Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v. AXA POWER APS et al.

Prosecution History analysis

Examiner Search analysis

Invalidity Framework analysis

Petition

Petition summary

## 1. Case Identification
- Case Number: [Not yet assigned]
- Patent #: 9,771,169
- Filed: January 9, 2025
- Petitioner(s): [Dabico Airport Solutions Inc](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/dabico-airport-solutions-inc).
- Patent Owner(s): [AXA Power APS](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/axa-power-aps)
- Challenged Claims: 1-22

## 2. Patent Overview
- Title: Preconditioned Air Unit with Variable Frequency Driving
- Brief Description: The [’169](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1001) patent relates to preconditioned air (PCA) units that supply cooled or heated air to parked aircraft. The invention describes using variable-frequency drives (VFDs) to control compressors and other components in the PCA's refrigeration systems to improve energy efficiency, and further discloses features such as power sharing, automatic cooling adjustment based on environmental or aircraft-specific inputs, and fault detection.

## 3. Grounds for Unpatentability

#### Ground 1: Obviousness over Kreymer and Taras - Claims 2-9 and 11-12 are obvious over Kreymer in view of Taras.
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Kreymer](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1005) (U.S. Patent No. 5,715,701), [Taras](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1006) (International Patent Publication No. WO 2007/046794).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued that [Kreymer](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1005) disclosed a PCA unit for aircraft featuring a housing, blower, and multiple refrigeration circuits to accommodate various aircraft sizes by turning individual circuits on or off. This met most limitations of independent claim 2. [Taras](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1006) was cited for its disclosure of using VFDs to drive compressors and fans in conventional HVAC systems, which Petitioner contended supplied the missing VFD and controller limitations.
    - **Motivation to Combine:** A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine [Taras's](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1006) VFD technology with [Kreymer's](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1005) PCA system to achieve greater energy efficiency and finer control over cooling capacity. Petitioner asserted that the known benefits of VFDs, such as energy savings and reduced mechanical stress, would have provided a strong motivation to replace [Kreymer's](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1005) less efficient on/off control method with the variable control taught by [Taras](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1006).
    - **Expectation of Success:** Success was predictable because [Taras](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1006) applies VFDs to the same type of conventional refrigeration circuits used in [Kreymer](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1005). The [petition](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/2) argued that applying VFDs to HVAC&R systems was a well-established and successful practice, ensuring the combination would yield predictable results.

#### Ground 2: Obviousness over Kreymer, Taras, and Takahashi - Claims 14-22 are obvious over Kreymer and Taras in view of Takahashi.
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Kreymer](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1005) (’701 patent), [Taras](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1006) (WO ’794 application), [Takahashi](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1007) (U.S. Patent No. 5,351,498).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** This ground built upon the [Kreymer](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1005)/[Taras](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1006) combination to address claims requiring failure detection and response. Petitioner argued [Takahashi](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1007) taught these limitations by disclosing a multi-cooler refrigeration system with a fault-tolerant architecture. In [Takahashi](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1007), unit controllers monitor individual cooling units, detect abnormalities, stop the failing unit, and transmit a failure signal to a central controller, which then adjusts the remaining units to compensate for the loss of cooling capacity.
    - **Motivation to Combine:** A POSITA seeking to improve the reliability and redundancy of the [Kreymer](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1005)/[Taras](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1006) PCA system would be motivated to incorporate [Takahashi's](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1007) sophisticated fault-tolerant control system. [Kreymer](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1005) itself suggested a desire for redundancy, and Petitioner argued [Takahashi](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1007) provided an advanced, VFD-compatible method to achieve it, representing a clear improvement over a system without such capabilities.
    - **Expectation of Success:** The controller architecture in [Takahashi](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1007) employed well-known elements (controllers, sensors, communication lines) to perform well-known functions (monitoring, control, information exchange). Petitioner asserted that integrating this known type of control logic into the combined [Kreymer](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1005)/[Taras](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1006) system would be a straightforward task for a POSITA with a high expectation of success.

#### Ground 3: Obviousness over Lechmotoren and Taras - Claims 1, 2, and 13 are obvious over Lechmotoren in view of Taras.
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Lechmotoren](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1008) (German Patent Utility Model No. [DE 296 22 089 U1](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1008)), [Taras](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1006) (WO ’794 application).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** This ground used [Lechmotoren](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1008) as the primary reference to challenge claims 1 and 13, which require a "power sharing control input." Petitioner argued [Lechmotoren](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1008) disclosed a PCA unit that could be connected in series with an aircraft's power supply. Its controller received input on the aircraft's power demands and adjusted the PCA's power consumption to use only the residual energy available, thereby teaching the power-sharing limitation. [Taras](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1006) was again used to supply the teaching of VFD-driven compressors and their control.
    - **Motivation to Combine:** A POSITA would supplement [Lechmotoren's](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1008) high-level disclosure of a "thermodynamic cycle" with the specific, conventional refrigeration components (compressor, condenser, evaporator, expansion valve) explicitly detailed in [Taras](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1006). Furthermore, a POSITA would apply the VFDs from [Taras](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1006) to [Lechmotoren's](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1008) system to achieve the widely recognized benefits of variable speed control, such as improved efficiency and adaptability to varying loads.
    - **Expectation of Success:** The combination involved applying well-understood refrigeration components and VFD control from [Taras](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1006) to the PCA framework of [Lechmotoren](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1008). Petitioner contended this was a predictable implementation of known technologies to achieve a known result.

- **Additional Grounds:** Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations including [Carrier](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1040) to teach multi-pulse rectifiers for claims 9-10 (Ground 3) and an alternative combination of [Lechmotoren](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1008), [Taras](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1006), and [Takahashi](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1007) for claims 14-22 (Ground 5).

## 4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial
- Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate. It was asserted that the [petition](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/2) should not be denied under *Fintiv* because the [’169](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/1001) patent was not subject to any parallel proceeding. Petitioner also argued against denial under *Advanced Bionics*, stating that the prior art references and invalidity arguments presented in the [petition](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00408/2) were never previously considered by the USPTO during the original prosecution.

## 5. Relief Requested
- Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. [9771169](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/9771169) as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Aircraft preconditioned air unit patent challenged: Kreymer & Taras art cited for obviousness of all 22 claims on VFD energy efficiency control.

IPR2025-00408

Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. v. AXA POWER APS