United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 15, 2021

IPR2020-00083 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2021)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 34
571-272-7822 Entered: April 15, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Petitioner,

v.

PRATT AND WHITNEY CANADA CORP.,
Patent Owner.
____________

IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
____________

Before SCOTT A. DANIELS, MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.

JUDGMENT
Final Written Decision
Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
35 U.S.C. § 318(a)

IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
2
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
General Electric Company (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to institute an
inter partes review, initially, of claims 1–21 of U.S. Patent No. 9,709,070
B2 (“the ’070 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Pratt and Whitney Canada Corp.
(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
Contemporaneously with its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner filed a
Disclaimer (Ex. 2003) disclaiming claims 1–4, 9–12, 17, 18, 20, and 21.
Prelim. Resp. 17–18; Ex. 2003. Therefore, only challenged claims 5–8,
13–16, and 19 remain at issue.1 We authorized Petitioner to enter an initial
Reply to the Preliminary Response. Papers 8–9. We entered a Decision
instituting an inter partes review of the challenged claims in this proceeding.
Paper 11 (“Inst. Dec.”). Patent Owner timely filed a Response. Paper 21
(“PO Resp.”) Petitioner filed a Reply. Paper 26 (“Pet. Reply”). Patent
Owner subsequently filed a Sur-Reply. Paper 28 (“PO Sur-Reply”). We
heard oral argument on January 21, 2021. A transcript of the argument has
been entered into the record. Paper 33 (“Tr.”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). This Final Written
Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). Petitioner bears the
burden of proving unpatentability of the challenged claims, and the burden
of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v.
Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail,
Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.
See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2018). Having

1 The disclaimer leaves only grounds numbered by Petitioner as 8, 10,
and 12 at issue in this proceeding. See Prelim. Resp. 18.
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
3
reviewed the arguments of the parties and the supporting evidence, we find
that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that
each of the remaining challenged claims—i.e., claims 5–8, 13–16, and 19 of
the ’070 patent—is unpatentable.
B. Additional Proceedings
Neither party indicates that the ’070 patent is involved in a lawsuit or
other legal proceeding. Pet. 1; Paper 4.
C. Real Parties in Interest
Petitioner indicates that General Electric Company, Safran Aircraft
Engines, CFM International S.A., CFM International, Inc., and Safran S.A.
are the real parties-in-interest. Pet. 1.
Patent Owner indicates that United Technologies Corporation and
Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. are the real parties-in-interest. Paper 4, 1.
D. The ’070 Patent
The ’070 patent (Ex. 1001), titled “Low Hub-to-Tip Ratio Fan for a
Turbofan Gas Turbine Engine,” discloses “[a] fan for a turbofan gas turbine
engine having a low hub-to-tip ratio.” Ex. 1001, [54], Abstract. Figure 2 of
the ’070 patent is reproduced below.
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
4

Figure 2 of the ’070 patent illustrates in partial cross-section that “fan 12
comprises a plurality of fan blades 20 integrally formed with, and
substantially radially extending from, a central fan hub 36.” Id. at 3:58–60.
The ’070 patent describes various fan embodiments with specific
ranges of hub-to-tip ratio, for example, “a ratio of the hub radius to the tip
radius, i.e. RHUB/RTIP, which is at least less than 0.29.” Ex. 1001, 4:36–37.
In addition, the ’070 patent describes that fan 12 is an “integrally bladed
rotor (IBR) fan” that has “reduced weight compared to a traditional
detachable bladed rotor.” Id. at 4:50–52. An IBR fan as described in the
’070 patent is fabricated “by first machining a root stub 44 on the hub 36, or
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
5
more specifically on a hub preform . . . [t]he blade airfoils 28 may then be
fixed to the root stubs 44 of the hub preform [] welded by Linear Friction
Welding (LFW).” Id. at 4:58–65.
According to the ’070 patent fabricating an IBR fan is not
straightforward. See id. at 1:35–39 (“Attempts to manufacture an integrated
bladed rotor (IBR) fan with a low hub to tip ratio have not been successful
because of the lack of space for machine tools between the roots of the
blades when the hub is also reduced in size.”). The ’070 patent explains that
“[t]he machining of an IBR fan 12 with such a low hub/tip ratio is made
difficult by the lack of space between the blades 20, particularly at the blade
roots 30 since the gap between the blades is much narrower the smaller the
radius of the fan.” Id. at 4:52–56. To account for the lack of space between
blades at the connection of the blade root and hub, the ’070 patent describes
a method of “machining a root stub 44 on the hub 36” where “[t]he blade
airfoils 28 may then be fixed to the root stubs 44 of the hub preform . . . by
Linear Friction Welding (LFW), for example, along the joint line 42 as
shown on the blade 20 in FIG. 2.” Id. at 4:59–66. According to the ’070
patent the height of the root stubs 44 beyond the hub facilitates machining of
an IBR fan with low hub/tip ratios “because it is easier to access the radial
gap between adjacent blades 20 with machine tools.” Id. at 4:62–63.
E. Illustrative Claims
The remaining challenged claims 5–8, 13–16, and 19, are dependent
either directly or indirectly upon independent claims 1, 12, and 17.
Dependent claim 5, along with base independent claim 1 and intervening
dependent claim 4 (both disclaimed), illustrate the claimed subject matter
and are reproduced below:
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
6
1. (Disclaimed) A fan for a turbofan gas turbine engine, the fan
defining a fan centerline and comprising a rotor hub and a
plurality of fan blades adapted to rotate about the fan
centerline, the fan blades extending radially from the rotor
hub to outer tips thereof, the fan blades circumferentially
spaced apart about the rotor hub in a single axial blade row,
each of the fan blades having a leading edge, a hub radius
(RHUB) and a tip radius (RTIP), wherein the hub radius (RHUB)
is the radius of the leading edge at the hub relative to the fan
centerline, and the tip radius (RTIP), is the radius of the leading
edge at the outer tip relative to the fan centerline, and wherein
the ratio of the hub radius to the tip radius (RHUB/RTIP) is less
than 0.29.
4. (Disclaimed) The fan as defined in claim 1, wherein the fan
is an integrally bladed rotor, the fan blades being integrally
formed with the rotor hub.
5. The fan as defined in claim 4, wherein the rotor hub of the
integrally bladed rotor includes a preform having root stubs
disposed on the rotor hub at circumferential positions
corresponding to at least alternate ones of said fan blades in
the single axial blade row, the root stubs being formed on the
rotor hub prior to the fan blades being fastened thereto.
Ex. 1001, 5:18–44.
F. The Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
Based on Patent Owner’s disclaimer and Petitioner’s challenges to the
’070 patent only three specific grounds remain at issue in this proceeding.2

2 Petitioner supports its challenge with Declarations of Reza Abhari, Ph.D
(Ex. 1003) and Ingrid Hsieh-Yee, Ph.D (Ex. 1021). Patent Owner relies on
Declarations of Ernesto Benini, Ph.D (Exs. 2001, 2009) and Steven Schmid,
Ph.D (Ex. 2010). See infra.
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
7
Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. § References
5–8, 13–16, 19 103 Kaplan,3 Brownell4
5–8, 13–16, 19 103 Gray,5 Brownell
5–8, 13–16, 19 103 Kodama,6 Brownell

G. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
Factors pertinent to a determination of the level of ordinary skill in the
art include: “(1) educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems
encountered in the art: (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity
with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology, and
(6) educational level of workers active in the field.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v.
Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–697 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic
Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed.
Cir. 1983)). Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or
more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id.
Moreover, these factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to
determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd,
Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
In determining a level of ordinary skill, we also may look to the prior
art, which may reflect an appropriate skill level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261
F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Additionally, the Supreme Court informs

3 Ex. 1005, B. Kaplan, E. Nicke, C. Voss, Design of a Highly Efficient Low-
Noise Fan for Ultra-High Bypass Engines, Proceedings of GT2006, ASME
Turbo Expo 2006: Power for Land, Sea and Air (May 8–11, 2006).
4 Ex. 1008, US Patent No. 6,524,072 B1 (Feb. 25, 2003).
5 Ex. 1019, D.E. Gray, W.B. Gardner, Energy Efficient Engine Program—
Technology Benefit/Cost Study, Vol. II, United Technologies Corp., Pratt &
Whitney Engineering Division, NASA Contract NAS3-20646 (Oct. 1983).
6 Ex. 1006, US Patent Appl’n No. 12/307,535, Pub. No. 2009/0304518 A1
(Dec. 10, 2009).
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
8
us that “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity,
not an automaton.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would include
someone who has a M.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering or Aerospace
Engineering as well as at least 3-5 years of experience in the field of gas
turbine engine design and analysis.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 4). Initially
Patent Owner demurred, asserting that a person with such a level of skill and
experience “would have considered it obvious to make these complex fan
assemblies with the claimed low hub-to-tip ratios by linear friction welding
to root stubs.” Prelim. Resp. 4. Now, in its Response, Patent Owner does
not expressly dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.
Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent
with our review of the ’070 patent and the background and descriptions of
the prior art asserted in this proceeding. For example, U.S. Patent No.
6,524,072 to Brownell explains that it was known at least by 1998 that “[t]he
two most commonly used methods for manufacturing BLISKS are
machining from solid and attaching separately made blades onto a disk by
friction welding.”7 Ex. 1008, 1:17–20. In its Background section, the
’070 patent describes that it was known in the art that reducing the hub-to-tip
ratio of turbine engine fans was beneficial for fan efficiency and explained
that “[a]ttempts to manufacture an integrated bladed rotor (IBR) fan with a
low hub-to-tip ratio have not been successful because of the lack of space for
machine tools between the roots of the blades.” Ex. 1001, 1:35–39. Thus,
before the filing of the application that became the ’070 patent a person of

