PTAB

IPR2013-00245

A L Lee Corp v. Brookville EquipMent Corp

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Rerailer Apparatus
  • Brief Description: The ’190 patent discloses a rerailer apparatus for installation on a rail car, particularly those used in underground mining. The apparatus includes vertical lifting members and a lateral movement member to lift a derailed car and move it back onto the tracks, replacing the need for conventional hand jacks.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1 and 4-6 - Claims 1 and 4-6 are anticipated by Patent 5,111,749.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Patent 5,111,749 (“’749 patent”).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the ’749 patent, which discloses a rerailing system for a rail-bound carriage, teaches every limitation of independent claim 1. Specifically, the ’749 patent’s slide ledge 21 was identified as the claimed "foot," its hydraulic cylinders 13 and 19 as the "at least two vertical lifting members," its hydraulic drives 14 as the "lateral movement mechanism," and its control panel 46 as the "control device." Petitioner asserted that the ’749 patent explicitly discloses that these components are pivotally connected and operate to lift and laterally shift the carriage relative to the foot, thereby anticipating claim 1. For dependent claims 4-6, Petitioner mapped the coupling of lateral drives to the lifting members, the use of a pair of hydraulic cylinders, and a locking function provided by the control panel’s power-off state.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 1 and 4-6 - Claims 1 and 4-6 are obvious over Patent 4,090,453, Patent 12,345, and Patent 4,556,200.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Patent 4,090,453 (“’453 patent”), Patent 12,345 (“’345 patent”), and Patent 4,556,200 (“’200 patent”).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the ’453 patent taught a base rerailer system with a foot (beam 30), a single vertical lifting cylinder, a lateral movement mechanism, and a control console. To arrive at the claimed invention, a POSITA would have modified this base system using known components and techniques taught by the other references. The ’345 patent was cited for its teaching of using two vertical lifting members instead of one, and the ’200 patent was cited for teaching the use of pivotal connections (e.g., a clevis base) between the lifting members, the foot, and the rail car.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to create a more stable and effective rerailing system. Specifically, a POSITA would have been motivated to replace the single lifting cylinder of the ’453 patent with the dual lifting members from the ’345 patent to improve stability and allow the use of smaller, less expensive cylinders. A POSITA would also have been motivated to incorporate the pivotal connections from the ’200 patent to improve the lateral movement of the raised rail car, a known objective in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying predictable solutions from the prior art to improve a known device, giving a POSITA a reasonable expectation of success.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 7 and 10-12 - Claims 7 and 10-12 are obvious over Patent 5,203,264, Patent 4,556,200, Patent 1,720,111, and Patent 1,062,871.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Patent 5,203,264 (“’264 patent”), Patent 4,556,200 (“’200 patent”), Patent 1,720,111 (“’111 patent”), and Patent 1,062,871 (“’871 patent”).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed independent claim 7, which adds limitations requiring a rail car with bumpers on each end and a self-contained rerailer suspended in each bumper. Petitioner argued that the ’264 patent disclosed a complete rerailer apparatus with all the functional components required by claim 7 (foot, lifting members, lateral movement, controls). The remaining references were used to show the motivation to mount such a system on both ends of a rail car.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a POSITA would combine these references to create a fully self-contained and efficient rerailing system. The ’111 patent and the ’200 patent both explicitly taught that it was well-known to have rerailing jacks or apparatuses attachable to bumpers on both ends of a rail car to facilitate rerailing. The ’871 patent and the ’200 patent further taught pivotally connecting such apparatuses to the car so they did not need to be transported separately. A POSITA would thus have been motivated to apply the rerailer system of the ’264 patent to the dual-bumper configuration taught by the other references. Arguments for dependent claims 10-12 followed from the teachings of the same combination.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on other combinations, including the ’453, ’345, and ’200 patent combination further in view of Patent 3,362,351 to teach a specific lateral movement mechanism with opposed cylinders. Further anticipation and obviousness grounds were asserted against all challenged claims based on Patent 5,203,264 alone or in view of the ’200 and ’871 patents.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 4-7, and 10-12 of the ’190 patent as unpatentable.