PTAB

IPR2014-01378

Space Exploration Technologies Corp v. Blue Origin LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Sea Landing of Space Launch Vehicles and Associated Systems and Methods
  • Brief Description: The ’321 patent discloses systems and methods for landing a reusable portion of a space launch vehicle, such as a booster stage, at sea. The method involves the booster stage separating from an upper stage, reorienting itself from a nose-first to a tail-first attitude, and performing a vertical, powered landing on a sea-going platform.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 14 and 15 are obvious over Ishijima in view of Lane and Mueller ‘693.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ishijima (a 1998 technical paper titled "Re-entry and Terminal Guidance for Vertical-Landing TSTO"), Lane (Patent 5,873,549), and Mueller ‘693 (Patent 6,158,693).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the prior art combination teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. The primary reference, Ishijima, discloses the core flight and recovery sequence claimed in the ’321 patent, including a reusable two-stage rocket, separation, re-entry, a "Rotation Maneuver" from nose-first to tail-first, engine reignition, and a vertical "powered-descent" landing on a sea-going tanker. Petitioner contended this maps to the functional requirements of independent claim 14. Lane was introduced to supply specific structures for means-plus-function limitations, teaching aerodynamic flaps for the "means for reorienting" and landing gear for the "means for landing." Mueller ‘693 was used to provide further structural detail for other means-plus-function limitations, disclosing conventional rocket hardware such as start cartridges for ignition/reignition ("means for igniting," "means for reigniting") and supply valves for engine cutoff ("means for shutting off"). Dependent claim 15's requirement for vertical landing was argued to be explicitly taught by Ishijima's "vertical powered-descent" and Lane's disclosure of landing gear for vertical landings.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be motivated to combine these references to achieve a predictable result. A POSITA would look to a reference like Ishijima for a complete flight profile and then supplement its high-level functional descriptions with the specific, well-known hardware solutions disclosed in Lane and Mueller ‘693 to implement the system. For instance, a POSITA would combine Lane's aerodynamic control surfaces with Ishijima's system to provide a known structure for performing the required reorientation maneuver. Similarly, combining Mueller ‘693's start cartridges and valves was presented as an obvious implementation choice for the engine control functions described in Ishijima. The motivation was to use known components to achieve their intended, predictable functions within an established framework.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that a POSITA would have a high expectation of success. The combination involved applying conventional rocket components (from Lane and Mueller '693) to a known flight plan (from Ishijima) to perform their ordinary functions. No new or unpredictable results would occur; the combination would predictably result in a reusable rocket stage capable of landing vertically on a sea platform.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Means-Plus-Function Limitations: A central part of Petitioner's argument relied on construing the numerous means-plus-function terms in claim 14. Petitioner contended that the ’321 patent specification provides minimal structural disclosure for many of these functions. For terms where some structure was identified, Petitioner proposed constructions based on that disclosure, such as construing "means for reorienting" as "deployable aerodynamic surfaces... and/or thrusters" and "means for landing" as "shock-absorbing landing gear." For other terms, such as "means for igniting" and "means for shutting off," Petitioner argued the specification was silent, warranting a broad construction of any suitable structure capable of performing the function. This strategy was critical to enable mapping of conventional hardware from the prior art, like the start cartridges and valves in Mueller ‘693, to the claimed functions.
  • "Space Launch Vehicle": Petitioner proposed the construction "a device used to carry a payload into space," arguing this reflects the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the term's plain meaning in the art.
  • "Tail-First Orientation": Petitioner proposed construing this term as "a position in which the vehicle tail is pointed substantially in the direction of motion." This construction was argued to be consistent with the specification's description of the vehicle's attitude during the final landing phase.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 14 and 15 as unpatentable.