7 An integrally bladed rotor, “IBR,” is also referred to in the prior art as a
“blisk.” See Ex. 1013, 1:7–10.
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
9
ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of friction welding
techniques for IBR’s, that a low hub-to-tip ratio for gas turbine fan blades
was desirable for efficiency, and also that friction welding techniques for
low hub-to-tip ratio fans required consideration of the physical spacing
between the blades for machine tools.
Based on the complete record now before us, we adopt Petitioner’s
definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for this Decision.
H. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review based on a petition filed after November 13,
2018, the claims are construed
using the same claim construction standard that would be used to
construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b),
including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary
and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to
the patent.
See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (setting forth claim construction standard in
civil actions). Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth in
the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See
In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Neither party identifies any claim term for express interpretation.
Based on our review of the complete record and a reasonable reading of the
claims we do not perceive the need to interpret any claim term. In this
proceeding we can determine patentability of the challenged claims without
expressly interpreting any claim terms.
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
10
II. ANALYSIS
We turn now to Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability and
Patent Owner’s arguments in its Response to determine whether Petitioner
has met its burden under 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
A. The Legal Constructs of Obviousness
Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented 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, 550 U.S. at 406.
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations, including: (1) the scope 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) when available, evidence
such as commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, and failure of
others. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); see KSR, 550
U.S. at 407 (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in
any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that
controls.”). The Court in Graham explained that these factual inquiries
promote “uniformity and definiteness,” for “[w]hat is obvious is not a
question upon which there is likely to be uniformity of thought in every
given factual context.” Graham, 383 U.S. at 18.
The Supreme Court made clear that we apply “an expansive and
flexible approach” to the question of obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415.
Whether a patent claiming the combination of prior art elements would have
been obvious is determined by whether the improvement is more than the
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
11
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Id. at 417. To reach this conclusion, however, it is not enough to show
merely that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate
limitation in a challenged claim. Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655
F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Rather, obviousness additionally requires
that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention “would have
selected and combined those prior art elements in the normal course of
research and development to yield the claimed invention.” Id.
Moreover, in determining the differences between the prior art and the
claims, the question under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not whether the differences
themselves would have been obvious, but whether the claimed invention as a
whole would have been obvious. Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State
Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 164 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“It is elementary that the
claimed invention must be considered as a whole in deciding the question of
obviousness.”) (citation omitted); see also Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.,
713 F.2d 1530, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[T]he question under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is not whether the differences themselves would have been obvious.
Consideration of differences, like each of the findings set forth in Graham,
is but an aid in reaching the ultimate determination of whether the claimed
invention as a whole would have been obvious.”) (citation omitted).
As a fact finder, we also must be aware “of the distortion caused by
hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post
reasoning.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. This does not deny us, however,
“recourse to common sense” or to that which the prior art teaches. Id.
Against this general background, we consider the references, other
evidence, and arguments on which the parties rely.
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
12
B. Claims 5–8, 13–16, and 19 — Obviousness over Kodama and Brownell
Petitioner asserts that claims 5–8, 13–16, 19 would have been obvious
over Kodama and Brownell. Pet. 28–53. We first describe the prior art that
Petitioner combines to show that these claims are obvious, and then turn to
the merits of the combination. For the reasons explained below, we
determine that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence
that claims 5–8, 13–16, and 19 would have been obvious over Kodama and
Brownell.
1. Kodama
Kodama is titled “Turbofan Engine” and was published December 19,
2009. Petitioner contends Kodama is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Pet. 18. Patent Owner does not dispute the prior-art status of Kodama. See
generally PO Resp. 63–68.
Kodama describes an improvement in a first stage fan for a turbofan
engine where “a hub-side leading edge part 12 of a fan first-stage rotating
blade 10 for taking an air there into [extends] more in a forward direction
than a tip-side leading edge part 14 and a mid-span leading edge part 13.”
Ex. 1006 ¶ 44. Kodama’s improved blade 10 shown below in Figure 2B, as
annotated by the Board, is presented in contrast with prior art blade 22
shown in Figure 2A, labeled “Prior Art.”
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
13

Kodama’s Figure 2A, above labelled “Prior Art,” and annotated Figure 2B,
below it, contrast the hub-side leading edge of prior art blade 22 in
Figure 2A with the improved blade 10 having hub-side leading edge 12,
annotated in yellow, extending more forward on the hub as illustrated in
Figure 2B. Kodama explains that due to improved blade 10 “it is possible to
realize the same total flow rate by using the fan rotating blade having a
smaller diameter than that of the fan rotating blade according to the
conventional art.” Id. ¶ 67.
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
14
Kodama also illustrates in Figure 4A, below, several embodiments of
blade 10 with leading edge 12 extending forward along the hub by different
amounts a–d.

Figure 4A, above, illustrates different embodiments a–d of leading edge 12.
Embodiment a corresponds to the prior art, and embodiments b, c, and d
correspond to desirable hub-to-tip ratios, RHUB/RTIP , within the range of
0–0.4 as shown for example in Figure 4B below.8 Id. ¶ 51.

8 Dr. Abhari explains that Kodama refers to hub to tip ratio as a “boss ratio.”
Ex. 1003 ¶ 119 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 16, 49).
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
15

Kodama’s Figure 4 B, above, is used to explain that it is possible to obtain
beneficial pressure ratios for the first stage fan compared to prior art
embodiment a, using the hub to tip ratios, RHUB/RTIP , of embodiments b, c,
and d between 0 and 0.4. Id. ¶¶ 52–53.
2. Brownell
Brownell is titled “Disk for a Blisk Rotary Stage of a Gas Turbine
Engine.” Ex. 1008, [54]. Brownell describes
[a] disk for a BLISK rotary stage of a gas turbine engine includes
a stub on the tapered circumferential surface of a turbine disk,
the stub defining a weld joint surface . . . [a] blade is applied
radially to the stub and linear friction welding of the blade to the
stub is effected by oscillating the blade.
Id. at Abstract. Referring to Figure 1, Brownell explains that in a
conventional planar friction weld joint interface, “[t]ypically, a blade 12 is
urged in contact with the stub 11 by a force 14 and oscillated to and fro in
the directions of arrows 13 over a range of linear movement in a range from
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
16
±1 mm to ±13 mm.” Id. at 3:31–34. Brownell’s Figure 1 is reproduced
below.

Brownell’s Figure 1 “illustrates the principle of a known linear friction
welding method using a planar weld joint and tangential motion.” Id.
at 2:65–67.
Brownell teaches that known 2-dimensional planar linear weld joint
surfaces are not desirable in more complex disc curvatures and blade chord
dimensions. Ex. 1008, 4:1–31 (explaining that planar linear weld joints are
disfavored “even more so when considering the manufacture of BLISKS
having high hade angles and annulus curvature, coupled with large blade
stagger and twist.”).
Figure 6 of Brownell, depicting a non-planar stub 52 and upper
surface 55, is reproduced below.
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
17

Brownell’s Figure 6 illustrates a perspective view of fan blade 53 aligned
above (but not yet joined) with non-planar upper surface 55 of stub 52
formed on, and matching, the curved annulus of periphery 49 of disk 50.
Ex. 1008, 4:60–63.
Brownell explains with respect to Figure 6 that in the case of upper
surface 55 that is not planar, because stub 52 follows the contoured annulus
of disk 49, upper surface 55 “is flat in the direction of welding oscillation.”
Ex. 1008, 5:11–12. The direction of blade oscillation 48 is shown in
Brownell’s Figure 6 as “tangential” to the disk annulus. In other words,
Brownell states “[t]he direction of oscillation 48 is then perpendicular, or
parallel to such a perpendicular, to the disk axis 51.” Id. at 5:26–28.
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
18
Brownell describes in relation to Figure 9, reproduced below, that besides
tangential oscillation “the direction of welding oscillation may be given a
significant axial component as shown at 60 in FIGS. 9 and 10.” Id.
at 5:41–43.

Figure 9 of Brownell, above, illustrates axial, tangential, chordal and other
oscillation directions.
3. Claim 1 (disclaimed)
Because claim 5 depends directly from dependent claim 4, which in
turn depends directly from independent claim 1, and keeping in mind that
claims 1 and 4 are now disclaimed, we also address to the extent necessary
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
19
the relevant limitations of intervening claims 1 and 4 as part of our analysis
of claim 5.
Petitioner argues that Kodama discloses all the limitations of
disclaimed claim 1 including a first stage rotating fan for a gas turbine
engine having blades with a hub-to-tip ratio between 0 and 0.4, thus
encompassing the limitation, “wherein the ratio of the hub radius to the tip
radius (RHUB/RTIP) is less than 0.29,” as recited in claim 1. See Pet. 70
(stating that “Figure 4A of Kodama discloses two embodiments (c and d)
that have a hub/tip ratio of less than 0.29”) (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 51).
We find Petitioner’s evidence persuasive that Kodama discloses the
elements of claim 1 including a fan for a turbofan gas turbine engine having
circumferentially spaced apart fan blades around a rotor hub for rotation
about a fan center line. Pet. 59–65 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 13–14, 16, 49,
Fig. 2B; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 119, 122–123). We also find persuasive Petitioner’s
evidence that Kodama discloses two embodiments, specifically
embodiments c and d shown in Figures 4a and 4b, having a hub-to-tip ratio
of less than 0.29 as recited in claim 1. Pet. 68–78 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 126,
128; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 44, 49, 51, Figs. 4A–B).
4. Claim 4 (disclaimed)
Depending from claim 1, claim 4 recites the additional limitation
“wherein the fan is an integrally bladed rotor, the fan blades being integrally
formed with the rotor hub.” Ex. 1001, 5:36–38. Petitioner relies on
Brownell for this limitation arguing that “Brownell discloses a method of
fabricating a blisk (i.e., an IBR) for a gas turbine engine via linear friction
welding.” Pet. 87 (citing Ex. 1008, 1:14–16, 2:19–22, 4:32–36).
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
20
As set forth in greater detail below, we disagree that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Kodama
and Brownell. For the purposes of addressing the limitations of claim 4, we
find Petitioner’s evidence persuasive as to an “integrally bladed rotor,”
noting that Brownell explains that “the invention concerns a method for the
manufacture or repair of a BLISK by linear friction welding.” Ex. 1008,
1:14–15. Our finding as to the specific limitations of claim 4 is consistent
with Dr. Abhari’s unrebutted testimony that in Brownell “the blisk, [] refers
to a rotor disk that is integrally formed with the blades.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 37
(citing Ex. 1013, 1:7–10).
5. Claim 5
Claim 5 includes the additional limitations “wherein the rotor hub of
the integrally bladed rotor includes a preform having root stubs disposed on
the rotor hub at circumferential positions corresponding to at least alternate
ones of said fan blades in a single axial blade row.” Ex. 1001, 5:39–41.
a. Petitioner’s Arguments
Petitioner argues that Brownell discloses a “preform,” understood by
those of ordinary skill in the art as a rotor hub having root stubs formed prior
to fabricating the complete integrally bladed rotor. Pet. 94 (citing Ex. 1003
¶ 101). Petitioner refers specifically to the illustration in Brownell’s
Figure 6 showing the preform, root stub 52 and unattached airfoil blade 53.
Id. at 95 (citing Ex. 1008, 2:49–53). Claim 5 also requires “having root
stubs disposed on the rotor hub at circumferential positions corresponding to
at least alternate ones of said fan blades.” Ex. 1001, 5:40–42. One reason
for this limitation, the ’070 patent explains, is that
[i]t has been contemplated that alternative methods may also be
used, such as forming a root stub 44 only for every alternate
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
21
blade, while machining the full blade 20 between each alternate
root stub. This would allow sufficient access for machine tools
between two alternate full blades, to machine [] around the
remaining root stub.
Id. at 4:67–5:5. Petitioner argues that Brownell’s Figure 9 “shows a portion
of a rotor hub, including stubs disposed on the rotor hub at circumferential
positions that correspond to each of the fan blades in the single axial blade
row.” Pet. 96 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶103). Petitioner notes, and Patent Owner
does not contest, that “having a root stub for each blade encompasses at least
alternate blades, as required by Claim 5.” Id. at 95–96; see also PO
Resp. 63–69 (not contesting whether prior art describes “having root stubs
. . . corresponding to at least alternate blades”).
Petitioner reasons that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
fabricated Kodama’s fan as a blisk as taught by Brownell because it was
well “known that manufacturing a fan as a blisk would provide numerous
advantages, including improved aerodynamic performance (i.e., improved
efficiency), improved structural integrity, and reduced weight.” Pet. 89
(citing Ex. 1017, 1:15–18; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 91–97). Petitioner argues that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to manufacture
the blisk using linear friction welding, for example, “because it allows for
separate manufacturing of the rotor disk and blades. Thus, each portion of
the blisk can be made from the optimal material and manufacturing
process.” Id. at 90 (citation omitted) (citing Ex. 1008 1:17–30). Petitioner
also argues that Brownell confirms that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Brownell
expressly describes that gas turbine fans and compressor disks can be made
by linear friction welding. Pet. 92 (citing Ex. 1008, 4:32–33).
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
22
b. Patent Owner’s Arguments
Patent Owner’s main argument is that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would specifically not have been motivated to use Brownell’s linear
friction welded blisk and the use of root stubs for manufacturing an
integrally bladed rotor fan to achieve the low hub-to-tip ratio fan disclosed
by Kodama. PO Resp. 63. That is, according to Patent Owner the
combination is inoperable, specifically that “it would be impossible to
manufacture Kodama’s fan assembly using linear friction welding.” Id.
at 65 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 86; Ex. 2010 ¶ 104) (emphasis in original). Pointing
to the cross-examination testimony of Dr. Abhari, Patent Owner argues
specifically that a person of ordinary skill in the art would “know that
embodiment D, which includes a hub-to-tip ratio that approaches zero, could
not be made using linear friction welding, because ‘a person skilled in the
art would recognize [(the hub-to-tip ratio)] is at zero and this is what D in
figure 4A is showing.”9 Id. at 66 (citing Ex. 2025, 111:12–16,
117:20–118:4) (emphasis in original). Based on embodiment d in
Figures 4A–B above, and the cited testimony by Dr. Abhari, Patent Owner
argues “that Kodama’s disclosure readily shows that its fan blades converge
to the centerline, making linear friction welding not possible.” Id. Along
with inoperability, Patent Owner presents several other related arguments
which we address below under separate heading.

