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 relates to a rerailer apparatus for rail cars, particularly those used in underground mining. The invention provides an integrated system with vertical lifting members and a lateral movement member to lift a derailed car and reposition it onto the tracks.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation and Obviousness over Galgoczy - Claims 1 and 4-6 are anticipated by or, in the alternative, obvious over Galgoczy.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Galgoczy (Patent 5,111,749).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Galgoczy discloses every limitation of independent claim 1. Specifically, Galgoczy’s carriage 9 and slide ledge 21 function as the claimed rail car and foot, respectively. Its hydraulic cylinders 13 and 19 serve as the two pivotally connected vertical lifting members, and its hydraulic drives 14 act as the lateral movement mechanism. Petitioner further contended that Galgoczy anticipates dependent claims 4-6 by disclosing the coupling of the lateral movement mechanism to the lifting members (claim 4), the use of a pair of hydraulic cylinders for lateral movement (claim 5), and a control panel with a power-off function that serves as a locking device (claim 6).
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As an alternative, Petitioner asserted that all limitations were taught or suggested by Galgoczy, rendering the claims obvious.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success was expected as the reference disclosed a complete, functioning system incorporating all claimed features.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Crehore, Gould, and Czaplewski - Claims 1 and 4-6 are obvious over Crehore in view of Gould and Czaplewski.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Crehore (Patent 12,345), Gould (Patent 4,090,453), and Czaplewski (Patent 4,556,200).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Gould disclosed a basic rerailer system with a foot (beam 30), a single vertical lifting cylinder, a lateral movement mechanism, and a controller. To improve this system, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have looked to other known rerailing technologies. Crehore taught using two vertical lifting members for increased stability and the ability to use smaller components, and Czaplewski taught pivotally connecting the lifting members to both the rail car and the foot (via a clevis base) to provide improved control during lateral movement.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine these references to create a more stable and effective rerailer. The motivation to replace Gould's single lifting cylinder with two from Crehore was a matter of known design choice for stability. The motivation to add the pivotal connections taught by Czaplewski was to achieve the known benefit of improved maneuverability of the lifted rail car.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in combining these known mechanical elements to achieve their predictable functions.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Crehore, Gould, and Czaplewski - Claims 7 and 10-12 are obvious over Crehore in view of Gould and Czaplewski.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Crehore (Patent 12,345), Gould (Patent 4,090,453), and Czaplewski (Patent 4,556,200).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground applied the same prior art combination to independent claim 7, which adds the limitations of a self-contained rerailing system with a rerailer suspended from a bumper on each end of the rail car. Petitioner argued that Czaplewski expressly taught that its rerailing jack is attachable to coupler pockets on bumpers at both ends of a rail vehicle to "permit operation of the jack...at both ends of the vehicle to return all wheels...to the track." The individual rerailer components were supplied by the combination of Gould (base system) and Crehore (two lifting members), as argued for claim 1.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Czaplewski provided the explicit rationale to place rerailers at both ends of a car to facilitate complete rerailing. A POSITA would apply the improved rerailer design (derived from combining Gould and Crehore) to the dual-end configuration taught by Czaplewski to create the system of claim 7. The dependent claims were met for the same reasons as argued for claims 4-6.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success was expected because the combination involved applying a known rerailer apparatus to a known dual-end configuration for its intended purpose.

Ground 4: Anticipation and Obviousness over Broughton - Claims 1 and 4-6 are anticipated by Broughton, or obvious over Broughton in view of Czaplewski and Gould (’871).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Broughton (Patent 5,203,264), Czaplewski (Patent 4,556,200), and Gould (Patent 1,062,871).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Broughton anticipated claim 1 by disclosing a foot (beam 14), two vertical lifting members (rams 60), a lateral movement mechanism (shifter rams 52, 54), and a controller. Broughton also disclosed pivotally connecting the lifting members to the rail car and, as Petitioner contended, pivotally connecting them to the foot. In the alternative, if the pivotal connection to the foot was deemed not expressly disclosed, Petitioner argued it would have been obvious to modify Broughton with the clevis base taught by Czaplewski to improve lateral moveability.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Broughton with Czaplewski to gain the known advantage of a pivotal foot connection. Further, a POSITA would be motivated by Gould (’871) to install the apparatus directly onto a rail car to facilitate easy use, as suggested by the references.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have reasonably expected success when incorporating a known pivotal connection from Czaplewski into the Broughton apparatus to achieve improved lateral movement.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations including Hermann (Patent 3,362,351) for an alternative lateral movement mechanism, and various permutations of the primary references for claims 7 and 10-12, such as combining Broughton with Christiansen (Patent 1,720,111).

4. Relief Requested

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