`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01289
`U.S. Patent No. 7,060,360 B2
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S BRIEF ON REMAND
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`ARGUMENT….……………………………………………………………………1
`
` A. Terentieva Discloses the Claimed Bond Layer ……………………2
`
`B. Response to UTC’s Anticipated Arguments …………………….. 6
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ……..………… 7
`
`In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ……………………………………... 7
`
`In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147 (Fed. Cir. 1995)……………………………………… 6
`
`United Tech. Corp. v. General Electric Co., 2019 WL 332754
` (Fed. Cir. Jan. 25, 2019)………………………………………………………... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GE
`
`UTC
`
`FWD
`
`
`
`
`
`Pet.
`
`
`Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`360 Patent
`
`
`
`Glaeser Decl.
`
`Terentieva
`
`
`
`Eaton
`
`
`
`POSITA
`
`[Citation]
`
`
`
`
`
`Emphasis
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Petitioner General Electric Company
`
`Patent Owner United Technologies Corporation
`
`
`Final Written Decision Finding Claims 1-14
`Unpatentable, 35 U.S.C. § 318 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73,
`filed December 19, 2017 (Paper 25)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`7,060,360, filed June 28, 2016 (Paper 1)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Brief in Support of its Petition for
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,060,360, filed
`June 27, 2016 (Paper 16)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,060,360 B2, issued June 13, 2006 to
`Harry E. Eaton et al. (Ex. 1001)
`
`Declaration of Andreas M. Glaeser, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,677,060, issued October 14, 1997 to
`Valentina Sergeevna Terentieva et al. (Ex. 1005)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,387,456 B1, issued May 14, 2002 to
`Harry Edwin Eaton, Jr. et al. (Ex. 1006)
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Identification of “record evidence previously cited in
`substantive brief” pursuant to Order on Remand
`
`Procedure and Briefing Schedule (Paper 28)
`
`All emphasis added unless otherwise noted
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`GE hereby submits its Brief on Remand pursuant to the Board’s April 5,
`
`2019 Remand Order (Paper 28) for this IPR concerning the 360 Patent.
`
`On January 25, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in which it
`
`adopted UTC’s construction of the claim term “bond layer,” defining it as “a layer
`
`of material designed to adhere another layer to a substrate.” United Tech. Corp. v.
`
`General Electric Co., 2019 WL 332754, *2 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 25, 2019). The Court
`
`remanded to the Board to consider invalidity under the Court’s construction.
`
`As explained herein, the evidence shows that the challenged claims of the
`
`360 Patent (claims 1-14) are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 under the Court’s
`
`construction of “bond layer.” Terentieva teaches that its “bond layer” (referred to
`
`as a “coating” in Terentieva and composed of the same refractory metal
`
`disilicide/silicon eutectic as claimed in the 360 Patent) has adherent properties and
`
`thus is designed to adhere another layer to a substrate. As the Court’s opinion does
`
`not impact any other aspect of the Board’s invalidity finding in the FWD,
`
`including motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success, the Board
`
`may confirm the invalidity of the challenged claims upon determining that
`
`Terentieva meets the Court’s claim construction for “bond layer.”
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Claim 1 of the 360 Patent requires a “silicon based substrate,” at least one
`
`“environmental barrier layer” (“EBL”) that is an alkaline earth aluminosilicate
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`based on, e.g., barium and strontium, and a “bond layer” between the substrate and
`
`EBL that “comprises an alloy comprising a refractory metal disilicide/silicon
`
`eutectic.” GE-1001, claim 1. The Board found that “Terentieva discloses a
`
`silicon-containing substrate coated with a refractory metal disilicide/silicon
`
`eutectic layer, which meets the compositional requirements of the ‘bond layer’
`
`specified by claim 1.” FWD at 11-12 (hereinafter, Terentieva’s “coating layer”).
`
`The Board found that Eaton (Ex. 1006) “describes a prior art BSAS coating
`
`[‘alkaline earth aluminosilicate based on barium and strontium,’ FWD at 3] that
`
`meets the compositional requirements of the [EBL] specified in claim 1.” Id. at 12.
`
`After thoroughly considering the evidence (id. at 12-20), the Board found
`
`that a POSITA “would have been led to apply Eaton’s BSAS layer over the article
`
`disclosed in Terentieva, and that the modified article would have met every
`
`limitation of claim 1.” Id. at 20. The Board thus held claim 1 unpatentable, and,
`
`upon consideration of the parties’ evidence and arguments concerning the
`
`dependent claims, also found claims 2-14 would have been obvious over the
`
`Terentieva/Eaton combination. Id. at 20-22.
`
`A.
