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
`
`PATENT OWNER SCOTT BLAIR’S OBSERVATIONS ON
`LOWELL MALO’S NOVEMBER 28, 2017 DEPOSITION
`
`

`

`Expert for Petitioner confirms that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)
`1.
`would not have expected space beyond the wall at the junction of the sidewall and the ceiling to
`be available.
`In Exhibit 2006, on p. 36, line 13-p. 37, line 16, the witness, speculating on Namikawa,
`testifies there would be conduits, piping and such at the junction of the sidewall and the ceiling.
`
`Q. Where do you see an indication that this figure discloses a cavity in the wall between
`the interior wall and the exterior wall?
`A. Actually in this case it brings the cavity interior to the interior wall as well.
`Q.
`I'm sorry, can you explain that?
`A. Sure. If you look at the construction here [indicating]? … But if you look at the
`wall here and the juncture that comes up, this is at a different angle. It's very, very common
`construction to come down from the roof and cut across at a diagonal, that allows you to turn the
`screens down to be able to be seen, and that forms a cavity back behind this area as well
`[indicating]. Great place for conduits, piping and such.
`
`This testimony is relevant to the testimony of Mr. Lowell Malo, Ex. 1025 ¶ 11. Mr. Malo
`testifies that there would be conduits, piping and such at the junction of the sidewall and the ceiling
`which is contrary to his statements at Ex. 1025 ¶ 11 that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood Figure 1 of Namikawa to be disclosing a subway car having space beyond the wall,
`including the availability of space beyond the wall at the junction of the sidewall and the ceiling.
`Mr. Malo also testifies that the cavity between its interior wall and exterior shell was important to
`allow space for the inclusion of (a) thermal insulation, (b) sound deadening material, (c) wiring
`and cabling, and (d) an array of structural members which could be used for the mounting of
`interior equipment, Ex. 1025 ¶ 10. This is also contrary to the assertion that a POSITA would
`have expected the availability of space beyond the wall.
`
`Expert for Petitioner testifies that none of the references, other than Maekawa, had
`2.
`any verbal indication of a cavity between the interior wall and the exterior wall and Maekawa
`provides only for a door pocket cavity, which is not at the junction of the sidewall and the ceiling.
`In Exhibit 2006, on p. 38, lines 24-4 and p. 40, lines 23-3, the witness testified he saw
`nothing in the wording of Namikawa to indicate a cavity between the interior wall and the exterior
`wall.
`
`Q. Again, what we are trying to find out or I'm trying to learn from you is if anywhere
`in this reference it states or describes a cavity in between the interior wall and the exterior shell.
`
`

`

`A. Okay.
`Q.
`I’m asking if there is any reference, any indication, writing in this reference.
`A.
`I saw nothing in the wording.
`
`In Exhibit 2006, on p. 41, lines 20-7 to p. 42, lines 8-3, the expert witness for Petitioner
`testified that the writing of Amano does not suggest or indicate a cavity between the interior wall
`and its exterior shell.
`
`I would like for you to take a few moments or as many moments as you need to
`Q.
`look through the writing in this patent -- .. --for any writing in this patent where it indicates,
`describes that there is a cavity between the interior wall and its exterior shell of the rail car that's
`being disclosed….
`A.
`The reference to the cavity is limited only to the pictures. There is nothing in the
`writing.
`Q.
`A.
`Q.
`A.
`
`Your interpretation of the figures?
`Yes.
`But there is nothing in the writing that suggests or indicates that?
`Not that I see.
`
`In Exhibit 2006, on p. 50, lines 17-21, the witness testified that Maekawa does not disclose
`a cavity at the junction of the sidewall and the ceiling.
`
`What about -- what about the cavity at the junction of the side wall and the
`Q.
`ceiling; is that disclosed in this reference?
`A.
`Specifically here, no.
`
`In Exhibit 2006, on p. 51, line 19 to p. 53, line 20, the witness testified that none of the
`references, other than Maekawa, had any verbal indication of a cavity between the interior wall
`and the exterior wall and Maekawa provides only for a door pocket cavity, which is not at the
`junction of the sidewall and the ceiling.
`
`Q. With the exception of Maekawa, you testified earlier that none of the other references
`you reviewed had any indication, suggestion or teaching of a cavity between the exterior wall
`and the interior wall; correct?
`MR. BILLAH: Same objection.
`MR. KEYHANI: You can testify.
`A. No verbal indication, yes.
`Q. Okay, no verbal indication. And in Maekawa there was no verbal indication, you
`testified, now to be clear, there is no verbal indication of a cavity between the interior/exterior
`wall at the junction of the side wall and the ceiling; is that correct?
`A. What it says is that there is a door pocket.
`
`

