throbber
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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket