`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`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
`
`———————
`
`PETITIONER’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s Order Granting Patent Owner’s Request for
`
`Supplemental Briefing (Paper No. 20), Petitioner hereby submits the following
`
`Supplemental Brief in Support of its Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,060,360 (“the 360 Patent”).
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Arguments Regarding Idemitsu
`
`The Federal Circuit’s decision in Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd. v. SFC Co. Ltd,
`
`2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17856, *12 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2017) confirms that Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments regarding features outside the scope of the claims should be
`
`rejected. Patent Owner has argued that addition of an outer environmental barrier
`
`layer would “hinder or eliminate” the healing function of the refractory metal
`
`disilicide/silicon eutectic bond layer disclosed in Terentieva. As explained by
`
`Petitioner, this argument is flawed. Patent Owner asserts that addition of a BSAS
`
`EBL/TBC would result in a lower temperature seen by the bond layer, but does so
`
`by incorrectly assuming the gas flow temperature would not be increased upon
`
`addition of the EBL/TBC. Patent Owner also disregards entirely that Terentieva
`
`already contemplates the addition of an outer barrier layer above the refractory
`
`metal disilicide/silicon eutectic bond layer. Moreover, while Patent Owner argues
`
`that the healing properties would be hindered or eliminated, its expert, Dr. Clarke,
`
`offered nothing more than an opinion that lower temperature means higher
`
`viscosity. GE-1031 at 49:21-50:8. Indeed, Dr. Clarke was unwilling and unable to
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`articulate a point at which the healing function would be hindered, let alone
`
`eliminated. Id. Nonetheless, even assuming that at the lower temperature example
`
`discussed by Dr. Clarke (e.g., 1300 F) the healing properties would be “hindered”
`
`because of higher viscosity, Idemitsu confirms that such an argument fails as it
`
`neither “relate[s] to [nor is] commensurate in scope with the ultimate claims” of
`
`the 360 patent. 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17856, at *12.
`
`
`
`In Idemitsu, there was no dispute that the prior art disclosed the claimed
`
`limitations of the patent in question. Id. at *5-6. Instead, the patent owner argued
`
`“at least implicitly—that [the prior art] teaches away from non-energy gap
`
`combinations.” Id. at *10-11. More specifically, the issue was whether the Board
`
`erred in combining the particular prior art compounds in view of the requirement in
`
`the prior art that the “HT compound and the ET compound must be selected so
`
`that the energy gap of the HT compound is smaller than the energy gap of the ET
`
`compound.” Id. at *6. The Board’s decision noted that the claims of the patent
`
`under review did “not include any limitations directed to the energy gap
`
`characteristics of the individual components or particular performance
`
`characteristics of the light emitting layer.” Id. at *8. The Board further explained
`
`that “[t]he sufficiency of [the prior art] disclosure to establish the obviousness of
`
`the combination does not depend on whether the resulting light emitting layer
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`would satisfy [the prior art’s] energy gap relationship or the desired stability and
`
`heat resistance criteria.” Id. (emphasis in original).
`
`
`
`The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision explaining that
`
`“[e]vidence concerning whether the prior art teaches away from a given invention
`
`must relate to and be commensurate in scope with the ultimate claims at issue.” Id.
`
`at *12. The Court further noted that “the claims at issue do not include limitations
`
`with respect to half-life or efficiency” and therefore, “poor performance under
`
`those criteria…is of substantially reduced importance here.” Id. at *12-13. The
`
`Federal Circuit held that “the Board reasonably concluded that [the prior art]
`
`teaches that a light-producing device can be made—regardless of comparative
`
`shortcomings in durability or resistance caused by imperfect energy gap ratio…”
`
`Id. at *14.
