Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 12
`Entered: May 13, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2019-00212
`
`Patent 9,624,827 B2
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00212
`
`Patent 9,624,827 B2
`
`1. INTRODUCTION
`
`General Electric Company (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1,
`
`“Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 1—24 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,624,827 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’827 patent”). United Technologies
`
`Corporation (“Patent Owner”), filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6,
`“Prelim. Resp”).
`
`We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an
`
`inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in
`
`the Petition and the Preliminary Response shows that “there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`
`claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 CPR.
`
`§ 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Upon
`
`consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the supporting
`
`evidence, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition does not
`
`establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to
`
`any of the claims challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we do not
`
`institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims of the ’827 .
`
`patent.
`
`A.
`
`Related Matter
`
`The ’827 patent is also the subject of IPR2019-00213. Pet. 1; Paper 4,
`
`B. The ’827 Patent
`
`The ’827 patent is titled, “Thrust Efficient Turbofan Engine.” Ex.
`
`1001 , (54). The ’827 patent describes, “[a]n Engine Unit Thrust Parameter
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00212
`
`Patent 9,624,827 B2
`
`[“EUTP”] defined as net engine thrust divided by a product of the mass flow
`
`rate of air through the bypass flow path, a tip diameter of the fan and the first
`
`rotational speed of the power turbine.” Id. at (57) (Abstract). The EUTP is
`
`expressed in the form of an equation in the ’827 patent as:
`
`Engine Un'n 'l'lwsl Pmncm‘:
`Ne! 'lhrus: of lhe Engine
`[mass flow mle ol‘ uir lhmugfi {an byjufis)
`
`[
`
`(Fan Tip Dis-mm
`
`ISpwd M the power turbine]
`
`Equation 1
`
`]
`
`Id. at 7:45—53. Figure 1 of the ’827 patent is reproduced below.
`
`’
`
`
`
`
`
`._\
`‘ \
`l .-
`1rd-JaJ:[|lLL\1'PI‘11-‘\w;*1
`\ I
`
`=/|//Will/1.711-///'E=|/;\‘m_v~24
`\
`:1.
`V.\\\\‘\“\\\\l\\\lli\\\\m“\\\.\ \\\\\\\\‘
`
`'i 330
`T
`
`
`
`40
`
`FIG-.1
`
`Figure 1 depicts “a schematic view of an example turbofan engine. Id. at
`
`3:36. The detailed description of the turbofan engine of Figure 1 states:
`
`. includes a fan section 22, a compressor section
`.
`FIG. 1 .
`24, a combustor section 26 and a turbine section 28. .
`.
`. The fan
`section 22 drives air through a bypass flow path B while the
`compressor section 24 draws air in along a core flow path C
`where air is compressed and communicated to a combustor
`section 26, air is mixed with fuel and ignited to generate a high
`pressure exhaust gas stream that expands through the turbine
`section 28 where energy is extracted and utilized to drive the fan
`section 22 and the compressor section 24.
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00212
`
`Patent 9,624,827 B2
`
`Id. at 3:42—54. Figure 2 of the ’827 patent is reproduced below.
`
`22
`
`in
`
`1
`
`7o
`
`l
`
`/20
`
`53
`
`THRUST
`
`
`fir‘el— "'
`
`U
`
`.
`I.-.)
`
`l!’”A _. “L:
`i """“t
`Z
`
`V
`
`62
`
`—_-’
`
`64
`
`FIG.2
`
`Figure 2 depicts, “a schematic view of functional elements of the example
`
`turbofan engine.” Id. at 3 :37—38. The detailed description of Figure 2
`
`provides:
`
`[T]he example turbofan engine 20 includes a gas generator
`section 62 for generating a high energy (per unit mass) gas
`stream 78. A power turbine 76 converts the high energy gas
`stream 78 into shaft power that drives the geared architecture 48.
`In one embodiment, the power turbine may be the low pressure
`turbine 46 that drives the inner shaft 40. The power turbine 76
`drives a propulsor section 64 through the geared architecture 48.
