`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: December 27, 2016
`
`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
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER,
`and MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner requests an inter partes review of claims 1–14 of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,060,360 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’360 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”).
`Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires
`demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail at trial
`with respect to at least one challenged patent claim, we institute an inter
`partes review of claims 1–14 of the ’360 patent.
`Our findings of fact and conclusions of law at this preliminary stage
`of the proceeding are not final and are made for the sole purpose of
`determining whether Petitioner meets the threshold for initiating review.
`Any final written decision in this case will be based on the full trial record,
`including any Response timely filed by Patent Owner in accordance with the
`Scheduling Order entered with this Decision. In that regard, any arguments
`not raised in Patent Owner’s Response are deemed waived, even if they were
`included in the Preliminary Response.
`Taking account of the information provided in the Petition and the
`Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner shows sufficiently the
`following facts for the purposes of trial institution.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The Petition identifies no related district court actions or
`
`administrative proceedings. Pet. 1.
`
`B. The ’360 Patent
`The ’360 patent is titled “Bond Coat for Silicon Based Substrates.”
`
`Ex. 1001, Title. The ’360 patent relates to an environmental barrier coating
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`for protecting a silicon-containing substrate, such as combustor and turbine
`sections of gas turbine engines. Id. at 1:7–18. Specifically, the coating
`protects the substrate from the adverse effects of oxidation in high
`temperature, aqueous environments, thereby increasing the service life of the
`components. Id. That coating comprises an alkaline earth aluminosilicate
`based on barium and strontium (also known as “BSAS”), or yttrium silicate.
`Id. at 1:22–24, claim 1; Pet. 9. A “bond layer” is located between the
`substrate and the BSAS coating. Id. at 1:19–47; claim 1.
`
`The ’360 patent discloses that the BSAS coating was known in the
`prior art. Id. at 1:22–25. The specification also identifies, as prior art, a
`bond layer (located between the substrate and the BSAS coating) comprising
`“a dense continuous layer of silicon metal.” Id. at 1:21–22; Fig. 1. The
`inventors claim to have discovered that, by using a bond layer that includes
`an alloy comprising a refractory metal disilicide/silicon eutectic, instead of
`“a simple phase silicon metal bond coat,” the fracture toughness of the bond
`coat is increased, resulting in “more resistance to crack propagation.” Id. at
`1:50–2:3; see claim 1 (specifying a bond coat including an alloy comprising
`a refractory metal disilicide/silicon eutectic).
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter:
`1. An article comprising a silicon based substrate, at least one
`environmental barrier layer selected from the group consisting
`essentially of an alkaline earth aluminosilicate based on barium and
`strontium, and yttrium silicate, and a bond layer between the substrate
`and the environmental barrier layer, the bond layer comprises an alloy
`comprising a refractory metal disilicide/silicon eutectic.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 2:55–62.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`
`D. Asserted Prior Art and Other Evidence
`The Petition is supported by the Declaration of Dr. Andreas M.
`Glaeser (Ex. 1003) and asserts the following prior art references:
`
`
`1. Valentina Sergeevna Terentieva, et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,677,060,
`issued Oct. 14, 1997 (Ex. 1005, “Terentieva”);
`
`2. Harry Edwin Eaton, Jr., et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,387,456 B1,
`issued May 14, 2002 (Ex. 1006, “Eaton”);
`
`
`
`3. J.D. Webster, et al., Oxidation Protection Coatings for C/SiC
`Based on Yttrium Silicate, J. Eur. Ceramic Soc’y 18 (1998) 2345–
`2350 (Ex. 1025, “Webster”);
`
`4. Yoshikazu Suzuki, et al., Improvement in Mechanical Properties of
`Powder-Processed MoSi2 by the Addition of Sc2O3 and Y2O3, J. Am.
`Ceramic Soc’y Vol. 18 Num. 12. (Dec. 1998) 3141–3149 (Ex. 1024,
`“Suzuki”).
`The Preliminary Response is supported by the Declaration of
`Dr. David R. Clarke (Ex. 2001), which is new declaration evidence prepared
`for this proceeding. Id. at 52 (also identified as page 51),1 (signature page,
`reflecting that Dr. Clarke executed the document on October 6, 2016, the
`filing date of the Preliminary Response). Where new testimonial evidence
`advanced by a patent owner creates a genuine issue of material fact, we view
`the issue in a light most favorable to the petitioner for the sole purpose of
`deciding whether to institute an inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`
`1 In this Decision, where possible, we refer to page numbers added by the
`parties, rather than the original page numbers of the Exhibits. Exhibit 2001
`contains two sets of page numbers, without a clear indication of which
`represents added or original page numbers.
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–14 of the ’360
`
`patent on the following grounds:
`
`Claims
`1–14
`
`1–14
`
`Basis
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`References
`Terentieva and Eaton
`Terentieva, Webster, Suzuki,
`and Allegedly Admitted Prior Art
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`For reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review of
`
`claims 1–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`
`
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`We consider each ground of unpatentability in view of the
`understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art. For purposes of this
`Decision, the prior art itself is sufficient to demonstrate the level of ordinary
`skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261
`F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself can reflect appropriate level
`of ordinary skill in the art). Further, based on the information presented at
`this preliminary stage of the proceeding, we consider Petitioner’s witness,
`Dr. Glaeser, and Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Clarke, qualified to opine from
`the perspective of an ordinary artisan at the time of the invention. Ex. 1004
`(curriculum vitae of Dr. Glaeser); Ex. 2005 (curriculum vitae of Dr. Clarke).
`
`B. Claim Interpretation
`
`The Board interprets claims in an unexpired patent using the “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`§ 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46
`(2016). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms
`are given their ordinary and customary meaning in view of the specification,
`as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In this
`section, we provide a preliminary claim construction for the sole purpose of
`determining whether to institute trial. We emphasize that any final claim
`construction shall be based on the full record developed during trial.
`
`The parties propose differing constructions for the term “bond layer”
`in claim 1. In Petitioner’s view, a “bond layer” is “any layer located
`between at least two other layers or between the substrate and another
`layer.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 43) (testimony of Dr. Glaeser). For
`support, Petitioner directs us to the ’360 patent specification, which
`describes the “bond layer” in terms of its location with respect to the
`substrate or an intermediate layer. Id. at 17–18 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:13–17,
`Figs. 1a, 1b). Petitioner also relies on a statement made by the Examiner,
`during prosecution, that “when an outer layer is present, an intermediate
`layer existing between the outer layer and underlying layer is ‘considered to
`effectively function as a bond layer.’” Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1002, 32). In
`sum, Petitioner advances intrinsic evidence tending to establish that the
`inventors defined the “bond layer” in terms of its relative location in the
`claimed article as well as its material composition.
`
`Patent Owner responds that the term “bond” within the phrase “bond
`layer” imparts an additional, functional requirement that the layer must be
`“specifically designed to adhere a coating (e.g., a barrier coating) to a
`substrate.” Prelim. Resp. 15. By way of support, Patent Owner directs us to
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`extrinsic evidence regarding the meaning of the term “bond.” See Prelim.
`Resp. 15–16 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 71–75 (Dr. Clarke’s testimony); Ex. 2002,
`311 (a textbook, indicating that a bond coat functions “to ensure sound
`adhesion”); Ex. 2004, 130 (dictionary definition of “’bond’ as ‘an adhesive,
`cementing material, or fusible ingredient that combines, unites, or
`strengthens”); Ex. 1013, Abstract (an extrinsic patent, indicating that a bond
`coat “serves to adhere the top coat to” a silicon-based substrate)).
