`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`General Electric Company,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`United Technologies Corporation,
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`Case IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`———————
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSIVE REMAND BRIEF
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01289
`Docket No. 43498-0002IP1
`Before and during trial, UTC argued that “bond layer” means “a layer of
`
`material designed to adhere another layer to a substrate.” Paper 6, p. 14-16; Paper
`
`12, p. 40-46. GE chose not to offer evidence addressing UTC’s construction, instead
`
`arguing that “bond layer” should be defined “solely in terms of its location and the
`
`material from which it is composed.” Paper 16, pp. 18-22. The Federal Circuit
`
`rejected GE’s argument, holding that a “bond layer” is “designed to adhere another
`
`layer to a substrate” and that the bond layer’s location and composition are
`
`“additional” requirements of claim 1. United Techs. Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 2019
`
`WL 332754, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 25, 2019) (original emphasis).
`
`Nevertheless, GE argues that Terentieva’s protective coating constitutes a
`
`“bond layer” for Eaton’s BSAS layer because it has the location and composition
`
`required by claim 1. See Paper 29 at 5 (relying on Terentieva’s protective coating
`
`being an “intermediate” layer), 6-7 (relying on Terentieva’s coating falling within
`
`the claimed genus). Those arguments are foreclosed by the Federal Circuit’s
`
`construction and mandate, which require separate proof that Terentieva’s alleged
`
`“bond layer” “also ha[s] to bond,” and indeed must be “designed to bond another
`
`layer to a substrate.” United Techs., 2019 WL 332754, at *2 (first emphasis in the
`
`original).
`
`GE cannot show that Terentieva’s protective coating provides any adherence
`
`in the context of the proposed combination, much less that it is “designed to” adhere
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01289
`Docket No. 43498-0002IP1
`Eaton’s BSAS to a substrate. Indeed, every citation to evidence GE provides either
`
`relates to different materials than those at issue in its combination or misrepresents
`
`what the cited material actually says. Accordingly, GE has not met its burden under
`
`the Federal Circuit’s construction.1
`
`I.
`
`The Record Is Devoid of Evidence Showing Any Adherence Between the
`Layers in GE’s Proposed Combination
`GE admits that its evidence does not “show that Terentieva’s exact coating
`
`layer adheres Eaton’s exact BSAS layer to the substrate.” See Paper 29 at 6. Yet,
`
`the combination GE defined in its petition suggests no alterations to the layers
`
`disclosed in the prior art when combining them. See Pet., 23. Therefore, GE must
`
`show that its proposed combination includes a layer that meets the Federal Circuit’s
`
`construction of “bond layer.” See Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075,
`
`1086 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Indeed, as described below, none of GE’s evidence
`
`demonstrates that Terentieva’s protective coating is “a layer of material designed to
`
`adhere another layer to a substrate,” as the Federal Circuit’s construction requires.
`
`United Techs., 2019 WL 332754, at *2 (emphasis added).
`
`First, the Petition combined Terentieva’s protective coating with Eaton’s
`
`
`1 GE’s remand brief addresses only Ground 1 of the Petition. Although GE has
`
`therefore waived any arguments regarding Ground 2 under the Federal Circuit’s
`
`construction, the deficiencies discussed herein would also apply to Ground 2.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01289
`Docket No. 43498-0002IP1
`BSAS layer, not with Terentieva’s optional outer layer on which GE now relies. See,
`
`e.g., Paper 16 at 9-10 (describing that GE’s combination is Eaton’s BSAS EBC
`
`deposited directly on Terentieva’s protective coating); Paper 29 at 3-4 (citing FWD
`
`at 17; Ex. 1005, 3:7-10, 4:45-50). Whether this optional outer refractory layer could
`
`be adhered to a substrate by Terentieva’s protective coating is not relevant. As
`
`Terentieva explains, its optional outer refractory layer “compris[es] at least one
`
`oxide such as a layer of silica, alumina, or zirconia glass, or a layer of a non-oxide
`
`ceramic such as silicon carbide (SiC) or silicon nitride (Si3N4) e.g. obtained by
`
`chemical vapor deposition.” Ex. 1005, 3:7-10 [cited in Paper 29 at 4]. Because
`
`BSAS is not among these materials, even if the protective coating were designed to
`
`adhere these other materials to a substrate, GE lacks evidence that the protective
`
`coating would retain that functionality when those layers were substituted with
`
`Eaton’s BSAS layer. But GE’s proof does not go even that far because Terentieva
`
`does not describe the extent to which its protective coating adheres its optional outer
`
`layer to a substrate, and GE provides no reasoned explanation regarding how it is
`
`“designed to” do so. See Ex. 1005, 3:7-10, 4:45-50.
