UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`KAWASAKI RAIL CAR, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SCOTT BLAIR,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-00117
`
`Patent No. 6,700,602
`
`Issue Date: March 2, 2004
`
`Title: Subway TV Media System
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT 6,700,602 UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS .......................................................................................... iii
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. Mandatory notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) ............................................................ 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Parties in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) .................................. 2
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ............................................. 2
`
`Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a)) ...................... 2
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ...................................... 2
`
`III. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ............................................... 3
`
`IV. Statement of Precise Relief Requested ........................................................... 3
`
`V.
`
`Factual Background ........................................................................................ 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Brief Description of the ’602 Patent .................................................... 4
`
`Prosecution History of the ’602 Patent ................................................ 7
`
`Reexamination History of the ’602 Patent ........................................... 7
`
`VI. Relevant Information Concerning the Contested Patent ................................ 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 9
`
`Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(b),
`42.104(b)(3) .......................................................................................... 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“substantially flushed” (claims 1-4 and 6) ............................... 10
`
`“video signal source unit” (claims 1-4 and 6).......................... 11
`
`VII. Prior Art to the ’602 Patent ........................................................................... 11
`
`1.
`
`Namikawa ................................................................................ 13
`
`2. Miyajima .................................................................................. 14
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`JTOA Magazine ....................................................................... 15
`
`Sasao ........................................................................................ 17
`
`Amano ...................................................................................... 18
`
`6. Maekawa .................................................................................. 19
`
`VIII. Specific Grounds For Petition ...................................................................... 19
`
`i
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,700,602
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`A. Ground A: Claims 1 and 6 Are Anticipated by Namikawa .............. 19
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Ground B: Claims 1 and 6 Are Anticipated by Miyajima ................ 24
`
`Ground C: Claim 1-4 and 6 Are Rendered Obvious Under §
`103 by Namikawa In View of Sasao, Amano and Maekawa. ........... 28
`
`D. Ground D: Claims 1-4 and 6 Are Rendered Obvious Under §
`103 by Namikawa In View of the JTOA Magazine, Amano and
`Maekawa............................................................................................. 39
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Ground E: Claims 1-4 and 6 Are Rendered Obvious Under §
`103 by Miyajima In View of Sasao, Amano and Maekawa. ............. 44
`
`Ground F: Claims 1-4 and 6 Are Rendered Obvious Under §
`103 by Miyajima In View of the JTOA Magazine, Amano and
`Maekawa. ........................................................................................... 49
`
`IX. REDUNDANCY .......................................................................................... 54
`
`A. Grounds A, C, and D are not Redundant with Grounds B, E,
`and F. .................................................................................................. 54
`
`B.
`
`Grounds A and B are not Redundant with Grounds C, D, E, and
`F. ......................................................................................................... 55
`
`C.
`
`Grounds C and E are not Redundant with Grounds D and F ............. 55
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 56
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ..................................................................... 57
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................... 58
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,700,602
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,700,602 (Issued March 2, 2004), Subway TV
`Media System (“the ’602 Patent”)
`
`Japan Train Operation Association Magazine, Vol. 37, issue
`no. 3 (March 1, 1995)
`
`Translation of Ex. 1002
`
`Japanese Publication No. 04-085379
`
`Translation of Ex. 1004
`
`Japanese Publication No. 07-181900
`
`Translation of Ex. 1006
`
`Japanese Publication No. 04-160991
`
`Translation of Ex. 1008
`
`Japanese Publication No. 04-322579
`
`Translation of Ex. 1010
`
`File history of the ’602 Patent (“File History”)
`
`Reexamination file history of the ’602 Patent (“Reexam File
`History”)
`
`Expert Declaration of Lowell Malo (“Malo Decl.”)
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Lowell Malo
`
`Declaration of Shuichi Matsuda
`
`Translation of Ex. 1016
`
`Certification from Japan National Diet Library Explaining
`Workflow Procedure in the Library
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,700,602
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`Translation of Ex. 1018
`
`Japanese Publication No. 02-223985
`
`Translation of Ex. 1020
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,293,244
`
`Certification from Japan National Diet Library Indicating
`Receipt Date of Japan Train Operation Association Magazine
`
`1024
`
`Translation of Ex. 1023
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Kawasaki Rail Car, Inc. (“Petitioner”) petitions for inter partes review under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 and 37 C.F.R., Part 42, of claims 1-4 and 6 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,700,602 (Ex. 1001, the “’602 Patent”) and shows herein that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it will prevail in proving those claims are unpatentable.
`
`The subway cars having “a plurality of video display monitors,” recited in
`
`claim 1-4 and 6 (Ex. 1001 at 6:33-34), were well known to those having ordinary
`
`skill in the art by the May 7, 1997 filing date of the ’602 Patent. The combination
`
`of features relating to placement of video display monitors “substantially flushed
`
`with the adjacent wall surface” at the “junction of the sidewall and the ceiling” of a
`
`subway car recited in the challenged claims have been combined in only
`
`predictable manners according to their known functionalities as would have been
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See Ex. 1015 at ¶¶ 35-62; KSR
`
`Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 395, 417 (2007) (“[A] court must ask whether
`
`the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to
`
`their established functions.”)). The challenged claims are therefore unpatentable
`
`and should be cancelled.
`
`As demonstrated below, the challenged claims are unpatentable under § 102
`
`and/or obvious under § 103(a) over prior art patents and publications that show
`
`placement of video screens in subway cars at the junction of the sidewall and the
`
`1
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,700,602
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`ceiling, as well as all other claimed features of the challenged claims.1 Because
`
`there was nothing inventive about the subject matter of claims 1-4 and 6 of the
`
`’602 Patent, these claims should be cancelled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)
`
`A. Real Parties in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`Petitioner and its parent company, Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd., are the
`
`real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`The ’602 Patent is asserted against Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd. in Blair
`
`v. Alstom SA et al., Civ. No. 1:16-cv-03391 (S.D.N.Y.).
`
`C. Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a))
`
`Lead Counsel:
`
`Sheila Mortazavi (Reg. No. 43,343).
`
`Backup Counsel: Zaed M. Billah (Reg. No. 71,418) and Armin Ghiam
`
`(Reg. No. 72,717).
`
`D.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`Petitioner agrees to electronic service at the following email addresses:
`
`SheilaMortazavi@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`
`ZaedBillah@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`
`
`1 Statutory citations are to Title 35 of the United States Code unless otherwise
`
`noted.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,700,602
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`ArminGhiam@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`
`Service may be made on lead and backup counsel at the following address:
`
`ANDREWS KURTH KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004
`Telephone: (212) 425-7200
`Fax: (212) 425-5288
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’602 Patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review
`
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this petition.
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1-4 and 6 of the ’602 Patent in
`
`view of the following prior art references: (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 (“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); and (6) Japanese Publication No. 02-
`
`223985 (“Amano,” Exs. 1020-1021). Each of these prior art references constitutes
`
`prior art under § 102 (pre-AIA) as demonstrated below. Based on these references,
`
`and as explained in detail below, Petitioner presents the following grounds for trial:
`
`3
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,700,602
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`Ground A: Claims 1 and 6 are anticipated by Namikawa under § 102(b).
`
`Ground B: Claims 1 and 6 are anticipated by Miyajima under §102(b).
`
`Ground C: Claims 1-4 and 6 would have been obvious under § 103 by Namikawa
`
`in view of Sasao, Amano and Maekawa.
`
`Ground D: Claims 1-4 and 6 would have been obvious under § 103 by Namikawa
`
`in view of the JTOA Magazine, Amano and Maekawa.
`
`Ground E: Claims 1-4 and 6 would have been obvious under § 103 by Miyajima
`
`in view of Sasao, Amano and Maekawa.
`
`Ground F:
`
` Claims 1-4 and 6 would have been obvious under § 103 by Miyajima
`
`in view of the JTOA Magazine, Amano and Maekawa.
`
`V.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A. Brief Description of the ’602 Patent
`
`The ’602 Patent, entitled “Subway TV Media System,” is directed to a
`
`television system for subway cars comprising video monitors mounted along the
`
`cars at the junction of the sidewall and the ceiling. (Ex. 1001 at abstract, Fig. 1A,
`
`Fig. 1B). The monitors may be either CRT-type or LCD-type. (Id. at 4:14-32,
`
`5:35-48).
`
`The ’602 Patent states that at the “junction of the wall and ceiling of the
`
`subway car, [] there is commonly provided a concavely curved segment of internal
`
`wall.” (Id. at 4:1-3). The placement of the screens at this location results in
`
`4
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,700,602
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`screens “disposed opposite to sets of inward facing seats 16, and angled
`
`downwardly for ease of viewing of passengers 24 seated in such inward facing
`
`seats 16, as shown in Figure 2.” (Id. at 4:64-5:4).
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 2).
