Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 44
`Entered: May 2, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`KAWASAKI RAIL CAR, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SCOTT BLAIR,
`
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 44
`Entered: May 2, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`KAWASAKI RAIL CAR, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SCOTT BLAIR,
`
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Kawasaki Rail Car, Inc., (“Petitioner”) filed a request for an inter
`partes review of claims 1–4 and 6 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,700,602 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’602 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Scott
`Blair (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 6
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). We instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–4 and 6
`of the ’602 patent. Paper 11 (“Dec. Inst.”). Patent Owner filed a Patent
`Owner Response (Paper 13, “PO Resp.”) and Petitioner filed a Petitioner
`Reply (Paper 17, “Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner filed observations on Mr.
`Malo’s deposition (Papers 22, 30) and Petitioner filed responses (Papers 33,
`41). A hearing was held on January 26, 2018, a transcript of which has been
`entered into the record (Paper 42, “Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). We base our decision on
`the preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d).
`Having reviewed the arguments of the parties and the supporting evidence,
`we find that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence
`that each of challenged claims, 1–4 and 6 of the ’602 patent, are
`unpatentable.
`
`A. The ’602 Patent
`The ’602 patent describes the invention as “a television public service
`message display, entertainment and advertising system for subway cars, in
`which television monitors are provided at spaced intervals in subway cars, to
`display short duration televisual entertainment and advertising features to
`subway riders.” Ex. 1001, 1:45–50. The ’602 patent explains that the
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`“invention provides properly positioned television monitors displaying
`moving images of news items, advertising material and the like, viewable by
`substantially all riders in the car, and filling their need for visual
`entertainment during the brief duration of their subway ride.” Id. at 1:61–
`65. The ’602 patent explains:
`In a preferred arrangement, the video display monitors have a
`strong metal frame construction, fixed to the frame of the subway
`car. The screens are preferably covered with a rigid transparent
`unit, e.g. of polycarbonate, shaped to coincide with the shape of
`the internal wall of the subway car at the location of mounting.
`For example, when the monitor is mounted at the junction of the
`wall and ceiling of the subway car, where there is commonly
`provided a concavely curved segment of internal wall, the
`transparent cover unit is suitably similarly concavely curved, so
`that it can be mounted as a continuum with the internal walls and
`blended to contours thereof, with the monitor mounted behind it.
`The screen is suitably angled downwardly, for best viewing by
`passengers seated opposite the screen.
`Ex. 1001, 3:62–4:8.
`
`B. Challenged Claims of the ’602 Patent
`Challenged claim 1 is independent. Challenged claims 2–4 and 6
`depend from claim 1. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below.
`1.
`A subway car
`for mass
`transportation
`including
`longitudinal opposed sidewalls, a ceiling adjoining the sidewalls,
`a video display system comprising a plurality of video display
`monitors each having a video screen, and a video signal source
`unit operatively connected to said monitors,
`
`said monitors being spaced along the length of the car on
`opposed sides thereof, each of said monitor being mounted at the
`junction of the sidewall and ceiling, with the screen of the
`monitor substantially flushed with the adjacent wall surface
`structure of the car, and directed obliquely downwardly toward
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`
`the car seats, so that each video screen is readily visible to
`passengers in the subway car.
`Ex. 1001, 6:31–43.
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent, such as
`the ’602 patent, are given their broadest reasonable construction in light of
`the specification of the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the
`broadest reasonable construction as the standard to be applied for claim
`construction in inter partes reviews). Consistent with that standard, we
`assign claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in
`the context of the entire patent disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`There are, however, two exceptions: “1) when a patentee sets out a
`definition and acts as his own lexicographer,” and “2) when the patentee
`disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during
`prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362,
`1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Moreover, only those terms that are in controversy
`need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
`(Fed. Cir. 1999).