`

`Q. A door pocket?
`A. Which is a cavity in the wall.
`Q. At the -- at the door level?
`A. At the door level.
`Q. But at no other location?
`A. There is no reason not to have a cavity. The doors -- the walls are relatively straight.
`Unless the walls, there's an indication to change it, no.
`Q. Again my question was is there any verbiage, indication or description of a cavity in
`the wall between the interior and exterior wall at the junction of the ceiling and the side wall,
`that's the question, in Maekawa, in the verbiage, in the language of this patent?
`A.
`In the verbiage -- let me see here -- it says television receivers are installed above
`the left and right door pockets.
`Q. And we're talking about the junction of the ceiling and the side wall?
`A. Yes.
`Q. And your answer is?
`A. There is no verbiage that the door pocket, that that cavity extends beyond it.
`Q. Beyond the -- beyond the door pocket?
`A. Yes.
`
`This testimony is relevant to the testimony of Mr. Malo on Ex. 1025 ¶ 11. The testimony
`is relevant to Mr. Malo’s testimony that Namikawa discloses a subway car having a cavity between
`its interior wall and it exterior shell and a POSITA would have understood Namikawa to disclose
`a subway car having space beyond the wall, including the availability of space beyond the wall at
`the junction of the sidewall and the ceiling, which is not supported by the references.
`
`Expert for Petitioner confirms that the proposed FRA rules provide that the intent
`3.
`of the guidelines is to prevent fire ignition and that a review of accident data indicates that fire was
`the second leading cause of fatalities on passenger trains for the period of 1972 to 1973.
`In Exhibit 2006, on p. 84, line 3 to p. 86, line 20, the witness testified fires are to be avoided
`and are a big problem because there is no place to go in a subway.
`
`Q. Further down it says: "A review of the accident/incident data, related to fatalities
`and injuries on passenger trains for the period of 1972 to 1973, indicates that collapse of
`equipment structure and loss of sufficient space for the passengers to ride out the collision is a
`principal cause of fatality in train accidents." And then the next sentence it goes on and talks
`about, it says: "Fire and post-collision conditions result in 30 percent of the fatalities and 16
`percent of the serious injuries." Do you think that's reasonable, those numbers?
`A.
`In the '72 to '73 timeframe?
`Q. Yes.
`A.
`It could well be.
`Q.
`If we take a look at actually the page before, 49744, it talks about, the first column
`says fire safety.
`A. Um hum.
`
`

`

`Q. You can read it to yourself but I'll start it. The first sentence says: "In 1984, FRA
`published guidelines recommending testing methods and performance criteria for the
`flammability, smoke emission, and fire endurance characteristics for categories and functions of
`materials to be used in the construction of new or rebuilt + rail passenger equipment." And it
`goes on and then it says: "The intent of the guidelines is to prevent fire ignition and to maximize
`the time available for passenger
`evacuation if fire does occur."
`A. Yes.
`Q. This is kind of consistent with what you just said?
`A. Um hum.
`
`This testimony is relevant to the Petition, Paper 1, pp. 12-13. The testimony is relevant
`because Petitioner argues the FRA proposed rules required recessed or flush mounted interior
`fittings in passenger railcars for safety reasons, when in fact the FRA proposed rules provide the
`intent is to prevent fire ignition and that fire and post-collision conditions are the second leading
`cause of fatalities. The above testimony is also relevant in that the witness, in forming his expert
`testimony in Exhibits 1014 and 1025, relies upon the proposed FRA rules as a motivation to modify
`the references as requiring flush mounting, when in fact the proposed FRA rules provide fire safety
`is important, an intent is to avoid fires and that fires are the second leading cause of fatalities. See
`Ex. 2006, pp. 244-45.
`
`Expert for Petitioner confirms concerns of overheating of monitors and that proper
`4.
`ventilation is a concern.
`
`In Exhibit 2006, p. 89, line 13 to p. 90, line 8, the witness testified that there would be a
`concern of overheating when designing a monitor for a rail car interior and that proper ventilation
`is a concern.
`
`Q. How do the concerns about heating of these monitors, ventilation of these monitors
`play, for safety reasons, play into the disposition of the monitoring in the rail car?
`A. We would have to take a look at how much heat the monitor itself generates and
`then see how we would dissipate. If it was a number large enough we would have to be able to
`dissipate the heat.
`Q. How would you dissipate that?
`A. Sometimes just venting directly into the car, you know, that would be one way of
`doing it. Some things, not necessarily monitors, but lights, for example, have a little tunnel
`behind it, if you will, for air to pass through, and it's just to bring cool air in to cool it off.
`
`

