`
`
`
`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 REPLY BRIEF ON REMAND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GE
`
`UTC
`
`FWD
`
`
`
`Pet.
`
`
`Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`GE R. Br.
`
`UTC R. Br.
`
`
`
`
`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,
`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)
`
`Petitioner’s Brief on Remand, filed April 15, 2019 (Paper 29)
`
`Patent Owner’s Brief on Remand, filed April 22, 2019
`(Paper 30)
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Between the 360 Patent and Terentieva, only the latter describes its
`
`intermediate layer as having adherent properties. Terentieva explicitly states that
`
`its coating layer (corresponding to the claimed “bond layer”) was designed to be
`
`adherent: the “heat treatment comprises a first step under vacuum enabling the
`
`desired protective coating to be formed and enabling the coating to adhere to the
`
`surface of the material to be protected….” Ex. 1005, col. 4:30-33 [cited in Pet. at
`
`19-20; Reply at 21]. Terentieva also teaches that another layer may be formed on
`
`top of the coating layer, and a POSITA would readily understand that in that
`
`instance the intermediate coating layer would adhere to both the substrate and the
`
`top layer. GE R. Br. at 3-4, citing, inter alia, Glaeser Decl., ¶¶ 45-49, 51, 54-57.
`
`During prosecution the Examiner drew the same conclusion, which UTC never
`
`disputed. Ex. 1002.032 (“The layer of Terentieva serves as an intermediate layer
`
`when the outer layer is present, and is therefore considered to effectively function
`
`as a bond layer.”) [cited in Reply at 19]. The evidence confirms that Terentieva’s
`
`coating layer meets the Federal Circuit’s construction for “bond layer.”
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`UTC’s arguments on remand are without merit. UTC effectively asserts that
`
`there must be a statement in Terentieva that its coating layer is designed to directly
`
`adhere Eaton’s BSAS layer to Terentieva’s substrate. That is not what the Federal
`
`Circuit’s claim construction requires. UTC v. GE, 2019 WL 332754, *2 (Fed. Cir.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jan. 25, 2019) (construing bond layer as “a layer of material designed to adhere
`
`another layer to a substrate”). All GE needs to show is that Terentieva’s coating
`
`layer is designed to adhere “another layer” to a substrate. Terentieva’s outer layer
`
`(e.g., silica, alumina, zirconia glass, or a non-oxide ceramic such as silicon
`
`carbide) is “another layer” that the coating layer adheres to the substrate. GE R.
`
`Br. at 3-4; see Reply at 21. The claim language and specification specifically
`
`allow for additional intermediate layers between the bond layer and substrate, and
`
`the bond layer and EBL layer. Ex. 1001, col. 1:26-29; 2:12-17; claim 1 (using the
`
`open-ended “comprising” term).
`
`Even under UTC’s improper attempt to re-cast its own construction that it
`
`obtained at the Federal Circuit, a POSITA would understand that Terentieva’s
`
`coating layer adheres to Eaton’s BSAS layer:
`
`• Terentieva’s coating layer was specifically designed via a heat treatment
`
`process to be adherent. Ex. 1005, col. 4:30-33. Terentieva’s examples confirmed
`
`the adherent properties of the coating layer. Id., col. 4:53-57; col. 5:50-53 [cited in
`
`Reply at 21, Pet. at 31]; see GE R. Br. at 3-4;
`
`• Eaton teaches that the BSAS layer is compatible with an “intermediate”
`
`layer between the substrate and the BSAS layer, whereby the intermediate layer
`
`“serve(s) to provide enhanced adhesion between the [BSAS] layer and the
`
`substrate…” Ex. 1006, col. 3:58-63 [cited in Pet. at 21]; and
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`• Eaton teaches that the BSAS layer is “particularly useful” when it is
`
`overlaid on a “molybdenum-silicon” alloy layer, id., col. 3:2-6, and Terentieva’s
`
`coating layer (TiMoSi2) is a type of molybdenum-silicon alloy. See Glaeser Decl.,
`
`¶¶ 45-49, 51, 54-57 [cited in Pet. at 28-29; Reply at 2, 9, 17]. A POSITA would
`
`recognize that Terentieva’s coating layer, acting as an intermediate layer, would
`
`adhere to Eaton’s BSAS layer, and thereby adhere the BSAS layer to the substrate.
`
`Id.; see Ex. 1006, col. 3:58-63 (noting that an intermediate layer provides
`
`“enhanced adhesion between the barrier layer and the substrate”).