9 Patent Owner uses upper case “D” to refer to Kodama’s embodiment
referenced as lower case “d” in the graph of Figure 4B.
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
23
c. Whether Petitioner’s Arguments and Evidence are Limited to
Kodama’s Embodiment d
Patent Owner’s main argument is partly premised on the assertion that
Petitioner relied initially on Kodama’s embodiment D, i.e., embodiment d in
Figures 4A–B above, and cannot now rely on other embodiments such as
embodiment c. See PO Resp. 67 (Patent Owner essentially arguing that
Petitioner’s reliance on any embodiment other than d would be a new
argument.). We disagree with this premise. In the Petition, Petitioner
explains that “Kodama discloses several fan designs having hub/tip ratios
between less than 0.1 and 0.5 in figures 4A and 4B.” Pet. 60. Petitioner
reproduced Kodama’s Figure 4A illustrating embodiments a–d, and
annotated the figure to highlight leading edge hub radius Rh for embodiment
b, for example. Id. at 69. The Petition further explains, “Figure 4A of
Kodama discloses two embodiment[s] (c and d) that have a hub/tip ratio of
less than 0.29.” Id. at 70. In the Petition, Petitioner provided Kodama’s
Figure 4B, reproduced below, with annotations emphasizing for example
embodiment c, having a hub-to-tip ratio of about 0.2, which is less than 0.29
as required by claim 1 and having a leading edge that does not extend as far
axially forward on the hub as embodiment d. Pet. 73–74.
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
24

