Fed Circ overturns Raytheon engine patent decision
Raytheon has convinced the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that its aircraft engine patent was wrongly invalidated by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
In a precedential decision on Friday, April 16, the circuit overturned a PTAB ruling that invalidated Raytheon’s patent, claiming that the board relied on evidence of a not-yet-possible futuristic invention to invalidate the patent.
The reference was put forward by General Electri c, which launched an inter partes review of Raytheon’s US patent number 9,695,751 (‘751) in 2018.
The ‘751 patent describes a “gas turbine engine typically includes a fan section, a compressor section, a combustor section and a turbine section.”
“Because the relied-upon prior art fails to enable a skilled artisan to make and use the claimed invention, we reverse,” ruled the Federal Circuit.
Raytheon’s appeal asked the court to consider whether the board erred in finding that a reference put forward by GE (the ‘Knip’ reference) was “enabling of the claimed invention.”
The Knip reference outlines a futuristic NASA invention that describes superior performance characteristics for an advanced turbofan engine, which relied on “unattainable” composite materials in order to be realised.
Raytheon argued that the board had improperly focused only on arguments relating to whether a skilled artisan can calculate the power density of Knip, rather than its reliance on “nonexistent composite materials” in order to be realised.
Futuristic claims
GE had petitioned a review of claims 1-4, 9-10, 15-16 and 23 of the ‘751 patent. It also cited a secondary reference (Gliebe) to challenge claims 1-2 and 15 of the ‘751 patent.
GE claimed that both references disclose enough information for a “skilled artisan to derive the power density of the engines,” the decision claimed.
The PTAB focused much of the discussion on arguments of whether the power density claims of the Knip reference were obvious to a skilled artisan.
“Even if Knip did not disclose a turbine section volume and/or sea level, take-off (SLTO) thrust that resulted in a power density within the claimed range, it would have nevertheless been obvious to a [skilled artisan],” GE argued.
Raytheon however, claimed in the inter partes review of the ‘751 patent that GE had employed a “flawed methodology” to derive the power density of the Knip engine. And that the parameters relied on a “revolutionary material” in order to meet the parameters laid out in the invention.
The PTAB determined that GE had “met its burden” of proving that claims 3 and 16 of the ‘751 patent were unpatentable.
Raytheon has been approached for comment.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox
Today’s top stories