`
`Terentieva Discloses the Claimed Bond Layer
`
`The question on remand is whether the Terentieva coating layer meets the
`
`Court’s claim construction of “bond layer,” that is, whether it is designed to adhere
`
`another layer to a substrate. The evidence confirms that it does.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`First, Terentieva teaches, and the Board found, that an outer refractory
`
`protective layer may be deposited on top of the coating layer, such that the coating
`
`layer is between the substrate and outer refractory layer. FWD at 17 (noting
`
`“Terentieva’s express disclosure” and “express instruction” that an additional
`
`protective layer may be successfully applied over the coating layer).
`
`Second, Terentieva teaches that the coating layer has adherent properties.
`
`As GE’s expert Dr. Glaeser explained, Terentieva states that the coating layer
`
`provides excellent protection and “adhered well” to materials, including C-SiC
`
`components which shows that the coating layer may be used as a “bond coat.”
`
`Glaeser Decl., ¶ 49, citing Ex. 1005, col. 3:17-33 [cited in Pet. at 28; Reply at 17].
`
`Terentieva further explicitly states that the coating layer is designed to adhere to
`
`the underlying layer, e.g., the substrate. Ex. 1005, col. 4:30-34 (teaching that the
`
`coating layer is formed by a heat treatment under vacuum, which “enabl[es] the
`
`coating to adhere to the surface of the material to be protected.”) [cited in Pet. at
`
`19-20; Reply at 21]; see also col. 5:54-57 (noting that the coating layer had
`
`“adhesion to the surface of the material to be protected”); id., col. 6:50-54 (same)
`
`[cited in Reply at 21, Pet. at 31].
`
`A POSITA reviewing Terentieva would also understand that the coating
`
`layer adheres “another layer” to the substrate. Terentieva teaches that an outer
`
`layer may be applied over the coating layer: “The protective coating may further
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`include an outer refractory layer. This may be a layer comprising at least one
`
`oxide such as a layer of silica, alumina, or zirconia glass….” Id., col. 3:7-10 [cited
`
`in Pet. at 19-20]; see also col. 4:45-50 [cited in Reply at 21]. Terentieva subjected
`
`the articles employing the coating layer to various tests (e.g., thermal cycling
`
`(Examples 1 and 2), high-speed gas flows (Example 2), high pressure stress
`
`(Example 4)). Id., col. 5:22-8:27 [cited in Reply at 21]. The testing showed that
`
`the coating layer did not spall or delaminate; instead “no destructive effect was
`
`observed.” Id., col. 6:18-21; col. 7:19-20 (“No sample destruction was observed
`
`during the tests.”); col. 8:15-24 [cited in Reply at 21]. A POSITA would have
`
`readily understood that when the outer refractory layer is present in Terentieva, the
`
`coating layer, which is now an intermediate layer, would adhere to both the
`
`underlying substrate and the refractory layer overlaid on it. Glaeser Decl., ¶¶ 45-
`
`49, 51, 54-57 [cited in Pet. at 28-29; Reply at 2, 9, 17].
`
`Moreover, as Dr. Glaeser explains, it was well known that aluminosilicates
`
`readily bonded to MoSi2-based materials. Id., ¶ 54 (“Reported studies have
`
`revealed that MoSi2 particles readily bond with an aluminosilicate glass….”) [cited
`
`in Pet. at 28-29; Reply at 2, 9, 17]. Eaton’s BSAS layer is a barium-strontium
`
`aluminosilicate; id., ¶ 55, and Eaton further teaches that the BSAS layer is
`
`particularly suitable for use over molybdenum-silicon alloys. Id., ¶ 56, citing Ex.
`
`1006, col. 3:2-4 [cited in Pet. at 28]. Terentieva’s coating layer is a form of
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`molybdenum-silicon alloy, see Glaeser Decl., ¶ 56, and thus a POSITA would have
`
`known to apply a BSAS barrier layer onto a MoSi2 alloy, “including single-phase
`
`and multiphase systems such as MoSi2, Si, and combinations thereof.” Id.; see
`
`also id. at ¶ 57 (noting that Eaton teaches that a BSAS barrier layer can be applied
`
`directly to a Mo-Si alloy layer, and that a POSITA would understand that when
`
`applying a BSAS layer onto a MoSi2-Si layer, the latter serves “as a bond coat”).
`
`That a POSITA would have understood that Terentieva’s coating layer
`
`meets the Court’s construction of “bond layer” is further confirmed by Eaton. That
`
`reference teaches that “an intermediate layer can be provided” between the
`
`substrate and the BSAS layer, and that the purpose of the “intermediate layer” is
`
`“to provide enhanced adherence between the [BSAS] layer and the substrate….”