`
`
`
`The facts of the present case are analogous to Idemitsu. There is no dispute
`
`that the prior art—Terentieva and Eaton 456—discloses the claimed silicon
`
`substrate, refractory metal disilicide/silicon eutectic bond layer, and BSAS
`
`environmental barrier layer. There is also undisputed motivation to add the Eaton
`
`456 environmental barrier layer to the Terentieva article (i.e., the addition of a
`
`BSAS environmental barrier layer is necessary to protect the silica scale from
`
`attack in a water vapor environment). Petition at 23-25. The issue, raised by
`
`Patent Owner, is whether a POSITA would have understood that the disclosed
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`healing function in Terentieva discourages or teaches away from the proposed
`
`combination. The claims of the 360 Patent, however, include no limitations
`
`regarding the temperature at which the claimed article will be exposed, the
`
`viscosity of the layers within the claimed article, or any healing properties. GE-
`
`1001 at 2:56-4:17. Thus, any purported shortcoming resulting from high viscosity
`
`at low temperatures is of “questionable relevance” and “substantially reduced
`
`importance” given the scope of the 360 claims. Idemitsu, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS
`
`17856, at *12.
`
`II.
`
`Petitioner’s Arguments Regarding Southwire
`
`
`
`The Federal Circuit’s decision in Southwire Co. v. Cerro Wire LLC, 2017
`
`U.S. App. LEXIS 17374 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2017) confirms that the fracture
`
`toughness limitation (> 1 MPa·m1/2) of dependent claims 6, 8 and 10 is obvious
`
`and that Patent Owner’s argument regarding inherency is irrelevant. In Southwire,
`
`the Federal Circuit found that while the Board had “improperly invoked inherency”
`
`as to a functional claim limitation regarding pulling force, “[i]t made the necessary
`
`underlying factual findings to support an obviousness determination.” Id. at *10.
`
`Specifically, the Board found that “[n]one of the patented steps differs in any
`
`material way from the process disclosed in [the prior art],” and further, that “there
`
`is no evidence that the claimed 30% reduction in pulling force would have been
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`unexpected or unattainable from the process disclosed in [the prior art].” Id. at
`
`*11.
`
`
`
`In the present case, Petitioner made the requisite factual showing that a
`
`POSITA would have expected that a refractory metal disilicide/silicon eutectic
`
`bond layer can have a higher fracture toughness than that of a silicon bond layer
`
`(i.e., greater than 1 MPa·m1/2). GE-1003 at ¶ 89; GE-1031 at 20:13-21. Like the
`
`prior art in Southwire, Terentieva discloses a bond layer that matches all of the
`
`compositional requirements in claims 1-5, 7, 9 and 11-14. In other words, the
`
`bond layer disclosed in Terentieva is “identical or substantially identical” to that
`
`which is disclosed and claimed in the 360 patent.1 Dr. Glaeser’s testimony that one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that incorporating a refractory
`
`metal disilicide, such as MoSi2, would increase the fracture toughness as compared
`
`to a silicon layer stands unrebutted. Petition at 33 (citing GE-1003 at ¶¶ 50, 89-
`
`90). Thus, Petitioner presented undisputed evidence that the claimed fracture
`
`toughness is expected and obvious. Southwire, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17374,
`
`*12 (“In the absence of any evidence that the claimed 30% reduction would have
`
`been unexpected in light of the [prior art] disclosure, there is no indication that the
`
`limitation is anything other than mere quantification of the results of a known
`
`process.”).
`
`1 The 360 patent does not disclose or limit in any way the process by which the
`claimed layers are formed.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Anish R. Desai /
`Brian E. Ferguson (Reg. No. 36,801)
`Anish R. Desai (Reg. No. 73,760)
`Megan H. Wantland (Reg. No. 64,423)
`Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`T: 202-682-7000
`E: GE.WGM.Service@weil.com
`
`
`
`Dated: September 26, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on September 26, 2017, the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF was served via electronic mail,
`
`upon the following:
`
`
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Timothy W. Riffe
`Lauren A. Degnan
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`AXF-PTAB@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`IPR43498-0002IP1@fr.com
`Riffe@fr.com
`Degnan@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/ Timothy J. Andersen /
`Timothy J. Andersen
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`timothy.andersen@weil.com
`
`7
`
`