KAWASAKI RAIL CAR, INC., Petitioner,
`v. SCOTT BLAIR, Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01036
`July 9, 2018 Hearing
`
`1
`
`
`v. SCOTT BLAIR, Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01036
`July 9, 2018 Hearing
`
`1
`
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Applicable Standard
`
` The patent at issue is an expired patent. Accordingly, claim terms are given their ordinary
`and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA).
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Square, Inc. v. Carl Cooper, IPR 2014-00157, Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. 2014).
`
`A.
`
`“substantially flushed”; “substantially flush”; “substantially contiguous”; “flushed”
` During reexamination of the ’602 patent, the Board construed “substantially flush” to mean “a surface
`which is to a great extent even with an adjoining one.” PO agrees with this construction.
` “substantially flushed” and "substantially contiguous" would be understood to be synonymous with
`“substantially flush.”
` “flushed” removes the “to a great extent” portion of “substantially flush” and should be construed as
`“a surface which is even with an adjoining one.” Petitioner has added that it is exactly even, PO
`disagrees with the addition of the word exactly.
`
`2
`
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`B.
`
`“junction of the sidewall and the
`ceiling” / “transitional wall portion”
`and “transitional segment”
` The various claims positively recite “a
`junction of the sidewall and the
`ceiling” (Claims 1, 5 and 7), “a
`transitional wall portion” (Claim 8 and
`dependents) and “a transitional
`segment” (Claim 15 and dependents).
`
`
`
`CEILINGCEILING
`
`
`
`SIDEWALLSIDEWALL
`
`Ex. 1001 ’602 Patent, p. 5
`
`
`Transitional segment/ junctionTransitional segment/ junction
`
`of the sidewall and the ceiling/of the sidewall and the ceiling/
`
`transitional wall portiontransitional wall portion
`
`3
`
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
` Each of these terms refer to the same
`portion of the wall where the ceiling and
`the sidewall meet. Arguments made with
`respect to one particular claim language
`would similarly apply to the others. PO
`generally refers to this as “the junction of
`the sidewall and the ceiling.”
`
`
`
`CEILINGCEILING
`
`4
`
`
`
`SIDEWALLSIDEWALL
`
`Paper 45, p. 1
`
`
`
`Transitional segmentTransitional segment
`
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`C.
`
`The term "backlit panel" should be construed according to its ordinary and customary meaning.
`Petitioner has argued that “backlit panel” should be construed as “a non-electronic panel illuminated by a light source
`behind it.” Petition, p. 12. Petitioner is attempting impermissibly narrow the term to include “a non-electronic panel”
`which is not supported by the intrinsic evidence.
`- No construction is necessary. If the Board deems a construction necessary, the ordinary and customary meaning would be “a
`panel illuminated by a light source behind it.”
`D.
`“self-contained wiring system”
` The specification provides,
`– A preferred system according to the invention is a subway car or plurality of subway cars equipped with a
`plurality
`of television monitors, . . . the video signal source and the monitors being interconnected by suitable electrical
`cable systems which are self-contained within the subway car. In this way, new subway cars can be built with the
`video system or parts thereof installed, and usable on substantially any transit system, since the operation of the
`video system is independent of any previously installed track, tunnel or control systems. Ex. 1001, 2:59-3:4.
` The proper claim construction of a “self-contained wiring system” is “a wiring cabling system that is
`(1) self-contained within the subway car and (2) independent of any previously installed track, tunnel
`or control systems,” as would be the ordinary and customary meaning as evidenced by the specification.
` Petitioner has argued that self-contained means it is “self-contained within the subway car.” 1034, ¶9.
`
`5
`
`
`
`THE NAMIKAWA
`REFERENCE
`
`Paper 45, p. 4
`
`6
`
`
`
`THE NAMIKAWA REFERENCE
`
` Namikawa does not teach a television mounted at “a junction of the sidewall and the ceiling”
`(Claims 1, 5 and 7), “a transitional wall portion” (Claim 8 and dependents) and “a transitional
`segment” (Claim 15 and dependents).
`
` Namikawa teaches a television mounted substantially on a ceiling.
`
`7
`
`
`
`THE NAMIKAWA
`REFERENCE
`
`Paper 45, p. 5
`
`8
`
`
`
`THE NAMIKAWA REFERENCE
`
` In Namikawa, the monitor is mounted on the ceiling.
