Advertisement
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up,
it unlocks many cool features!
- Trials@uspto.gov Paper 6
- 571-272-7822 Entered: March 3, 2015
- UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
- ____________
- BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
- ____________
- SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
- Petitioner,
- v.
- BLUE ORIGIN LLC,
- Patent Owner.
- ____________
- Case IPR2014-01378
- Patent 8,678,321 B2
- ____________
- Before KEN B. BARRETT, HYUN J. JUNG, and CARL M. DEFRANCO,
- Administrative Patent Judges.
- DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge.
- DECISION
- Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
- 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
- IPR2014-01378
- Patent 8,678,321 B2
- 2
- I. INTRODUCTION
- Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (“SpaceX”) filed a Petition
- (“Pet.”) for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,678,321 B2 (“the ’321
- patent”). The Petition challenges the patentability of claims 14 and 15 of the
- ’321 patent on the ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.1 Blue
- Origin LLC, the owner of the ’321 patent, did not file a Preliminary
- Response to the Petition.
- We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). After considering the
- Petition, we conclude that the challenged claims are not amenable to
- construction and we are unable to reach a determination on the reasonable
- likelihood that SpaceX would prevail on the ground asserted in the Petition.
- Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review of claims 14 and 15.
- II. BACKGROUND
- A. The ’321 Patent
- Space exploration is expensive, and a reusable launch vehicle
- (“RLV”) provides the potential for lower cost access to space. Ex. 1101,
- 1:55–2:3. The ’321 patent relates to landing and recovering an RLV at sea.
- Id. at 1:42–45. As disclosed, the RLV performs a controlled landing on a
- sea-going platform in a manner that reduces the amount of reconditioning
- necessary to reuse the RLV in a subsequent launch. Id. at 3:10–13, 5:29–36.
- The RLV comprises a lower, booster stage and an upper, payload stage. Id.
- at 3:13–15. After the RLV lifts off from a coastal launch site, the booster
- 1 The remaining claims of the ’321 patent, claims 1–13, are the subject
- of another Petition filed by SpaceX in IPR2014-01376. Pet. 1.
- IPR2014-01378
- Patent 8,678,321 B2
- 3
- stage propels the payload stage to a high-altitude flight profile. Id. at 3:42–
- 44, Fig. 1. At a predetermined altitude, the booster stage cuts off its engines
- and separates from the payload stage. Id. at 3:64–66. The booster stage
- takes a trajectory over the ocean for reentry into the earth’s atmosphere,
- while the payload stage proceeds into orbit. Id. at 3:64–4:3. During reentry,
- the booster stage reorients itself into a “tail-first” position as it glides toward
- the sea-going platform. Id. at 4:3–8. Once the booster descends to a suitable
- position over the platform, the engines on the booster stage reignite to slow
- its descent. Id. at 4:51–55. The booster stage then performs a “vertical,
- powered landing” at low speed onto the deck of the sea-going platform. Id.
- at 4:55–57.
- B. The Challenged Claims
- Of the two challenged claims, claim 14 is independent and claim 15
- depends therefrom. In particular, claim 14 recites:
- 14. A system for providing access to space, the system
- comprising:
- a space launch vehicle, wherein the space launch vehicle
- includes one or more rocket engines;
- a launch site;
- a sea going platform;
- means for launching the launch vehicle from the launch
- site a first time, wherein the means for launching include means
- for igniting the one or more rocket engines and launching the
- vehicle in a nose-first orientation;
- means for shutting off the one or more rocket engines;
- means for reorienting the launch vehicle from the nosefirst orientation to a tail-first orientation before landing;
- IPR2014-01378
- Patent 8,678,321 B2
- 4
- means for reigniting at least one of the one or more
- rocket engines when the launch vehicle is in the tail-first
- orientation to decelerate the vehicle;
- means for landing at least a portion of the launch vehicle
- on the sea going platform in a body of water, wherein the
- means for landing include means for landing in the tailfirst orientation while the one or more rocket engines are
- thrusting; and
- means for launching at least a portion of the launch
- vehicle from the launch site a second time.
- Ex. 1101, 10:45–67 (emphasis added).