`Petitioner provides constructions for the terms “substantially flushed”
`and “video signal source unit.” Pet. 9–11. Patent Owner provides
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`constructions for the terms “substantially flushed,” “video signal source
`unit,” and “mounted.” PO Resp. 11.
`In our Decision on Institution, we did not find it necessary at that
`point in the proceeding to construe expressly any claim terms or to adopt the
`construction agreed to by the parties. See Dec. Inst. 6. Rather, we applied
`the terms’ plain and ordinary meanings, as understood by one of ordinary
`skill in the art in light of the specification. Id.
`1. “substantially flushed”
`Petitioner notes that “[d]uring reexamination of the ’602 Patent, the
`Board construed the term ‘substantially’ to mean ‘to a great extent or
`degree’ and ‘flush’ to mean ‘a surface exactly even with an adjoining one.’
`The Board construed ‘substantially flush’ to mean ‘a surface which is to a
`great extent even with an adjoining one.’” Pet. 10 (quoting Ex. 2001, 6).
`Petitioner accepts this construction. Id.
`Patent Owner notes the same construction but does not indicate
`whether it finds this construction acceptable. PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner’s
`Declarant, however, states that this construction “is broadly consistent with
`the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification.” Ex.
`2004 ¶ 27.
`On the full record now before us, and in the absence of contrary
`argument by Patent Owner, we construe “substantially flushed” to mean “a
`surface which is to a great extent even with an adjoining one.” This
`construction reflects the ordinary and customary meaning of the terms in the
`context of the entire patent disclosure and is consistent with the construction
`from the reexamination proceeding.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`
`2. “video signal source unit”
`Petitioner asserts the term “video signal source unit” is defined
`expressly in the specification, and should be construed to mean:
`player units for playing pre-recorded video material, such as
`computer-based digital video recorders (including CD-ROM
`players), video tape players and video disk players, and
`television receivers for receiving live or pre-recorded broadcast
`television signals from a remote transmitter and supplying these
`to the video display monitors mounted in the subway cars.
`
`Pet. 11 (quoting Ex. 1001, 2:15–22). Petitioner asserts the term
`encompasses video signal source units “located either within the mass
`transits’ premises or on a remote broadcasting site,” as well as within the
`subway cars themselves. Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 2:26–34).
`Patent Owner does not provide a particular construction for this term
`in the Patent Owner Response. See PO Resp. 11.
`Petitioner’s proposed construction provides a set of examples of video
`signal source units, but such sets of examples are limited and do not provide
`a good understanding of the full scope of the term. Rather, it merely
`suggests a limited number devices one of ordinary skill in the art might
`understand to be a source of video signals.
`We construe the term “video signal source unit” to mean “devices
`recognized by one with ordinary skill in the art as a source of video signals.”
`3. “mounted”
`Petitioner does not provide a construction for the term “mounted”
`(Pet. 9–11), believing the term “mounted” does not require construction (Pet.
`Reply 9).
`Patent Owner proposes that the term “mounted” be construed to mean
`“attached to a support.” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner’s Declarant states that
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`this construction is consistent with the plain meaning of the claim language
`in light of the specification. Ex. 2004 ¶ 28.
`The ’602 specification does not define “mounted,” but does provide
`some examples of mounting display monitors, such as “the video display
`monitors have a strong metal frame construction, fixed to the frame of the
`subway car” (Ex. 1001, 3:62–64, emphasis added), and “[t]he enclosure in
`turn is secured to the top of structural pillar 30 and the side of housing 38”
`(id. at 5:23–25, emphasis added).”
`The term “mounted” is not a unique or coined term. Its plain and
`ordinary meaning as would be understood by those skilled in the art in light
`of the specification applies. Petitioner does not take a position on the
`meaning of the term “mounted,” but Patent Owner’s Declarant states that
`“attached to a support” is consistent with the plain meaning of the term
`“mounted.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 28. We find that the plain and ordinary meaning of
`the term “mounted” as would be understood by those skilled in the art in
`light of the specification is “attached, fixed, or secured to a support.”
