Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: May 4, 2017
`
`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.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Instituting Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: May 4, 2017
`
`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.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Instituting Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`Blair (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 6
`(“Prelim. Resp.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an
`inter partes review must not be instituted “unless . . . the information
`presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`the Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon considering the
`Petition and Preliminary Response, as well as the evidence presented and the
`arguments made therein, we determine that Petitioner has established a
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of
`at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter
`partes review.
`
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`The parties identify Blair v. Alstom SA et al., Civ. No. 1:16-cv-03391
`(S.D.N.Y.) as a proceeding relating to the ’602 patent. Pet. 7; Paper 5, 2.
`
`
`B. 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
`“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
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`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.
`
`
`C. Challenged Claims of the ’602 Patent
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–4 and 6 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.
`including
`1.
`A subway car
`for mass
`transportation
`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
`the car seats, so that each video screen is readily visible to
`passengers in the subway car.
`Ex. 1001, 6:31–43.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`
`
`D. Evidence Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the following references:1
`(1)
`Japanese Publication No. 04-085379 (“Namikawa”) Exs. 1004, 1005;
`(2)
`Japanese Publication No. 07-181900 (“Miyajima”) Exs. 1006, 1007;
`(3)
`Japan Train Operation Association Magazine, Vol. 37, issue no. 3,
`
`March 1995 (“JTOA Magazine”) Ex. 1002, 1003;
`(4)
`Japanese Publication No. 04-322579 (“Sasao”) Exs. 1010, 1011;
`(5)
`Japanese Publication No. 04-160991 (“Maekawa”) Exs. 1008, 1009;
`(6)
`Japanese Publication No. 02-223985 (“Amano”) Exs. 1020, 1021.
`Petitioner also relies upon the Declaration of Lowell Malo. Ex. 1014.
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts unpatentability of the challenged claims on the
`following grounds.
`Ground
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`A
`B
`C
`
`D
`
`E
`
`F
`
`Namikawa
`Miyajima
`Namikawa, Sasao, Amano,
`Maekawa
`Namikawa, JTOA Magazine,
`Amano, Maekawa
`Miyajima, Sasao, Amano,
`Maekawa
`Miyajima, JTOA Magazine,
`Amano, Maekawa
`
`§ 102
`§ 102
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`1, 6
`1, 6
`1–4, 6
`
`1–4, 6
`
`1–4, 6
`
`1–4, 6
`
`
`
`
`1 Each Japanese publication relied upon by Petitioner is accompanied by an
`English language translation. Citations in this Decision to these references
`are to the English language translations.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Patent Owner’s 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Arguments
`Patent Owner argues that the Petition should be denied under
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because the Petition relies on the same or substantially
`the same arguments made during ex parte reexamination (Ex Parte
`Reexamination Control No. 90/011,861) of the ’602 patent. Prelim. Resp.
`14–24. Patent Owner argues that Amano was previously considered during
`the reexamination (Prelim. Resp. 15–16) and that Miyajima, Namikawa,
`Sasao, and JTOA Magazine are substantially the same as art previously
`considered (Prelim. Resp. 16–24). The record here, however, presents
`detailed arguments and evidence related to the scope of the challenged
`claims and with respect to Namikawa, Miyajima, Sasao, and JTOA that
`were not previously considered. See Ex. 2001 passim. The denial of a
`petition under Section 325 is discretionary. Accordingly, we decline to
`deny the Petition on this basis.
`B. 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:
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`“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).
`During Ex Parte Reexamination of the ’602 patent, the recited
`limitation “substantially flushed” (claim 1) was construed to mean “a surface
`which is to a great extent even with an adjoining one.” Ex. 2001, 6.
`Petitioner and Patent Owner appear to agree on this construction for
`purposes of this proceeding. See Pet. 10; Prelim. Resp. 3. We do not find it
`necessary at this point in the proceeding to construe expressly any claim
`terms or to adopt the construction agreed to by the parties. Rather, we apply
`the term’s plain and ordinary meaning, as understood by one of ordinary
`skill in the art in light of the specification.
`
`
`C. Namikawa (Exs. 1004, 1005)
`Namikawa is directed to a subway car where “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. Figure 1 of Namikawa is
`reproduced below.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 1. Figure 1 shows the inside of a rail car.