` Namikawa never discusses a “junction” or that the television is mounted between the ceiling and the
`sidewall or at the junction of the two.
` Petitioner states the junction is, “where the sidewall meets the ceiling.” Ex. 1015, ¶40.
` Malo testified that there would be, in Namikawa, curved structural members in the roof, vertical members
`in the sidewalls and a longitudinal member that runs from the front of the car to the back of the car. Ex. 2010,
`23:18-26:7.
`– Malo confirmed “you would have a longitudinal member that runs from the front of the car to the
`back of the car where the side wall and the ceiling meet.” Id. at 26:3-7.
`– Malo further confirmed that the longitudinal member that runs from the front of the car to the back of
`the car at the top of the sidewall allows for the curved roof to be attached to the flat sidewall. Id. at 26:3-18.
`– This confirms the above location of the junction of the sidewall and the ceiling and contradicts
`Petitioner’s arbitrarily and incorrectly identified “junction.” Paper 2, p. 25.
` Malo also testified that the junction of the sidewall and the ceiling of Namikawa would have a
`longitudinal member that would occupy the space “within” the wall at that location. Ex. 2010, 26:3-10.
`
`9
`
`
`
`THE NAMIKAWA REFERENCE
`
` Petitioner arbitrarily and incorrectly labels a portion of the ceiling of Namikawa as the junction in
`an effort to meet the claim limitations, as below. Petitioner’s incorrect and arbitrary marking of
`the “junction” is clearly above where the curved ceiling structural members would meet and be
`attached to the sidewall structural members.
`
`10
`
`
`
`THE NAMIKAWA
`REFERENCE
`
`Petition, Paper 2, p. 25
`
`11
`
`
`
`THE NAMIKAWA REFERENCE
`
` Namikawa teaches a curved back monitor on a curved ceiling
`
` Namikawa does not teach a monitor at “a junction of the sidewall and the ceiling” (Claims 1, 5 and 7), “a
`transitional wall portion” (Claim 8 and dependents) and “a transitional segment” (Claim 15 and
`dependents)
`
` The junction of Namikawa is lower than the arbitrary location picked by Petitioner
`
` Namikawa exclusively teaches it is on a wall (not in a wall)
`
`12
`
`
`
`[FIG. 3]
`
`Jpn-1422579.».
`
`THESASAO
`
`THE SASAO
`REFERENCE
`
`[Fll3. a]
`
`REFERENCE
`
`Ex. 1011, Sasao Fig. 3, 5
`Ex. 1011, Sasao Fig. 3, 5
`
`13
`
`
`
`THE SASAO REFERENCE
`
` Sasao teaches a floor supported rear projection television that is structured
`to be housed at the interior of a residential wall. See Sasao [0001].
`
` The monitor of the television is altered to project forward. Id. at [0010].
`
` Sasao also teaches a frame (22) that protrudes to be more aesthetically pleasing.
`
` Sasao is directed to a floor supported cabinet-type monitor (not an LCD monitor).
`It is also directed to a residential environment, not a subway environment.
`
` Sasao mentions fire safety concerns, providing, “Further, safety can be improved by making
`this cabinet 12 out of a material having good fire resistance.” Sasao, Ex. 1011, paragraph [0015].
`
`14
`
`
`
`THE SASAO REFERENCE
`
` Petitioner argued that the PO evidence entitled “Consumer Product Safety Commission Guidelines” is “off
`point” and should be disregarded because it is directed to “home and portable CRT televisions” which do
`not address “LCD televisions at all, much less LCD televisions in 1997.” Paper 34, p. 5.
`
` Petitioner asks the Board to find Sasao (which also is not directed to an LCD television and is directed to a
`residential environment) to be entirely on point and provide the basis for modifying the monitor of
`Namikawa or Miyajima to be substantially flush.
`
` Petitioner wants one set of rules to apply to it and another to PO.
`
` Sasao should be ignored as being irrelevant and “off point.”
`
` Alternatively, if Sasao is “on point” then the CPSC Guidelines are also “on point” and provide that the bottom
`ventilation slots of a television should never be blocked and you should never place a television set in a
`“built-in” enclosure. See Ex. 2005, p. 2.
`
`15
`
`
`
`CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION GUIDELINES
`
`CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION GUIDELINES
`
`1D. W sets are provided with 1rentilaticn openings in the cabinet to allow heat generated during the
`
`operation to he released. If these openings are blocked. heat build-up within the W can cause failures
`
`which mayr result in a fire hazard.