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the
`time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
`at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17
`(1966). “The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art
`lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”
`Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
`Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the
`’602 patent is a person who has (1) a Bachelor’s Degree in Mechanical,
`Industrial, or Aerospace Engineering (or the practical experience equivalent
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`to those degrees), and (2) an additional 2–3 years of experience in the design
`of rail cars. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 101[4] ¶ 23).
`In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner does not provide or
`argue a particular level of education, field of study, relevant industry, or
`years of experience a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at
`the time of the ’602 patent. See PO Resp. 29–31. We note, however, Patent
`Owner’s Declarant states that, “a person of ordinary skill in the art in the
`field of the ’602 Patent would have (1) a Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering,
`and (2) at least 2–3 years of Engineering experience with rail equipment
`and/or the design of rail equipment.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 28. Moreover, Patent
`Owner’s Declarant states that he “do[es] not disagree with the qualifications
`recited by Petitioner’s expert” as to the qualifications of a person of ordinary
`skill in the art at the time of the ’602 patent. Ex. 2004 ¶ 20.
`We find that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the
`’602 patent is a person who has (1) a Bachelor’s Degree in Mechanical,
`Industrial, or Aerospace Engineering (or the practical experience equivalent
`to those degrees), and (2) 2–3 years of experience in the design of rail cars.
`
`C. Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`In the Petition, Petitioner alleged six grounds of unpatentability. The
`prior art and the statutory basis for the alleged unpatentability for each
`ground is set out in the table below. In our Decision on Institution, we
`instituted inter partes review on claims 1–4, and 6 of the ’602 patent, all the
`claims alleged unpatentable in the Petition, but not on all alleged grounds of
`unpatentability. Only the alleged unpatentability of claims 1–4, and 6 as
`obvious over Namikawa, Sasao, Amano, and Maekawa has been included in
`this instituted inter partes review. Paper 11, 27.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`
`Ground Claims
`A
`1, 6
`B
`1, 6
`C
`1–4, 6
`D
`1–4, 6
`E
`1–4, 6
`F
`1–4, 6
`
`Reference(s)
`Namikawa
`Miyajima
`Namikawa, Sasao, Amano, Maekawa
`Namikawa, JTOA, Amano, Maekawa
`Miyajima, Sasao, Amano, Maekawa
`Miyajima, JTOA, Amano, Maekawa
`
`Basis
`§ 102(b)
`§ 102(b)
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`
`D. Prior Art References
`1. Namikawa (Exs. 1004, 1005)1
`Namikawa is directed to a subway car where “a plurality of liquid
`crystal televisions [] are disposed along the direction of travel on a wall face
`above each seat [] inside a car [].” Ex. 1005, 6. Figure 1 of Namikawa is
`shown below.
`
`
`1 The cited prior art references, Namikawa, Sasao, Amano, and Maekawa,
`are foreign language references, each accompanied by a certified English
`language translation. See Exs. 1004, 1005 (Namikawa); Exs. 1010, 1011
`(Sasao); Exs. 1020, 1021 (Amano); and Exs. 1008, 1009 (Maekawa). In
`each instance, the even exhibit number refers to the foreign language
`document and the odd exhibit number refers to the English language
`translation. For convenience, we cite to the English language translations of
`these references.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of Namikawa, shown above, depicts an arrangement of television
`screens inside a rail car.
`Namikawa explains that “[e]ach liquid crystal television 12 broadcasts
`content taken from broadcasting media, such as cable television for example,
`in other words, programming such as various types of commercials, dramas,
`and news.” Id. at 6. Namikawa further explains that “a passenger sitting in
`one facing seat can watch the liquid crystal television 12 above another seat
`and a passenger in the other seat can watch the liquid crystal television 12
`above the seat of the one facing seat.” Id.