`The propulsor section 64 generates a mass flow 70 of air through
`the bypass flow path B that is a substantial portion of the overall
`propulsive thrust 68 generated by the turbofan engine 20.
`
`Id. at 5:57—67. “The disclosed fan section 22 includes a tip diameter 66.”
`
`Id. at 6:33—34.
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00212
`
`Patent 9,624,827 B2
`C. Disclaimer In Patent Under 37 CFR. § 1.321(a)
`
`Patent Owner states that it “has disclaimed each of the claims in the
`
`Petition except claim 19.” Prelim. Resp. 1 n.1. Exhibit 2001 is entitled
`
`“Disclaimer in Patent Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a)” (“Disclaimer”) and
`
`states, “I hereby disclaim the following complete claims in [US Patent No.
`
`9,624,627]: 1-18, 20-24.” The Disclaimer was executed by Troy S. Prince,
`
`Chief Intellectual Property Counsel, Pratt & Whitney Division, United
`
`Technologies Corporation.
`
`I
`
`Under 37 CPR. § 42.107(e), “[t]he patent owner may file a statutory
`
`disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. 253(a) in compliance with §1.321(a) of this
`
`chapter, disclaiming one or more claims in the patent. No inter partes review
`
`will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.” Patent Owner states, “[t]hus,
`
`this Preliminary Response addresses only Ground 2 of the Petition (the sole
`
`ground on which claim 19 is challenged), and only claim 19.” Prelim. Resp.
`
`1 n.1.
`
`D. Claim 19
`
`Claim 19 depends from claim 17. Claim 17 recites:
`
`17. A turbofan engine, comprising:
`
`a gas generator section for generating a high energy gas stream,
`the gas generating section including a compressor section,
`combustor section and a first turbine;
`
`a second turbine converting the high energy gas stream flow into
`shaft power, the second turbine rotating at a first speed and
`including less than or equal to about six (6) stages;
`
`a geared architecture driven by the second turbine; and
`
`a propulsor section driven by the second turbine through the-
`geared architecture at a second speed lower than the first
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00212
`
`Patent 9,624,827 B2
`
`speed, the propulsor section including a fan with a pressure
`ratio across the fan section less than about 1.45, the propulsor
`section generating propulsive thrust as a mass flow rate of air
`through a bypass flow path from the shaft power, wherein an
`Engine Unit Thrusts Parameter (“EUTP”) defined as net
`engine thrust divided by a product of a mass flow rate of air
`through the bypass flow path, a tip diameter of the fan and the
`first rotational speed of the second turbine is less than about
`0.15 at a take-off condition.
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:21—41. Claim 19 recites: “[t]he turbofan engine as recited in
`
`claim 17, wherein the EUTP at the take-off condition is less than about
`
`0.08.” Id. at 10:45—46.
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1—7, 9—15, 17, 18, and 20—23 of the ’827
`
`patent as anticipated by Ciepluch.1 Pet. 16, 26—50.
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1—24 of the ’827 patent as obvious in
`
`View of Ciepluch and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”). Pet. 16, 50—76.
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 17 and 24 of the ’827 patent as
`
`anticipated by Edkins.2 Pet. 16, 76—83.
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 17 and 24 of the ’827 patent as obvious in
`
`view of Edkins and the knowledge of a POSITA. Pet. 16, 76—83.
`
`1 C.C.Ciepluch, Quiet Clean Short-Haul Experimental Engine (QCSEE)
`Under-The- Wing (UTW) Final Design Report (June, 1977) (Ex. 1005).
`2 DR Edkins, et al., TF34 Turbofan Quiet Engine Study (1972) (Ex. 1025).
`
`6
`
`

`

`' IPR2019-00212
`
`Patent 9,624,827 B2
`
`Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Magdy Attia (Ex. 1003) to
`
`support its challenges to the claims of the ’827 patent. Patent Owner relies
`
`on the Declaration of Dr. Ernesto Benini (Ex. 2002) in support of its
`
`Preliminary Response.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`In view of the Disclaimer, our analysis is limited to whether Petitioner
`
`has shown a reasonable likelihood of establishing that claim 19 would have
`
`been obvious in view of Ciepulch and the knowledge of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“POSITA”).