`

`This testimony is relevant to Mr. Malo’s declaration on Ex. 1014 ¶ 38. The testimony is
`relevant because it contradicts the position advanced by Petitioner that it would have been obvious
`to a POSITA in 1997 to place Namikawa’s display screens within the subway car’s wall such that
`they would be substantially flushed with adjacent surfaces. There would be a significant concern
`that placing Namikawa’s display screens within the subway car wall, such that they would be
`substantially flush with adjacent surfaces, would cause overheating and prohibit ventilation.
`Additionally, as stated above, the availability of space beyond the wall at the junction of the
`sidewall and the ceiling is not supported by the references and requiring additional space to provide
`a tunnel to dissipate heat, and a POSITA would have no expectation of enough space to be
`substantially flushed with adjacent surfaces.
`
`Still further, the proposed tunnel to cool off the monitor would require additional space,
`which is relevant to Mr. Malo’s declaration, Ex. 1014 ¶ 42, which provides that the conservation
`of space was a major motivation to modify Namikawa to be substantially flushed with adjacent
`surfaces. Accordingly, the motivation to combine the references lacks a rational underpinning.
`
`Finally, this testimony contradicts Mr. Malo’s testimony on Ex. 1025 ¶ 15 which provides,
`“in 1995-1997, many rail car manufacturers used fiberglass panels at the junction of a sidewall
`and ceiling because fiberglass panels are light in weight, last for a long time, require low
`maintenance, and are and are good insulators.” emphasis added. The deposition testimony of Mr.
`Malo confirms that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to insulate the television
`in the wall, as you must dissipate heat and insulating a television in a wall would pose a fire hazard.
`The proposed modification advanced by Petitioner to utilize fiberglass panels which would
`insulate the television in the wall is contradicted by his testimony and must fail.
`
`Expert for Petitioner testifies it is important that TV monitors in a rail car be
`5.
`designed to dissipate heat.
`In Exhibit 2006, p. 92, line 5 to p. 94, line 15, the witness testified it is important that TV
`monitors in a rail car be designed to dissipate heat and that an additional enclosure or ventilation
`openings would accomplish this.
`
`Q. Did the TVs in the 1990s have, to your knowledge, have openings for ventilation?
`A.
`I'm not positive at the moment. …
`Q. Are you familiar with any federal regulations or guidelines related to safety in terms
`of heating of TV monitors, the kind of regulations we are talking about here?
`
`