`2. Sasao (Exs. 1010, 1011)
`Sasao relates to “a display device with which the perceived presence
`of the cabinet can be entirely eliminated, such that only the necessary image
`is produced.” Ex. 1011, Abstract. In Sasao, a “display device such as a rear
`projection television” is “structured so as to be housed at the interior of a
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`wall.” Ex. 1011 ¶ 1. Sasao shows how to arrange a television behind a wall
`so that a viewer can only see the screen of the television set. Figures 3 and 4
`of Sasao depict such an arrangement and are set out below.
`
`
`Sasao Figures 3 and 4, shown above, show a cross section and a front view
`of a rear projection television set behind an opening in a wall, respectively.
`Id.
`
`Sasao explains that “[t]he cabinet 12 itself is disposed behind the wall
`15 and cannot be seen from within the room 14,” and “furthermore, as
`described above, the screen 3 protrudes forward from the cabinet 12 so that
`the front face 3a of the screen and the wall surface 15a in the room 14 are
`substantially flush.” Id. ¶ 10. Figure 6 of Sasao depicts this arrangement
`from the perspective of the viewer, and is set out below.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 6 of Sasao, shown above, shows the front view of a visible screen of
`a projection television set placed behind a wall, from the perspective of a
`viewer in the room. Id. at 5.
`3. Amano (Exs. 1020, 1021)
`Amano is directed to a system for “making use of time in
`transportation equipment, by installing a display device, which provides
`nonstandard information to a large indefinite number of people who are
`using a limited space such as an airplane, train, or bus . . . .” Ex. 1021, 1.
`Amano, for example, shows a transmitter on a vehicle comprising “a video
`information playback function [], which primarily plays back motion
`pictures stored on a video disk or a videotape.” Ex. 1021, 3, Fig. 2. Amano
`also shows a vehicle with display devices and a transmitter for providing
`information to those display devices from a location not used by passengers,
`such as the conductor’s cab in a train. Ex. 1021, 2, Figs. 4–6.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`
`4. Maekawa (Exs. 1008, 1009)
`Maekawa is directed to “a teletext broadcast receiving system for a
`mobile body, preferably used in installations in mobile bodies such as
`electric trains.” Ex. 1009, 1. Maekawa explains how “a television receiver
`installed in an electric train is used in a receiving system that displays
`teletext broadcasts.” Id. at 2. Maekawa explains that “the television
`receivers [] are thin” and can be “liquid crystal panels or the like.” Id.
`
`E. Independent Claim 1
`Petitioner contends that independent claim 1 is obvious over the
`combination of Namikawa, Sasao, Amano, and Maekawa. Pet. 28–34.
`Patent Owner disagrees. PO Resp. 17–27, 29–40. We address the evidence
`and arguments presented by the parties and highlight specific issues in
`further detail below.
`1. “a subway car for mass transportation including . . . sidewalls”
`With respect to the recited limitation in claim 1 “a subway car for
`mass transportation,” Petitioner relies on Namikawa’s teaching of “a public
`transport vehicle such as a transit bus or electric train wherein commercials
`or programming can be broadcast.” Pet. 19 (quoting Ex. 1005, 2–3).
`Petitioner relies on Figure 1 of Namikawa, which shows “one example of
`applying the present device to a car in an electric train of [Japan Railways], a
`subway, or the like.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1005, 6). Petitioner also relies on
`Namikawa’s Figure 1 to teach the recited limitations “longitudinal opposed
`sidewalls” and “ceiling adjoining the sidewalls.” Id. at 20.
`Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s evidence or arguments that
`Namikawa teaches this limitation. See PO Resp. 17–21, 25–26.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`
`Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Namikawa’s description of
`“applying the present device to a car in an electric train of [Japan Railways],
`a subway, or the like” (Ex. 1005, 6) along with Namikawa’s Figure 1
`teaches the recited limitation “a subway car for mass transportation
`including longitudinal opposed sidewalls, a ceiling adjoining the sidewalls”
`of claim 1.