Kodama’s Figure 4B, above, as annotated by Petitioner emphasizing
embodiments b and c of Kodama. Id. at 73.
Patent Owner’s citations to selected deposition testimony of
Dr. Abhari relating to embodiment d and linear friction welding does not
paint a complete picture of his testimony, or of Petitioner’s arguments.
During his cross-examination Dr. Abhari was asked at length what
embodiments he relied on and he was consistent that his analysis included
embodiment c:
Q. And then, you refer below the figure, then, Kodama discloses
that the embodiment D has a hub to tip ratio[] of less than [0].1.
While embodiment C has a hub to tip ratio of approximately
[0].2. Do you see that, sir?
A. Yes. I do.
Q. Is it your testimony you’re not relying on embodiment D at
all?
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
25
A. Well, I’m relying by saying that between D and C is feasible
to use Brownell. But D specifically, at that one point, I’m not
relying, but I’m saying between D and C, it is possible to use
friction, linear friction row.
Q. So it’s not -- go ahead, finish.
A: So you have D to C. C is possible and in between D and C, it
would also be possible. But D by itself would not be possible to
do friction welding and then you have friction welding as
described.
. . .
Q. You also relied on D, too, for the purposes of your opinions
in Kodama, correct?
A. In between C and D. That’s what I refer.
Ex. 2025, 110:2–112:3. Dr. Abhari’s deposition testimony is consistent with
his original declaration stating that “a POSITA would understand that a hub-
to-tip ratio between 0.25 and 0.29 would be achieved by positioning the hub
side leading edge of the fan blade between points b and c in Figure 4A of
Kodama.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 131. Overall, this is compelling evidentiary support
that Petitioner considered in the Petition all the embodiments of Kodama,
including embodiment c for which Dr. Abhari testified that friction welding
was possible:
Q. And can you describe how the person of ordinary skill would
use linear friction welding Kodama’s blade with Brownell’s
method.
A. Well, there are four geometries that are shown. A, B, C, and
D. A, B, and C, there is room in front that allows you to move.
[D], on the other hand, as you go to zero, that would not be
possible to build with in friction welding. But I did not really
consider D as the key disclosure the teaching. If you look at C,
which is the primary, discussed so far. Effectively making a
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
26
tooling and weld the blade on to the hub tangentially vibrating it,
but it does require special attachment.
Ex. 2025, 108:9–22. Accordingly, we are persuaded that it is not a new
argument for Petitioner and Dr. Abhari to rely on Kodama’s embodiments b
and c with respect to the challenges before us.
d. Whether It Would Have Been Impossible to Combine Kodama
and Brownell
We note that Patent Owner’s main argument and supporting testimony
from Dr. Benini and Dr. Schmid focus sharply on why Kodama’s
embodiment d cannot be friction welded. For example, Dr. Benini testifies
that “a person of ordinary skill understands that the maximum benefit in
terms of increasing the mass flow and increasing the hub pressure ratio is to
extend the hub leading edge down to the centerline, . . . [t]hus, the hub/tip
ratio of zero is essential to the purposes of Kodama.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 84.
Although this is an apt description of embodiment d as shown in Kodama’s
Figures 4A–B, Dr. Benini does not address whether embodiment c, for
example, having a hub-to-tip ratio of around 0.2 could not be linear friction
welded.
Specifically for Kodama’s embodiments a, b, and c, Patent Owner’s
Declarant, Dr. Benini, states, without analysis, that “Kodama’s alternate
embodiments also fail to establish obviousness.” Id. ¶ 87. Dr. Benini’s
testimony as to embodiments a, b, and c, is mainly conclusory and
unsupported. We acknowledge Dr. Benini’s testimony regarding Kodama
that “[t]here is no space between adjacent blades at this point, making it
impossible to oscillate the blade during the linear friction welding process.”
Id. ¶ 86 (emphasis added). This testimony, again, is relevant to Kodama’s
embodiment d and Dr. Benini provides no basis for reaching this conclusion
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
27
with respect to alternative embodiments a, b, and c. Elbit Sys. Of America,
LLC v. Thales Visionix, Inc., 881 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The
PTAB [i]s entitled to weigh the credibility of the witnesses.”; quoting Trs. of
Columbia Univ. v. Illumina, Inc., 620 F. App’x 916, 922 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Dr. Schmid’s testimony fares no better and is also not compelling when he
testifies that linear friction welding “would have been impossible with the
blade shown in Kodama’s Figure 2 because each of the blades converge at
the tip of the hub, leaving no space between adjacent blades.” Ex. 2010
¶ 105 (emphasis added). We give little weight to Dr. Schmid’s testimony
because Kodama’s Figure 2B is directed to embodiment d. Compare
Ex. 1006, Fig. 2B, with id. Fig. 4A; see also id. ¶ 51 (Kodama explaining
that in “FIG. 4A, [embodiment] a denotes an example of the hub-side
leading edge part according to the conventional art and b, c, and d denote the
positions according to the invention.”).
Patent Owner makes the ancillary argument that Dr. Abhari has not
done any calculations to determine whether Brownell’s teachings would
work for Kodama’s fan.” PO Resp. 68 (citing Ex. 2025 99:11–101:20). As
discussed above, Dr. Abhari has opined that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have understood that Kodama’s embodiment c can be friction
welded, as well as the points between embodiments c and d. Ex. 2025,
109:11–17. This testimony, although challenged with respect to
embodiment d, is materially unrebutted by Dr. Benini and Dr. Schmid as to
embodiment c.
To the extent that Dr. Abhari did not present detailed technical
calculations, the obviousness inquiry does not ask “whether the references
could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
28
rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.” In re Etter,
756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features
of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference; . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). Our
rules also do not require an instruction manual on how to physically
incorporate or combine the disclosures of two references. As KSR informs
us, “in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings
of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420.
The rationale of KSR does not support a theory that a person of ordinary skill
can “only perform combinations of a puzzle element A with a perfectly
fitting puzzle element B.” ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 838 F.3d 1214, 1219
(Fed. Cir. 2016). “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
Patent Owner argues further that the collars and clamps used in linear
friction welding cannot be used to manufacture Kodama’s blade “because
the blade is already too close to the centerline.” PO Resp. 67 (citing
Ex. 2001 ¶ 87; Ex. 2010 ¶ 106). Patent Owner argues that “Brownell
oscillates the blades toward one another, in a tangential direction [], reducing
the available space between blades to accommodate this oscillation.” Id.
(citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 87; Ex. 2010 ¶ 106).
The contention of allegedly insufficient spacing between blades is not
persuasive for two reasons. On one hand, Dr. Benini and Dr. Schmid are
again premising their arguments on their review of embodiment d and
provide no persuasive analysis or technical explanation that the spacing
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
29
between blades of embodiments a, b, and c could not be linear friction
welded. See, e.g., Ex. 2001 ¶ 72 (Dr. Benini stating “Brownell’s method
would not have worked with Kodama’s unique geometry in which the blades
extend down to the centerline on the hub.”). On the other hand, Petitioner’s
Declarant, Dr. Abhari, was consistent in his testimony that in Kodama
there are four geometries that are shown. A, B, C, and D. A, B,
and C, there is room in front that allows you to move. [D], on the
other hand, as you go to zero, that would not be possible to build
with [linear] friction welding. But I did not really consider D as
the key disclosure.
Ex. 2025, 108:12–28. Dr. Abhari did discuss during his deposition that
friction welding “requires a lot of tooling and process development.” Id.
at 107:3–4. And, Dr. Abhari explained that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have to make an “economic assessment” as to which
manufacturing technique to employ in fabricating a fan blade. Id.
at 107:5–10. There is in the record, however, no persuasive evidence that
Kodama’s embodiments a, b, and c, could not have been manufactured by
linear friction welding with the necessary tooling or even that doing so was
economically unfeasible. Overall, we credit Dr. Abhari’s materially
unrebutted testimony to establish that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood that embodiments a, b, and c of Kodama would have
been candidates for linear friction welding as suggested by Brownell.
Although there is evidence in this proceeding that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would not have manufactured Kodama’s embodiment d by
linear friction welding, Petitioner has provided persuasive evidence that the
blade spacing drawbacks pertinent to embodiment d do not apply to
embodiments a, b, and c. We are not persuaded that linear friction welding
is inoperable in the context of all Kodama’s embodiments, or that it would
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
30
have been impossible for a person of ordinary skill in the art, considering the
level of ordinary skill in the art and well-known fabrication process of linear
friction welding, to manufacture Kodama’s a, b, and c fan embodiments by
linear friction welding as taught by Brownell.
e. Motivation to Combine
Patent Owner’s assertion of a lack of motivation to combine rests
mainly on the argument that “substantial evidence demonstrates that the
combination is inoperable.” PO Resp. 63 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 82–88;
Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 103–108). For the reasons discussed above at least as to
Kodama’s embodiments b and c we do not find that particular argument
persuasive. As set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has provided
persuasive reasons and evidence explaining why one of ordinary skill in the
art would have looked to Brownell’s blisk teachings when considering how
to manufacture Kodama’s gas turbine fan.
Petitioner argues that at the time of filing the application that became
the ’070 patent a person of ordinary skill in the art was well aware of blisk
technology and manufacturing techniques. Pet. 89 (citing Ex. 1003
¶¶ 91–97; Ex. 1017, 1:15–18). Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary
skill in the art “would have known that manufacturing a fan as a blisk would
provide numerous advantages, including improved aerodynamic
performance (i.e., improved efficiency), improved structural integrity, and
reduced weight.” Id. Petitioner argues persuasively that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to manufacture a turbine
fan as a blisk using linear friction welding as taught by Brownell because
“linear friction welding enables optimization of the fan because it allows for
separate manufacturing of the rotor disk and blades. Thus, each portion of
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
31
the blisk can be made from the optimal material and manufacturing
process.” Id. at 90 (citation omitted) (citing Ex. 1008, 1:17–30; Ex. 1003
¶ 95). Petitioner argues that Brownell specifically teaches a hub with root
stubs and that “its linear friction welding method is suitable for complex
geometries, such as fans having tapered disks” as taught by Kodama. Id.
(citing Ex. 1008, 4:1–5); see also Ex. 1008, 1:31–35 (Brownell explaining
that “[m]ethods for fabrication or repair of integrally bladed rotor assemblies
involving providing a projection stubs on the disk periphery are described in
EP 376,874 (equivalent U.S. Pat. No. 4,873,751, and GB 2,218,016
(equivalent U.S. Pat. No. 4,883,216).”).
On the complete record now before us, we credit Dr. Abhari’s
testimony that “Brownell describes several advantages of its linear friction
welding method, including the use of stubs.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 96. Dr. Abhari
testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
“Brownell describes that its method of linear friction welding is ideal for
blades on tapered disks.” Id. ¶ 154 (citing Ex. 1008, 4:1–4). Dr. Abhari
points out that Kodama teaches a tapered rotor disk. See id. (“Kodama’s
fan[] includes a tapered disk.”). Dr. Abhari testifies further that “Brownell
explains that its process improves the aerodynamic profile of the fan,” and
that Brownell teaches the “linear friction welding process reduces the weight
of the blisk. Id. ¶ 97 (citing Ex. 1008 at 3:53–56, 6:34–38).
Dr. Abhari is consistent that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood that Kodama’s embodiment c discloses a hub-to-tip ratio of
approximately 0.20, that is within the range of “less than 0.29,” as recited in
claim 1. Ex. 1003 ¶ 131. Dr. Abhari explains persuasively that a person of
ordinary skill in the art desiring to make Kodama’s fan, including
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
32
embodiment c, would have looked to Brownell “to achieve the benefits of a
blisk design, as well as the specific benefits of linear friction welding to
form a blisk, as described in Brownell.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 153. We are persuaded
by Dr. Abhari’s testimony as it relates to embodiment c that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined Brownell and “Kodama to
achieve the benefits of a blisk design, as well as the specific benefits of
linear friction welding to form a blisk, as described in Brownell.” Ex. 1003
¶ 153. Even crediting Patent Owner’s argument and evidence that it would
be impossible to linear friction weld embodiment d, Dr. Abhari was
unequivocal during his deposition, specifically explaining that linear friction
welding of Kodama’s embodiment “C is possible and in between D and C, it
would also be possible.” Ex. 2025, 110:16–17.
Weighing all declarants’ testimony and other evidence provided by
both parties during the trial we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have considered and had a reasonable expectation of success
in designing and fabricating a gas turbine fan manufacturing process using
linear friction welding and a blisk having stubs as taught by Brownell, for
joining a complex blade geometry and a hub-to-tip ratio of less than 0.29 as
taught by Kodama. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (“The combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.”); see also Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v.
Apotex, Inc., 748 F.3d 1326, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Conclusive proof of
efficacy is not necessary to show obviousness. All that is required is a
reasonable expectation of success.”).
We are also persuaded that Petitioner has provided sufficient
articulated reasoning and persuasive evidentiary underpinnings from its
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
33
Declarants and the prior art to support the combination of Kodama and
Brownell. Overall, based on the complete record before us, Petitioner has
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the limitations of claim 5
would have been obvious over Kodama and Brownell.
6. Claims 6–8
Petitioner argues that the limitations of claims 6–8, each of which
depend either directly or indirectly from claim 5, are taught by Brownell.
Pet. 97–98 (citing Ex. 1008, 2:38–42 2:49–53 4:36–38, Fig. 5). Patent
Owner does not argue specifically the limitations of claims 6–8. PO Resp.
63–69.
Our understanding of Brownell is consistent with Petitioner’s
arguments and evidence. With respect to claims 6 and 7, Brownell discloses
that linear friction welding airfoils to root stubs of a blisk to form an
integrally bladed rotor (IBR) was a known structure and manufacturing
method. Ex. 1008, 2:18–37, Figs. 1, 5. As to claim 8, Brownell explains
that it was well known in the prior art for IBR assemblies that “[t]he disk 10
is provided with a plurality of upstanding stubs 11 on its periphery, that is its
circumferential surface.” Id. at 3:28–30. Given all the evidence of record
now before us, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claims 6–8 are unpatentable over
Kodama and Brownell.
7. Claims 13–16 and 19
Claims 13–16 depend either directly or indirectly from independent
claim 9 and dependent claim 12. Claims 9 and 12 are disclaimed. Ex. 2003.
Claims 13–16 correspond to claims 5–8 discussed above and include similar
limitations. One difference being that a “fan blade” recited in claims 13–16
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
34
includes an “air foil with a leading edge.” Ex. 1001, 5:58–69, 6:5–6.
Petitioner argues that Kodama discloses that each of the fan blades includes
an airfoil. Pet. 77–78 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 139). Patent Owner does not
dispute that Kodama’s fan blades each include an air foil. Patent Owner
does not specifically address claims 13–16, instead relying on its contention
that “each of GE’s proposed combinations is inoperable; persons of ordinary
skill would not have been motivated to combine them.” PO Resp. 33.
Because of the high degree of similarity in limitations between these claims,
our analysis for claims 13–16 obtains the same outcome as for claims 5–8 as
discussed above.
Claim 19 is a method claim, depending indirectly from disclaimed
independent claim 17, and is essentially a combination of the limitations in
claims 4 and 5 requiring “a hub preform having a number of root stubs” and
“fastening the fan blade airfoils to the root stubs to form fan blades
integrally formed with the rotor hub.” Ex. 1001, 6:41–48. Patent Owner
neither specifically addresses claim 19, nor disputes that Kodama and
Brownell disclose all the limitations of claim 19. Patent Owner again relies
on its contention that “each of GE’s proposed combinations is inoperable;
persons of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine them.”
PO Resp. 33. Because claim 19 includes the same and similar limitations,
just in method format, as claims 4 and 5 discussed above, based on the high
degree of similarity in limitations between these claims our analysis for
claim 19 obtains the same outcome as that for claims 4 and 5.
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
35
8. Conclusion as to Kodama and Brownell
Given the complete record now before us, we are persuaded that
Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 5–8,
13–16, and 19 are unpatentable over Kodama and Brownell.
C. Claims 5–8, 13–16, and 19 — Obviousness over Kaplan and Brownell
Petitioner asserts that claims 5–8, 13–16, and 19 would have been
obvious over Kaplan and Brownell. Pet. 35–51. Having considered the
complete record now before us, we determine that Petitioner has established
by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 5–8, 13–16, and 19 would
have been obvious for the reasons explained below.
1. Kaplan
Kaplan is an ASME paper titled “Design of a Highly Efficient Low-
Noise Fan for Ultra-High Bypass Engines,” that is part of Proceedings of the
ASME Turbo Expo 2006.10 Kaplan discloses a fan design that “includes
blade shape and the flow path optimization as well as the computation of
stress distribution in all blades and the rotor disc,” and “presents the
computational design work of an ultra-high bypass ratio fan.” Ex. 1005, 21.
Kaplan’s Figure 3, illustrating the engine flowpath, is reproduced below.

10 We note the Journal is titled “Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo
2006” and also states “presented at [t]he 2005 ASME Turbo Expo, June 6–9,
2005, Reno-Tahoe, Nevada USA.” Ex. 1005, 2 (emphasis omitted).
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
36

Kaplan’s Figure 3, above, illustrates a cross-section of an engine flowpath as
well as a fan having 22 blades. Id. at 23. Kaplan’s Figure 17 is reproduced
below.