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`For petitions filed before November 13, 2018,3 we interpret the claims
`
`of an unexpired patent that will not expire before issuance of a final written
`
`decision using the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2016); Cuozzo Speed Techs, LLC
`
`v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144—46 (2016). Consistent with the broadest
`reasonable construction standard, the challenged claims are presumed to be
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one
`
`3 The claim construction standard to be employed in an inter partes review
`recently changed. See Changes to the Claim Construction Standardfor
`Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51340 (October 11, 2018). At the time ofthe filing of
`the Petition in this proceeding, however, the applicable claim construction
`standard was set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), which provides that “[a]
`claim in an unexpired patent .
`.
`. shall be given its broadest reasonable
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.”
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2016).
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00212
`
`Patent 9,624,827 B2
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
`
`Translogic Tech, Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the following terms: (1) “gas
`
`generator (claims 1, 8, 9, 16, 17); (2) “mass flow generated by the propulsor
`
`section is between 624 lbm/hour and about 80,000 lbm/hour (claims 5, 13,
`
`and 22); (3) “propulsive thrust generated by the turbofan engine” (claims 7
`
`and 15); (4) “gas generator defines an overall pressure ratio between about
`
`40 and about 80” (claims 8 and 16); and (5) “pressure ratio across the fan
`
`section” (claim 17). Pet. 17—25. In light of the Disclaimer, we need not
`
`construe those terms that do not appear in claim 19 and claim 17 from which
`
`claim 19 depends. With regard to the two remaining terms in claim 17 (“gas
`
`generator” and “pressure ratio across the fan section”), Patent Owner
`
`contends no claim construction is necessary in order to make a decision
`
`regarding institution of inter partes review. Prelim. Resp. 20—21. Patent
`
`Owner argues, “even with respect to those two terms, construction is
`
`unnecessary because [Petitioner] has failed to demonstrate that the prior art
`
`discloses or renders obvious claim 19’s requirement that ‘the EUTP at the
`
`take-off condition is less than about 0.08.”’ Id. at 21. For the reasons
`
`provided below, we agree and determine that no claim terms need to be
`
`construed in order to make this decision.
`
`B. Legal Standards
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable as obvious if the differences between
`
`the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter,
`
`as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a -
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`
`KSR Int ’1 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00212
`
`Patent 9,624,827 B2
`
`obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations
`
`including: (1) the sc0pe and content of the prior art; (2) any differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness.4 Graham v.
`
`John Deere C0., 383 US. 1, 17—18 (1966).
`
`“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the
`
`onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is
`
`unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech, Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review
`
`petitions to identify “with particularity .
`
`.
`
`. the evidence that supports the
`
`grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Petitioners cannot satisfy their
`
`burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.”
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int ’1, Ltd, 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`C. Level ofSkill in the Art
`
`With regard to the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner
`
`contends, “[a] POSITA includes someone who has a MS. degree in
`
`Mechanical Engineering, or equivalent education, as well as at least 3-5
`
`years of experience in the field of gas turbine design and analysis.” Pet. 16
`
`(citing Ex. 1003 (Attia Decl.) 11 4). Patent Owner does not address this issue.
`
`See generally Prelim. ReSp. We find, based on the current record,
`
`Petitioner’s contention to be reasonable, and, for purposes of this institution
`
`decision, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art as proposed by
`
`Petitioner.
`
`4 Neither party presents any objective evidence of nonobviousness or any
`related arguments for us to consider.
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00212
`
`Patent 9,624,827 B2
`
`D. Asserted Obviousness of Claim 19 Based on Ciepluch and the
`
`Knowledge ofa POSITA
`
`'
`
`Petitioner challenges claim 19 as obvious in view of Ciepluch and the
`
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”). Pet. 16, 50—
`
`76.
