Enablement of Prior Art Under 35 U.s.c. § 103

• Jurisdiction: United States,Federal
• Citation: Vol. 46 No. 2
• Publication year: 2021
• topic: Patent law,Civil Procedure

Enablement of Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

D. Benjamin Borson

Borson Law Group P.C.

Enablement of Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Raytheon Techs. Corp. v. General Electric Corp.

Slip Op 2020-1755 (Fed. Cir. 16 April 2021)

Background

Raytheon Technologies Corporation ("Raytheon") is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,695,751 (the "'751" patent) directed to gas turbine engine for powering airplanes. In particular, the '751 patent claims a geared gas turbine engine with two turbines and a specific number of fan blades and turbine rotors and/or stages. The claims include recitation of a "power density" range that is "higher than the prior art." Claims 1-3 are reproduced below.

1. A gas turbine engine comprising:

• a fan including a plurality of fan blades...;
• a compressor section;
• a combustor in fluid communication with the compressor section;
• a turbine section in fluid communication with the combustor, the turbine section including a fan drive turbine and a second turbine...; and
• a speed change system configured to be driven by the fan drive turbine to rotate the fan about the axis; and
• a power density at Sea Level Takeoff greater than or equal to 1.5 lbf/in³ and less than or equal to 5.5 lbf/in³ and defined as thrust in lbf measured by a volume of the turbine section in in³ measured between an inlet of a first turbine vane in said second turbine to an exit of a last rotating airfoil stage in said fan drive turbine.

2. The gas turbine engine as recited in claim 1, wherein the fan drive turbine has from three to six stages.

3. The gas turbine engine as recited in claim 2, wherein said number of fan blades is less than 18 and the second turbine has two stages.

Decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)

General Electric (GE) filed an Inter partes review (IPR), challenging the validity of claims 1-4, 9-10, 15-16, and 23 of the '751 patent as obvious over a reference (Knip; "Analysis of an Advanced Technology Subsonic Turbofan Incorporating Revolutionary Materials," NASA Technical Memorandum 89868 (1987).

GE alleged that the Knip reference rendered the claims obvious for disclosure of performance parameters that would "permit a skilled artisan to derive the power density of their respective engines from those disclosed parameters." It was undisputed that the so-called "revolutionary materials" were not available at the time of the priority date of the '751 patent.

In spite of the lack of any such "revolutionary materials," the PTAB, sided with GE and held Claims 3 and 16 of the '751 patent invalid as obvious over the Knip reference.

Appeal to the Federal Circuit

Raytheon appeal the PTAB's decision to the Federal Circuit. Raytheon...