Kaplan’s Figure 17, above, depicts a computer generated model of Kaplan’s
test fan design. Id. at 29. Kaplan states with respect to Figure 17 that “since
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
37
the fan blades are going to be manufactured together with the disk (blisk),
the shape of the disk can also be seen.” Id.
2. Claim 1 (disclaimed)
Claim 5 depends from disclaimed claims 1 and 4, the elements of
which we discuss below in relation to Kaplan.
Petitioner argues that Kaplan discloses all the elements of claim 1
including, referring to Kaplan’s Figure 3, a fan blade and hub shown rotating
about a centerline axis, (“X-axis”), as part of the “core engine” of a turbofan
gas turbine engine. Pet. 19–24 (citing Ex. 1005, 21–23, 29; Ex. 1003
¶¶ 57–60; Ex. 1018, 5). Petitioner contends that Kaplan’s Figure 17
illustrates a plurality of circumferentially spaced blades arranged “in a single
axial blade row” as called for in claim 1. Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1003
¶¶ 61–62). Petitioner argues, using an annotated version of Kaplan’s
Figure 3, reproduced below, that each fan blade “has a leading edge, a hub
radius, and a tip radius.” Id. at 26 (citing Ex. 1005, 23).
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
38

Kaplan’s Figure 3, as annotated by Petitioner, pointing out fan
“[c]enterline,” “RTip,” “RHub,” and “[l]eading edge” of fan blade.
Petitioner asserts that Kaplan discloses a hub/tip ratio of 0.27, which meets
the limitation in claim 1, “wherein the ratio of the hub radius to the tip radius
(RHUB/RTIP) is less than 0.29.” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1005, 23).
Patent Owner does not expressly dispute that Kaplan discloses a fan
having hub-to-tip ratios of less than 0.29 or the other limitations required by
claim 1, but argues mainly, as we address in detail below, that “[p]ersons of
ordinary skill in the art were not motivated to make Kaplan’s fan assembly
using Brownell’s teachings because Kaplan’s fan design leaves insufficient
space between blades, rendering the combination inoperable.” PO Resp. 35
(citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 58–69; 2010 ¶¶ 57–84).
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
39
3. Claim 4 (disclaimed)
Claim 4, which depends from claim 1, further includes the limitation
“wherein the fan is an integrally bladed rotor, the fan blades being integrally
formed with the rotor hub.” Ex. 1001, 5:36–38. Petitioner argues that
Kaplan also teaches “that the fan blades are to be manufactured together
with the rotor disk as a blisk.” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1005, 29). Relying on the
testimony of Dr. Abhari, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in
the art “would have understood that a blisk is synonymous with an integrally
bladed rotor, in which the fan blades are integrally formed with the rotor
disk (i.e., hub).” Id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 67). Patent Owner does not
dispute that Kaplan teaches a blisk. See generally PO Resp. 35–51.
4. Claim 5
Before analyzing claim 5, we point out that, on the complete record
now before us, we find GE’s contentions that Kaplan describes the elements
recited in claims 1 and 4 to be consistent with our review of Kaplan.
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and includes the further limitation
“wherein the rotor hub of the integrally bladed rotor includes a preform
having root stubs disposed on the rotor hub.” Ex. 1001, 5:39–41 (emphasis
added).
a. Petitioner’s Arguments
GE argues that “Brownell discloses forming an IBR [integrally bladed
rotor] by joining airfoil blades, including fan blades, to corresponding stubs
on the outer periphery of a rotor disk via linear friction welding.” Pet. 88
(citing Ex. 1008, 2:49–59). Petitioner also argues that “Figure 6 of Brownell
. . . shows the preform having root stubs on the rotor hub before the blades
are welded.” Id. at 94 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 102).
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
40
Claim 5 also requires “having root stubs disposed on the rotor hub at
circumferential positions corresponding to at least alternate ones of said fan
blades.” Ex. 1001, 5:40–42. One reason for this limitation, the ’070 patent
explains, is that
[i]t has been contemplated that alternative methods may also be
used, such as forming a root stub 44 only for every alternate
blade, while machining the full blade 20 between each alternate
root stub. This would allow sufficient access for machine tools
between two alternate full blades, to machine [] around the
remaining root stub.
Id. at 4:67–5:5. Petitioner argues that Brownell’s Figure 9 “shows a portion
of a rotor hub, including stubs disposed on the rotor hub at circumferential
positions that correspond to each of the fan blades in the single axial blade
row.” Pet. 96 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶103).
Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to fabricate Kaplan’s fan as a blisk with a rotor hub and stubs
as taught by Brownell because it was well “known that manufacturing a fan
as a blisk would provide numerous advantages, including improved
aerodynamic performance (i.e., improved efficiency), improved structural
integrity, and reduced weight.” Pet. 89 (citing Ex. 1017, 1:15–18; Ex. 1003
¶¶ 91–97). Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to manufacture the blisk using linear friction welding
“because it allows for separate manufacturing of the rotor disk and blades.
Thus, each portion of the blisk can be made from the optimal material and
manufacturing process.” Id. at 90 (citation omitted) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 95;
Ex. 1008 1:17–30).
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
41
b. Patent Owner’s Arguments
Patent Owner’s main argument is that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would not have been motivated to use Brownell’s linear friction welded
blisk and the use of root stubs for manufacturing an integrally bladed rotor
fan to achieve the low hub-to-tip ratio of Kaplan. PO Resp. 35. According
to Patent Owner, “GE never considers whether there would be enough space
between Kaplan’s fan blades. Specifically, GE fails to address whether
there is space for (1) the collar, (2) clamps, (3) oscillation, and (4) flash.”
Id. at 37 (emphasis omitted). Based on calculations done by Dr. Benini,
Patent Owner argues “it is clear that Kaplan’s fan assembly does not provide
enough space to use Brownell’s teachings.” Id. at 40.
To establish that there is not enough space between Kaplan’s blades to
accommodate the function and structure to linear friction weld a blade to a
hub, Dr. Benini first calculates blade pitch, which is the distance between the
leading edge of adjacent blades. Ex. 2009 ¶ 63.

Id. Dr. Benini explains that because the pitch is the difference between
leading edges of adjacent fan blades, the actual available space between
adjacent blades is the pitch minus the blade width. Id. ¶ 64. Dr. Benini
testifies that “a typical value for maximum thickness (tmax) is approximately
10% of a fan blade’s chord length at the hub.” Id. ¶ 65 (citing Ex. 2022, 3;
Ex. 2023, 5; Ex. 2024). Dr. Benini calculates that “Kaplan’s fan blades have
a length of 0.12 m, meaning that they are about 1.2 cm wide. Subtracting
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
42
this 1.2 cm blade width from the calculated pitch of 3.6 cm leaves only 2.4
cm (less than an inch) between Kaplan’s adjacent blades.” Id. ¶ 66.
Dr. Benini testifies that, based on this space between blades of 2.4 cm, there
would be blade and tooling interference and a person of ordinary skill in the
art would not have been motivated to use linear friction welding as taught by
Brownell to manufacture Kaplan’s fan. Id.
Patent Owner relies on the testimony of Dr. Schmid to support its
position that 2.4 cm is insufficient space to accommodate the collar, clamp,
and tangential oscillation needed to weld Kaplan’s blade to its hub.
Dr. Schmid testifies that
Given the geometry of Kaplan’s fan assembly, including a blade
width of 1.2 cm, one of ordinary skill would have expected
Kaplan to require a collar of at least 3.6 cm to provide sufficient
stiffness and rigidity for the linear friction welding process.
Collars of 3.6 cm are equal to the pitch of Kaplan’s fan—leaving
no space between adjacent blade collars.
Ex. 2010 ¶ 64. Dr. Schmid testifies that if every blade on the circumference
of the fan assembly were provided with a collar, as shown for example in
certain annotated exemplary photographs reproduced below, there would be
no room between the collars of Kaplan for the clamps and also that
oscillation could not occur for linear friction welding because of
interference. Id.
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
43

Id. (citing Ex. 2015, 5; Ex. 2016, 4) (annotations added by Patent Owner).
The photographs above, from Dr. Schmid’s declaration, each depict a blisk
with collars provided for blades on the circumference of the hub.
Dr. Schmid testifies further that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that flashing produced by linear friction welding “cannot
be allowed to interfere with oscillation and flash of neighboring blades.” Id.
¶ 69. According to Dr. Schmid
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
44
the amount of flash that would be generated during the linear
friction welding process using Brownell’s method of tangential
oscillation would be more than the width of the blade, one of
ordinary skill would have expected Kaplan to generate more
than 1.2 cm of flash in the direction of each adjacent blade. This
causes interference and does not leave room for linear friction
welding.
Id. ¶ 73 (emphasis in original). Dr. Schmid also opines that as blades are
welded the flash produced would harden and “would cause linear friction
welding to be impractical because it would cause interference during the
welding process.” Id. ¶ 78. Dr. Schmid also explains that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have known “that it would be impractical and
inefficient to clear the flash after linear friction welding each individual
blade. Instead, one of ordinary skill would have welded all blades, then
placed the structure in a machining center to remove the flash and collars to
create the final IBR shape.” Id. n.6.
c. Motivation to Combine
Weighing the declarants’ testimony in conjunction with the evidence
in this proceeding as discussed below, we are persuaded that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kaplan and
Brownell and to manufacture a fan where “the rotor hub of the integrally
bladed rotor includes a preform having root stubs disposed on the rotor hub,”
as recited in claim 5. Ex. 1001, 5:39–41.
We appreciate Patent Owner’s arguments and Dr. Schmid’s testimony
that it would difficult, if not inoperable under some conditions, to
manufacture by linear friction welding Kaplan’s low hub-to-tip ratio fan as
an IBR where the distance between the blades is small, for example, where
only 2.4 cm of space exists between adjacent blade surfaces. PO
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
45
Resp. 39–41 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 66–67). We acknowledge that oscillating
the blade tangentially during linear friction welding, as well as the apparent
necessity to permit space for the collar, clamps, and flashing that occurs
during linear friction welding, requires a certain amount of space. For the
sake of argument, we use Dr. Schmid’s calculations, specifically that a
3.6 cm collar would extend 1.2 cm on either side of a 1.2 cm (width) blade.
See Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 47–48, 64 (Dr. Schmid describing that the collar would
need to be at least three times the total blade width). Where the spacing
between blades is 2.4 cm, based on Dr. Schmid’s calculations, two collars
positioned next to one another on two immediately adjacent blades would be
unable to oscillate and potentially even interfere even without oscillating.
PO Resp. 42 (citing Ex. ¶¶ 64, 75–76).
Patent Owner’s arguments and Dr. Schmid’s testimony, however,
presume that immediately adjacent blades are all fitted with a collar and
clamps for the linear friction welding process. See Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 75, 78 n.6
(“[O]ne of ordinary skill would have welded all blades, then placed the
structure in a machining center to remove the flash and collars to create the
final IBR shape.”). We have before us persuasive evidence that linear
friction welding techniques for fan blades do not have to occur in this
manner. Rather, Petitioner presents evidence that it was well known where
spacing was an issue to weld alternating blades of a fan, machine those
blades, then linear friction weld the remaining alternating blades. See Pet.
Reply 15–16 (“[A] 1993 Patent issued to Rolls Royce describes increasing
available space by welding alternate blades, removing the excess material
(i.e., collars and flashing), and then welding the remaining blades.”).
Petitioner points out that U.S. Patent No. 5,188,275 (Ex. 1027) describes a
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
46
linear friction bonding process for a blisk that addresses closely spaced
blades. Id. The ’275 patent explains that where blade spacing is close
a number of blade preforms may be bonded sequentially at
locations sufficiently far apart. In the illustrated case the
minimum spacing is alternate locations. A whole BLISK could
be manufactured, if desired, in this way by bonding blades at,
say, alternate locations in a first operation, subsequently
removing surplus metal and then bonding the remaining blades
in a further operation.
Ex. 1027, 3:20–27.11 Petitioner points out that this same prior art technique
is discussed in the ’070 patent, specifically that one can form “a root stub 44
only for every alternate blade, while machining the full blade each alternate
root stub. This would allow sufficient access for machine tools between two
alternate full blades, to machine around [] the remaining root stub.”
Ex. 1001, 4:67–5:5. This description coincides with the specific language of
claim 5 which requires root “stubs disposed on the rotor hub at
circumferential positions corresponding to at least alternate ones of said fan
blades in the single axial blade row.” Id. at 5:39–44. Neither Dr. Schmid
nor Dr. Benini discuss or explain that using such an alternate blade
technique would have been inoperable or beyond the level of ordinary skill