`
`Therefore:
`
`-Neeer oover the openings with cloth or other material.
`
`-Neuer block the bottom ventilation slots of a portable W by placing it on a bed. sofa. mg, etc.
`
`44 ever place the set near or over a radiator or heat register.
`
`_
`_
`_
`_
`_
`.
`.
`-l~le~.rer place a set In a "hunt-In“ enclosure unless proper ventllahon Is prowded.
`
`Ex. 2005- p. 2
`Ex. 2005- p. 2
`
`16
`16
`
`
`
`THE MIYAJIMA
`
`I.
`
`.5
`
`THE MIYAJIMA
`REFERENCE
`
`REFERENCE
`
`ti.
`5:5 I535 ‘1
`fi
`-_ '_._._ ._._ .1
`I|'.'I I I- I
`
`Ex. 1007, Miyajima Fig. 1
`Ex. 1007, Miyajima Fig. 1
`
`17
`
`
`
`THE MIYAJIMA REFERENCE
`
` Miyajima confirms that there would be no expectation of available space at the junction.
`
` Miyajima teaches an LCD television that is mounted away from the wall, leaving a cooling air
`gap between the wall and the monitor to prevent overheating.
`
` Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 depict a gap between the display 01 and the sidewall. Ex. 1007, pp. 5-7.
`
` Miyajima discloses in [0017], “the structure is such that cooling air 08 passes by the backlight
`01P, in order to limit the temperature-rise of the backlight 01P . . . . [C]ooling air 08 flows
`between the vehicle carriage 03 and the backlight.” Id. at 4; see also Ex. 1015, ¶ 47.
`
` Miyajima provides unbiased and incontrovertible proof that LCD televisions at the time of the
`invention did produce heat, that this was a concern and that a POSITA would not have been
`motivated to place a television within the wall at the junction of the sidewall and the ceiling.
`
`18
`
`
`
`[FIG. 2]
`010 backlight irradiation light
`l
`liquid crystal orientation A
`(TIN. seal
`
`Ex. 1007, Miyajima Fig. 2
`
`Ell P. backlight
`
`om. liquid crystal
`/{
`
`transmission
`
`THE MIYAJIMA
`
`THE MIYAJIMA
`REFERENCE
`
`REFERENCE
`
`E
`
`r"l
`: I
`
`til
`3'
`s
`
`l
`
`010. backlight
`irradiation light
`
`03, coming air
`
`01M. polarizing film
`
`ole. glass subslrate
`[110. drive electrode
`
`"
`
`Ilquid crystal
`I/ofienlation B
`and characlers
`
`E; g/vimal recognition ofimagt
`
`Ex. 1007, Miyajima Fig. 2
`
`01 B. oorn lTIOI'I
`electrode
`
`.fllL. polarlzmg film
`
`HR (MK. glass substrate
`
`om. oolor filter
`
`01 E. oriention film
`01F. spacer
`
`lD1H. protective film
`1‘
`_
`.
`i
`010.0nentatlon fllrn
`
`Sectional 1uiew of 3 Liquid Crystal Display
`
`19
`
`
`
`THEAMANO
`
`THE AMANO
`REFERENCE
`
`REFERENCE
`
`Ex. 1021, Fig. 4
`Ex. 1021, Fig. 4
`
`20
`
`
`
`THE AMANO REFERENCE
`
` Amano is directed to a flat ceiling train and confirms that there would be no expectation of available space
`between an inner and outer wall at the junction of the sidewall and the ceiling.
`
`21
`
`
`
`THE MAEKAWA
`
`REFERENCE
`
`THE MAEKAWA
`REFERENCE
`
`Ex. 1009, Fig. 2
`
`JPfl4-160991—A
`
`[3}
`
`Ex. 1009, Fig. 2
`
`-
`
`.
`
`rn-ufiun
`
`3 .. 5 ......Emulator
`30‘ -Jud- .
`-
`.1nlcnna
`flfi -
`-
`-
`- urdm.‘.'|nD' um!
`:Ia ._ r29 , , .MIE'Iifiiéi'l MM'NII'
`
`Situation when mounted on car bunndy.r
`FIG. 2
`
`22
`
`
`
`THE MAEKAWA REFERENCE
`
` Maekawa teaches a monitor mounted on a sidewall of a train; it is not mounted at the junction
`of the sidewall and ceiling, is not substantially flushed with the adjacent wall surface structure
`of the car, and is not directed obliquely downwardly toward the car seats.
