General Electric Company v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

1. Case Identification

• Patent #: 8,753,065
• Filed: January 29, 2016
• Petitioner(s): General Electric Company
• Patent Owner(s): United Technologies Corporation
• Challenged Claims: 1-11

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Gas Turbine Engine
• Brief Description: The ’065 patent is directed to a geared turbofan engine architecture. The invention claims a gas turbine engine comprising a fan section, a speed reduction device including a star drive gear system, and specific operational parameters related to fan blade tip speed, bypass ratio, and the number of low-pressure turbine stages.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-11 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) by Hess.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Hess (FLUG REVUE, Oct. 1998).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hess, describing the Pratt & Whitney PW8000 engine, discloses every element of the challenged claims. Hess allegedly teaches a geared turbofan with a star gear system (fixed carrier), a gear ratio of 2.8 (meeting claims 2-3), a bypass ratio of approximately 11:1, and a calculated fan tip speed of 1060 fps (meeting claims 1 and 11). Hess also discloses a three-stage low-pressure turbine, satisfying claim 10. For claim 5, Petitioner asserted that Hess inherently discloses at least one bearing for each star gear, as such bearings are essential for the function and high efficiency required of an aerospace gear system.

Ground 2: Claim 5 is obvious over Hess in view of McCune.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Hess (FLUG REVUE, Oct. 1998) and McCune (Application # 2010/0331139).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative to the inherency argument in Ground 1. Petitioner asserted that if Hess is found not to disclose the bearing limitation of claim 5 inherently, the limitation would have been obvious by combining Hess with McCune. Hess provides the base engine architecture, while McCune explicitly discloses a star gear system for a turbofan engine where each star gear is supported by a stationary journal bearing.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings because both references describe geared turbofan engines from the same manufacturer, Pratt & Whitney. McCune provides specific details on a known component (bearings) that is necessary for the proper functioning of the system described in Hess.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a clear expectation of success in incorporating McCune's explicit teaching of bearings into the Hess engine, as it represents a straightforward application of a standard engineering solution to a known need with predictable results.

Ground 3: Claims 1-9 are anticipated under §102(b) by Willis.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Willis (Quiet Clean Short-Haul Experimental Engine Final Report, Aug. 1979).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued the Willis report, detailing a NASA-sponsored experimental engine, anticipates claims 1-9. Willis described a geared turbofan with a fixed-carrier, epicyclic star-system reduction gear. The report discloses a design gear ratio of 2.5:1 and consideration of a 2.67:1 ratio (satisfying claims 2-3), a bypass ratio of 11.3, and a fan tip speed of 1005 fps. Willis also explicitly discloses star gear bearings, meeting the limitation of claim 5.

Ground 4: Claims 10 and 11 are obvious over Willis in view of Kurzke 2009.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Willis (QCSEE Final Report, Aug. 1979) and Kurzke 2009 (ASME Turbo Expo 2009 paper).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Willis discloses a two-stage low-pressure turbine (LPT), while claim 10 requires a three or four-stage LPT. Petitioner argued it would have been obvious to modify the two-stage LPT of Willis to a three-stage LPT based on the teachings of Kurzke. Willis discloses a fan tip speed of 1005 fps, meeting the >1000 fps requirement of claim 11.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to modify the Willis engine to optimize its performance, an objective Willis itself acknowledged by stating a "more optimum cycle could have been produced." Kurzke expressly teaches that for geared turbofans with parameters like those in Willis, a three-stage LPT is a practical and efficient design choice.
  • Expectation of Success: Modifying the number of turbine stages is a routine design trade-off in engine development with well-understood and predictable effects on efficiency and performance, ensuring a reasonable expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued for the plain and ordinary meaning of key claim terms, asserting they are not given any special definition in the ’065 patent.
• "star drive gear system" / "star system": Petitioner contended this term should be construed as a planetary gear system with a fixed carrier, a sun gear, a ring gear, and a plurality of star gears positioned between the sun and ring gears. This construction is central to mapping the prior art, which describes such fixed-carrier systems.
• Operating Conditions: Petitioner argued against construing the claimed operational parameters (e.g., "fan blade tip speed is less than 1400 fps") as being limited to a specific flight condition, such as take-off. Petitioner asserted the claims only require the engine be capable of operating within the specified range at some point, and noted the patent specification itself only mentions cruise conditions, contradicting a construction limited to take-off.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-11 of Patent 8,753,065 as unpatentable.