11 Ex. 1027, the Rolls Royce ’275 patent, was entered into the record along
with Petitioner’s Reply Brief in direct response to Patent Owner’s arguments
and evidence regarding spacing between blades raised in the Response. See
Pet. Reply 14–15. A party is permitted to submit rebuttal evidence in
support of its reply. We determine that Exhibit 1027, a prior art patent, is
legitimately responsive to arguments and evidence raised in Patent Owner’s
Response and specifically do not find the ’275 patent, which is offered
essentially here as background information pertaining to linear friction
welding, to be a new argument or evidence that should have been presented
earlier as part of Petitioner’s prima facie case of obviousness. See Belden
Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1077–78 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
47
in the art. To the contrary, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s evidence from
the ’275 patent shows that linear friction welding alternating blades was a
manufacturing technique that was well known to those of ordinary skill in
the art to account for limited spacing and machining between blades.
For purposes of our determination here we assume that Dr. Benini’s
calculations of blade width, i.e. thickness, and thus blade spacing are
reasonable. See PO Resp. 38 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 64–65) (Patent Owner
relying on Dr. Benini’s testimony that blade thickness to chord ratio is 10%).
Petitioner does offer contradictory evidence, asserting that Dr. Benini’s
estimate of blade width is too high, and that Kaplan’s blade thickness to
chord ratio is more likely 4.3%. Pet. Reply 20–21 (citing Ex. 1031,
24:12–18). Yet, even considering Dr. Benini’s blade and spacing
calculations, Petitioner has provided persuasive evidence from the
’275 patent that the technique of linear friction welding alternate blades was
well-known. Patent Owner has not provided any argument or evidence that
there are spacing concerns for the collar, clamps or flashing when welding
alternate blades. We are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to combine Kaplan and Brownell and would
have known how to weld alternating blades to accommodate spacing issues
between blades in the manufacture of a blisk.
Patent Owner also argues that Brownell advocates for even further
space constraint between blades because it teaches that the linear friction
weld plane, i.e., where the rotor stub and blade surfaces are welded together,
should be formed within the fillet close to the rotor hub. PO Resp. 47 (citing
Ex. 1008, 6:31–34; Ex. 2010 ¶ 79); see also PO Sur-Reply 6 (Patent Owner
arguing that “Brownell actually expressly discourages elevating the weld
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
48
plane, contrary to the ’070 patent.”). According to Dr. Schmid, based on
Brownell “one of ordinary skill would have avoided adding height to the
root stub, and would have instead attempted to maintain the weld plane in
the blade fillet.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 79. Similar to our analysis above, even if the
space between neighboring blades was further constrained by forming the
weld plane closer to the rotor hub and within the fillet radius, this argument
does not apprise us that the technique of alternate blade welding would not
have been considered by a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to
overcome such spacing issues between blades.
This issue regarding root stubs and the height of the weld plane
requires some additional analysis, mainly because Patent Owner contends
that raising the height of the stub and hence the weld plane, is an innovative
aspect of the ’070 patent. See PO Resp. 1 (Patent Owner stating that “GE
still fails to grasp the ’070 patent’s innovation to use root stubs to elevate the
weld line to allow linear friction welding.”), see also id. at 32 (Patent Owner
arguing that a root stub “increases the gap between adjacent blades at the
weld line and makes it easier for machine tools to access this gap between
adjacent blades.”). Our review shows that Brownell discloses root stubs on
a hub. See Ex. 1008 3:29–30 (“The disk 10 is provided with a plurality of
upstanding stubs 11 on its periphery.”); see also id. at Figs. 1–4, 6, 8–10.
And, Brownell explains that the weld plane is preferably formed within the
fillet. Ex. 1008, 3:53–56 (Brownell explaining it is preferable that “[t]he
weld joint plane is shown by line 23, and lies within the fillet, where stresses
are lower, the weld area is larger, and where it is possible to clean up the
edge of the weld and improve the aerodynamic profile.”). However, to the
extent Patent Owner argues that its stub and weld plane is higher than
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
49
Brownell’s stub, and thus not within the fillet, we point out that the claims of
the ’070 patent merely recite, for example in claim 5, “root stubs disposed
on the rotor hub.” Ex. 1001 5:40–41, 6:9–10, 43–44. We appreciate that,
different from Brownell, the ’070 patent explains that using a root stub “it is
easier to access the radial gap between adjacent blades 20 with machine
tools.” Id. at 4:62–63. Considering Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence
regarding location of the weld plane, neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Schmid
explain why a similar benefit would not occur due to Brownell’s root stubs
which also discloses the weld plane elevated above the hub.
The evidence of record establishes that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have reasonably expected to fabricate a gas turbine blade using
linear friction welding as claimed. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (“The
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”); see also
Hoffman La Roche, 748 F.3d 1331 (“Conclusive proof of efficacy is not
necessary to show obviousness. All that is required is a reasonable
expectation of success.”).
We are also persuaded that Petitioner has provided sufficient
articulated reasoning and persuasive evidentiary underpinnings from its
Declarants and the prior art to support the combination of Kaplan and
Brownell. Based on the complete record before us, Petitioner has shown by
a preponderance of the evidence that the limitations of claim 5 would have
been obvious over Kaplan and Brownell as properly combined.
5. Claims 6–8
Petitioner argues that the limitations of claims 6–8, each of which
depend either directly or indirectly from claim 5, are taught by Brownell.
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
50
Pet. 97–98 (citing Ex. 1008, 2:38–42 2:49–53 4:36–38, Fig. 5). Patent
Owner does not argue specifically the limitations of claims 6–8.
Our understanding of Brownell is consistent with Petitioner’s
arguments and evidence. With respect to claims 6 and 7, Brownell discloses
that linear friction welding airfoils to root stubs of a blisk to form an IBR
was a known structure and manufacturing method. Ex. 1008, 2:18–37,
Figs. 1, 5. As to claim 8, Brownell explains that it was well known in the
prior art for IBR assemblies that “[t]he disk 10 is provided with a plurality of
upstanding stubs 11 on its periphery, that is its circumferential surface.” Id.
at 3:28–30. Given all the evidence of record now before us, we are
persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
claims 6–8 are unpatentable over Kaplan and Brownell.
6. Claims 13–16 and 19
Claims 13–16 depend either directly or indirectly from independent
claim 9 and dependent claim 12. Claims 9 and 12 are disclaimed. Ex. 2003.
Claims 13–16 correspond to claims 5–8 discussed above and include the
same and similar limitations. One minor difference being that a “fan blade”
recited in claims 13–16 includes an “air foil with a leading edge.” Ex. 1001,
5:58–69, 6:5–6. Petitioner argues that Kaplan discloses that each of the fan
blades includes an airfoil. Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 77). Patent Owner
does not dispute that Kaplan’s blade includes an airfoil. Patent Owner does
not specifically address claims 13–16, instead relying on its main contention
that “each of GE’s proposed combinations is inoperable; persons of ordinary
skill would not have been motivated to combine them.” PO Resp. 33.
Because of the high degree of similarity in limitations between these claims
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
51
our analysis for claims 13–16 obtains the same outcome as that for
claims 5–8 discussed above.
Claim 19 is a method claim, depending indirectly from disclaimed
independent claim 17, and is essentially a combination of the limitations in
claims 4 and 5 requiring “a hub preform having a number of root stubs” and
“fastening the fan blade airfoils to the root stubs to form fan blades
integrally formed with the rotor hub.” Ex. 1001, 6:41–48. Patent Owner
does not specifically address claim 19, nor dispute that Kaplan and Brownell
disclose all the limitations of claim 19. Patent Owner instead relies on its
main contention that “each of GE’s proposed combinations is inoperable;
persons of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine them.”
PO Resp. 33. Because claim 19 includes the same and similar limitations,
just in method format, as claims 4 and 5 discussed above, based on the high
degree of similarity in limitations between these claims our analysis for
claim 19 obtains the same outcomes as that for claims 4 and 5. We are
persuaded that Petitioner has shown by preponderance of the evidence that
claims 13–16 and 19 are unpatentable over Kaplan and Brownell.
7. Conclusion as to Kaplan and Brownell
Given the complete record now before us, we are persuaded that
Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 5–8,
13–16, and 19 are unpatentable over Kaplan and Brownell.
D. Claims 5–8, 13–16, and 19 — Obviousness over Gray and Brownell
Petitioner asserts that claims 5–8, 13–16, and 19 would have been
obvious over Gray and Brownell. Pet. 35–51. Having considered the
complete record now before us, and as discussed in detail below, we
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
52
determine that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence
that claims 5–8, 13–16, and 19 would have been obvious.
1. Gray
Gray is a technical paper sponsored by a NASA program titled
“Energy Efficient Engine Program” that occurred in conjunction and under
contracts with Pratt & Whitney. Ex. 1019, 1–3. The program had “the
objective of improving the energy efficiency of future United States
commercial aircraft so that substantial savings in fuel can be realized.” Id.
at 18. Gray evaluates eight gas turbine engine designs “candidate engines.”
Id. at 20. Gray’s Table 4.2-II, annotated by the board, is reproduced below.

Gray’s Table 4.2-II, above, summarizes certain engine flowpath design data
for each of the eight evaluated engine designs, including the highlighted
hub-to-tip ratio of 0.26 for each candidate. Id. at 50.
Gray selected three candidates, Candidates 1, 2, and 6, as the most
feasible for further study. Id. at 60–63. Petitioner relies mainly on Gray’s
Candidate 1 shown in Figure 4.3-1, as highlighted by the board and
reproduced below.
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
53

Gray’s Figure 4.3-1, above, illustrates in partial cross-section certain engine
components of Candidate 1 including the hub and fan highlighted in yellow.
Id. at 63. Figure 4.2-3 below, as annotated by Petitioner, illustrates the
engine flowpath of Candidate 1.

IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
54
Figure 4.2-3, above is a flowpath diagram of Candidate 1 as annotated by
Petitioner to denote the fan and centerline.
2. Claim 1 (disclaimed)
Claim 5 depends from disclaimed claims 1 and 4, the elements of
which we discuss below in relation to Gray.
Petitioner argues that Gray discloses all the elements of claim 1
including, referring to Gray’s Figures 4.2-1, 4.2-3, a fan blade and hub
shown rotating about a centerline axis of a gas turbofan engine. Pet. 42–43
(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 163–165; Ex. 1019, 18, Table 4.2-II, Figs 4.2-3).
Petitioner contends that Gray’s Figure 4.3-1, shown above, illustrates a
plurality of circumferentially spaced blades arranged “in a single axial blade
row” as called for in claim 1. Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 166–167; Ex.
1019, 50, Fig. 4.3-1). Petitioner argues that Gray discloses each fan blade
“has a leading edge, a hub radius, and a tip radius.” Id. at 46 (citing 1003
¶ 168; Ex. 1019, 43; Fig. 4.3-1). Petitioner asserts that Gray discloses a hub-
to-tip ratio of 0.26, which meets the limitation in claim 1, “wherein the ratio
of the hub radius to the tip radius (RHUB/RTIP) is less than 0.29.” Pet.
48–49 (citing Ex. Ex. 1003 ¶¶170-171; Ex. 1019, 50, Table 4.2-XII).
3. Claim 4 (disclaimed)
Claim 4, which depends from claim 1, further includes the limitation
“wherein the fan is an integrally bladed rotor, the fan blades being integrally
formed with the rotor hub.” Ex. 1001, 5:36–38. Petitioner relies on
Brownell for this limitation. Pet. 89–92. Petitioner argues that Brownell
“describes forming a blisk for a fan via linear friction welding.” Id. at 93
(citing Ex. 1008, 1:14–15). According to Petitioner a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated to manufacture Gray’s fan and
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
55
hub as a blisk, i.e., and integrally bladed rotor as taught by Brownell,
because “a POSITA would have known that manufacturing a fan as a blisk
would provide numerous advantages, including improved aerodynamic
performance (i.e., improved efficiency), improved structural integrity, and
reduced weight.” Id. at 89.
4. Claim 5
Before analyzing claim 5, we point out that, on the complete record
now before us, we find Petitioner’s comparison of the elements recited in
claims 1 and 4 with Grey’s disclosure and Brownell’s disclosure consistent
with our own review of Gray and Brownell. Also, Patent Owner does not
expressly dispute Petitioner’s mapping of the requisite elements of claims 1
and 4 to Gray and Brownell. See generally PO Resp. 51–63.
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and includes the further limitation
“wherein the rotor hub of the integrally bladed rotor includes a preform
having root stubs disposed on the rotor hub.” Ex. 1001, 5:39–41 (emphasis
added).
a. Petitioner’s Arguments
With respect to the asserted combination with Gray, Petitioner argues
that “Brownell discloses forming an IBR [integrally bladed rotor] by joining
airfoil blades, including fan blades, to corresponding stubs on the outer
periphery of a rotor disk via linear friction welding.” Pet. 88 (citing
Ex. 1008, 2:49–59). Petitioner also argues that “Figure 6 of Brownell . . .
shows the preform having root stubs on the rotor hub before the blades are
welded.” Id. at 94 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 102).
Claim 5 also requires “having root stubs disposed on the rotor hub at
circumferential positions corresponding to at least alternate ones of said fan
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
56
blades.” Ex. 1001, 5:40–42. One reason for this limitation, the ’070 patent
explains, is that
[i]t has been contemplated that alternative methods may also be
used, such as forming a root stub 44 only for every alternate
blade, while machining the full blade 20 between each alternate
root stub. This would allow sufficient access for machine tools
between two alternate full blades, to machine [] around the
remaining root stub.
Id. at 4:67–5:5. Petitioner argues that Brownell’s Figure 9 “shows a portion
of a rotor hub, including stubs disposed on the rotor hub at circumferential
positions that correspond to each of the fan blades in the single axial blade
row.” Pet. 96 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 103). Petitioner notes, and Patent Owner
does not contest, that “having a root stub for each blade encompasses at least
alternate blades, as required by Claim 5.” Id. at 95–96; see also PO
Resp. 63–69 (not contesting whether prior art describes “having root stubs
. . . corresponding to at least alternate blades”).
Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to fabricate Gray’s fan as a blisk as taught by Brownell
because it was well “known that manufacturing a fan as a blisk would
provide numerous advantages, including improved aerodynamic
performance (i.e., improved efficiency), improved structural integrity, and
reduced weight.” Pet. 89 (citing Ex. 1017, 1:15–18; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 91–97).
Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to manufacture Gray as a blisk using linear friction welding
“because it allows for separate manufacturing of the rotor disk and blades.
Thus, each portion of the blisk can be made from the optimal material and
manufacturing process.” Id. at 90 (citation omitted) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 95;
Ex. 1008, 1:17–30).
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
57
b. Patent Owner’s Arguments
Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
not have been motivated to use Brownell’s linear friction welded blisk and
root stubs for manufacturing Gray’s low hub-to-tip ratio fan as an IBR
because Gray’s fan blades are too large and tightly spaced. PO Resp. 51.
According to Patent Owner, besides “the fan being quite large, the spacing
between blades is especially tight considering their size. Gray failed to
provide sufficient space necessary for (1) the collar, (2) clamps,
(3) oscillation, and (4) flash.” Id. at 51–52 (emphasis omitted).
In support of Patent Owner’s arguments Dr. Benini explains that
Gray’s blades are so big that a root and slot manufacturing process is more
common to fabricate a fan as compared to an IBR. Ex. 2001 ¶ 75.
According to Dr. Benini, this is because “the mechanical connection
between the blade and the hub made it easier to repair individual blades by
removing damaged blades and inserting an operational blade using the
mechanical connection.” Id.
Patent Owner also relies heavily on testimony from Dr. Schmid. PO
Resp. 57–58. Dr. Schmid testifies that the size of Gray’s blades generates
significantly higher acceleration forces because “both friction and inertia
forces are larger using Gray’s blades compared to the smaller blades of
compressors and turbines traditionally manufactured using linear friction
welding.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 88. Dr. Schmid further testifies that the “upsetting”
forces to weld such a large blade “requires an exponential increase in force.”
Id. ¶ 89. In view of such challenges Dr. Schmid testifies that “[l]inear
friction welding the eight-foot, ten-inch fan assembly disclosed in Gray in
November 2012 would have been extraordinarily difficult, if not
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
58
impossible.” Id. ¶ 88. Dr. Schmid refers to several references to support his
testimony that large blades were very difficult to linear friction weld. Id.
¶ 90. Dr. Schmid refers specifically to U.S. Patent No. 8,070,039, for
example, which states that “as the size of the vibrated component increases,
the momentum that must be controlled becomes problematic.” Ex. 2013,
2:17–21.
c. Motivation to Combine
Weighing the declarants’ testimony in conjunction with all the
evidence in this proceeding we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have been motivated to combine Gray and Brownell and to
manufacture a fan where “the rotor hub of the integrally bladed rotor
includes a preform having root stubs disposed on the rotor hub,” as recited in
claim 5. Ex. 1001, 5:39–41.
(1) The Size of Gray’s Blades
Regarding the size of Gray’s fan blades, which Patent Owner argues
are essentially too big to manufacture by linear friction welding, we find
Dr. Schmid’s testimony and the evidence in the prior art pertinent, but
ultimately unconvincing. First, Dr. Schmid testifies that Gray’s fan blade “is
particularly large relative to IBRs the person of ordinary skill would have
considered as candidates for linear friction welding in November 2012.”
Ex. 2010 ¶ 87. Dr. Schmid testifies that “Linear friction welding the eight-
foot, ten-inch fan assembly disclosed in Gray in November 2012 would have
been extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible.” Id. ¶ 88. To support this
Dr. Schmid explains that the acceleration necessary to overcome inertia and
friction forces for Gray’s blade “would be substantially larger than for a
typical linear friction welding workpiece.” Id. To apply the necessary
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
59
upsetting force Dr. Schmid explains that Gray’s blade “would require a
minimum of 1,200 kN force (269,770 lbf).” Id. ¶ 89. Dr. Schmid
summarizes, stating “[a]ttempting linear friction welding for Gray’s blades
would require clamps and collars sufficient to transmit these high forces.”
Id.
We understand from Dr. Schmid’s testimony that a larger blade like
Gray’s would require larger clamps and collars and higher acceleration and
upsetting forces than a smaller blade. It is not clear from Dr. Schmid’s
testimony, however, why a larger linear friction welding machine necessary
to accomplish the welding process for Gray’s larger blades would have been
“an almost insurmountable obstacle to the person of ordinary skill.”
Ex. 2010 ¶ 89. We appreciate that a larger linear friction welding machine is
needed for larger blades, yet Dr. Schmid does not explain that making and
using a larger linear friction welding machine for Gray’s fan would have
been beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art.
The MTI blog post that Dr. Schmid cites to is likewise not particularly
compelling. See Ex. 2010 ¶ 87 (Dr. Schmid testifying that MTI “calls into
question the availability of machines to use linear friction welding to make
Gray’s blade.”). MTI’s blog post states that
[i]n order to make a weld where we oscillate vertically and forge
horizontally, we need to be able to open up the tooling after the
weld is complete so the welded blade can remain on the hub.
That’s a big task, both literally and figuratively, because the
blades we’re welding can be in a full diameter of four feet, with
a high degree of twist.
Ex. 2005, 5. The blog post is best understood as an explanation that linear
friction welding tooling is sizeable, taking up a significant amount of space
even for a four foot diameter blisk. We would agree that this evidence tends
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
60
to support the assertion that a larger diameter blade would need larger
tooling that takes up more space. But we do not find it very persuasive that
necessary manufacturing tooling, tolerances, and forces were exceedingly
more difficult, or impossible, for large blades.
Dr. Schmid also points to U.S. Patent No. 8,070,039 as evidence that
welding large blades is difficult and expensive. Ex. 2010 ¶ 91. The
’039 patent is directed to linear friction welding and also appears to provide
certain solutions to this problem, explaining for example that “[a] LFW
system and method which allows for smaller components within the system
would be beneficial.” Ex. 2013, 2:44–46. On balance, we find the
’039 patent evidence neutral as to inoperability of Petitioner’s proposed
combination of Gray and Brownell.
Dr. Schmid’s testimony appears also to assume that there may not be
“availability” of linear friction welding machines to weld Gray’s blades.
Ex. 2010 ¶ 87. This is not persuasive evidence that it was beyond the level
of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the necessarily sized tooling
including collars and clamps applying the necessary forces to linear friction
weld Gray’s blade. Dr. Schmid provides little if any basis for reaching this
conclusion, for example, he cites no prior art showing any specific
limitations on fan size for linear friction welding. Thus, Dr. Schmid relies
mainly on the absence of disclosure to support his conclusions, and we do
not credit Dr. Schmid’s testimony on this point in light of the prior art
teachings discussed below. Elbit, 881 F.3d at 1358 (“The PTAB [i]s entitled
to weigh the credibility of the witnesses.”; quoting Trs. of Columbia Univ. v.
Illumina, Inc., 620 F. App’x 916, 922 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
61
We do appreciate that the size and cost of the tooling for larger blades
would undoubtedly be a factor in determining whether linear friction
welding or another manufacturing process would have been economically
appropriate for manufacturing larger fan blades. Petitioner’s declarant,
Dr. Abhari, testified in his deposition that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would consider different manufacturing methods and processes from a
business perspective.
Q. And do you know what manufacturing method they used to
actually build the fan that's disclosed in Gray and you’re relying
on?
A. No, I do not. But I would -- I mean, as I mentioned before,
this is an older engine. This goes back a while, and I would have
suspected a dovetail design, but they could have done it also with
friction welding. It’s a business issue. So large fans, whether it
would make sense to -- it’s not a technical restriction because
from my point of view Gray blades are more than sufficient space
-- space becomes an issue for pitch. They are very large blades,
so they need specially designed tools. And then you have to look
at the consideration related to the business model of how you
repair it and how you replace it and how you handle them.
So whether you use friction welding or the classical dovetail
design, from my point of view, becomes an immediate business
issue, which approach they would take.
Ex. 2025, 114:19–115:14. Acknowledging Patent Owner’s arguments and
both parties declarants’ testimony that there would be economic and
engineering manufacturing efficiency considerations in determining which
manufacturing method to use, we do not find this evidence persuasive that
linear friction welding of Gray’s fan would have been technically impossible
or beyond the level of skill in the art. We are not persuaded that making
such a business determination shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would not have considered linear friction welding Gray’s fan as taught by
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
62
Brownell. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 401 (“[I]f a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”).
(2) Blade Spacing
Patent Owner also argues, similar to Kaplan, that there is not enough
space between Gray’s blades to accommodate the function and structure
necessary to linear friction weld a blade to a hub. According to Dr. Benini
Gray’s blades would be 3.34 cm wide and spaced 5.88 cm apart. PO
Resp. 59 (citing Ex 2001 ¶¶ 76–79). Based on Dr. Benini’s calculations,
Dr. Schmid testifies that 5.88 cm is insufficient space to accommodate a
collar, clamp and tangential oscillation necessary for welding Gray’s blades.
Dr. Schmid testifies that “one of ordinary skill would have expected Gray to
require a collar of at least 10.0 cm to provide sufficient stiffness and rigidity
for the linear friction welding process.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 93. Dr. Schmid’s
testimony explains that if every blade on the circumference of Gray’s fan
assembly were provided with a collar there would be no room between the
collars for the clamps and also that oscillation could not occur for linear
friction welding. Id. ¶¶ 94–95.
Patent Owner’s arguments and Dr. Schmid’s testimony, however,
presume that immediately adjacent blades are all fitted with a collar and
clamps for the duration of the linear friction welding process. See Ex. 2010
¶¶ 97, 99 n. 9 (“[O]ne of ordinary skill would have welded all blades,
then…remove the flash and collars….”). We have before us persuasive
evidence that linear friction welding techniques for fan blades do not have to
occur in this manner. Rather, Petitioner presents evidence that it was well
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
63
known where spacing was an issue to weld alternating blades of a fan,
machine those blades, then linear friction weld the remaining alternating
blades. Pet. Reply 15–16. Petitioner points out that U.S. Patent No.
5,188,275 describes a linear friction bonding process for a blisk that
addresses closely spaced blades. Id. The ’275 patent explains that where
blade spacing is close
a number of blade preforms may be bonded sequentially at
locations sufficiently far apart. In the illustrated case the
minimum spacing is alternate locations. A whole BLISK could
be manufactured, if desired, in this way by bonding blades at,
say, alternate locations in a first operation, subsequently
removing surplus metal and then bonding the remaining blades
in a further operation.
Ex. 1027, 3:20–27. Petitioner points out that this same prior art technique is
discussed in the ’070 patent, specifically that one can form “a root stub 44
only for every alternate blade, while machining the full blade each alternate
root stub. This would allow sufficient access for machine tools between two
alternate full blades, to machine around [] the remaining root stub.”
Ex. 1001 4:67–5:5. This description coincides with the specific language of
claim 5 which requires root “stubs disposed on the rotor hub at
circumferential positions corresponding to at least alternate ones of said fan
blades in the single axial blade row.” Id. at 5:39–44. The ’070 patent does
not specifically state that this is a prior art technique and during his
deposition Dr. Schmid did not know whether welding alternate blades was a
known concept. Ex. 1030 89:19–90:4. Neither Dr. Schmid nor Dr. Benini
discuss or explain that using such an alternate blade technique would have
been inoperable or beyond the level or a person of ordinary skill in the art.
To the contrary, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s evidence from the
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
64
’275 patent shows that linear friction welding alternating blades was a
manufacturing technique that was well known to those of ordinary skill in
the art to account for limited spacing and machining between blades.
For purposes of our determination here we assume that Patent
Owner’s calculations of blade width, i.e. thickness, and thus blade spacing
are reasonable. See PO Resp. 59 (Patent Owner relying on Dr. Benini’s
testimony that blade thickness-chord ratio is 10%). Petitioner does offer
contradictory evidence, asserting that Dr. Benini’s estimate of blade width
are too high, and that Kaplan’s blade thickness –chord ratio is more likely
4.3%. Pet. Reply 20–21 (citing Ex. 1031, 24:12–18). We need not directly
address this discrepancy. Even considering Dr. Benini’s blade and spacing
calculations, Petitioner has provided compelling evidence from the
’275 patent that the technique of linear friction welding alternate blades was
well-known. We are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to combine Kaplan and Brownell and would
have known how to weld alternating blades to accommodate spacing issues
between blades in the manufacture of a blisk.
Weighing the declarants’ testimony and the evidence provided by
both parties during the trial we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have considered and had a reasonable expectation of success
in designing and fabricating a gas turbine fan manufacturing process using
linear friction welding and a blisk having stubs as taught by Brownell, for
joining a complex blade geometry and a hub-to-tip ratio of less than 0.29 as
taught by Gray. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (“The combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.”); see also Hoffman La Roche, 748
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
65
F.3d 1331 (“Conclusive proof of efficacy is not necessary to show
obviousness. All that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.”).
We are also persuaded that Petitioner has provided sufficient
reasoning and motivation applying compelling evidentiary underpinnings
from its Declarants and the prior art to support the combination of Gray and
Brownell. Based on the complete record before us, Petitioner has shown by
a preponderance of the evidence that the limitations of claim 5 would have
been obvious over Gray and Brownell as properly combined.
5. Claims 6–8
Petitioner argues that the limitations of claims 6–8, each of which
depend either directly or indirectly from claim 5, are taught by Brownell.
Pet. 97–98 (citing Ex. 1008, 2:38–42 2:49–53 4:36–38, Fig. 5). Patent
Owner does not argue specifically the limitations of claims 6–8.
Our understanding of Brownell is consistent with Petitioner’s
arguments and evidence. With respect to claims 6 and 7, Brownell discloses
that linear friction welding airfoils to root stubs of a blisk to form an
integrally bladed rotor (IBR) was a known manufacturing method.
Ex. 1008, 2:18–37, Figs. 1, 5. As to claim 8, Brownell explains that it was
well known in the prior art for IBR assemblies that “[t]he disk 10 is provided
with a plurality of upstanding stubs 11 on its periphery, that is its
circumferential surface.” Id. at 3:28–30. Given all the evidence of record
now before us, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claims 6–8 are unpatentable over Gray
and Brownell.
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
66
6. Claims 13–16 and 19
Claims 13–16 depend either directly or indirectly from independent
claim 9 and dependent claim 12. Claims 9 and 12 are disclaimed. Ex. 2003.
Claims 13–16 correspond to claims 5–8 discussed above and include the
same and similar limitations. One minor difference being that a “fan blade”
recited in claims 13–16 includes an “air foil with a leading edge.” Ex. 1001,
5:58–69, 6:5–6. Petitioner argues that Gray discloses that each of the fan
blades includes an airfoil. Pet. 53–54 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 177). Patent Owner
does not dispute that Gray’s blade includes an airfoil. Patent Owner does
not specifically address claims 13–16, instead relying on its main contention
that “each of GE’s proposed combinations is inoperable; persons of ordinary
skill would not have been motivated to combine them.” PO Resp. 33.
Because of the high degree of similarity in limitations between these claims
our analysis for claims 13–16 obtains the same outcome as that for
claims 5–8 as discussed above.
Claim 19 is a method claim, depending indirectly from disclaimed
independent claim 17, and is essentially a combination of the limitations in
claims 4 and 5 requiring “a hub preform having a number of root stubs” and
“fastening the fan blade airfoils to the root stubs to form fan blades
integrally formed with the rotor hub.” Ex. 1001, 6:41–48. Patent Owner
does not specifically address claim 19, nor dispute that Gray and Brownell
disclose all the limitations of claim 19. Patent Owner instead relies on its
main contention that “each of GE’s proposed combinations is inoperable;
persons of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine them.”
PO Resp. 33. Because claim 19 includes the same and similar limitations,
just in method format, as claims 4 and 5 discussed above, based on the high
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
67
degree of similarity in limitations between these claims our analysis for
claim 19 obtains the same outcome as that for claims 4 and 5. We are
persuaded that Petitioner has shown by preponderance of the evidence that
claims 13–16 and 19 are unpatentable over Gray and Brownell.
7. Conclusion as to Gray and Brownell
Given the complete record now before us, we are persuaded that
Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 5–8,
13–16, and 19 are unpatentable over Gray and Brownell.
III. CONCLUSION12
In summary,
Claims
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/
Basis
Claims
Shown
Unpatentable
Claims Not
Shown
Unpatentable
5–8, 13–16,
19
103 Kodama,
Brownell
5–8, 13–16,
19