`
`Second, GE asserts that “Terentieva teaches that the coating layer has
`
`adherent properties.” Id. at 3. However, the citations GE provides speak to only
`
`adherence between Terentieva’s protective coating and the underlying substrate. See
`
`id. at 3 (arguing that Terentieva’s protective coating “‘adhered well’ to materials,”
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01289
`Docket No. 43498-0002IP1
`and “the coating layer is designed to adhere to the underlying layer, e.g., the
`
`substrate” (emphases added)). This evidence does not describe any adherence
`
`between Terentieva’s protective coating and Eaton’s BSAS, which is the key
`
`relationship. GE’s citation to Dr. Glaeser’s discussion of col. 3:17-33 of Terentieva
`
`is not pertinent to the Federal Circuit’s claim construction because that portion of
`
`Terentieva discusses adherence between the eutectic elements of Terentieva’s
`
`coating and the “other structural component[s]” which “form[] the armature” of the
`
`protective coating. Ex. 1005, 3:17-33. GE’s attempt to recast this description as
`
`showing adherence to other layers is misleading and unsupported.
`
`Third, GE asserts that “it was well known that aluminosilicates readily
`
`bonded to MoSi2-based materials” and that “Eaton further teaches that the BSAS
`
`layer is particularly suitable for use over molybdenum-silicon alloys.” Paper 29 at
`
`4. However, the evidence to which GE cites for the former proposition states only
`
`that “MoSi2 particles readily bond with an aluminosilicate glass,” and is silent about
`
`a broader class of “MoSi2-based materials.” Glaeser Decl., ¶ 54 (cited in Paper 29
`
`at 4). Dr. Clarke explained that “Terentieva’s coating does not contain a MoSi2
`
`phase” and “is not a Mo-Si alloy layer.” Ex. 2013, ¶ 15 (cited in Paper 12 at 35-36).
`
`Dr. Clarke further noted that the “presence of titanium in Terentieva’s mixed
`
`refractory disilicide” may significantly alter the properties of Terentieva’s protective
`
`coating as compared to the “MoSi2 particles” and “molybdenum-silicon alloys” cited
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01289
`Docket No. 43498-0002IP1
`by GE, including the protective coating’s coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE).
`
`Ex. 2013, ¶¶ 16-18.
`
`Indeed, Eaton itself clarifies that only “molybdenum-silicon alloys, niobium-
`
`silicon alloys, and other Si containing alloys having a coefficient of thermal
`
`expansion compatible with the [BSAS] barrier layer” are good substrates for its
`
`BSAS. Ex. 1006, 3:2-7 (emphasis added) [cited in Paper 2 at 20, Paper 29 at 4].
`
`Yet, GE has consistently omitted this last part of the quote when citing to Eaton. See
`
`Paper 2 at 20; Paper 29 at 4. Tellingly, when faced with evidence from Dr. Clarke
`
`that Terentieva’s protective coating would have a significantly different CTE than
`
`the “MoSi2 particles” it cites as proof that Terentieva’s CTE is compatible with
`
`BSAS, GE provided no rebuttal from Dr. Glaser and no other evidence to the
`
`contrary. See Paper 16 at 5-6 (arguing instead that, based on its now-rejected
`
`construction of “bond layer,” the claims would “potentially cover an article with a
`
`substantial CTE mismatch between the bond layer and the other layers”). Thus, GE
`
`has never explained how its evidence regarding “MoSi2 particles” and Eaton’s
`
`discussion of “molybdenum-silicon alloys . . . having a coefficient of thermal
`
`expansion compatible with the [BSAS] barrier layer” relates to the relationship
`
`between Eaton’s BSAS and the composite of Ti(0.4-0.95)Mo(0.6-0.05)Si2 and TiSi2 that
`
`forms Terentieva’s protective coating, much less how that evidence speaks to the
`
`property of adherence, which Dr. Glaeser never addressed.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01289
`Docket No. 43498-0002IP1
`In sum, GE’s evidence does not satisfy its burden of proof that, in GE’s
`
`proposed combination, Terentieva’s protective coating is “a layer of material
`
`designed to adhere another layer to a substrate.” Therefore, GE has failed to prove
`
`that each and every element of independent claim 1 is rendered obvious.