`
` Maekawa also clearly confirms that there would be no expectation of available space between an inner and
`outer wall at the junction of the sidewall and the ceiling.
`
`23
`
`
`
`THE JTOA
`
`REFERENCE THE JTOA
`
`REFERENCE
`
`Ex. 1003, JTOA, p. 1
`Ex. 1003, JTOA, p. 1
`
`24
`
`
`
`THE JTOA REFERENCE
`
` JTOA teaches a television on top of a lintel inspection cover, which is not a portion of the wall, the
`ceiling or the junction between the two; instead, it is a cover that is on top of and protrudes from
`a section of the wall that is above a door opening.
`
` JTOA also teaches that the television extends from the wall at a 30 degree tilt. Ex. 1003, p. 4, 3:3-17.
`
` Even if JTOA (which discloses it tilts at an angle) is substantially flush with the inspection cover
`(which PO submits it is not), it is clearly not substantially flush with the adjacent wall surface (as
`required by the independent claims) instead being on an additional piece that is on top of and
`protrudes from the sidewall surface. Ex. 1003, p. 4, 3:3-17 and p. 1.
`
`25
`
`
`
`THEYAMADA
`
`THE YAMADA
`REFERENCE
`
`REFERENCE
`
`1.M.Fa;damY8.m1.a
`Ex. 1028, Yamada, Fig. 1
`
`26
`
`
`
`THE YAMADA REFERENCE
`
` Yamada teaches a frame (2) around a monitor (21) that is mounted in a chair with the monitor
`(21) and screen (5) contained in the frame and protruding (not substantially flush) from the chair.
`
` The screen of Yamada does not teach a transparent cover unit that is substantially flush with the
`adjacent surface structure of the transitional wall portion (because it is in a chair, not a wall and
`the screen is not flush with the chair).
`
` The screen of Yamada 5, even in a closed or vertical position, is not substantially flush with
`the chair.
`– A red line has been added to depict the substantial distance between screen 5 (which is relied
`upon for the transparent cover) and the surrounding surface structure of the chair in Yamada.
`
`27
`
`
`
`[FIG. 2]
`FIG. 2
`
`f367’2‘r2fl 202?
`
`22
`
`
`
`23052562
`
`:5 RW-
`THE YAMADA
`THE YAMADA
`’5’”IT.-----
`REFERENCE
`REFERENCE The!
`
`Ex. 1028, Yamada, Fig. 2
`
`1
`
`717mm
`
`QR: “‘// {/w’Z/
`
`28
`
`
`
`THE YAMADA REFERENCE
`
` Yamada teaches a gap is maintained relative to the screen 5 to solve a “second problem” that
`forces get transmitted to the screen and problems occur in the image, with vertical lines and the
`like being produced on the screen. Ex. 1028, [0009]; [0015].
`
` Yamada teaches a transparent cover that is explicitly not substantially flush with the adjacent
`surface structure and provides,
`– [T]he liquid crystal television unit 21 is fastened in the back cover 20, which is made from metal, by the
`television unit fastening screws 23, and fastened such that a gap (S2 in FIG. 2) is maintained between
`the liquid crystal surface and the back face of the front panel 4…..When pushing at this time, the gap is
`maintained between the front panel 4 and the front face of the liquid television unit 21, and therefore
`force is [not] transmitted to the liquid crystal surface 21a of the liquid crystal television unit 21. Id. at [0026].
` Yamada teaches only the frame is substantially flush. The monitor and the screen of Yamada
`are not substantially flush with the surrounding chair surface and the screen is positioned
`forward from the monitor to maintain a gap. Still further, the monitor and the screen pivot.
`
`29
`
`
`
`THE SEDIGHZADEH
`
`THE SEDIGHZADEH
`REFERENCE
`REFERENCE
`
`._
`
`'J' -'
`
`.
`
`'_;;:'I':::I:IIII:
`
`Ex. 1025 Sedighzadeh Fig. 2
`
`A?
`
`35'
`
`nun“ nmmhm‘fim‘mnmw fl!— - tifi‘llmmumnn.
