PTAB

IPR2017-01931

Wavetamer Gyros LLC v. Seakeeper Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Cooling Bearings, Motors and Other Rotating Heat Generating Components
  • Brief Description: The ’930 patent describes a heat transfer assembly for cooling bearings in flywheel devices, particularly those used as gyroscopic boat stabilizers. The system uses two sets of interleaved fins (one rotating, one stationary) within an enclosure maintained at below-ambient pressure and filled with a below-ambient density gas (e.g., helium) to facilitate heat transfer.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-5, 7-17 are obvious over Adams in view of Sibley and Common Knowledge.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Adams (Patent 6,973,847) and Sibley (Application # 2005/0040776).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Adams disclosed the primary elements of the challenged claims, including a gyroscopic boat stabilizer with a flywheel and bearings operating within a vacuum enclosure containing a below-ambient density gas like helium. However, Adams only identified the need for cooling the bearings at high speeds without specifying a mechanism. Sibley allegedly supplied this missing element by teaching a cooling device for a flywheel energy storage system (a closely related art) that used interleaved rotating and stationary fins to dissipate heat from bearings in a vacuum.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references because Adams identified an unsolved problem (bearing cooling) for which Sibley provided a known and suitable solution. The motivation was strong as both references address heat dissipation for flywheel bearings in a vacuum environment. Petitioner asserted that a POSITA would have found it obvious to implement Sibley’s interleaved fin cooling system into Adams’s gyroscopic stabilizer.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references, as implementing a known cooling mechanism (Sibley) into a system requiring such cooling (Adams) was a predictable application of established engineering principles.

Ground 2: Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-17 are obvious over Adams in view of Jäger and Common Knowledge.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Adams (Patent 6,973,847) and Jäger (German Patent No. DE19909491).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Similar to the first ground, Petitioner contended that Adams provided the foundational gyroscopic stabilizer system. Jäger was asserted to disclose a cooling device for bearings on a rotating shaft using closely spaced, interleaved rotating and stationary fins. Critically, Jäger explicitly taught that heat transfer between the fins occurs via both radiation and gaseous conduction through the gas present in the housing, directly addressing the "gaseous conduction" limitation in claims 3, 11, and 16.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was again based on solving the problem articulated in Adams (need for bearing cooling) with the specific solution disclosed in Jäger. A POSITA seeking to cool the flywheel bearings in Adams’s device would look to known bearing cooling solutions like Jäger and find it obvious to incorporate its interleaved fin design.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because Jäger provided a detailed and explicit solution for cooling bearings via interleaved fins and gaseous conduction, which could be predictably integrated into the Adams system.

Ground 3: Claims 1-7, and 9-17 are obvious over Adams in view of Bimshas and Common Knowledge.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Adams (Patent 6,973,847) and Bimshas (Patent 3,844,341).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Adams again supplied the base system. Bimshas was argued to disclose a rotatable heat transfer device with interleaved fins for use in inertial guidance systems. Bimshas taught that the space between the fins could be filled with a thermally conductive gas, such as helium, to "reduce thermal impedance." Petitioner asserted this teaching directly supported the use of gaseous conduction for heat transfer. Bimshas also disclosed the specific cylindrical fin geometry recited in dependent claim 6.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Adams and Bimshas to provide a cooling solution for the bearings in Adams’s stabilizer. Petitioner argued that the teachings of Bimshas, while from the field of inertial guidance systems, were directly applicable to cooling bearings in any high-speed rotating system operating in a controlled environment.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as predictable, as it involved applying a known heat transfer device (Bimshas) to a system (Adams) with a recognized need for such a device.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges for specific claims based on further combinations of the primary references. Ground 2 (for claims 6, 9, 12) added Bimshas to the Adams/Sibley combination to teach a specific cylindrical fin geometry. Ground 4 (for claim 6) added Bimshas to the Adams/Jäger combination for the same reason. Ground 6 (for claim 8) added Sibley to the Adams/Jäger/Bimshas combination to teach air-cooled fins on the exterior of the enclosure.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Adjacent": Petitioner argued for the broadest reasonable construction of "adjacent" to mean "close to; lying near," rather than the narrower meaning of "next to; adjoining." This broader construction was asserted to be consistent with the term's use in the ’930 patent specification.
  • "Vane": Petitioner proposed that "vane" should be construed as synonymous with "fin," defined as "a projecting vane used for cooling." This construction was argued to be supported by the specification and the prosecution history, where the terms were used interchangeably.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-17 of the ’930 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.