5–8, 13–16,
19
103 Kaplan,
Brownell
5–8, 13–16,
19

5–8, 13–16,
19
103 Gray,
Brownell
5–8, 13–16,
19

Overall Outcome 5–8, 13–16, 19

12 Should Patent Owner wish to pursue amendment of the challenged claims
in a reissue or reexamination proceeding subsequent to the issuance of this
decision, we draw Patent Owner’s attention to the April 2019 Notice
Regarding Options for Amendments by Patent Owner Through Reissue or
Reexamination During a Pending AIA Trial Proceeding. See 84 Fed. Reg.
16,654 (Apr. 22, 2019). If Patent Owner chooses to file a reissue application
or a request for reexamination of the challenged patent, we remind Patent
Owner of its continuing obligation to notify the Board of any such related
matters in updated mandatory notices. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3), (b)(2).
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
68

IV. ORDER
For the reasons given, it is
ORDERED, based on a preponderance of the evidence that
claims 5–8, 13–16, and 19 are unpatentable; and
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
any party to the proceeding seeking judicial review of this Decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
IPR2020-00083
Patent 9,709,070 B2
69

For PETITIONER:

Brian Ferguson
Anish Desai
Christopher Pepe
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
GE.WGM.Service@weil.com
brian.ferguson@weil.com
anish.desai@weil.com
christopher.pepe@weil.com

For PATENT OWNER:

Trenton A. Ward
James R. Barney
Jeffrey C. Totten
Benjamin A. Saidman
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
trenton.ward@finnegan.com
james.barney@finnegan.com
jeffrey.totten@finnegan.com
benjamin.saidman@finnegan.com

Michael J. Valaik
BARTLIT BECK LLP
michael.valaik@bartlitbeck.com