`

`I'm not aware of one, there could well be, but I'm not aware of it.
`A.
`Q. Do you think that might be relevant to the understanding about how and where to
`place TV monitors in a rail car that goes underground with passengers in it?
`A.
`I think it's more important that TV monitors be designed to dissipate the heat so you
`don't have special conditions; in other words, you dissipate the heat through a particular case or
`something like that.
`Q. And how would it do that? How would a TV monitor dissipate heat generally?
`A. Okay. Do it through an enclosure case, basically an aluminum heat sink….
`
`This testimony is relevant to Mr. Malo’s declaration on Ex. 1014 ¶ 38. The testimony is
`relevant because it contradicts the position advanced by Petitioner that it would have been obvious
`to a POSITA in 1997 to place Namikawa’s display screens within the subway car’s wall such that
`they would be substantially flushed with adjacent surfaces. There would be a significant concern
`that placing Namikawa’s display screens within the subway car wall to be substantially flush
`would cause overheating and prohibit ventilation. Additionally, as stated above, the availability
`of space beyond the wall at the junction of the sidewall and the ceiling is not supported by the
`references, an enclosure case to dissipate heat would require additional space and a POSITA would
`have no expectation of enough space to be substantially flushed with adjacent surfaces.
`
`Still further, the proposed enclosure case to cool off the monitor would require additional
`space, which is relevant to Mr. Malo’s declaration, Ex. 1014 ¶ 42, which provides that the
`conservation of space was a major motivation to modify Namikawa to be substantially flushed
`with adjacent surfaces. Accordingly, the motivation to combine the references lacks a rational
`underpinning.
`
`Finally, this testimony contradicts Mr. Malo’s testimony, Ex. 1025 ¶ 15, which provides,
`“to flush mount a flat screen TV in the flat junction one would only have to cut a hole and run
`power to the hole.” Mr. Malo has testified that you would have to ensure that the TV monitors be
`designed to dissipate heat, which is contrary to and was not discussed or accounted for in any of
`his prior testimony.
`
`See also Exhibit 2006, p. 140, line 4 to p. 141, line 24, Expert for Petitioner testifies that
`you need to give the monitor an area to behind the wall to dissipate the heat.
`
`Q. Looking at the drawing, Figure 1 in Namikawa, if you assume that the television
`disclosed here required ventilation, how could you completely flush-mount the TVs with the side
`walls and provide for ventilation for the TVs?
`
`

`

`MR. KEYHANI: Objection. Form.
`MR. BILLAH: You can answer the question.
`THE WITNESS: Okay.
`
`A. You could ventilate the televisions back behind the wall. In other words it can be set
`in -- actually I would have taken the side wall, come straight down, ventilate back into that area
`behind the wall. Understand in ventilation you just have to give an area for the heat to
`dissipate. You don't actually have to send the heat outside. It just has to dissipate.
`
`This is relevant to Mr. Malo’s declaration, Ex. 1014 ¶ 42, which provides that the
`conservation of space was a major motivation to modify Namikawa to be substantially flushed
`with adjacent surfaces. Accordingly, the motivation to combine the references lacks a rational
`underpinning.
`
`This testimony is also relevant to the testimony of Mr. Malo, Ex. 1025 ¶ 11. The testimony
`is relevant to Mr. Malo’s testimony that Namikawa discloses a subway car having a cavity between
`its interior wall and it exterior shell, and a POSITA would have understood Namikawa to disclose
`a subway car having space beyond the wall, including the availability of space beyond the wall at
`the junction of the sidewall and the ceiling. Mr. Malo’s current testimony provides that not only
`would one of ordinary skill in the art have to have expected there was available space beyond the
`wall at the junction of the sidewall and the ceiling—and it was not occupied by conduits, piping,
`structural members, or insulation—but also there would have to be additional room for ventilation
`to dissipate the heat. A POSITA would not have had such an expectation and would not have been
`motivated to modify Namikawa as advanced by Petitioner.
`
`Expert for Petitioner testifies that the Consumer Product Safety Commission looks
`6.
`out for the safety and wellbeing of the consumer and the public and confirms that the Consumer
`Product Safety Commission provides that you should never block the bottom ventilation slots of a
`television and never place a television set in a “built-in” enclosure unless proper ventilation is
`provided. Petitioner’s expert also admits ventilation and fire concerns should be considered in
`connection with mounting a monitor in the structure of a rail car.
`In Exhibit 2006, p. 95, line 14 to p. 100, line 8, Expert for Petitioner testifies that the
`Consumer Product Safety Commission looks out for the safety and wellbeing of the consumer and
`the public and confirms that the Consumer Product Safety Commission provides that you should
`never block the bottom ventilation slots of a television and you should never place a television set
`in a “built-in” enclosure unless proper ventilation is provided. Expert for Petitioner also testifies
`
`

`

`that ventilation would have been a concern in modifying Namikawa and should have been
`considered.
`
`Q. Are you familiar with the Consumer Product Safety Commission?
`A. Yes.
`Q. Can you tell us what that is?
`A.
`It's a commission that just looks out for the safety and wellbeing of the consumer
`and public. ….
`Q.
`It says, "TV sets are provided with ventilation openings in the cabinet to allow heat
`generated during the operation to be released." You've testified to that. "If these openings are
`blocked, heat build-up within the TV can cause failures which may result in a fire hazard."
`Would you agree with that statement?
`A. Not only televisions but anything with enough heat can be a fire hazard.
`Q. And therefore the commission says -- states the following: “Never cover the
`openings with cloth or other material. Never block the bottom ventilation slots of a portable TV
`by placing it on a bed, sofa, rug, etc. Never place the set near or over a radiator or heat register.
`Never place a set in a 'built-in' enclosure unless proper ventilation is provided. If you put a TV
`screen or monitor into the wall of a rail car --
`A. Um hum.
`Q.
`-- and we're talking about the '90s period when that level of technology or time and
`technology.
`A. Um hum.
`Q. Could that cover the ventilation on TV monitors to prevent from ventilating and
`cause the kind of overheating that's described in the Commission's recommendations?
`A.
`I'd have to look at the individual unit. I mean, these are very good general
`guidelines, but I'd have to look at the individual unit to see if it's set up for self-ventilation, self-
`cooling or not.
`Q. Do you think that this would have been a consideration in some of the designs of the
`-- in placement of TV monitors in some of the prior art that we looked at earlier today like
`Namikawa and other references, the concern about allowing for ventilation of TV monitors and
`not covering or baring the entire monitor in the structure of the rail car?
`
`MR. BILLAH: Objection. Calls for speculation. Lack of foundation.
`MR. KEYHANI: That's fine. You can answer the question. You have offered him as an
`expert, that's what he has been doing today.
`THE WITNESS: That's okay. Could you repeat that please, I guess.
`MR. KEYHANI: Could you please read the question. (The requested portion of the record was
`read.) [Do you think that this would have been a consideration in some of the designs of the -- in
`placement of TV monitors in some of the prior art that we looked at earlier today like Namikawa
`and other references, the concern about allowing for ventilation of TV monitors and not covering
`or baring the entire monitor in the structure of the rail car? ]
`
`Q. Can you take a look at Exhibit 2, Namikawa.
`A. Um hum. Where are we looking?
`Q. Now, keeping that – the question is directed at this particular exhibit so if you have
`an answer there is a question pending --
`
`

`

`A. Um hum.
`Q.
`-- but it's directed at this exhibit.
`A. Okay.
`Q. The question she just read.
`A. Right. So is it a fact that it should be considered; is that the question?
`Q. Yes.
`A. Yes, it should be considered.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Mr. Malo’s declaration on Ex. 1014 ¶ 38. The testimony is
`relevant because it contradicts the position advanced by Petitioner that it would have been obvious
`to a POSITA in 1997 to place Namikawa’s display screens within the subway car’s wall such that
`they would be substantially flushed with adjacent surfaces. Placing Namikawa’s display screen
`within the subway car would directly contradict the Consumer Product Safety Commission
`Guidelines, as confirmed by the expert for Petitioner, which provide you should never block the
`bottom ventilation slots of a television and you should never place a television set in a “built-in”
`enclosure unless proper ventilation is provided.
`
`This testimony contradicts Mr. Malo’s testimony on Ex. 1025 ¶ 15 which provides, “to
`flush mount a flat screen TV in the flat junction one would only have to cut a hole and run power
`to the hole.” Mr. Malo has testified that you would have to ensure that the TV monitors be designed
`to dissipate heat, which is contrary to and was not discussed or accounted for in his prior testimony.
`
`This testimony contradicts Mr. Malo’s testimony on Ex. 1025 ¶ 15 which provides, “in
`1995-1997, many rail car manufacturers used fiberglass panels at the junction of a sidewall and
`ceiling because fiberglass panels are light in weight, last for a long time, require low maintenance,
`and are good insulators.” emphasis added. The deposition testimony of Mr. Malo confirms that
`one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to insulate the television in the wall, as you
`must dissipate heat and insulating a television in a wall would pose a fire hazard. The proposed
`modification advanced by Petitioner to utilize fiberglass panels which would insulate the television
`in the wall is contradicted by his testimony and must fail.
`
`There would be a significant concern that placing Namikawa’s display screens within the
`subway car wall, such that they would be substantially flush with adjacent surfaces, would cause
`overheating and prohibit ventilation. Additionally, as stated above, the availability of space
`beyond the wall at the junction of the sidewall and the ceiling is not supported by the references
`
`