- C. The Asserted Ground
- SpaceX challenges the patentability of claims 14 and 15 of the ’321
- patent on the single ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
- Ishijima,2 Lane,3 and Mueller.4
- III. ANALYSIS
- A determination of obviousness over the prior art begins with claim
- construction. See In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
- (emphasizing “the name of the game is the claim”). In an inter partes
- review, a claim in an unexpired patent is given “its broadest reasonable
- construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.”
- 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Almost all of the limitations of claim 14 are written
- in “means-plus-function” format, as is the limitation of dependent claim 15.
- 2 Y. Ishijima et al., Re-entry and Terminal Guidance for Vertical Landing
- TSTO (Two-Stage to Orbit), AIAA GUIDANCE, NAVIGATION, AND CONTROL
- CONFERENCE AND EXHIBIT, PAPER 98-4120 (1998), at 192–200 (Ex. 1103).
- 3 U.S. Patent No. 5,873,549, issued Feb. 23, 1999 (Ex. 1104).
- 4 U.S. Patent No. 6,158,693, issued Dec. 12, 2000 (Ex. 1105).
- IPR2014-01378
- Patent 8,678,321 B2
- 5
- In proposing constructions for each of the “means for” limitations, SpaceX
- attempts to identify corresponding structure in the Specification for the
- various recited functions as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Pet. 18–
- 22. After reviewing SpaceX’s proposed constructions, however, we
- determine that SpaceX errs in its construction of at least three of claim 14’s
- means-plus-function limitations, namely, the “means for igniting” the rocket
- engines, “means for shutting off” the rocket engines, and “means for
- reigniting” the rocket engines. See id. at 19–21. SpaceX’s proposed
- constructions are erroneous because they seek to broaden the scope of these
- limitations beyond what is permissible under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
- At the outset, we agree with SpaceX that claims 14 and 15 recite
- means-plus-function limitations invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, because the
- various “means for” igniting, shutting off, and reigniting the engines are
- modified by functional language that does not include any structure for
- performing the recited functions. Construing means-plus-function
- limitations is a two-step process: (1) “define the particular function of the
- claim limitation”; and (2) “look to the specification and identify the
- corresponding structure for that function.” Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores,
- Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1333–34 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal quotations and
- citations omitted). As for the second step, the structure disclosed in the
- specification is “corresponding” structure “only if the specification or
- prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function
- recited in the claim.” Id.
- IPR2014-01378
- Patent 8,678,321 B2
- 6
- Our analysis focuses on the second step, as the function of the
- relevant limitations is readily apparent—igniting, shutting off, and reigniting
- the rocket engines. SpaceX contends that, although the Specification
- discloses that “the routine starts with booster engine ignition” and that
- “booster engine cutoff occurs at a predetermined altitude,” the Specification
- is otherwise silent on details about igniting, shutting off, or reigniting the
- engines, in terms of both structure and function. Pet. 19–20. Indeed,
- SpaceX represents that the Specification “does not disclose any structure
- that performs this [igniting] function” and “is entirely silent on any structure
- for performing this [reigniting] function.” Id. Unable to identify structure in
- the Specification corresponding to the recited functions, SpaceX urges us to
- construe the “means for” limitations as “any suitable structure” that ignites,
- shuts off, or reignites a rocket engine. Id. at 19–21. That, we cannot do.
- Interpreting means-plus-function language to encompass any structure
- for performing the recited function not only violates 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6,
- which requires that it “be construed to cover the corresponding structure . . .
- described in the specification and equivalents thereof,” but also violates our
- standard of applying the “broadest reasonable construction” to claims
- undergoing inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. 42.100(b) (emphasis added); see
- also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs. , No. 2014-1301, 2015 WL 448667, at *6
- (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015) (holding that the PTO “properly adopted” the
- broadest reasonable interpretation standard for IPR proceedings). Thus, we
- decline to construe the means-plus-function limitations of claim 14 to cover
- IPR2014-01378
- Patent 8,678,321 B2
- 7
- “any suitable structure” capable of performing the recited function, as
- SpaceX proposes.
- Our review of the Specification locates minimal discussion of the
- igniting, shutting off, and reigniting functions recited in claim 14.