`
`]. Ciepulch (Ex. 1005)
`
`With regard to whether it constitutes prior art, Ciepluch is dated June,
`
`1977. Ex. 1005, 1. Ciepluch states, “[t]his report presents results of the
`
`Under-the-Wing (UTW) experimental engine design effort. An oral review
`
`covering the results of UTW detail design activity was presented at NASA-
`
`Lewis Research Center January 20 and 21, 1975.” Id. at 4. Ciepluch
`
`includes a “Distribution List” that includes 28 recipients including a number
`
`of public companies and facilities. Id. at 732. Petitioner presents evidence
`
`that Ciepluch is available on the NASA Technical Reports Server (Ex. 1006)
`
`and that “since 2002 NASA provides access to published research and
`
`development results on NASA’s Technical Reports Server (NTRS)” and
`
`“[t]he NTRS is free and publicly accessible, contains record details for all of
`
`the published materials, and is publicly searchable by keyword” (Ex. 1021
`11 3). The earliest priority date claimed for the ’827 patent is March 15,
`
`2013. Ex. 1001, (60), 125—6. Patent Owner does not contest that Ciepluch
`
`constitutes prior art. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on this record, we
`
`determine, at least for purposes of this decision, that Ciepluch is prior art to
`
`the ’827 patent.
`
`Ciepulch “presents results of the Under-the-Wing [UTW]
`
`experimental engine detail design effort.” Ex. 1005, 4. Figure 2-4 of
`
`Ciepulch is reproduced below.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00212
`
`Patent 9,624,827 B2
`
`
`
` ‘
`
`fitm'lfll'f,
`"
`p
`Y
`-.~,,._.,....4 *9 ?
`".2
`
`A "131””“‘23?“
`
`
`Figure 2-4. U'n' Experimental Propulsion System.
`
`Figure 2-4 depicts an UTW engine. Id. at 44. The engine includes a fan
`
`driven by a “low pressure turbine through a main reduction gear.” Id.
`
`Figure 5-7 of Ciepulch is reproduced below.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00212
`
`Patent 9,624,827 B2
`
`
`
`u
`
`u:
`
`u
`
`u mau‘“““‘
`‘1 (I
`5
`
`9
`
`
`8'1"le
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`0
`[A
`11
`2A
`3
`3.1
`35
`:1
`3
`so
`G
`41
`a
`4|
`‘3
`I
`85
`
`I
`I
`12
`13
`18
`
`u
`ll
`
`rue scrum A." condition;
`but Nlcouo Jul"
`Inlet Throat
`~
`total run Prom: rec:
`run Huh Inlet
`'Ifl nub blunts:
`EP campus-or Inlet
`a? Compressor ssh Stout (Suite: Exxt)
`RP Compressor Dlscharso (St::or 28:!)
`canbusto: Inlet
`monster Machine (KP tuna. Venn lulu)
`a) Nrblna Rotor Inlet
`8? Name Discharge
`I) 'Nrbxm Vane Inlet
`LP fill-bin. Rotor In!“
`LP I'm-ban. niachugo
`LP 'hu-Mno Prue Duchouo
`
`Pit-Ir: Elihu-t Nozzle fare“
`Pill-ll”, Exhaust. "on“ Duct-r”
`'13 Tip Inlet
`7m ‘Mp Discharge
`Int” Duct Inlet
`
`upon nth-not Nonl- flu-on
`Bypass khan“ Noni. ouch-u.
`
`Figure 5-1. Station Designations - Forward Thrust Mode.
`
`Figure 5-7 depicts “Station Designations” for the engine comprising a fan,
`
`compressor, combustor, a high pressure (HP) turbine, and a low pressure
`
`(LP) turbine. Id. at 137.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00212
`
`Patent 9,624,827 B2
`
`2. Claim 19
`
`Claim 19 recites an “EUTP at the take-off condition is less than about
`
`0.08.” Ex. 1001, 10:45—46.5 Petitioner does not contend that Ciepluch
`
`expressly teaches an EUTP at take-off of less than about 0.08. The Petition
`
`states:
`
`The claims of the 827 Patent require an EUTP of less than
`a certain value at various flight conditions. Claims 1, 11, and 17
`require an EUTP of less than 0.15 at a takeoff condition, while
`claim 19 requires an EUTP of less than 0.08 at the same
`condition.
`.
`.
`. Because EUTP was a known result-effective
`variable, these EUTP ranges would have been obvious to a
`POSITA based on routine experimentation.
`
`Pet. 68—69 (emphasis added). Petitioner argues that, “EUTP was a known
`
`result-effective variable because each of [the] parameters were individually
`
`known to be result-effective, and the parameters comprising EUTP were
`
`collectively known to be result-effective.” Id. at 64—65. We determine that
`
`Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of showing “an EUTP
`
`at the take-off condition [of] less than about 0.08” as recited in claim 19
`
`would have been obvious.
`
`“EUTP is a mathematical formula that combines net thrust, fan tip
`
`diameter, fan bypass mass flow, and power turbine speed.” Id. at 64; see
`also Ex. 1001, 7:46—53. Petitioner argues that, “[w]here the variable at issue
`
`is a combination of parameters, it is sufficient to show that one of the
`
`parameters was known in the art to be result effective.” Id. at 63 (citing In
`
`5 Claim 19 depends from claim 17 and, thus, includes all the limitations of
`claim 17. 35 U.S.C. § 112 (“A claim in dependent form shall be construed
`to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it
`refers”). As Patent Owner focuses its arguments on the limitation recited in
`claim 19, we limit our analysis to claim 19 as it is outcome determinative.
`
`l3
`
`

`

`IPR2019—002 12
`
`Patent 9,624,827 B2
`
`re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977). We do not read Antonie to
`
`stand for such a proposition. The claimed invention in Antonie was a
`
`wastewater treatment device for which the “treatment capacity” was defined
`
`by a specific ratio of “tank volume” to “contactor area.” Antonie, 559 F.2d
`
`at 619. The prior art disclosed an otherwise identical device but did not
`
`specify the tank volume. Id. The Examiner rejected the claims on the basis
`that the claimed ratio was result-effective becauseithe prior art taught that
`
`the “contactor area” (the denominator of the ratio) was result-effective. The
`
`court rejected that position and held that we must consider the “invention as
`
`a whole.” Id. The Antonie court stated,
`
`[T]he invention as a whole is the ratio value of 0.12 and its
`inherent and disclosed property. That property is that
`the
`described devices designed with the ratio will maximize
`treatment capacity regardless of the values of the other variables
`in the devices .
`.
`. it is the invention as a whole, and not some part
`of it, which must be obvious under 35 U.S.C., § 103.
`
`Id. Accordingly, it was incumbent upon the Petitioner to show that the
`
`EUTP ratio as a whole as recited in claim 19 was a known result-effective
`
`variable and not that just one or more of the parameters comprising EUTP
`
`was a known result-effective variable.
`
`Moreover, we determine that Petitioner’s showing with regard to
`
`whether the four parameters comprising EUTP are individually and
`
`collectively result-effective variables to be lacking in evidentiary support.
`
`Petitioner’s entire presentation as to whether net thrust is a result-effective
`
`variable states:
`
`[N]et thrust was known to be result-effective because it affects
`the size of the aircraft that can be powered by a particular engine.
`GE-1003, 11 129. Ciepluch, for example, describes that each
`engine was designed to produce a specific amount of thrust to
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00212
`
`Patent 9,624,827 B2
`
`meet the requirements of a particular aircraft. GE1005.124 (“The
`QCSEE engine cycle was defined to meet requirements of a
`shorthaul aircraft. . .. Objective thrust levels are 81 ,400 N (18,300
`lb)....”). Thus, a POSITA would have been motivated to
`optimize net thrust for a given aircraft application. GE-1003,
`11 129; see also GE-1018.036 (“The engine thrust is scaled to
`meet the airplane performance requirements.”).[61
`
`Pet. 65. The entire paragraph from which the quote from Ciepluch is taken
`
`is reproduced below.