`At this stage of the proceeding, we agree with Petitioner that the
`intrinsic evidence—specifically, the plain language of claim 1 and the
`disclosure of the ’360 patent specification—informs the broadest reasonable
`interpretation of the term “bond layer” in claim 1. The plain language of
`claim 1 does not impart a functional requirement, for example, by specifying
`“a layer for bonding.” On the contrary, claim 1 defines the “bond layer” in
`terms of its location (“between the substrate and the environmental barrier
`layer”) and the material from which it is composed (“an alloy comprising a
`refractory metal disilicide/silicon eutectic”). Ex. 1001, 2:60–62.
`The ’360 patent specification further supports a conclusion that the
`specified “bond layer” is defined solely in terms of its location and material
`composition. In that regard, throughout the specification, the “bond layer” is
`described solely in the context of (1) its location between the substrate and
`the BSAS layer (id. at 1:19–29, 2:12–17); and (2) its material composition as
`comprising an alloy of a refractory metal disilicide/silicon eutectic (id. at
`1:51–54, 2:25–43). Significantly, the specification does not discuss a
`bonding function for the bond layer, or otherwise define the layer in terms of
`an adhering characteristic. See generally Ex. 1001.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`
`On that point, however, Patent Owner directs us to a disclosure in
`the ’360 patent specification that distinguishes a “bond layer” from an
`“intermediate layer.” Prelim. Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:14–16). Patent
`Owner submits that this disclosure “uses both terms to identify and to
`ascribe functional traits to different structural layers.” Id. (emphasis added).
`The disclosure cited by Patent Owner does not, in fact, disclose or suggest
`any functional traits. On the contrary, the disclosure advanced by Patent
`Owner refers to the relative locations and material compositions of the
`structural layers. Id. (quoting Ex. 2:14–16) (“a silicon oxide intermediate
`layer or other intermediate layer may be provided between the bond layer
`and the silicon base substrate”). On this record, we are not persuaded that
`the specification distinguishes a “bond layer” from an “intermediate layer”
`based on differences between their relative adhering properties. We are
`persuaded, however, that the layers are distinguished by their relative
`locations within the article and their differing material compositions. Id.;
`see id. at 1:26–31 (describing intermediate layer in terms of its location
`between a bond layer and an environmental barrier layer, and its
`composition as “a mixture of the barrier layer material with an additional
`oxide such as mullite”).
`Patent Owner directs us to no other intrinsic support for a conclusion
`that the word “bond” within the term “bond layer” imposes an additional,
`functional limitation in claim 1 that requires a layer characterized by a
`specific adhering property. Prelim. Resp. 14–16. Instead, Patent Owner
`advances extrinsic evidence, which does not, on this record, justify an
`adoption of a narrower construction under which the word “bond” imparts a
`functional limitation relating to a property of adhering. See Prelim.
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`Resp. 15–16 (relying upon extrinsic evidence, including testimony of
`Dr. Clarke, an extrinsic patent, a textbook, and a dictionary definition).
`At this stage of the proceeding, we rely instead upon the plain
`language of claim 1, when read in light of the specification. For the sole
`purpose of reaching our decision to institute trial, we are persuaded that the
`intrinsic evidence supports a conclusion that the “bond layer” of claim 1 is
`defined solely in terms of the location of the layer within the article and the
`material composition of the layer. We hold that a “bond layer” is “any layer
`located between at least two other layers or between the substrate and
`another layer” (Pet. 17, 18), and which “comprises an alloy comprising a
`refractory metal disilicide/silicon eutectic.” Ex. 1001, 2:61–62. Any final
`decision will include a final claim construction based on the full trial record.
`No other claim term requires express construction for purposes of this
`Decision. See, e.g., Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (noting that only claim terms which are in
`controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to
`resolve the controversy).
`
`C. Challenge Based on Obviousness over Terentieva and Eaton
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–14 on the ground
`that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious at the time of the
`invention over the combined disclosures of Terentieva and Eaton. Our
`analysis of that ground focuses on claim 1, the only independent claim.