`

`and requiring additional space to provide proper ventilation a POSITA would have no expectation
`of enough space to be substantially flushed with adjacent surfaces.
`
`The above testimony is also relevant in that Petitioner’s expert has testified ventilation
`should be considered, yet he did not consider ventilation or heat dissipation in forming his expert
`testimony in Exhibits 1014 and 1025, despite the proposed FRA rules—upon which he relies for
`the motivation to modify the references—stating the intent is to avoid fires and that fires are the
`second leading cause of fatalities. See Ex. 2006, pp. 244-45.
`
`Petitioner’s expert admits that mounting a TV monitor to the outside of the interior
`7.
`wall of the rail car reduces heating associated with fire ignition risk.
`
`In Exhibit 2006, p. 117, line 17 to p. 118, line 23, the witness testified that externally
`mounted monitors would be cooler and you would have less concerns about overheating.
`
`Q. So because it is externally mounted you don’t have to worry about any heating in this
`case [Miyajima]?
`A. It helps.
`Q. Lessens the heating? Lessens the overheating. I’m sorry?
`A. It increases the cooling.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Paper 1, p. 33 and Ex. 1014 ¶ 44 in that it contradicts the
`purported four motivations to modify Namikawa by placing screens substantially flushed with the
`adjacent wall surface. As stated above, the proposed FRA rules provide that the intent is to avoid
`fires and that fires are the second leading cause of fatalities. The testimony confirms one of
`ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to avoid overheating and would not be motivated to
`modify Namikawa by placing screen substantially flushed with the adjacent wall surface as this
`would result in increased heat and fire hazard concerns.
`
`Expert for Petitioner confirms that the Guidelines of Fire Safety for rail passenger
`8.
`equipment impact the design of TV monitors, and testing would be performed to avoid a television
`monitor melting, dripping and starting fires.
`In Exhibit 2006, on p. 86, line 24 to p. 87, line 3, the witness testified the Guidelines of
`Fire Safety for rail passenger equipment impact the design of TV monitors, and testing would be
`performed to avoid a television monitor melting, dripping and starting fires.
`
`

`

`Q. Considering these guidelines on safety and fire safety, how do design of TV
`monitors may be impacted by these regulations and considerations that these regulations are
`directed to in your mind?
`A. Okay. The TV monitors are subject to -- and it mentions some of the testing in here,
`ASTM Event 160 -- well, I can tell you what they are.
`Q. Right.
`A. There are three testing procedures they have to follow, and the idea is that the video
`screen itself wouldn't melt and drip and start setting fires below it, okay? As far as, you know,
`does that answer the question?
`Q. Yes, no, go ahead, I'm listening, yes.
`A. Okay. I mean that's just basically what it does. It makes sure that it cannot catch on
`fire and if it does it does not have an open flame and spread, and that's one of the drip criteria
`where you have hot flame and stuff coming down to the carpets, going down to the seats,
`coming down on people's heads.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Ex. 1014 ¶ 38. The testimony is relevant because it
`contradicts the position advanced by Petitioner that it would have been obvious to a POSITA in
`1997 to place Namikawa’s display screens within the subway car’s wall such that they would be
`substantially flushed with adjacent surfaces. There would be a significant concern that placing
`Namikawa’s display screens within the subway car wall, such that they would be substantially
`flush with adjacent surfaces, would cause overheating, prohibit ventilation, catch fire and have
`“stuff coming down to the carpets, going down to the seats, coming down on people’s heads.”
`
`Expert for Petitioner testifies that fires are to be avoided and are a big problem
`9.
`because there is no place to go in a subway.
`In Exhibit 2006, on p. 82, line 19 to p. 83, line 11, the witness testified fires are to be
`avoided and are a big problem because there is no place to go in a subway.
`
`Q. What are you trying to avoid going wrong? You have two categories, things going
`wrong and if they go wrong do something with it.
`A. You want to make sure that people cannot get their arms into things that are
`dangerous. You want to make sure they don't bump their heads or bump their shoulders just as
`best you can walking through the car. You do pay attention to fire hazards, which is extremely
`important in order for people to be safe.
`Q.
`Is that one of the big problems in an underground subway, fire?
`A. Yes, it is, because there is no place to go in a subway.
`
`

`

`This testimony is relevant to Ex. 1014 ¶ 38. The testimony is relevant because it supports
`the position that a POSITA, in the 1995-1997 timeframe, would not have been motivated to mount
`a monitor substantially flush with an adjacent wall surface structure of a subway car because of a
`heighted aversion to any potential fire hazards in the subway car environment, knowledge that a
`television should never be put in a “built-in” enclosure and the ventilation slots should never be
`blocked.
`
`Expert for Petitioner confirms that Miyajima teaches a liquid crystal television
`10.
`spaced away from the interior wall of a subway car with a cooling air going between the display
`and the inner wall.
`In Exhibit 2006, on p. 135, line 7 to p. 136, line 15, the witness testified:
`Q. Well, I'm not -- we're not trying to dance around here. I just want to know if this
`specification -- we are looking at a very specific document – is there any disclosure or teaching
`or description of cooling air going between an inner wall and an exterior wall. We know -- we
`know that there is explicitly a description of cooling air going between the display and the inner
`wall, there is no question about that; correct? Right?
`A. Okay.
`Q.
`Is that correct? There is no question that this specification discloses cooling air
`going between a display and an inner wall; is that correct?
`A.
`In paragraph 12, section reference 12 that's what it says.
`Q. Right, would you agree with that?
`A. Let me read it one more time. Which one was it now? That's not what this says.
`Q. Page 3, paragraph 12?
`A. Okay, thank you.
`
`MR. KEYHANI: Could you read my question that's pending again, please. (The requested
`portion of the record was read.) [There is no question that this specification discloses cooling air
`going between a display and an inner wall; is that correct?]
`
`A.
`
`In that paragraph, yes.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Paper 1, pp. 44-49. This testimony is relevant to the state of
`the art. Miyajima is the only reference that discusses ventilation for a monitor in a subway car and
`provides a display device (part of the display device is the backlight) that is mounted away from
`the wall with a cooling air gap behind it and a means to discharge the cooled air to the exterior of
`the vehicle. The testimony is also relevant because it supports the position that a POSITA, in the
`1995-1997 timeframe, would not have been motivated to mount a monitor substantially flush with
`an adjacent wall surface structure of a subway car because of a heighted aversion to any potential
`
`

`

`fire hazards in the subway car environment, knowledge that a television should never be put in a
`“built-in” enclosure and the ventilation slots should never be blocked.
`
`Expert for Petitioner testifies that Namikawa does not disclose any mounting
`
`11.
`structure.
`In Exhibit 2006, p. 54, lines 11-20, the witness testified Namikawa does not disclose a
`mounting structure.
`
`Q. Can you tell me whether in this disclosure in this patent there is any indication as to
`any mounting structure in the -- of the -- for the TV monitors in the rail car, any structure that
`would mount TV panels or the monitors in the rail car.
`(Witness peruses exhibit.)
`A.
`I don't see a reference to a mounting structure.
`This testimony is relevant to the testimony of Mr. Malo on Ex. 1025 ¶ 13 because it
`contradicts Mr. Malo’s statement that Namikawa discloses televisions mounted at the junction of
`the sidewall and the ceiling [which] is immediately apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art from
`looking at Figure 1 of Namikawa.
`
`Expert for Petitioner admits that it is not clear whether Namikawa teaches a monitor
`12.
`inside the wall of the rail car or on the outside of the interior wall and therefore Petitioner cannot
`rely on Namikawa for the proposition that it discloses a monitor substantially flush with the side
`wall structure.
`In Exhibit 2006, on p. 68, line 7 to p. 69, line 11, the witness testified it is not clear whether
`Namikawa teaches a monitor inside the wall of the rail car or on the outside of the interior wall.
`
`Q. So are you saying that it’s not clear to you whether it’s inside the wall or outside of the
`wall, on that issue?
`A. Yeah.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Ex. 1025 ¶ 13 and directly contradicts Mr. Malo’s testimony
`that “one of ordinary skill in the art reading the disclosure of Namikawa would have understood
`the screen in Namikawa’s Figure 1 to be at the very least partially in the cavity between the interior
`surface and the external shell of the railcar.”
`
`

`

`13.
`Expert for Petitioner is a biased witness who works for bot