`
`The QCSEE UTW engine cycle was defined to meet
`requirements of a short-haul aircraft with externally blown flaps
`incorporating engines mounted under the wing. The engine has
`a separated-flow cycle, utilizing a single-stage, variable-pitch,
`gear-driven fan. Objective thrust levels are 81,400 N (18,300 lb)
`thrust uninstalled at sea level static, and 17,800 N (4,000 lb)
`thrust uninstalled at cruise, Mach 0.8, 9144 m (30,000 ft).
`Design cycle and performance data are presented for these flight
`conditions as well as for the noise rating conditions, 41.2 m/sec,
`61.0 m (80 knots, 200 ft) sideline. Predicted fan performance
`maps are shown for significant flight conditions.
`
`Ex. 1005, 124. This passage reports two “objective thrust levels” for a
`
`particular engine for a particular use as “81,400 N (18,300 lb) thrust
`
`uninstalled at sea level static” and “17,800 N (4,000 lb) thrust uninstalled at
`
`cruise.” However, we discern no indication in this passage from Ciepluch
`
`that net thrust (or EUTP at a take-off condition) was recognized as a result-
`
`effective variable by those of ordinary skill in the art. And, we do not
`
`discern how it supports either a conclusion that “net thrust was known to be
`
`6 Exhibit 1018 is Bruce E. Wendus, et al., Follow-0n Technology
`Requirement Studyfor Advanced Subsonic Transport (August 2003)
`(“Wendus”). Wendus is the basis of a challenge to claim 19 of the ’827
`patent in a separate proceeding initiated by Petitioner. See IPR2019-00213
`Paper 1 (Petition), 16.
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00212
`
`Patent 9,624,827 B2
`
`result-effective because it affects the size of an aircraft that can be powered
`
`by a particular engine” or a conclusion that “a POSITA would have been
`
`motivated to optimize net thrust for a given aircraft application” as argued
`
`by Petitioner. Petitioner provides no reasoning or explanation to support
`
`either of these conclusions. We determine that Petitioner has not shown that
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would consider net thrust to be a result-
`
`effective variable.
`
`Petitioner’s entire presentation as to whether mass flow rate of air
`
`through the bypass flow path is a result-effective variable states:
`
`Second, bypass mass flow rate was a known result-
`effective variable.
`In particular, a POSITA would have known
`that increasing the bypass mass flow rate would increase the
`engine bypass ratio because bypass ratio is the ratio of the mass
`flow through the bypass flowpath divided by the mass flow
`through the engine core. GE-1003,1] 130; see also GE-1013.005
`(“The bypass ratio is the ratio of air passing through the fan (thus
`bypassing the engine core) to the air that passes through the
`engine”). A POSITA would have been motivated to increase the
`bypass ratio (i.e., increase the bypass mass flow) because it was
`known to improve fuel efficiency. GE-1003,
`fl 130; GB-
`1013.005 (“The higher the ratio of bypassed air to air passing
`through the engine,
`the greater the fuel efficiency of the
`engine”); GE-1018.051 (“[T]he high technology ADP design
`has many advantages over a conventional turbofan. The two
`primary reasons for this are. . .the inherent propulsive efficiency
`advantage of the ultra high bypass ratio. ...”).
`
`Pet. 65—66. Thus, Petitioner attempts to establish mass flow rate of air
`
`through the bypass flow path is a result-effective variable by showing engine
`
`bypass ratio is a result-effective variable. However, Petitioner provides no
`
`reasoning or explanation as how or why, if one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`recognized engine bypass ratio as a result-effective variable, mass flow rate
`
`of air through the bypass flow path would also be recognized as a result-
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00212
`
`Patent 9,624,827 B2
`
`effect variable. Petitioner cites paragraph 130 of the Attia Declaration (Ex.
