EXHIBIT 2002
`
`EXHIBIT 2002
`
`

`

`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—001 17
`
`Patent 6,700,602
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF JACK R. LONG
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`I, Jack Long, have been retained by counsel for Scott Blair (hereinafter “Biair”).
`
`I submit this declaration in support of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response to
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of 6,700,602, No. IPR 2017-01036.
`
`II.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3.
`
`I hold a Bachelor of Science degree in Metallurgical Engineering from the
`
`University of Missouri.
`
`4.
`
`I was an Officer in the US Army Corps of Engineers with two years active duty as
`
`Lieutenant and five years reserve duty as a Captain.
`
`'
`
`5.
`
`I have over 35 years of experience in various engineering, sales, and international
`
`positions, including as Chief Engineer and Senior VP International.
`
`6.
`
`I have supervised a staff of over 40 professionals in design engineering, testing,
`
`field service engineering and drafting.
`
`7.
`
`I am a recognized expert in the design and engineering of rolling stock including
`
`locomotive, passenger and freight vehicles (“rail cars”) and their components and other areas of
`
`engineering and material science.
`
`8.
`
`I headed the sales and service engineering functions for proprietary rolling stock
`
`equipment.
`
`9.
`
`I was the transportation sales manager for a railway equipment company, and
`
`worked with maj or metro agencies and rolling stock builders.
`
`10.
`
`I was a program manager for designing and building the Washington DC metro
`
`cars.
`
`11.
`
`I am the inventor of eight issued United States Patents relating to various railway
`
`related engineering products, the design and engineering of rolling stock, their components and
`
`related devices.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`I was a Chief engineer for railway proprietary freight and passenger equipment.
`
`I have written and presented professional technical papers in seven countries.
`
`I am an inventor of US. Patent 9,395,276 entitled, “Method and system for
`
`detection and analysis of railway bogie operational problems.’
`
`

`

`15.
`
`I am an inventor of U.S. Patent 6,422,154 entitled, “Three-piece railway truck
`
`frame having a selectively removable bolster.”
`
`16.
`
`I am an inventor of U.S. Patent 6,142,081 entitled, “Pedestal rocker seat for
`
`providing passive axle steering to a rigid railway truc .”
`
`17.
`
`I am an inventor of U.S. Patent 5,507,400 entitled, “Slackless drawbar or coupler
`
`with swivel mounting.”
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`I am an inventor of U.S. Patent 5,463,964 entitled, “Rocker seat connection.”
`
`I am an inventor of U.S. Patent 5,139,161 entitled, “Automatic actuator for
`
`coupler knuckle-assembly of a railway passenger car.”
`
`20.
`
`I am an inventor of U.S. Patent 5,027,716 entitled, “Stabilized swing-motion truck
`
`for railway cars.”
`
`21.
`
`I am an inventor of U.S. Patent 4,744,308 entitled, “Combined center plate/center
`
`filler for railway freight cars.”
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`22.
`
`I have reviewed the following:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,700,602 (“the ‘602 patent”) including the claims thereof;
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,700,602, No.
`
`OPR2017-01036 including Exhibits.
`
`c.
`
`The translation of Japan Train Operation Association Magazine, Vol. 37,
`
`issue no. 3 (March 1, 1995) (Ex. 1003, “JTOA Magazine”);
`
`d.
`
`The translation of Japanese Publication No. 04—085379 (Ex. 1005,
`
`“Namikawa”);
`
`e.
`
`The translation of Japanese Publication No. 07-181900 (Ex. 1007,
`
`“Miyajima”);
`
`f.
`
`The translation of Japanese Publication No. 04-322579 (Ex. 1011,
`
`“Sasao”);
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`“Maekawa");
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,293,244 to Kawaguchi (Ex. 1022, “Kawaguchi”);
`
`The translation of Japanese Publication No. 04-160991 (Ex. 1009,
`
`

`

`i.
`
`The translation of Japanese Publication No. 02—23985 (Ex. 1021,
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`1.
`
`“Yamada”);
`
`m.
`
`n.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,148,282 to Sedighzadeh (Ex. 1025, “Sedighzadeh”);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,211,904 to Schwenlder (EX. 1026, “Schwenkler”);
`
`The transiation of Japanese Publication No. 5—42853 (Ex. 1028,
`
`The file history of the ‘602 Patent provided in Ex. 1012; and
`
`The reexamination file history of the ‘602 Patent provided in Ex. 1013.
`
`23.
`
`I understand it has been stated that the following references are prior art to all of
`
`the claims of the ‘602 Patent:
`
`F"in
`
`JTOA Magazine;
`
`Namikawa;
`
`Miyajima;
`
`as Sasao;
`
`Frown
`
`p.“
`
`Kawaguchi;
`
`Maekawa;
`
`Amano;
`
`Sedighzadeh;
`
`Schwenkler;
`
`j. Yamada.
`
`24.
`
`In making my conclusions stated herein, while reviewing the materials listed in
`
`paragraphs 22 and 23, I have applied the claim construction definitions applied by Petitioner in its
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,700,602, No. IPR2017—01036.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid for obviousness if the differences between the
`
`subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are so insubstantial that the subject matter as
`
`a whole would have been obvious, at the time the invention was made, to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art to which that subject matter pertains.
`
`26.
`
`To the best of my understanding, my opinions regarding obviousness of the ‘602
`
`Patent follow the legal principles contained in Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966) and KSR
`
`Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
`
`