`
`
`
`According to the ’602 Patent, “a subway car is normally constructed so that
`
`that it has a cavity wall, defined between its outer structural shell and its inner
`
`lining wall” and the “video display monitors in the system of the invention are
`
`suitably mounted in the cavity wall.” (Id. at 3:55-61). The ’602 Patent further
`
`describes the benefits of LCD-based video monitors as “occup[ying] less space in
`
`the ceiling structure of the car” and “giv[ing] a better aesthetic appearance to the
`
`inside of the subway car as a whole.” (Id. at 5:36-43).
`
`5
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,700,602
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`The ’602 Patent describes a “video signal source unit operatively connected”
`
`to the monitors as broadly encompassing source units on a remote broadcasting
`
`site, inside individual subway cars, and/or in adjacent or remote cars of the same
`
`train:
`
`The term “video signal source unit” as used herein
`
`embraces 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.
`
`One system according to the invention utilizes receivers
`
`including computer-based digital video recorders for
`
`receiving broadcast television signals from a remote
`
`transmitter as the video signal source unit. Such video
`
`signal source unit can be located either within the mass
`
`transits' premises or on a remote broadcasting site.
`
`Alternatively, the invention utilizes a video tape player, a
`
`video disk player, or a computer-based digital video recorder,
`
`as the video signal source unit. The video signal source
`
`unit may be located in the same subway car as that in
`
`which the monitor or monitors are located, or in adjacent or
`
`remote cars of the same train, with the necessary operative
`
`connection between the player and the monitor(s). An
`
`6
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,700,602
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`individual subway car can be equipped with its own video
`
`signal source unit, connected to a plurality of monitors
`
`mounted at different, appropriately chosen locations along
`
`the length of the subway car. Alternatively, one central video
`
`signal source unit can be located in one car of subway train,
`
`and connected to monitors in some or all of the cars of the
`
`train, to provide a central video signal source unit for the
`
`train.
`
`
`(Id. at 2:15-42) (emphasis added).
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’602 Patent
`
`The application that resulted in the ’602 Patent originally contained 16
`
`claims, of which claims 1 and 10 were independent. (Ex. 1012 at 119-21).
`
`Application claim 13 was objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base
`
`claim, but the examiner indicated that it would be allowable if rewritten in
`
`independent form. (Id. at 187). Claim 13, as rewritten, contained all of the
`
`limitations that now appear in claim 1 of the ’602 Patent. (Id. at 235-36). The
`
`patent originally issued with only 7 claims, of which only claim 1 is an
`
`independent claim. (Id. at 307).
`
`C. Reexamination History of the ’602 Patent
`
`On August 16, 2011, Patent Owner filed a Request for Reexamination of
`
`claim 1 of the ’602 Patent in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (Ex. 1013 at
`
`29-34). In its request, Patent Owner argued, inter alia, that the combination of
`
`7
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,700,602
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`four submitted references collectively disclosed every limitation of claim 1 except
`
`“with the screen of the monitor substantially flushed with the adjacent wall surface
`
`structure of the car.” (Id.). The examiner agreed and instituted the proceeding.
`
`(Id. at 107-13). In the first office action, the examiner found that these references
`
`(including various combinations thereof) actually disclosed every limitation of the
`
`claims, including the “substantially flushed” limitation, and thus rejected claim 1
`
`as unpatentable. (Id. at 120-46).
`
`Patent Owner traversed these rejections of claim 1 and also added claims 8
`
`through 30 to the patent. (Id. at 159-77). In the final office action, the examiner
`
`maintained the rejection of claim 1, and also rejected the newly added claims 8-18
`
`and 21-30. (Id. at 181-301). Claims 19 and 20 were objected to as being
`
`dependent upon a rejected base claim, but the examiner indicated that claims 19
`
`and 20 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. (Id. at 287). Patent
`
`Owner conducted an examiner interview pursuant to which an agreement was
`
`reached with the examiner. (Id. at 305-06). Accordingly, Patent Owner submitted
`
`a response to the final office action in which claims 8, 9, 15, and 20-23 were
`
`amended and claim 19 was canceled. (Id. at 313-35). Subsequently, an advisory
`
`action was issued in which claims 8-18 and 20-30 (which correspond to claims 19-
`
`29 in the certificate of reexamination) were confirmed. (Id. at 347-71).
`
`Nonetheless, claim 1 remained rejected. (Id.).
`
`8
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,700,602
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`Patent Owner appealed the rejection of claim 1 to the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board, which reversed the examiner’s rejection. (Id. at 383-97, 474-81).
`
`In its analysis, the Board constructed the term “substantially flushed” as “a surface
`
`which is to a great extent even with an adjoining one,” and concluded that the
`
`combinations of the references before the Board did not disclose the limitation of
`
`“the screen of the monitor substantially flushed with the adjacent wall surface
`
`structure of the car.” (Id. at 479). Thereafter, the reexamination certificate was
`
`issued on January 29, 2015. (Id. at 501).
`
`VI. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE CONTESTED
`PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`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) an
`
`additional 2-3 years of experience in the design of rail cars. (Ex. 1015 at ¶ 23).
`
`B. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(b), 42.104(b)(3)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), the claims in inter partes review are
`
`given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.”2 Except
`
`
`2 Claims may be held obvious under § 103(a) even where the scope of a claim is
`
`not reasonably certain as required by Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,700,602
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`for the terms “substantially flushed” and “video signal source unit,” neither the
`
`specification nor the original prosecution or reexamination histories of the ’602
`
`Patent presents a definition for any claim terms at issue in this Petition. Those two
`
`specific terms are discussed below.
`
`1.
`
`“substantially flushed” (claims 1-4 and 6)
`
`
`
`During 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.” (Ex. 1013 at 378-79). The Board
`
`construed “substantially flush” to mean “a surface which is to a great extent even
`
`with an adjoining one.” (Id.). For the purposes of this petition, Petitioner accepts
`
`and applies the Board’s constructions.
`
`
`
`S.Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014). In evaluating obviousness, what matters is whether a
`
`claim’s scope encompasses that which is obvious—not whether the full reach of
`
`the claim is reasonably certain, the latter requirement being one of definiteness. “If
`
`[a] claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103” and thus a showing
`
`that a claim extends at least as far as to cover “an obvious solution” to a recognized
`
`problem in the art may prove that claim obvious. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`
`550 U.S. 398, 419-20 (2007).
`
`10
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,700,602
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`2.
`
`“video signal source unit” (claims 1-4 and 6)
`
`The term “video signal source unit” is expressly defined 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.” (Ex. 1001 at 2:15-22). 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. at 2:26-34).
`
`VII. PRIOR ART TO THE ’602 PATENT
`
`The use of video monitors in train cars was well known by the May 1997
`
`filing date of the application leading to the ’602 Patent. The prior art references
`
`relied upon in this petition disclose a plurality of video monitors installed in train
`
`cars, and discuss the need for displays with easily changeable content that could
`
`replace printed paper displays in trains. The use of flush mounting of monitors
`
`was also well known by May 1997. At that time, monitors were being flush
`
`mounted in a variety of applications, including railcars, to conserve space, provide
`
`a more aesthetically pleasing appearance, reduce vandalism, and increase
`
`cleanability. (Ex.1015 at ¶ 26).
`
`11
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,700,602
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`In addition, by June 1996, the Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”) had
`
`issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANPRM”) with a sample set of
`
`design standards that required “recessed or flush-mounted” interior fittings in
`
`passenger railcars for safety reasons. (Ex. 1015 at 31; see also Passenger Equip.
`
`Safety Standards, 61 Fed. Reg. 30672-01, 30707 (proposed June 17, 1996) (“To
`
`the extent possible, interior fittings shall be recessed or flush-mounted.”)).
`
`According to the ANPRM, a Passenger Equipment Safety Standards Working
`
`Group – which broadly represented “interests involved in intercity and commuter
`
`service nationwide” – “first met on June 6, 1995, and continue[d] to meet to assist
`
`FRA in developing passenger equipment safety standards. This ANPRM
`
`describe[d] the issues before the Working Group, and [sought] the assistance of
`
`other interested persons in providing information and views pertinent to this
`
`effort.” (61 Fed. Reg. 30672-01, 30672). On September 23, 1997, the agency
`
`proposed a rule establishing comprehensive safety standards for certain railcars.
`
`(See 62 Fed. Reg. 49728-01 (proposed Sept. 23, 1997) (to be codified at 49 C.F.R.
`
`§ 238.233)). Paragraph (d) of proposed § 238.233, Interior Fittings and Surfaces,
`
`provided that “[t]o the extent possible, all interior fittings in a passenger car, except
`
`seats, shall be recessed or flush-mounted.” (Id. at 49745). On May 12, 1999, the
`
`FRA issued its final rule with that same “recessed or flush-mounted” requirement.
`
`12
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,700,602
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`(64 Fed. Reg. 25540-01, 25677 (May 12, 1999) (to be codified at 49 C.F.R. §
`
`238.233)).
`
`1.
`
`Namikawa
`
`Namikawa published on July 24, 1992, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b). The examiner did not consider Namikawa in the reexamination
`
`proceeding. 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 at 6). Figure 1 of Namikawa is
`
`reproduced below:
`
`
`
`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
`
`13
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,700,602
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`that “turns the broadcast to the liquid crystal panels 12 on and off and switches the
`
`broadcast content.” (Id.).
`
`2. Miyajima
`
`Miyajima published on July 24, 1992 and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b). The examiner did not consider Miyajima in the reexamination proceeding.
`
`Miyajima is directed to display devices in vehicles, such as railcars, for displaying
`
`information and images to passengers. (Ex. 1007 at 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 3).
`
`Figure 4 of Miyajima, depicting the displays 01a and 01b at the junction of
`
`the sidewall and the ceiling of the railcar, is reproduced below:
`
`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).
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,700,602
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`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.).
`
`3.
`
`JTOA Magazine
`
`
`
`The JTOA Magazine was published on March 1, 1995, and is prior art under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The examiner did not consider JTOA Magazine in the
`
`reexamination proceeding. The JTOA Magazine qualifies as a “printed
`
`publication” under § 102(b) because it was made sufficiently accessible to the
`
`public interested in the art on or about March 8, 1995. (Ex. 1017 at ¶¶ 7-10).
`
`Specifically, pursuant to the Japan Train Operation Association’s normal practices,
`
`the JTOA Magazine was mailed out to at least 25,000 members of the association
`
`by the JTOA’s printing company within one week of the March 1, 1995
`
`publication date. (Id. at ¶¶ 8-9). Non-members could have obtained a copy at that
`
`time by placing an order directly with JTOA. (Id. at ¶ 10). The JTOA Magazine
`
`was also received and catalogued in the National Diet Library in Japan on March
`
`13, 1995. (Ex. 1019 at 2).
`
`15
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,700,602
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`The JTOA Magazine is directed towards the Tobu 9050 series rail cars. (Ex.
`
`1003 at 2). These rail cars contained LCD displays in the car interiors, where the
`
`display screens were flush with adjacent wall structures:
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at 1).
`
`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,
`
`16
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,700,602
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`they provide improved service by displaying the destination, the type of train, the
`
`stations the train will stop at, and other information. 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 . . . . In 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).
`
`4.
`
`Sasao
`
`
`
`Sasao was published on November 12, 1992, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b). The examiner did not consider Sasao in the reexamination proceeding.
`
`Sasao is directed to a “display device that is structured so as to be housed at the
`
`interior of a wall.” (Ex. 1011 at 2). Specifically, Sasao discloses arranging a
`
`television behind a wall 15, as shown in Figures 3 and 4 of the reference:
`
`17
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,700,602
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at Figs. 4-5). Sasao describes that “[t]he cabinet 12 itself is disposed behind
`
`the wall 15 and cannot be seen from within the room 14; 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) (emphasis added).
`
`5.
`
`Amano
`
`Amano published on September 6, 1990, and is therefore prior art to the
`
`’602 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`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 at 1).
`
`18
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,700,602
`
`
`6. Maekawa
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`Maekawa published on June 4, 1992, and is therefore prior art to the ’602
`
`Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`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 at 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).
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`
`A. Ground A: Claims 1 and 6 Are Anticipated by Namikawa
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`
`[1a] A subway car for mass transportation including
`
`Namikawa discloses “a public transport vehicle such as a transit bus or
`
`electric train wherein commercials or programming can be broadcast.” (Ex. 1005
`
`at 2-3). Figure 1, reproduced below, shows “one example of applying the present
`
`device to a car in an electric train of JR, a subway, or the like.” (Id. at 6, Fig. 1)
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`19
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,700,602
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 1).
`
`[1b] longitudinal opposed sidewalls,
`
`Namikawa discloses longitudinal opposed sidewalls. (Id.).
`
`[1c] a ceiling adjoining the sidewalls,
`
`Namikawa discloses a ceiling adjoining the sidewalls. (Id.).
`
`[1d] 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,
`
`Namikawa discloses 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 6, Fig. 1) (emphasis added). Namikawa also discloses that “[e]ach
`
`liquid crystal television 12 broadcasts content taken from broadcasting media, such
`
`20
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,700,602
`
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`as cable television for example, in other words, programming such as various types
`
`of commercials, dramas, and news.” (Id.). Namikawa further teaches that “[w]hile
`
`riding, passengers can watch and enjoy, as a form of recreation, programming such
`
`as news, dramas, or movies that are broadcast from a liquid crystal television in the
`
`car and can ride in a relaxed state. In addition, commercials and programming
`
`broadcast from the liquid crystal televisions can take on various aspects and a
`
`broadcast format that is rich in variety can be adopted. Therefore, the service
`
`given to the passengers can be improved.” (Id. at 9-10).