`
`fim/E
`
`Ex. 1025 Sedighzadeh Fig. 2
`
`30
`
`
`
`THE SEDIGHZADEH
`REFERENCE
`
`Paper 45, p. 70
`
`31
`
`
`
`THE SEDIGHZADEH REFERENCE
`
` Sedighzadeh teaches a swiveling support structure for a television that drops from the ceiling with a shell
`around it.
`
` Sedighzadeh specifically discredits televisions that do not swivel as being capable of viewing by a small
`number of individuals, as in the Dahlstrom patent, which “would appear to be designed to rest on a
`supporting surface such as a table or counter top and would also appear to be oriented for viewing by one or
`a small number of individuals.” Sedighzadeh Ex. 1025, p. 5.
`
` Sedighzadeh teaches directly away from being modified to be “disposed within the transitional wall portion
`such that the transparent cover units covering respective ones of the video display monitors are
`substantially flush with the adjacent surface structure of the transitional wall portion.”
`
` MPEP § 2143.01(V) states, “If proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified
`unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed
`modification.” In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (emphasis added).
`
`32
`
`
`
`THE SEDIGHZADEH REFERENCE
`
` The cover (70) of Sedighzadeh is not even flushed with the surrounding enclosure which drops from the
`ceiling and utterly fails to teach the transparent cover unit is flushed within the adjacent wall structure such
`that it contains no protuberances.
`
` The plexiglass pane (70) is inside the shell that also is not substantially flush with the adjacent surface,
`providing, “The opening or window 64 in the shell has permanently mounted therein a tinted plexiglass
`pane 70 which is disposed inwardly of the flexible wall 68 so that when the flexible wall is moved into its
`closed position of Fig. 7, the flexible wall overlies and obstructs the window.” Ex. 1025, 6:2-7 (emphasis added).
`
`33
`
`
`
`THE SCHWENKLER
`THE SCHWENKLER
`REFERENCE
`REFERENCE
`
`Ex. 1026, p. 1
`
`Ex. 1026, p. 1
`
`34
`
`“+2.:
`
`.
`
`‘
`
`
`
`THE SCHWENKLER
`REFERENCE
`
`Paper 45, p. 22
`
`35
`
`
`
`THE SCHWENKLER REFERENCE
`
` Schwenkler teaches a set of lights that are mounted end-to-end from the front of the car to the back of the
`car with a gap between the top of the wall and the back of the lighting fixture.
` Schwenkler expressly teaches away from individual lights as would be required to place back lit panels next
`to the video screens (as advanced by Petitioner), stating, “Individual or spot reading lamps are not only
`objectionable from the standpoint of excessive cost, but if used alone also serve to create areas of diverse
`levels of light intensity which oftentimes contributes to passenger eye discomfort.” Ex. 1026, 2:19-23, 8:43-52.
` Petitioner attempts to mischaracterize PO arguments. Petitioner’s statements that Schwenkler
`never criticizes panels that do not run the length of the car is misguided and an attempt to
`ignore that Schwenkler clearly discredits individual or spot reading lamps (as would be required
`to place backlit panels next to the video screens (as in claims 11, 19, 23)).
` Schwenkler provides, “It is contemplated that a fixture arrangement such as that illustrated will
`extend the entire length of the car.” Id. at 8:18-20.
` Schwenkler also provides further proof that a POSITA would have had no expectation of available
`space beyond the wall at the junction of the sidewall and the ceiling, and they would mount an
`interior fitting with a gap between the fitting and the top of the wall. Id. at Fig. 1 (reproduced herein).
`
`36
`
`
`
`SELECTED PATENTABILITY ARGUMENTS
`
`CLAIM 7
`
` Claim 7 provides, “a self-contained wiring-cabling system
`connecting the video monitors to the video signal source unit.”
`
` The Petition is entirely deficient with respect to claim 7,
`providing general statements that do not address the claims.
`
` With respect to Grounds A and B, Petitioner provides:
`
`Namikawa, Amano and Maekawa each render this claim obvious in view of the
`knowledge of a POSITA. Section VII.A.I.i[ld] explains how Namikawa discloses the claimed
`VSSU, which would have to be connected to televisions 12 for the system to function as
`intended. (Ex. 1015, ¶63). Amano’s transmitter must also be connected to its display devices
`using a “transmission path [9]” to function properly. (Ex. 1021, 3, Fig. 2). The same is true of
`Maekawa’s displays and VSSU. (Ex. 1009, 4). By 1997, the use of a wire or cable to provide
`the necessary connection between video monitors and a VSSU in Namikawa (or Amano or
`Maekawa) would have been an obvious design choice for a POSITA. (Ex. 1015, ¶¶62-65).