- Referencing a flow chart in Figure 2, the Specification states “[i]n block
- 202, the routine starts with booster engine ignition and liftoff from a launch
- site,” “[i]n block 204, booster engine cutoffoccurs at a predetermined
- altitude,” and after reentry, “the routine proceeds to block 224 and reignites
- the booster engines.” Ex. 1101, 6:35–41, 7:19–20 (emphasis added). Those
- passages, however, lack any discussion of how the booster engine is ignited
- for launch, how the booster engine is shut off for separation, or how the
- booster engine is reignited for landing. Nor do the figures of the ’321 patent
- shed any light on the corresponding structure. In particular, blocks 202, 204,
- and 224 of Figure 2 illustrate merely that the booster engines “ignite,”
- “cutoff,” and “reignite” at various stages of flight. Id. at Fig. 2. Those
- labels correspond to the claimed function, but do not serve to define any
- structure. Indeed, the Specification makes no mention of whether the
- functional aspects of igniting, shutting off, and reigniting the engines are
- internal or external to the engines (or a combination thereof), let alone
- describe any structural components for performing those functions.5
- 5 Notably, the Specification acknowledges that “several details describing
- structures and processes that are well-known and often-associated with . . .
- launching and landing space launch vehicles are not set forth in the [written
- IPR2014-01378
- Patent 8,678,321 B2
- 8
- A patent must be precise enough to notify a skilled artisan of what is
- claimed and what is still open to the public. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig
- Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014) (citing Markman v.
- Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 373 (1996)). On the current
- record, we find that the ’321 patent does not describe any structure for
- performing the functions of “igniting,” “shutting off,” and “reigniting” the
- rocket engines as recited in claim 14. Absent meaningful disclosure of
- structure for the claimed “means,” the ’321 patent leaves skilled artisans to
- speculate about what is being claimed. In other words, the Specification’s
- lack of corresponding structure for the “means for igniting,” “means for
- shutting off,” and “means for reigniting” limitations prevents us from
- arriving at the proper scope for claim 14.
- A lack of sufficient disclosure of structure under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
- renders a claim indefinite and, thus, not amenable to construction. See In re
- Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Enzo Biochem, Inc.
- v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“If a claim is
- indefinite, the claim, by definition, cannot be construed.”)). Because claim
- 14 lacks adequate structural support for some of the means-plus-function
- limitations, it is not amenable to construction. And without ascertaining the
- breadth of claim 14, we cannot undertake the necessary factual inquiry for
- evaluating obviousness with respect to differences between the claimed
- subject matter and the prior art. Aoyama, 656 F.3d at 1296 (the “first step”
- disclosure] to avoid unnecessarily obscuring the various embodiments of the
- disclosure.” Ex. 1101, 2:32–37.
- IPR2014-01378
- Patent 8,678,321 B2
- 9
- of any application of the prior art is a proper construction of the claims at
- issue). Any comparison with the prior art asserted in the Petition would be
- speculative and futile. As such, our analysis begins and ends with the
- claims, and we are unable to determine whether there is a reasonable
- likelihood that SpaceX would prevail on the prior art ground asserted in the
- Petition against claims 14 and 15. That is because inter partes review is
- limited to grounds of anticipation and obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102
- and 103, not indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112. See 35 U.S.C. 311(b), 37
- C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2).
- IV. CONCLUSION
- Because the challenged claims are not amenable to construction, we
- are unable to reach a determination on the reasonable likelihood of SpaceX
- prevailing on the prior art ground asserted in the Petition.
- V. ORDER
- For the foregoing reasons, it is
- ORDERED that the Petition is denied; and
- FURTHER ORDERED that no inter partes review will be instituted
- pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) with respect to claims 14 and 15 of the ’321
- patent on the ground of unpatentability asserted in the Petition.
- IPR2014-01378
- Patent 8,678,321 B2
- 10
- FOR PETITIONER:
- Heidi L. Keefe
- C. Scott Talbot
- COOLEY LLP
- hkeefe@cooley.com
- stalbot@cooley.com
- zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
- FOR PATENT OWNER:
- John M. Wechkin
- Ryan J. McBrayer
- PERKINS COIE LLP
- JWechkin@perkinscoie.com
- RMcBrayer@perkinscoie.com
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement