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 IPR2017-00117
`
`Patent 6,700,602
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF JACK R. LONG
`
`

`

`L.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`2,
`
`I, Jack Long, have been retained by counsel for Scott Blair (hereinafter “Blair”).
`
`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.
`
`Il.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3.
`
`I hold a Bachelor of Science degree in Metaliurgical Engineering from the
`
`University of Missouri.
`
`I was an Officer in the US Army Corps of Engineers with two years active duty as
`4,
`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 supervisedastaff of over 40 professionals in design engineering,testing,
`
`field service engineering and drafting.
`
`7.
`
`Iam a recognized expert in the design and engineering ofrolling stock including
`
`locomotive, passenger and freight vehicles (“rail cars”) and their components and other areas of
`
`engineering and material science.
`
`8.
`
`I headedthe sales and service engineering functions for proprietary rolling stock
`
`equipment.
`
`9.
`
`I was the transportation sales managerfor a railway equipment company, and
`
`worked with major metro agencies androlling stock builders.
`
`10.
`
`I was a program managerfor designing and building the Washington D.C. metro
`
`car's.
`
`Lam the inventor of eight issued United States Patents relating to various railway
`11.
`related engineering products, the design and engineeringofrolling stock, their components and
`
`related devices.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14,
`
`| was a Chief engineerforrailway proprietary freight and passenger equipment.
`
`[have written and presented professional technical papers in seven countries.
`
`I am an inventor of U.S. Patent 9,395,276 entitled, “Method and system for
`
`detection and analysis of railway bogie operational problems.’
`
`

`

`I am an inventor of U.S. Patent 6,422,154 entitled, “Three-piece railway truck
`15.
`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 truck.”
`
`Lam an inventor of U.S. Patent 5,507,400 entitled, “Slackless drawbar or coupler
`17.
`with swivel mounting.”
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`I am an inventor of U.S. Patent 5,463,964 entitled, “Rocker seat connection.”
`
`lam an inventor of U.S. Patent 5,139,161 entitled, “Automatic actuatorfor
`
`coupler knuckle-assembly of a railway passenger car.”
`
`I am an inventor of U.S. Patent 5,027,716 entitled, “Stabilized swing-motion truck
`20,
`for railway cars.”
`
`Tam an inventor of U.S. Patent 4,744,308 entitled, “Combined center plate/center
`21,
`filler for railway freight cars.”
`
`Iii, MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`22.
`
`Ihave reviewed the following:
`
`a.
`b.
`
`USS. Pat. No. 6,700,602 (“the ‘602 patent”) including the claims thereof;
`Petition for Jnter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,700,602, No.
`
`OPR2017-01036 including Exhibits.
`
`The translation of Japan Train Operation Association Magazine, Vol. 37,
`c.
`issue no. 3 (March 1, 1995) (Ex. 1003, “JTOA Magazine”);
`d.
`The translation of Japanese Publication No. 04-085379 (Ex. 1005,
`“Namikawa”);
`
`e.
`“Miyajima”);
`
`f.
`“Sasao”);
`
`g.
`h.
`“Maekawa”);
`
`The translation of Japanese Publication No. 07-181900 (Ex. 1007,
`
`The translation of Japanese Publication No. 04-322579 (Ex. L011,
`
`USS.Patent No. 5,293,244 to Kawaguchi (Ex. 1022, “Kawaguchi”);
`The translation of Japanese Publication No. 04-160991 (Ex. 1009,
`
`

`

`i,
`
`j
`k.
`
`L.
`
`“Yamada”);
`
`m.
`
`n.
`
`The translation of Japanese Publication No. 02-23985 (Ex. 1021,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,148,282 to Sedighzadeh (Ex. 1025, “Sedighzadeh”);
`U.S. Patent No. 3,211,904 to Schwenkler (Ex. 1026, “Schwenkler”);
`
`The translation of Japanese Publication No. 5-42853 (Ex. 1028,
`
`The file history of the ‘602 Patent provided in Ex. 1012; and
`
`The reexaminationfile history of the ‘602 Patent provided in Ex. 1013.
`
`23.
`
`[understand it has been stated that the following references are priorart to all of
`
`the claims of the ‘602 Patent:
`
`a b
`
`.
`
`JTOA Magazine;
`
`. Namikawa;
`
`c. Miyajima;
`
`d. Sasao;
`
`e. Kawaguchi;
`
`f. Maekawa;
`
`g. Amano;
`
`h. Sedighzadeh;
`
`i, 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.
`
` T understand that a claim is invalid for obviousness if the differences between the
`
`subject matter sought to be patented andthe priorart 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 OF ORDINARYSKILL IN THE ART
`
`27.
`
`Generally, 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 1995-1997 timeframe, a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field ofthe
`
`‘602 Patent would have (1) a Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering, and (2) at least 2-3 years of
`Engineering experience withrail equipment and/or the design of rail equipment.
`
`29.
`
`In forming the opinions that I express herein, I have adopted the perspective of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, as described above.
`
`Vv.
`
`OPINIONS
`
`A. STATE OF THE ART
`
`30.
`
`In the early 1990s, it was not known to flush mount television screens in the wails
`
`or ceilings of a rail car. The example provided in Appendix C of the Decl. of Lowell Malo in fact
`
`confirmsthis 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,priorto the ‘602 patent, to provide a plurality of video
`
`display monitors each having a video screen... each of said monitor being mountedat the junction
`of the sidewall and ceiling, with the screen of the monitor substantially flushed with the adjacent
`wail surface structure of the car, and directed obliquely downwardly toward the car seats.
`
`33.
`
`It was also not well known,priorto 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 obliquely downwardly toward the
`
`car seats so that each video screen is readily visible to passengers in the subwaycar.
`
`Expert Malo states the "norm" (in the first sentence of paragraph 31 of his
`34,
`Declaration) or trend—as exemplified by the FRA rule-making discussed in paragraph 31—was
`
`

`

`to have "interiorfittings" 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 ofa television or video monitoris not a "fitting." Still further, prior to the '602 patent, it
`would not have been obvious to flush-mountit at the junction ofthe ceiling and a sidewall of a rail
`
`car. This is further 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 lowersidewall, which would be a typical eye level.
`
`Prior to 1997, one skilled in the art would have been aware ofinstalling "interior
`35.
`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 not have been obvious, as inaccurately concluded
`in paragraph 34 in the Expert Malo Declaration without citation to any supporting evidence.
`
`36.
`
`Figure 1 of Miyajama depicts a gap between the display 01 and the sidewall.
`
`Arrowshave been added to show the gap. Miyajamadiscloses 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
`O1P...... cooling air 08 flows between the vehicle carriage 03 and the backlight.”
`
`37.
`
`One skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that Miyajimaillustrates 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 POSITAin 1997 to put a monitor in the
`
`transitional wall portion.
`
`It would not have been obvious for a POSITAin 1997 to provide a transparent
`40.
`cover unit that covers the monitor and is substantially flush with the adjacent surface structure
`
`of the transitional! wall portion,
`
`It would not have been obvious for a POSITA in 1997 to have a video display
`41.
`monitor enclosed within an enclosure such that the enclosure is secured to a structural member
`
`disposed between an inner wall and an outerstructural shell of the subwaycar.
`
`

`

`VI.
`
`COMPENSATION
`
`42.
`
`Although I am compensated forthe time I work on thislitigation, this
`
`compensation is not dependent on the outcomeofthis proceeding.
`
`I hereby declarethat all statements made herein of my own knowledgeare true and thatall
`
`statements made on information andbelief 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.
`
`Dated: May 30, 2017
`
`2fog
`
`Jack R. Long
`
`