`
`Paper 2, pp. 30-31
`
`37
`
`
`
`SELECTED PATENTABILITY ARGUMENTS
`
` Petitioner has misunderstood the claim. Merely using wires to connect monitors
`does not teach “a self-contained wiring-cabling system connecting the video
`monitors to the video signal source unit.”
`
` Petitioner has repeatedly tried to ignore or downplay the “self-contained” portion
`of the claim.
`– “a self-contained wiring cabling system” is (1) self-contained within the subway car and (2) independent of any
`previously installed track, tunnel or control systems. PO submits this is the correct claim interpretation, but even
`under petitioner’s proposed claim interpretation, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “a self-contained wiring-
`cabling system”
`– The Board, in the decision to institute, relies on Maekawa, stating, “as taught by Maekawa, coaxial cable 35 (see Ex.
`1009, Fig. 3) is shown in a rail car to connect antennas 30a-d to a receiver i.e. under floor unit 40, and then also
`feed television or video signals to video monitors 117-119.” Paper 10, p.19.
`
`38
`
`
`
`Petitioner, for the first time in their reply to the supplemental reply,
`offered a marked up drawing of Maekawa and the “self-contained
`wiring cabling system”
`
`video display monitor
`
`Petitioner for the first time in their
`reply to the supplemental reply
`offered a marked up drawing of
`Maekawa and the “self-contained
`wiring cabling system”
`
`video signal source unit
`
`self-contained wiring
`cabling system
`
`MAEKAWA
`ARGUMENTS
`WITH RESPECT
`TO CLAIM 7
`
`Ex. 1026, p. 1
`
`39
`
`
`
`MAEKAWA ARGUMENTS WITH RESPECT TO CLAIM 7
`
` The specification of Maekawa clearly provides that the under floor unit is on the outside of the car:
`
`Furthermore, the four antennas (30a), (30b),
`(30c), (30d) configured in this manner are connected
`by the coaxial cables (35) to the switch (41) inside
`the under-floor unit (40) that is hung beneath the
`floor of the car body (1). The equipment for receiving
`teletext broadcasts is housed in this under-floor unit
`(40), and the switch (41) selectively outputs received
`signals supplied by any of the antennas under the
`control of a discriminator circuit (44), which will be
`discussed below.
`
`Ex. 1009, p. 3.
`
`40
`
`
`
`MAEKAWA ARGUMENTS WITH RESPECT TO CLAIM 7
`
` Even under Petitioner claim construction the wiring
`cabling system is outside the subway car and therefore
`not self contained.
`
` Maekawa describes a system with wiring cabling that runs
`between antennas (30a-30d) that are on top of the car
`and an under the floor unit (40) that is below the car.
`Accordingly, it is not “within the subway cay” and is not
`self-contained under Petitioners claim construction.
`
` Maekawa also is not “independent of any previously
`installed track, tunnel or control systems,” as would be
`the ordinary and customary meaning as evidenced by the
`specification. Maekawa would require specific tracks,
`tunnels or control systems as in the antennas and under
`the floor unit.
`
` Would not be usable on substantially any transit system,
`which is the articulated reason for the self-contained
`wiring cabling system in the ‘602 patent. Ex. 1001, 2:59-
`3:9.
`
`Ex. 1009, p. 8
`
`41
`
`
`
`AMANO ARGUMENTS WITH RESPECT TO CLAIM 7
`
` Petitioner’s arguments with respect to Amano are similarly deficient. Petitioner argues that
`everything downstream from the antenna is within the subway car. Even under Petitioner’s
`argument, this is not self-contained.
`
` Amano expressly provides:
`
`1. The transportation equipment 1 receives the information provided through the
`antenna 2, and provides the information to passengers via the display information
`signal transmitter and the information signal display devices provided in the bus.
`
`Ex. 1021, p. 2
`[Reference numbers] 2 and 3 are antennas; 4 is a region-specific information
`transmission function, which primarily transmits region-specific information;
`8 is an information display device for displaying the provided information
`transmitted from the display information display device [sic] 7; and 9 is a
`transmission path between these devices. [Reference number] 10 is an input
`signal, which represents travel information concerning the travelling state or
`the stopped state of the transportation equipment.