`Namikawa discloses 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. Namikawa further discloses an
`operation panel 13 in the subway car that “turns the broadcast to the liquid
`crystal panels 12 on and off and switches the broadcast content.” Id.
`
`
`D. Miyajima (Exs. 1006, 1007)
`Miyajima is directed to display devices in vehicles, such as railcars,
`for displaying information and images to passengers. Ex. 1007, 1.
`Miyajima’s display device comprises a plurality of displays “having shapes
`conforming to the shapes in the regions where the displays are to be installed
`within the vehicle” for “efficient use of the space within the vehicle.” Id. at
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`3. Figure 4 of Miyajima, depicting displays 01a and 01b at the junction of
`the sidewall and the ceiling of the railcar, is shown below.
`
`
`Ex. 1007, Fig. 4. Figure 4 shows the inside and a cross-section of a rail car.
`Miyajima also discloses a device 02 within the vehicle that “stores
`image data and performs the display on the displays on the basis thereof.”
`Id. at 3. Specifically, this device “may comprise an information memory
`search online transfer means provided within the vehicle, which stores image
`data, and accesses and transfers the same, and a communication information
`transfer means, which receives image data that is transmitted from outside
`the vehicle, wherein display is performed on the displays on the basis of
`image data from this information memory search online transfer means and
`this communication transfer means.” Id.
`
`
`E. JTOA Magazine (Exs. 1002, 1003)
`The JTOA Magazine is directed towards Tobu 9050 series rail cars.
`Ex. 1003, 2. These rail cars contained LCD (liquid crystal displays) screens
`in the car interiors, where the display screens were mounted with adjacent
`wall structures. Two photos from the JTOA Magazine are shown below.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at 1. These photos show views of the inside of a rail car.
`The JTOA Magazine discloses that
`[a]s an in-car guidance device, a nine inch liquid crystal monitor
`is provided above the side doors in each car; visually, they
`provide improved service by displaying the destination, the type
`of train, the stations the train will stop at, and other information.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`
`Consideration has been given to making this monitor easy to see
`from the seats as well, by mounting on the lintel inspection cover,
`which is formed from fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP), and tilting
`it at an angle of 30 degrees from the vertical.
`Id. at 4.
`The JTOA Magazine also discloses “[a] combined control system
`from the display device command unit [which] is used for . . . the in-car
`passenger guidance devices,” and teaches that “[i]n addition, the display
`device command unit and the train information device command unit are
`made compact, to improve operability and to ensure adequate space for
`attaching the equipment.” Id. at 5.
`
`
`F. Sasao (Exs. 1010, 1011)
`Sasao is directed to a “display device that is structured so as to be
`housed at the interior of a wall.” Ex. 1011, 2. Sasao discloses arranging a
`television behind wall 15, as shown in Figures 3 and 4 of the reference set
`out below.
`
`
`Id. at Figs. 4, 5. Figures 4 and 5 show a cross section and a front view of a
`mounted television frame, respectively.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`
`Sasao describes 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. at 2.
`
`
`G. 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.
`
`
`H. 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 further discloses that each of “the
`television receivers (101), (102), (103) . . . (124) are thin” and can be “liquid
`crystal panels or the like.” Id. at 2.
`
`
`I. Ground A: Anticipation of Claims 1 and 6 by Namikawa
`Petitioner contends that claims 1 and 6 of the ’602 patent are
`anticipated by Namikawa. Pet. 19–24. With respect to the recited limitation
`in claim 1 “subway car for mass transportation,” Petitioner relies on
`Namikawa’s disclosure of “a public transport vehicle such as a transit bus or
`electric train wherein commercials or programming can be broadcast.” Pet.
`19; Ex. 1005, 2–3. Figure 1 of Namikawa shows “one example of applying
`the present device to a car in an electric train of [Japan Railways], a subway,
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`or the like.” Ex. 1005, 6; Pet. 19. Petitioner also relies on Namikawa’s
`Figure 1 to disclose the recited limitations “longitudinal opposed sidewalls”
`and “ceiling adjoining the sidewalls.” Pet. 20; Ex. 1005, 6.
`With respect to 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,”
`Petitioner relies on Namikawa’s disclosure 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.” Pet. 20; Ex. 1005, 6, Fig. 1. Namikawa also
`discloses 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.” Ex. 1005, 6; Pet. 20–21.
`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 that the liquid crystal televisions are spaced along the
`length of the car on opposed sides. Pet. 21; Ex. 1005, Fig. 1.
`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 that the liquid crystal televisions are
`mounted at the junction of the sidewall and ceiling. Pet. 22; Ex. 1005, Fig. 1.
`Petitioner asserts that the junction 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
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`location. Pet. 23; Ex. 1001, 4:1–3. Namikawa Figure 1, annotated by
`Petitioner, is shown below.
`
`
`
`Pet. 23. Annotated Figure 1, according to Petitioner, shows the location of
`the junction in a rail car.
`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 show this limitation, arguing
`that the surfaces of flat panel screens 12 depicted in Figure 1 are “to a great
`extent even with the adjoining walls.” Pet. 23; Ex. 1005, Fig. 1.
`With respect to the recited limitation “directed obliquely downwardly
`toward the car seats, so that each video screen is readily visible to
`passengers in the subway car,” Petitioner relies on Namikawa’s disclosure of
`“a plurality of liquid crystal televisions 12 [] disposed along the direction of
`travel on a wall face above each seat 11 inside a car 10.” Pet. 23; Ex. 1005,
`6, Fig. 1. Namikawa also discloses that “[t]he liquid crystal television is
`assembled in a mounting position for an advertising media using
`conventional paper.” Ex. 1005, 6. Namikawa further discloses that “a
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`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. Petitioner
`argues that Namikawa’s Figure 1 shows the liquid crystal televisions have
`screens that are directed obliquely downward toward the car seats so that
`each screen is readily visible to passengers in the subway car. Pet. 23–24;
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 1.
`Patent Owner contends that Namikawa fails to disclose the recited
`limitation “each of said monitor being mounted at the junction of the
`sidewall and ceiling.” Prelim. Resp. 24–25. Patent Owner argues that
`Namikawa’s monitors are mounted to a wall face, not at the recited “junction
`of the sidewall and ceiling.” Prelim. Resp. 24. Patent Owner quotes
`Namikawa, which states “the present device . . . dispos[es] a plurality of
`televisions on a wall face inside a car of a transit bus, electric train or the
`like.” Prelim. Resp. 24; Ex. 1005, 4:3–7.
`Patent Owner also contends Namikawa fails to disclose the recited
`limitation “with the screen of the monitor substantially flushed with the
`adjacent wall surface structure of the car.” Prelim. Resp. 25–27. Patent
`Owner argues Namikawa teaches externally mounting an LCD television
`where conventional paper advertisements were posted. Prelim. Resp. 25;
`Ex. 1005, 6. Patent Owner argues the televisions in Namikawa are mounted
`on the sidewall without inserting any portion of the television into the
`adjacent wall structure of the rail car. Prelim. Resp. 25. Patent Owner uses
`Figure 1 of Namikawa to show that the televisions are externally mounted
`with the screens protruding from the mounting surface. Namikawa Figure 1,
`annotated by Patent Owner, is shown below.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`
`
`Prelim. Resp. 26. Annotated Figure 1 shows the location of monitors
`mounted inside a rail car.
`We are not persuaded that Namikawa sufficiently discloses the
`limitation “with the screen of the monitor substantially flushed with the
`adjacent wall surface structure of the car.” Patent Owner asserts that the
`televisions shown in Namikawa’s Figure 1 are externally mounted with the
`screens protruding from the mounting surface. Prelim. Resp. 25. Figure 1
`does not have sufficient information or detail to determine that the screens of
`the monitors are substantially flushed with the adjacent wall surface.
`Petitioner, therefore, has not shown sufficiently that Namikawa discloses the
`limitation “with the screen of the monitor substantially flushed with the
`adjacent wall surface structure of the car.”
`Accordingly, Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing that
`Namikawa discloses all the limitations of independent claim 1. The same
`would be true, therefore, with respect to claim 6, which depends from claim
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`1. Thus, based on this record, we determine that Petitioner has not
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that
`claims 1 and 6 are anticipated by Namikawa.
`J. Ground B: Anticipation of Claims 1 and 6 by Miyajima
`Petitioner contends that claims 1 and 6 of the ’602 patent are
`anticipated by Miyajima. Pet. 24–28. With respect to the recited limitation
`in claim 1 “subway car for mass transportation,” Petitioner relies on
`Miyajima’s disclosure of a display device for “a railway carriage or the
`like.” Pet. 24; Ex. 1007, 5. Figure 4 of Miyajima is shown below.