`
`Ex. 1006, col. 2:10-14 [cited in Pet. at 21]. In the Terentieva-Eaton combination,
`
`Terentieva’s coating layer is exactly such an “intermediate layer” providing
`
`adhesion between the substrate and Eaton’s BSAS layer. Glaeser Decl., ¶¶ 57, 75
`
`[¶ 57 cited in Pet. at 27-29 and ¶ 75 in Pet. at 23, 26, 30; see also Reply at 9, 17].
`
`The evidence thus confirms that a POSITA would understand that
`
`Terentieva’s coating layer, when combined with Eaton’s BSAS layer, is a layer
`
`“designed to adhere another layer [the BSAS layer] to a substrate.” Accordingly,
`
`Terentieva discloses the claimed “bond layer” as construed by the Court, and
`
`claims 1-14 are invalid as obvious.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Response to UTC’s Anticipated Arguments
`
`UTC may argue that Terentieva does not explicitly state that its coating layer
`
`adheres another layer to the substrate. Terentieva does, however, describe the
`
`coating layer as having adhesive properties. Ex. 1005, col. 3:28-41; col. 4:30-33
`
`[cited in Pet at 19-20, 28 and in Reply at 17, 21]. That is more than the 360 Patent,
`
`which never once states that the claimed bond layer is used to adhere a layer to the
`
`substrate. Further, it matters not whether a prior art reference contains a word-for-
`
`word disclosure of the claimed subject matter; what is important is whether a
`
`POSITA would recognize that the reference discloses the claimed limitations. In
`
`re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that a prior art reference
`
`discloses the claimed invention when a skilled artisan could “take its teachings in
`
`combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of
`
`the invention.”). Here, as described above, a POSITA would understand that
`
`Terentieva’s coating layer is the claimed “bond layer” when combined with
`
`Eaton’s BSAS layer.
`
`
`
`UTC may also repeat its argument that the 360 Patent subject matter is an
`
`“unpredictable art,” and therefore GE must show that Terentieva’s exact coating
`
`layer adheres Eaton’s exact BSAS layer to the substrate. That argument also fails.
`
`First, UTC cannot dispute that Terentieva’s coating layer is an “alloy comprising a
`
`refractory metal disilicide/silicon eutectic,” and Eaton’s BSAS layer is an
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`“environmental barrier layer selected from the group… of an alkaline earth
`
`aluminosilicate based on barium and strontium” exactly as claim 1 requires. FWD
`
`at 11-12. That the Terentieva/Eaton combination may be a species of the broad
`
`genus set forth in claim 1 is irrelevant, because “claims which are broad enough to
`
`read on obvious subject matter are unpatentable” even though they may also read
`
`on allegedly nonobviousness subject matter. In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793
`
`F.3d 1268, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`
`
`Second, the Board in the FWD agreed with GE that UTC’s “plethora” of
`
`alleged “unpredictable variables” was belied by the sparse disclosure of the 360
`
`Patent itself. FWD at 19. The 360 Patent provides no examples or testing of any
`
`actual compositions that meet the claims. Rather, the patent contains a laundry list
`
`of possible refractory metals that may be used for the bond layer and leaves it to
`
`the POSITA to determine which of the possible bond layer combinations will
`
`adhere the substrate to one or both of the two disclosed EBLs. Reply at 5-6. A
`
`POSITA necessarily brings that same knowledge to bear when considering the
`
`teachings of the prior art. In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
`
`(noting that appellant “did not provide the type of detail in his specification that he
`
`now argues is necessary in the prior art,” which supported the Board’s finding that
`
`a POSITA “would have known how to implement the features of the [prior art]”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 15, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Brian E. Ferguson/ l
`Anish R. Desai (Reg. No. 73,760)
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10153-0119
`T: 212-310-8730
`GE.WGM.Service@weil.com
`
`Brian E. Ferguson (Reg No. 36,801)
`Christopher Pepe (Reg. No. 73,851)
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`2001 M Street NW, Suite 600
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`T: 202-682-7000
`GE.WGM.Service@weil.com
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on April 15, 2019, the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S BRIEF ON REMAND was served via electronic mail, upon the
`
`following:
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Timothy W. Riffe
`Lauren A. Degnan
`David L. Holt
`Fish & Richardson
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`renner@fr.com
`riffe@fr.com
`degnan@fr.com
`david.holt@fr.com
`AXF-PTAB@fr.com
`PTABIndound@fr.com
`IPR43498-002IP1@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Timothy J. Andersen/ c
`Timothy J. Andersen
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`2001 M Street NW, Suite 600
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`T: 202-682-7000
`timothy.andersen@weil.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`