph 95, the same. That
`Figure 13 additionally discloses a turbine section comprising the HPT and
`LPT, gives the description of what the HPT -- that the HPT disclosed by
`Knip is the second turbine claimed by the ‘751 Patent.
`
`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
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01442
`Patent 9,695,751 B2
`
`
`Now, so I think a -- he was, given his testimony that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that because it has two stages
`that it would have that rotating airfoil or that non-rotating vane at the
`beginning. UTC then questioned that in its Patent Owner response and Dr.
`Attia then, in more detail, gave his rebuttal in our rebuttal in the reply which
`I think is permissible and within the scope of what a reply may be used for.
`
`JUDGE DANIELS: Yeah, I’m just a little concerned because of the
`petition i