`
`Terentieva was before the Examiner during prosecution. Pet. 22–23
`(citing Ex. 1002, 29–33, 48). Like the Examiner, we are persuaded that
`Terentieva discloses a silicon-containing substrate coated with a refractory
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`metal disilicide/silicon eutectic layer, which meets the compositional
`requirements of the “bond layer” specified in claim 1. Ex. 1002, 31–32, 47
`(Examiner, finding that Terentieva discloses a silicon-containing substrate
`coated with a refractory disilicide/silicon eutectic layer); see Ex. 1005, 1:13–
`18, 4:1–4 (Terentieva, disclosing a silicon-containing substrate coated with a
`refractory metal disilicide/silicon eutectic layer); see also Pet. 22 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 69–80 (Dr. Glaeser, explaining how Terentieva meets those
`limitations of claim 1)). The critical question is whether one would have
`been led to add a BSAS layer to coat the article described by Terentieva.
`Taking account of the information contained in the Petition and
`Preliminary Response, we determine on this record that Petitioner shows
`sufficiently that an ordinary artisan would have been prompted to modify
`Terentieva’s article in that manner. Eaton discloses a prior art BSAS coating
`that meets the compositional requirements of the environmental barrier layer
`specified in claim 1 and, further, reveals that the BSAS coating was
`recognized as useful for protecting silicon-containing components in high-
`temperature, aqueous environments. Pet. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1006, 1:60–63,
`2:5–8, 2:10–14, 3:2–5; Ex. 1003 ¶ 63); see id. at 23–24 (and citations to
`evidence therein) (showing that silica volatizes in water vapor, which causes
`rapid recession of silicon-based ceramics). Patent Owner admits in the
`Preliminary Response that Eaton describes the “prior art” environmental
`protective layer, or BSAS layer, that is referenced in the background section
`of the ’360 patent specification and is specified in claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 5.
`A close question arises whether an ordinary artisan would have
`recognized the utility of employing Eaton’s BSAS layer to protect, not only
`a silicon-containing substrate, but also the “silica film” that forms on
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`Terentieva’s refractory metal disilicide/silicon eutectic layer. Pet. 24; see id.
`at 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 61 (testimony of Dr. Glaeser); Ex. 1005, 3:7–12
`(Terentieva’s disclosure of silica oxide, silicon carbide, and silicon nitride
`films that form on the surface of the eutectic)). On that point, Petitioner’s
`witness, Dr. Glaeser, opines that the subject matter of claim 1 represents no
`more than the use of a known material (the prior art BSAS coating) in a
`known way (as an environmental barrier layer) to achieve a predictable
`result (protecting a silicon-containing material; that is, the silicon-containing
`film that forms on Terentieva’s refractory metal disilicide/silicon eutectic
`layer). Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71–77). Patent Owner counters that
`“the proposed addition of a barrier layer would merely duplicate the primary
`functionality of Terentieva’s protective coating” and, further, would result in
`“an increase in the thickness” of the layers that would be understood to yield
`“undesirable influences on the composite system,” citing Dr. Clarke’s
`testimony. Prelim. Resp. 22–23 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 59–61, 96–98, 100–102
`(Dr. Clarke’s testimony)). Dr. Clarke’s testimony, pertaining to the
`obviousness of the proposed modification (id.), creates a genuine issue of
`material fact, which we view in a light favorable to Petitioner for the sole
`purpose of determining whether to institute trial. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`Accordingly, at this stage of the proceeding, we accept the testimony
`of Dr. Glaeser. We hold that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood
`of prevailing at trial in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 over the combined disclosures of Terentieva and Eaton. Any final
`decision will be based on the full trial record, including any countervailing
`argument and evidence pertaining to the reason to combine presented in any
`timely filed Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`
`Having decided that Petitioner satisfies the threshold for institution of
`review with respect to at least one of the challenged claims, we exercise our
`discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) and order the trial to proceed on all
`of the claims challenged as obvious over Terentieva and Eaton. In doing so,
`we seek to achieve finality of review at the Board and avoid parallel or serial
`review in a district court. See Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 814
`F.3d 1309, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that “[t]he validity of claims for
`which the Board did not institute inter partes review can still be litigated in
`district court”).