`2. “a video display system . . . connected to said monitors”
`With respect to the recited limitation “a video display system
`comprising a plurality of video display monitors each having a video screen,
`and a video signal source unit operatively connected to said monitors,”
`Petitioner relies on Namikawa’s teaching that “a plurality of liquid crystal
`televisions 12 are disposed along the direction of travel on a wall face above
`each seat 11 inside a car 10.” Id. at 20, 28 (citing Ex. 1005, 6, Fig. 1).
`Petitioner also relies on Namikawa’s teaching that “[e]ach liquid crystal
`television 12 broadcasts content taken from broadcasting media, such as
`cable television for example, in other words, programming such as various
`types of commercials, dramas, and news.” Id. at 20–21 (quoting Ex. 1005,
`6).
`
`Petitioner alternatively relies upon the combination of Namikawa and
`Amano or Maekawa to show that it would have been obvious to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art to employ a video signal source unit to achieve
`Namikawa’s goal of broadcasting programming and commercials to
`passengers through LCD (liquid crystal display) monitors. Id. at 28–30. For
`this combination, Petitioner relies on Amano’s teaching of a vehicle with
`display devices and a transmitter for providing information to those display
`devices from a location not used by passengers, such as “the conductor’s cab
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`in a train.” Id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1021, 2, Figs. 4–6). Petitioner also relies on
`Amano’s teaching that the transmitter on the vehicle comprises “a video
`information playback function 7b, which primarily plays back motion
`pictures stored on a video disk or a videotape.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1021, 3,
`Fig. 2).
`Alternatively, Petitioner relies on Maekawa’s teaching of display
`devices for trains having “television receivers” and antennas in the vehicle,
`explaining that “[i]n recent years . . . television receivers have been installed
`in mobile bodies such as electric trains, and images that were played back by
`VTRs or the like have been received by these” television receivers. Id. at
`29–30 (quoting Ex. 1009, 1, Figs. 1–2).
`Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to combine Amano
`or Maekawa with Namikawa in view of their common goal for displaying
`electronic and dynamic content to passengers. Id. at 30. Petitioner argues it
`would have been obvious to combine the video disk player of Amano with
`the video display system of Namikawa, or to combine the television
`receivers of Maekawa with the video display system of Namikawa. Id.
`(citing Ex. 1014 ¶ 36). Petitioner argues the inclusion of a video signal
`source unit such as a video disk player taught by Amano or a television
`receiver/antenna taught by Maekawa in the system taught by Namikawa
`were known ways to display desired content to passengers. Id. (citing Ex.
`1014 ¶ 36).
`Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s evidence or arguments that
`Namikawa alone teaches the recited limitation or that the combination of
`Namikawa with Amano or Maekawa teaches this limitation. See PO Resp.
`17–27.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`
`Petitioner has shown that Namikawa teaches a plurality of liquid
`crystal televisions disposed on a wall face above each seat inside a rail car
`(Ex. 1005, 6, Fig. 1) and that each liquid crystal television displays content
`from broadcasting media, such as cable television, of various types of
`commercials, dramas, and news (Ex. 1005, 6). Petitioner has also shown
`that Amano teaches a vehicle with display devices and a transmitter for
`providing information to those display devices from a location such as the
`conductor’s cab in a train (Ex. 1021, 2, Figs. 4–6) and a transmitter with a
`video information playback function that plays back motion pictures stored
`on a video disk or a videotape (Ex. 1021, 3, Fig. 2).
`Petitioner has also shown that Maekawa teaches display devices for
`trains that have television receivers and antennas, and that such television
`receivers were installed in electric trains, where images were played back by
`video tape recorders (VTRs) and received by television receivers for display.
`Ex. 1009, 1, Figs. 1–2.
`We find, on the basis of the evidence and explanation provided by
`Petitioner, that Namikawa in combination with Amano or Maekawa, teaches
`the recited limitation “video display system comprising a plurality of video
`display monitors each having a video screen, and a video signal source unit
`operatively connected to said monitors” of claim 1.