`
`
`Ex. 1007, Fig. 4. Figure 4 shows the inside and a cross-section of a rail car.
`Petitioner relies on Miyajima’s Figures 1, 3–6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 22 to
`disclose the recited limitations “longitudinal opposed sidewalls,” and
`“ceiling adjoining the sidewalls.” Pet. 25; Ex. 1005.
`With respect to 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,”
`Petitioner relies on Miyajima’s disclosure of a “display device comprising a
`plurality of displays and a drive device installed in a vehicle, which performs
`display on the displays on the basis of stored image data.” Pet. 25;
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`Ex. 1007, 2. Miyajima further discloses that “display data such as image
`data is transferred for display to the displays 01 by an electronic filing
`device 02, which has a data access means for various optical discs 02a, or
`magnetic disks such as hard disks or floppy disks, or various memory drive
`device such as magnetic tape or semiconductor memories, and an
`autochanger 02b for optical discs or the like.” Ex. 1007, 4; Pet. 25–26.
`With respect to the recited limitation “monitors being spaced along
`the length of the car on opposed sides,” Petitioner relies on Miyajima’s
`Figures 1, 3–6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 22 to show the displays being spaced along
`the length of the car on opposed sides. Pet. 26; Ex. 1007.
`With respect to the recited limitation “each of said monitor being
`mounted at the junction of the sidewall and ceiling,” Petitioner relies on
`Miyajima’s Figures 1, 3–6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 22 to show that the displays
`are mounted at the junction of the sidewall and ceiling. Pet. 26; Ex. 1007.
`Petitioner asserts that the junction 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. Pet. 26–27; Ex. 1001, 4:1–3.
`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 Miyajima’s Figure 1 to show this limitation, arguing that
`the surfaces of the flat screens 01 depicted in Figure 1 are “to a great extent
`even with the adjoining walls.” Pet. 27; Ex. 1007, Fig. 1. Miyajima also
`states that its displays have “shapes conforming to the shapes in the regions
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`where the displays are to be installed within the vehicle” for “efficient use of
`the space.” Ex. 1007, 3; Pet. 27.
`With respect to the recited limitation “directed obliquely downwardly
`toward the car seats, so that each video screen is readily visible to
`passengers in the subway car,” Petitioner relies on Miyajima’s Figure 4 to
`show that the displays are directed obliquely downward toward the car seats
`so that each screen is readily visible to the passengers. Pet. 27; Ex. 1007,
`Fig. 4.
`Patent Owner contends Miyajima fails to disclose the recited
`limitation “with the screen of the monitor substantially flushed with the
`adjacent wall surface structure of the car.” Prelim. Resp. 30. Patent Owner
`argues Miyajima’s Figure 1 depicts a gap between the display 01 and the
`sidewall. Miyajima’s Figure 1 is shown below.
`
`Ex. 1007, Fig. 1. Figure 1 shows a rail car and a cross-section of a rail car.
`Patent Owner points out that Miyajima discloses “the structure is such
`that cooling air 08 passes by the backlight 01P, in order to limit the
`temperature-rise of the backlight 01P . . . cooling air 08 flows between the
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`vehicle carriage 03 and the backlight.” Prelim. Resp. 30; Ex. 1107 ¶ 17.
`Patent Owner argues that this illustrates external mounting of the curved (or
`2 piece) displays away from the carriage wall, and that the displays are not
`mounted “substantially flushed with the adjacent wall surface structure of
`the car.” Prelim. Resp. 30–31; Ex. 2002 ¶ 36.
`We are not persuaded that Miyajima sufficiently discloses the
`limitation “with the screen of the monitor substantially flushed with the
`adjacent wall surface structure of the car.” Patent Owner asserts that the
`monitors shown in Miyajima Figure 1 are externally mounted away from the
`carriage wall, not flush-mounted. Prelim. Resp. 30. Miyajima’s Figure 1
`does not appear to have sufficient information or detail to determine that
`Miyajima’s monitor screens are substantially flushed with the adjacent wall.
`Miyajima’s statement that its displays have “shapes conforming to the
`shapes in the regions where the displays are to be installed within the
`vehicle” for “efficient use of the space,” does not resolve the question of
`whether Miyajima’s monitor screens are externally mounted or substantially
`flushed with the adjacent wall. See Ex. 1007, 3; Pet. 27. Petitioner,
`therefore, has not shown sufficiently that Miyajima discloses the limitation
`“with the screen of the monitor substantially flushed with the adjacent wall
`surface structure of the car.”
`Accordingly, Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing that
`Miyajima discloses all the limitations of independent claim 1. The same
`would be true, therefore, with respect to dependent claim 6. Thus, based on
`this record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claims 1 and 6 are
`anticipated by Miyajima.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`
`
`K. Ground C: Obviousness of Claims 1–4 and 6 over
`Namikawa, Sasao, Amano, and Maekawa
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–4 and 6 of the ’602 patent are
`obvious over the combination of Namikawa, Sasao, Amano, and Maekawa.
`Pet. 28–34. With respect to the recited limitations of claim 1 “subway car
`for mass transportation,” “longitudinal opposed sidewalls,” “ceiling
`adjoining the sidewalls,” “monitors being spaced along the length of the car
`on opposed sides,” “each of said monitor being mounted at the junction of
`the sidewall and the ceiling,” and “directed obliquely downwardly toward
`the car seats, so that each video screen is readily visible to passengers in the
`subway car,” Petitioner relies on the same teachings in Namikawa relied on
`for Ground A supra. Pet. 28, 31, 34.
`With respect to 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,”
`Petitioner relies on the same teachings in Namikawa relied on for Ground A
`supra. Pet. 28. Petitioner, however, also 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 such a
`video signal source unit to achieve Namikawa’s goal of broadcasting
`through the LCD monitors programming and commercials to passengers.
`Pet. 28–30. For that 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 in a train.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1021, 2, Figs. 4–6).
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`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.” Pet. 29 (citing
`Ex. 1021, 3, Fig. 2). Also for that combination, Petitioner relies on
`Maekawa’s teaching of display devices for trains having “television
`receivers” and antennas in the vehicle, and discloses 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. Pet. 29–30 (citing Ex. 1009, 1, Figs.
`1–2).
`
`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 the same teachings in Namikawa relied on for Ground A
`supra. Pet. 28. Petitioner, however, also alternatively relies upon the
`combination of Namikawa and Sasao to teach this limitation. Pet. 31. Sasao
`is directed to “a display device that is structured so as to be housed at the
`interior of a wall” such that “only the front face of the image formation part
`can be seen from within the room.” Ex. 1011, 2 (cited at Pet. 31). Figures 3
`and 4 of Sasao are shown below.
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011, Figs. 3, 4. Figures 3 and 4, show how a television is placed
`behind a wall 15 such that the front of the display screen 3a is flush with the
`adjacent wall surface 15a. Sasao teaches that “[t]he 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.” Ex. 1011, 2 (cited
`at Pet. 32).
`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.; 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 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. Pet. 33–34; Ex. 1014 ¶ 44. In 1997, Petitioner
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00117
`Patent 6,700,602 B1
`
`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. Pet. 34.
`Patent Owner contends the combination of Namikawa and Sasao fails
`to teach the recited limitation “with the screen of the monitor substantially
`flushed with the adjacent wall surface structure of the car.” Prelim. Resp.
`31–39. Patent Owner argues that Namikawa does not reasonably convey to
`one skilled in the art that Namikawa’s liquid crystal television is flush-
`mounted. Prelim. Resp. 31–32. Patent Owner also argues Sasao’s teachings
`are irrelevant to the placement of Namikawa’s flat panel displays because
`Sasao deals with rear-projection televisions and there is no mention of flat
`televisions or video monitors in Sasao. Prelim. Resp. 34.
`Patent Owner argues that Sasao did not deem flat screen televisions
`relevant to the problem it was solving. Id. Patent Owner argues that Sasao
`must not have found it necessary or desirable to flush-mount flat panel
`displays on a wall surface, and that one skilled in the art would not have
`found externally mounting a flat screen television or display monitor
`problematic. Prelim. Resp. 34–36. Patent Owner argues that the
`combination of Namikawa and Sasao is improper because the proposed
`modification would render Namikawa unsatisfactory for its intended
`purpose. Pr
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