`
`1003) in support of this conclusion but that paragraph is a verbatim copy of
`
`the above-quoted paragraph of the Petition with no additional reasoning or
`
`explanation. As acknowledged by Petitioner, engine bypass ratio involves a
`
`consideration of two factors (mass flow rate of air through the bypass flow
`
`path and mass flow through the engine core) and it does not necessarily
`
`follow that recognition that the ratio of those two factors is a result-effective
`
`variable is a recognition that one of those factors considered alone is a
`
`result-effective variable. The engine bypass ratio would be increased if the
`
`mass flow rate through the engine core was decreased even if the mass flow
`
`rate of air through the bypass flow path was not changed. If a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art recognized engine bypass ratio as a result-effective
`
`variable, it supports a conclusion that such a person would recognize that
`
`mass flow through the engine core must be considered along with mass flow
`
`rate of air through the bypass flow path and that mass flow rate of air
`
`through the bypass flow path was not by itself a result-effective variable.
`
`We also determine that Petitioner’s showing that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would recognize engine bypass ratio as a result-effective
`
`variable is not persuasive. Petitioner contends that, “[a] POSITA would
`
`have been motivated to increase the bypass ratio (i.e., increase the bypass
`
`mass flow) because it was known to improve the fuel efficiency.” Pet. 65.
`
`However, Petitioner provides no evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art
`would recognize how much it was appropriate to increase the engine bypass ‘
`
`ratio to improve efficiency or otherwise recognize how to optimize the
`
`engine bypass ratio in order to improve fuel efficiency. And, Petitioner’s
`
`arguments and evidence relating to mass flow rate of air through the bypass
`
`flow path and engine bypass ratio are even less persuasive when considered
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00212
`
`Patent 9,624,827 B2
`
`as to Whether “EUTP at the takeoff condition” as recited in claim 19 would
`
`have been recognized as a result-effective variable.
`
`Petitioner’s entire presentation as to whether fan tip-diameter is a
`
`result-effective variable states:
`
`Third, fan tip diameter was known to be result-effective
`because it was also known to affect bypass ratio and propulsive
`efficiency of a turbofan engine. Specifically, a POSITA would
`have understood that increasing fan diameter generally results in
`an increased bypass ratio. GE-1003,
`11 131; GE-1013.005
`(“Ultrahigh bypass turbofans are engines that use a large fan at
`the front of the engine”); GE-1018.022 (“[A] larger fan diameter
`which, combined with the smaller core size, results in a higher
`engine bypass ratio.”).
`
`Pet. 66. Thus, Petitioner attempts to show fan tip diameter was a result-
`
`effective variable based upon a showing that “increasing fan diameter results
`
`in an increased bypass ratio.” Id. However, Petitioner fails to provide any
`
`reasoning or explanation as to how or why one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would therefore recognize fan tip diameter as a result-effective variable.
`
`And, Petitioner provides no evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would recognize how to optimize fan tip diameter or the engine bypass ratio
`
`in order to improve ”propulsive efficiency of a turbofan engine.” Petitioner
`
`cites to paragraph 131 of the Attia Declaration (Ex. 1003), but that
`
`paragraph is likewise conclusory and provides no supporting reasoning or
`
`explanation. We determine that Petitioner has not shown that fan tip
`
`diameter is a result-effective variable and that Petitioner’s argument and
`
`evidence relating to fan tip diameter does not support its attempt to establish
`
`that “EUTP at the takeoff condition” as recited in claim 19 is a result-
`
`effective variable.
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00212
`
`Patent 9,624,827 B2
`
`Petitioner’s entire presentation as to whether the rotational speed of
`
`the power turbine is a result-effective variable states:
`
`Fourth, power turbine rotational speed was known to be
`result-effective. A POSITA would have known that increasing
`power turbine (i.e.,
`low pressure turbine) speed enables each
`stage to produce more power. GE-1003, 1] 132; see also GE-
`1017.018 (“Large Work Extraction Per Stage: The high rotor
`speed [of the low pressure turbine] allows for a significantly
`reduced stage count of the turbine for a given work extraction”).