`3. “monitors . . . on opposed sides,”
`With respect to the recited limitation “monitors being spaced along
`the length of the car on opposed sides,” Petitioner relies on Figure 1 of
`Namikawa to show liquid crystal televisions spaced along the length of the
`car on opposed sides. Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 1).
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`
`Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s evidence or arguments that
`Namikawa teaches this limitation. See PO Resp. 17–21, 25–26.
`Namikawa’s Figure 1 shows a series of television monitors mounted
`above the passenger seats along the length of the car on opposite sides. This
`is supported by Namikawa’s explanation that “a plurality of liquid crystal
`televisions 12 are disposed along the direction of travel on a wall face above
`each seat 11 inside a car 10.” Ex. 1005, 6, Fig. 1. We find, on the basis of
`the evidence and explanation provided by Petitioner, that Namikawa teaches
`the recited limitation “monitors being spaced along the length of the car on
`opposed sides” of claim 1.
`4. “mounted at the junction of the sidewall and ceiling,”
`With respect to the recited limitation “each of said monitor being
`mounted at the junction of the sidewall and ceiling,” Petitioner relies on
`Figure 1 of Namikawa to show liquid crystal televisions mounted at the
`junction of the sidewall and ceiling. Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 1).
`Petitioner asserts that the junction in Namikawa is shown as a concavely
`curved segment extending from the vertical sidewall to the ceiling, which,
`Petitioner argues, is consistent with the ’602 patent’s description that “there
`is commonly provided a concavely curved segment of internal wall” at the
`junction location. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 4:1–3). Namikawa Figure 1, color
`annotated by Petitioner, is shown below.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`
`
`
`Annotated Namikawa Figure 1, shown above, shows the location of the
`junction in a rail car, according to Petitioner.
`Patent Owner argues that Namikawa teaches monitors mounted on a
`sidewall, not mounted at the junction of the sidewall and ceiling, as recited
`in claim 1. PO Resp. 25–26. Patent Owner also argues that Namikawa’s
`monitor screens are mounted externally on top of the sidewall, and are not
`mounted substantially flushed with the adjacent wall surface structure as
`claimed. Id.
`The ’602 patent explains that “when the monitor is mounted at the
`junction of the wall and ceiling of the subway car, [] there is commonly
`provided a concavely curved segment of internal wall.” Ex. 1001 at 4:1–3.
`Patent Owner’s Declarant testified that “subway cars have a rounded portion
`at the junction of the sidewall and ceiling to accommodate travel through
`subway way tunnels which are bored by a machine in a round shape and
`made to be as small as possible to reduce costs,” and “[i]t would be clear to
`one of ordinary skill in the art that the ‘junction of the sidewall and the
`ceiling’ in a subway car is not a single point, but an area between the ceiling
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`and a sidewall that is curved.” Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 23, 24.
`One of ordinary skill in the art reading the claims in light of the
`specification would understand that the recited limitation of “mounted at the
`junction of the sidewall and ceiling” in a subway car would cover the case of
`having a mounting surface of concavely curved segment of internal wall
`such as the one shown in Namikawa Figure 1. We find, on the basis of the
`evidence and explanation provided by Petitioner, that Namikawa teaches the
`recited limitation “each of said monitor being mounted at the junction of the
`sidewall and ceiling” of claim 1.
`5. “substantially flushed with the adjacent wall surface”
`With respect to the recited limitation “with the screen of the monitor
`substantially flushed with the adjacent wall surface structure of the car,”
`Petitioner relies on Namikawa’s Figure 1 to teach this limitation, arguing
`that the surfaces of flat panel screens depicted in Figure 1 are “to a great
`extent even with the adjoining walls.” Id. at 23.
`Petitioner alternatively relies upon the combination of Namikawa and
`Sasao to teach this limitation. Id. at 31. Sasao is directed to “a display
`device that is structured so as to be housed at the interior of a wall” (Ex.
`1011 ¶ 1), such that “only the front face of the image formation part can be
`seen from within the room” (Id. ¶ 8). Figures 3 and 4 of Sasao are shown
`below.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`
`
`Sasao Figures 3 and 4, shown above, depict a television placed behind a wall
`such that the front of the display screen is flush with the adjacent wall
`surface. Ex. 1011 at 2, 5. Sasao teaches that “the screen 3 protrudes
`forward from the cabinet 12 so that the front face 3a of the screen and the
`wall surface 15a in the room 14 are substantially flush.” Id. ¶ 10 (emphasis
`added).
`Petitioner argues that there is motivation to modify Namikawa by
`placing the screens substantially flushed with the adjacent wall surface. Pet.
`33. Petitioner argues that this modification would have conserved space and
`resulted in a more aesthetically pleasing system. Id. (citing Ex. 1014 ¶ 44).
`Petitioner also argues that this modification would have reduced the
`potential for vandalism and would have made it easier to clean the screens
`and the adjacent walls. Id. Petitioner further argues that by 1997, flush
`mounting was the norm in the rail industry and the Federal Railroad
`Administration (“FRA”) was in the process of enacting regulations that
`required railcars under FRA jurisdiction to have interior fittings (e.g., TVs)
`that were either recessed or flush mounted. Id. at 33–34 (citing Ex. 1014 ¶
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`44). In 1997, Petitioner argues, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`been aware of all of these reasons, and therefore motivated to place display
`screens in railcars substantially flush with adjacent surfaces. Id. at 34.
`Patent Owner argues that Namikawa does not teach or suggest the
`limitation “screen of the monitor substantially flushed with the adjacent wall
`surface structure of the car.” PO Resp. 17, 20–21, 25–26. Patent Owner
`also argues that Sasao is directed to hiding a rear projection cabinet in a
`room, and is not directed to systems for railway cars. Id. at 32–33. Patent
`Owner argues that there is no teaching or suggestion of any structure for a
`flush mounted TV monitor system in Sasao that “results in the system being
`both located at the junction of subway car’s ceiling and sidewall and results
`in the screen being [] substantially flush with the adjacent wall surfaces.” Id.
`at 33.
`Patent Owner, however, does not appear to dispute that Sasao teaches
`positioning a rear projection television behind a wall so that the screen of the
`television and the adjacent wall are on an even plane with each other. See
`id. at 21–22. Patent Owner even acknowledges that Sasao teaches “screen 3
`protrudes forward from the cabinet 12 so that the front face 3a of the screen
`and the wall surface 15a in the room 14 are substantially flush.” Id. at 21
`(quoting Ex. 1011 ¶ 10 (emphasis added). The result of this arrangement, as
`seen from the perspective of a viewer, is depicted in Figure 6 of Sasao,
`shown below.
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`
`
`Sasao Figure 6, shown above, shows the front view of a visible screen
`of a television set placed behind a wall, from the perspective of a viewer in
`the room. This arrangement positions the television so that the front face of
`the television screen is substantially flush with the adjacent wall surface.
`Ex. 1011 ¶ 10, Figs 3–6.
`We construed “substantially flushed” to mean “a surface which is to a
`great extent even with an adjoining one.” Supra § II.A.1. Sasao’s aligning
`the front face of a television screen with an adjacent wall surface so that the
`front face of the screen and the surface of the adjacent wall are substantially
`flush with each other falls within this meaning. We find, on the basis of the
`evidence and explanation provided by Petitioner, Sasao’s positioning of a
`television behind an opening in a wall and aligning the front face of the
`television screen with the adjacent wall surface in the room so that the
`screen and the wall are substantially flush with each other teaches the recited
`limitation “the screen of the monitor substantially flushed with the adjacent
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`wall surface,” of claim 1. We address the arguments d
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