`

`IV.
`
`PERSON 0F ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`27.
`
`Generaily, the ‘602 Patent is in the field of interior design of rail cars and more
`
`specifically the field of video display systems mounted in and operating in mass transit subway
`
`cars.
`
`28.
`
`In the 1995-4997 timeframe, a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the
`
`“60?. Patent would have (1) a Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering, and (2) at least 23 years of
`
`Engineering experience with rail equipment and/or the design of rail equipment.
`
`29.
`
`In forming the opinions that l express herein, I have adopted the perspective of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, as described above.
`
`V.
`
`OPINIONS
`
`A. STATE OF THE ART
`
`30.
`
`In the earty 19905, it was not known to flush mount television screens in the walls
`
`or ceilings of a rail car. The example provided in Appendix C of the Decl. of Lowell Male in fact
`
`confirms this point. The television screen has a protruding swivel mount.
`
`31.
`
`The Patent Board of Appeals, during the ex parte reexamination of the within
`
`patent, concluded that a screen located at a monitor on top of the surface of the car would not be
`
`substantially flushed against the car surface. I agree with this position.
`
`32.
`
`it was also not well known, prior to the ‘602 patent, to provide a plurality of video
`
`display monitors each having a video screen. .. 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 obliqueiy downwardly toward the car seats.
`
`33.
`
`It was also not well known, prior to the ‘602 patent, to provide a plurality of video
`
`display monitors each having a video screen. . .each of the video display monitors being mounted
`
`Within the transitional segment (disposed at the junction ofthe sidewall and the ceiling), with the
`
`video screen of each video display monitor being substantially contiguous with an exterior surface
`
`of said transitional segment, said video screen being directed obliqueiy downwardly toward the
`
`car seats so that each video screen is readily visible to passengers in the subway car.
`
`34.
`
`Expert Malo states the "norm" (in the first sentence of paragraph 31 of his
`
`Declaration) or trend—as exemplified by the FRA rule-making discussed in paragraph 31—was
`
`

`

`to have "interior fittings" recessed or flush-mounted. The examples given in paragraphs 27-30 (and
`
`mentioned above) are examples of such "interior fittings," and, hence, one skilled in the art would
`
`have surely known to install such fittings in a recessed or flush-mounted manner. However, the
`
`screen of a television or video monitor is not a "fitting." Still further, prior to the '602 patent, it
`
`would got have been obvious to flush-mount it at the junction of the ceiling and a sidewall of a rail
`
`car. This is finther evidenced by Expert Malo’s own statements and photos showing Amtrak
`
`utilized a protruding swivel mounted monitor, which is not flush mounted (or substantially
`
`flushed) and is on a lower sidewall, which would be a typical eye level.
`
`35.
`
`Prior to 1997, one skilled in the art would have been aware of installing "interior
`
`fittings" (which would not include TVs or video screens) in a rail car in a "recessed or flush-
`
`mounted" manner, but the installation of a video screen in this manner—especially at the junction
`
`ofthe ceiling and a sidewall of a rail car—would n_01 have been obvious, as inaccurately concluded
`
`in paragraph 34 in the Expert Male Declaration without citation to any supporting evidence.
`
`36.
`
`Figure l of Miyajama depicts a gap between the display 01 and the sidewall.
`
`Arrows have been added to show the gap. Miyajama discloses in [0017] “the structure is such that
`
`cooling air 08 passes by the backlight (HP, in order to limit the temperature-rise of the backlight
`
`OlP .... ..cooling air 08 flows between the vehicle carriage 03 and the backlight.”
`
`37.
`
`One skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that Miyajima illustrates external
`
`mounting of the curved (or 2 piece) displays away from the carriage wall.
`
`38.
`
`Prior to 1997, one skilled in the art would not have been aware of transparent
`
`cover units covering reSpective ones of the video display monitors that are substantially flush
`
`with the adjacent surface structure of the transitional wall portion.
`
`39.
`
`It would not have been obvious for a POSITA in 1997 to put a monitor in the
`
`transitional wall portion.
`
`40.
`
`It would not have been obvious for a POSITA in 1997 to provide a transparent
`
`cover unit that covers the monitor and is substantially flush with the adjacent surface structure
`
`of the transitional wall portion.
`
`41.
`
`It would not have been obvious for a POSITA in 1997 to have a video display
`
`monitor enclosed within an enclosure such that the enclosure is secured to a structural member
`
`disposed between an inner wall and an outer structural shell of the subway car.
`
`

`

`VI.
`
`COMPENSATION
`
`42.
`
`Although I am compensated for the time I work on this litigation, this
`
`compensation is not dependent on the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are true and that all
`
`statements made on information and belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements
`
`were made with knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by
`
`fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`M J
`
`ack R. Long
`
`Dated: May 30, 2017
`
`