`
`Ex. 1021, p. 3
`
`42
`
`
`
`AMANO ARGUMENTS WITH RESPECT TO CLAIM 7
`
` Petitioner relies on 7 and 9 of Fig. 2 of Amano as teaching the “self-contained wiring cabling
`system” but conveniently attempts to ignore that the “wiring cabling system” interfaces with
`2 (antenna) and is therefore at least partially outside the car (not self-contained).
`
` Petitioner’s “self-contained wiring cabling system” incorrectly and arbitrarily removes portions of the wiring
`cabling system
`
`self-contained wiring
`cabling system
`
`video display monitor
`
`video signal source unit
`
`Ex. 1021, Fig. 2
`
`Ex. 1021, Fig. 2
`
`43
`
`
`
`Amano
`
` Amano provides, “This [is] can be achieved by displaying the information to be provided, which had been
`transmitted from a transmission device, on a plurality of display devices set up at locations used by
`passengers, from a device having a function for setting and transmitting the indefinite information to be
`provided and a function for receiving and transmitting information transmitted from outside the
`transportation equipment, which is provided in a location in the transportation equipment that is not used
`by passengers, for example, the cockpit in an airplane, the conductor’s cab in a train, or the driver’s seat on
`a bus.” Ex. 1021, p. 2.
`
` Fig. 1 of Amano confirms that the antennas (2, 3), device for receiving transmissions (4) and transmission
`paths (6) are outside of the transportation equipment (1). Amano states, “2 is an antenna installed ON the
`transportation equipment” Ex. 1021, p. 2.
`
`44
`
`
`
`AMANO ARGUMENTS WITH RESPECT TO CLAIM 7
`
` Amano and Maekawa are the only references relied upon for the “self-contained wiring cabling system”
`
` Both Amano and Maekawa teach that at least a portion of the wiring cabling system is outside the car
`
` Under either claim construction, the teachings must fail
`
` Expert for Petitioner even confirmed that the antenna of Maekawa is not “within the car” Ex. 2010, 28:16-29:4,
`See also id. at 11:20-12:1 (Malo testified that a television on the roof is not “within the car”).
`
` The Maekawa and Amano references are not self-contained independent of any previously installed track,
`tunnel or control systems and would not be usable on substantially any transit system, which is the
`articulated advantage of the self-contained wiring cabling system in the ‘602 patent. Ex. 1001, 2:59-3:9.
`
`Maekawa, Ex. 1009, Fig. 2
`
`45
`
`Amano, Ex.
`1021, Fig. 1
`
`
`
`AMANO ARGUMENTS WITH RESPECT TO CLAIM 7
`
` Malo’s declaration is the only place in which Petitioner points to a system and how it interfaces and the
`system described expressly provides that it is not self-contained. Ex. 1015, p. 103 (“It shall interface electrically and
`mechanically with the existing Amfleet, Superliner, Heritage Flee public address systems in all operating respects.”).
`
` The argument that this would have been an obvious design choice must also be rejected. The specification
`provides that the self-contained wiring cabling system being independent allows the system to be usable on
`substantially any transit system. Ex. 1001, 2:59-3:9.
`
` In re Gal, 980 F.2d 717, 719 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (design choice is not a sufficient rationale for obviousness
`where the structure recited in claim and the function it performs are different from the prior art).
`
` The prior art does not teach a “self-contained wiring cabling system” and Malo’s testimony regarding self-
`contained wiring is disingenuous and undermined by his own exhibits, which teach a system that interfaces
`with previously installed control systems and is not self-contained.
`
` The Petition is deficient in proving claim 7, instead relying on common sense.
`
`46
`
`
`
`CLAIMS 8, 20
`
` Claim 8 includes “transparent cover units covering respective ones of the video display
`monitors are substantially flush with the adjacent surface structure of the transitional
`wall portion, wherein the monitors are also directed obliquely downwardly”
`
` Claim 20 similarly includes “each of said monitors being mounted at the junction of the
`sidewall and ceiling and further being covered with a transparent cover unit, with the
`transparent cover unit flushed with the adjacent wall surface structure of the car”
`– Petitioner relies on Yamada or Sedighzadeh for teaching the transparent cover unit
`– Both references teach a transparent cover unit that is explicitly NOT substantially
`flush with an adjacent surface structure
`– Petitioner has not provided a single reference of a transparent cover unit that is
`substantially flush with an adjacent wall surface structure
`– A POSITA, in the 1995-1997 timeframe, would not be motivated to provide transparent cover units covering
`respective ones of the video display monitors to be substantially flush with the adjacent surface structure of the
`transitional wall portion as they would expect that a transparent cover unit would further prevent ventilation of the
`display monitor, cause heat build-up and create a fire hazard. Zicherman Decl., Ex. 2007 ¶33.