`
`UTC’s response is that the presence of titanium in Terentieva’s coating layer
`
`“may” (not “will”) alter the properties of the coating layer, including the layer’s
`
`CTE, which UTC infers may result in decreased adherence. UTC R. Br. at 4-5
`
`(citing Dr. Clarke’s declaration). This argument fails.
`
`First, the 360 Patent refutes this argument, as it discloses and claims a bond
`
`layer that includes TiMoSi2 (exactly as Terentieva discloses) in between a substrate
`
`and a BSAS layer (exactly as Eaton discloses). The 360 Patent identifies no
`
`concerns with mismatched CTEs or incompatibilities when using this (or any of
`
`the claimed) combinations. GE R. Br. at 7 (citing In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 1568
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1994)). UTC acknowledges the evidence showing that MoSi2 layers
`
`readily bonded with aluminosilicates like BSAS (UTC R. Br. at 4; GE R. Br. at 4-
`
`5), but suggests that TiMoSi2 may not have such strong bonding properties. The
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`problem for UTC is that the bond layer of claim 1 covers both. Whether one may
`
`be more adherent or otherwise “better” than the other is simply irrelevant.
`
`Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., 540 F.3d 1337, 1347 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2008). UTC chose to write the claims it did, and it cannot now argue that
`
`certain compositions for the bond layer are within the scope of the claims and
`
`others are not, based on an adhesion quality lacking any quantitative scope. To the
`
`extent that UTC’s argument is directed to the obviousness combination, the Board
`
`already found that the evidence shows a motivation to combine Terentieva and
`
`Eaton with a reasonable expectation of success. FWD at 11-20; see Pfizer v.
`
`Apotex, 480 F.3d 1348, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[O]nly a reasonable expectation of
`
`success, not a guarantee, is needed.”).
`
`Second, a POSITA would expect the CTEs of Terentieva’s coating layer and
`
`Eaton’s BSAS layer to be compatible. Eaton teaches that the BSAS layer and a
`
`MoSi alloy layer have compatible CTEs. Ex. 1006, col. 3:2-7. The CTE of BSAS
`
`also overlaps with the known CTEs of combinations of silicon and MoSi2. Glaeser
`
`Decl., ¶ 57. UTC’s expert confirmed that a POSITA would know that the CTE of
`
`a refractory metal disilicide (which encompasses TiMoSi2) is “tuned” up or down
`
`by changing the amount of silicon. Ex. 1031 at 46:1-9 [cited in Reply at 12]. And
`
`the CTEs of MoSi2 and Ti are approximately the same, confirming that TiMoSi2
`
`would have approximately the same CTE as MoSi2. Ex. 1016.007; Glaeser Decl.,
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`¶¶ 54-57 [cited in Pet. at 28-29]. A POSITA would thus expect that the CTEs of
`
`Terentieva’s coating layer and Eaton’s BSAS layer are compatible.
`
`Regarding UTC’s “designed to” argument, the Court did not adopt UTC’s
`
`argument that a bond layer is only such if it “improves” or “enhances” existing
`
`adherence. UTC R. Br. at 6-7. The evidence cited by the Court only states that the
`
`bond layer has “an adherence quality.” 2019 WL 332754 at *2. The 360 Patent
`
`contains no suggestion that the “bond layer” was designed to “enhance” adhesion
`
`between the outer layer and the substrate. Ex. 1001, col. 1:61-66 (stating only that
`
`the bond layer’s purpose was to increase the layer’s fracture toughness).
`
`Terentieva, in contrast, specifically identifies that the coating layer was designed to
`
`be adherent. Ex. 1005, col. 4:30-33. This point coupled with the undisputed fact
`
`that Terentieva’s coating layer composition (TiMoSi2) falls within the composition
`
`of the claimed “bond layer” leaves UTC no room to argue that the Federal
`
`Circuit’s construction requires some unspecified “improved”/“enhanced” adhesion.
`
`In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708-09 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“Products of identical
`
`chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties…. [C]laimed
`
`compositions [that] are not novel … are not rendered patentable by recitation of
`
`properties, whether or not these properties are shown or suggested in the prior
`
`art.”). The claimed “bond layer” is “designed to adhere another layer to a
`
`substrate,” just like Terentieva’s chemically-identical coating layer.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 8, 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
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on May 8, 2019, the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY 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
`IPR43498-0002IP1@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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`