`
`II. GE Fails To Address the Federal Circuit’s Requirement that a Bond
`Layer Be “Designed To” Adhere Another Layer to a Substrate
`Even if Terentieva’s protective coating would incidentally adhere to BSAS—
`
`which GE has not shown—GE cites no evidence that it was “designed to” adhere a
`
`BSAS layer to a substrate. Although this panel expressed concern that this
`
`construction would require “some undisclosed degree or quality of adherence,”
`
`FWD at 9, the extrinsic evidence relied upon by the Federal Circuit provides an
`
`objective standard for determining when a layer is “designed to adhere another layer
`
`to a substrate.” See United Tech. Corp., 2019 WL 332754, at *1-2. Specifically, a
`
`layer “designed to” adhere another layer to a substrate enhances the adherence that
`
`would otherwise exist between the other layer and the substrate without the bond
`
`layer. In particular, as set forth on pages 41 and 42 of UTC’s POR:
`
`[I]t was known that the “adhesion of plasma sprayed ceramic coatings
`to metals is generally poor but can be considerably improved” with an
`appropriate bond coat. UTC-2002, p. 28. . . . In yet another example, a
`publication in the field of ceramics and ceramic matrix composites for
`high temperature applications note[s] that “[c]urrent state-of-the art
`EBC consists of two bond coats (silicon and modified mullite) and a
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01289
`Docket No. 43498-0002IP1
`top coat … The silicon bond coat provides a further improvement in
`the adherence.” UTC-2021, p. 306 (emphasis added). It has also been
`observed that “EBC durability can also be enhanced by improving the
`adherence through the modification of the mullite bond coat / SiC
`interface … silicon is an excellent bond layer to improve the adherence
`of mullite onto SiC.” GE-1011, p. 4 (emphasis added). “A silicon bond
`layer further improved the EBC durability by providing stronger
`bonding of the coating.” GE-1011, p. 5-6 (emphasis added).
`
`Paper 12 at 41-42. Thus, a layer “designed to” adhere another layer to a substrate
`
`must at least improve/enhance any adherence that would otherwise exist between
`
`the layer(s) above it and the substrate. See id. Eaton describes its own intermediate
`
`layer the same way, explaining that its purpose is “to provide enhanced adherence
`
`between the barrier layer and the substrate.” Ex. 1006, 2:10-14 (emphasis added).
`
`Although GE itself acknowledges this teaching in Eaton, Paper 29 at 5, GE fails to
`
`show that Terentieva’s protective coating would enhance adhesion between Eaton’s
`
`BSAS layer and a substrate. See generally Paper 29. Accordingly, GE cannot satisfy
`
`the construction adopted by the Federal Circuit.
`
`For at least the foregoing reasons, the Board should uphold the challenged
`
`claims under the Federal Circuit’s construction.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01289
`Docket No. 43498-0002IP1
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/W. Karl Renner/
`
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Lauren A. Degnan, Reg. No. 40,584
`Timothy W. Riffe, Reg. No. 43,881
`David L. Holt, Reg. No. 65,161
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`April 22, 2019
`
`
`
`
`Date:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Customer Number 26171
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`Telephone: (202) 783-5070
`Facsimile: (877) 769-7945
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Case IPR2016-01289
`Docket No. 43498-0002IP1
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.6(e)(4), the undersigned certifies that on April 22,
`
`2019, a complete and entire copy of this Patent Owner’s Responsive Remand Brief
`
`was provided via email, to the Petitioner by serving the email correspondence
`
`address of record as follows:
`
`Anish Desai
`Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10153-0119
`
`Brian E. Ferguson
`Megan H. Wantland
`Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
`2001 M Street, NW, Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`Email: GE.WGM.Service@weil.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Edward G. Faeth/
`Edward G. Faeth
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(202) 626-6420
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`