`
`47
`
`
`
`CLAIMS 8, 20
`
` Yamada is in a chair and the cover protrudes
`forward from the surrounding frame
`
` Sedighzadeh drops from the ceiling and is
`not substantially flush with an adjacent
`surface structure
`
`Paper 45, p. 18
`
`Paper 45, p. 70.
`
`48
`
`
`
`VARIOUS POINTS
`
`Namikawa teaches a monitor mounted on the ceiling.
`
`Paper 45, p. 4
`
`49
`
`
`
`VARIOUS POINTS
`
`Petitioner relies on a “proposed” and aspirational FRA rule as providing the
`“evidence” that flush mounting was the norm in in the rail industry.
`– Flush mounting was not the norm in the rail industry by 1997, and this is in
`fact supported by the myriad of references, not a single one providing a
`substantially flush television monitor in a rail car, and Petitioner’s own
`statements regarding the state of the art (a rudimentary television that
`protrudes and swivels from a side wall).
`– Petitioner’s expert testified that it was cutting edge to have monitors in the
`train at that time and it was something new. Ex. 2008, 25:1-8. It was not the
`norm in the railcar industry, in the 1995-1997 timeframe, to mount a
`monitor substantially flush with an adjacent wall surface.
`– Petitioner’s expert testified that Amtrak utilized a free-standing monitor in
`1995. Ex. 1015, ¶ 32.
`– Namikawa, Amano, Maekawa and Miyajima are “on top of the wall” which
`has been found by the Board not to be “substantially flush.”
`– The PTAB discussing Maekawa, Amano, Minesaki and Moore, stated: “Thus,
`we agree with Appellant that a screen located at a monitor on top of the
`surface of the car would not be substantially flushed against the car
`surface.” Ex. 1013, pp. 479.
`
`Ex. 1015, p. 67
`
`50
`
`
`
`VARIOUS POINTS
`
` The FRA provides:
`– The FRA believed the proposed requirements would aid in reducing the number of fatalities and
`injuries by reducing the likelihood of fire. Ex. 2004, p. 18
`– Fire and post-collision conditions result in 30 percent of the fatalities and 16 percent of the
`serious injuries. Ex. 2004, p. 18
`– The proposed rule provides, “The operating railroad shall include in its system safety program fire
`safety considerations and features in the design of new passenger equipment that reduce the risk
`of equipment damage and personal injuries due to fires.” See Ex. 2004, p. 73.
`– The proposed FRA rules provides, “The intent of the guidelines is to prevent fire ignition.”
`See Ex. 2004, p. 17.
`– The enacted FRA rule provides to the extent possible, interior fittings shall be recessed or
`flush mounted.
`
`51
`
`
`
`SUBWAY CARS POSE A UNIQUE ENVIRONMENT WITH HEIGHTENED FIRE CONCERNS
`
` The risk of fire in a rail rapid transit (RRT) car, such as a subway car, is of great concern, given
`that passengers are exposed to the risk of fire and smoke when operating in tunnels. Great
`care is taken when designing RRT cars to be used in underground operating environments to
`avoid potential fires and fire hazards. The confined space inside a subway tunnel poses a
`unique operating environment with a distinct set of fire risks and hazards to riders and system
`operating personnel, due to high passenger loads, and flows of large numbers of passengers at
`rapid intervals. Zicherman Decl., Ex. 2007, ¶ 9.
`
` Subway tunnels pose limited escape facilities and restricted intervention access by emergency
`personnel in these structures. There is also poor ventilation for smoke to escape in an
`underground tunnel environment, such as a subway. Likewise, limitations on capacity and
`placement of emergency egress facilities for riders. In addition restricted opportunities for
`ingress for first responders exist in such RRT facilities and operating environments. There are
`also foreseeable occasions when emergency ventilation facilities are needed to assist
`emergency evacuations in undergr
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