`D. Challenge Based on Obviousness over Terentieva,
`
`
` Webster, Suzuki, and Allegedly Admitted Prior Art
`Petitioner also asserts that claims 1–14 are unpatentable as obvious
`over the combined disclosures of Terentieva, Webster, Suzuki, and allegedly
`admitted prior art. This ground is similar to the ground that includes Eaton,
`and inclusion will not unduly complicate the trial.
`Petitioner advances Terentieva for the same disclosure discussed
`above in connection with the first ground. In a nutshell, in this second
`ground, instead of relying on Eaton for disclosure of the specified
`environmental barrier layer, Petitioner cites the inventors’ own admission in
`the ’360 patent specification that such coatings were known in the art.
`Pet. 40–41 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:10–24). On that point, Patent Owner admits
`that Eaton discloses the same “prior art system” that is described in the
`background section of the ’360 patent specification. Prelim. Resp. 5.
`Petitioner again directs us to Dr. Glaeser’s opinion that one would
`have modified the article of Terentieva by applying the prior art BSAS
`coating as an outer environmental protective layer “in order to protect” the
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`silicon-containing layers of Terentieva “from deterioration in a high
`temperature, aqueous environment.” Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 51–54,
`58–59, 72–77) (testimony of Dr. Glaeser). That testimony is supported by
`objective proof—namely, the disclosures of Webster and Suzuki—which
`add to the weight of Dr. Glaeser’s opinion testimony. Id. at 41–42 (citing
`Ex. 1025, 8) (Webster); Ex. 1024, 23 (Suzuki)). In particular, Petitioner
`shows sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood that the silica film layers formed by Terentieva’s refractory
`disilicide/eutectic bond layer “would be vulnerable to attack from water
`vapor and subsequent deterioration” and, for that reason, one would have
`been led to add a BSAS layer as an outer coating on Terentieva’s article.
`Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 24–26, 52–54, 58–59, 71–77). Patent Owner’s
`countervailing arguments, supported by the testimony of Dr. Clarke, raise
`genuine issues of material fact that, at this preliminary stage, are considered
`in a light most favorable to Petitioner. See Prelim. Resp. 27–28 (citing
`Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 44–52, 104–106) (Dr. Clarke’s testimony).
`Accordingly, we hold that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing at trial in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined disclosures of Terentieva and Webster,
`Suzuki, and the allegedly admitted prior art. We exercise our discretion
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) and order the trial to proceed on all claims
`challenged as obvious over Terentieva and Webster, Suzuki, and the
`allegedly admitted prior art. Under the particular circumstances presented in
`this case, we determine that sweeping all challenged claims into the trial will
`not unduly complicate the proceeding or undermine our overarching goal of
`securing the just, speedy, and efficient resolution of the parties’ dispute.
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Taking account of the information presented in the Petition and
`
`Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing at trial in showing that claim 1 of
`the ’360 patent is unpatentable. In keeping with our mission of securing
`“the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution” of patentability disputes, we
`exercise our discretion to institute inter partes review of all of the claims and
`grounds specified in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1(b), 42.108.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`
`
`It is
`ORDERED that an inter partes review of claims 1–14 of the ’360
`patent is instituted and a trial shall proceed on the following grounds:
`(1) Whether claims 1–14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 over Terentieva and Eaton; and
`(2) Whether claims 1–14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 over Terentieva, Webster, Suzuki, and allegedly admitted prior
`art;
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other grounds of unpatentability are
`authorized during the trial; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37
`C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; the trial will
`commence on the entry date of this Decision.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01289
`Patent 7,060,360 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Anish Desai
`Brian Ferguson
`Megan H. Wantland
`anish.desai@weil.com
`brian.ferguson@weil.com
`megan.wantland@weil.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Timothy Riffe
`Axf-ptab@fr.com
`ptabinbound@fr.com
`riffe@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`15