`Thus, for a given power requirement, a POSITA would have
`been motivated to increase power turbine speed because it
`enables the designer to decrease the power turbine size and stage
`count. GE-1003, 1] 132; GE—1012.002 (“Gearing solves the
`problem. The LP turbine and compressor spin faster, which
`means that they can be made smaller in diameter, shorter and
`simpler.”).
`
`Pet. 66—67 (bracketed material in original). Here again, we determine that
`
`Petitioner’s showing is lacking in persuasive evidence, reasoning, or
`
`explanation as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this
`
`factor—rotational speed of the power turbine—as a result-effective variable.
`
`Again, the cited paragraph (11 132) of the Attia Declaration is a verbatim
`
`copy of the paragraph in the Petition and provides no additional reasoning or
`
`explanation. And, Petitioner provides no evidence that one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would recognize how to optimize the power turbine speed. We
`
`determine that Petitioner has not shown that rotational speed of the power
`
`turbine is a result-effective variable. Accordingly, we determine that none
`
`of the factors used to calculate “EUTP at the take-off condition” as recited in
`
`claim 19 have been shown by Petitioner to be result-effective variables.
`
`Petitioner argues, “[t]he four parameters comprising EUTP were also
`
`known to collectively be result-effective.” Pet. 67. Specifically, Petitioner
`
`argues:
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00212
`
`Patent 9,624,827 B2
`
`thrust
`for a given net
`that
`It was well-known in the art
`requirement, a POSITA could utilize a geared architecture to
`increase fan tip diameter, bypass mass flow rate, and/or power
`turbine speed (i.e., decrease EUTP) to achieve a more efficient
`engine design. For example, a 1990 publication describes the
`efficiency and weight advantages. of increasing fan diameter,
`bypass mass flow, and low pressure turbine speed (i.e., reducing
`EUTP) by using a geared architecture:
`
`Ultrahigh bypass turbofans are engines that use a
`large fan.... The bypass ratio is the ratio of air
`passing through the fan (thus bypassing the engine
`core) to the air that passes through the engine. The
`higher the ratio of bypassed air to air passing
`through the engine, the greater the fuel efficiency
`of the engine.
`
`***
`
`The most significant feature of the low spool is
`the gear-driven, variable-pitch fan. The fan is
`driven by a high-speed, transonic, LP turbine
`through a 3 :1 reduction ratio planetary gear system.
`The high-speed. low spool permits the elimination
`of a total of three to five stages cumulatively in the
`low-pressure
`compressor
`and
`low-pressure
`turbine.
`
`GE-1013.005-.006. Similarly, Wilfert (GE-1017) describes that
`using a geared architecture to increase fan diameter, bypass ratio
`(i.e., bypass mass flow rate), and low pressure turbine speed
`reduces length, weight, and cost of an engine, while also
`improving fuel efficiency:
`
`The [fan drive gear system] allows the LPC and the
`LPT to run at higher and more appropriate speeds,
`thus reducing length, weight, and cost. . ..
`
`***
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00212
`
`Patent 9,624,827 B2
`
`Compared to the direct drive the geared turbofan
`provides minimum fuel burn at higher Fan
`diameter / bypass ratio. Hence the geared
`turbofan concept
`is the enabler for turbofan
`engines with bypass ratios beyond today’s designs
`with the benefit of low noise,
`low TSFC and
`
`achieving low fuel burn at the same time.
`
`GE-1017.011.
`
`The prior art therefore clearly demonstrates that using a
`geared architecture to increase fan diameter, bypass flow path
`mass flow rate (1'. e., bypass ratio), and/or low pressure turbine
`speed for a given net thrust (i.e., reducing EUTP) was known to
`be result effective because it reduced engine length, weight, and
`cost, while also making the engine more efficient. GE-1003, 11
`133.
`
`Id. at 67—68. We are not persuaded by this argument. First, although
`
`Petitioner argues these passages relate to the four parameters comprising
`
`EUTP, there is no mention of net thrust, the numerator of the EUTP ratio.
`
`See Prelim. Resp. 12 (“GE highlights two passages from Brines [Ex. 1013]
`
`