PTAB

IPR2017-01533

Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp v. Siemens Mobility Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Communication System for a Railway Train
  • Brief Description: The ’953 patent discloses a train safety system where an onboard controller and transceiver send an interrogation message to a wayside track circuit transceiver. Based on the response indicating the condition of the track, the system’s controller either allows the train to proceed or activates a warning device and/or the train's brakes.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 8, 16, 20-22, and 27 are obvious over Birkin in view of Petit.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Birkin (Patent 4,932,614) and Petit (Patent 5,092,544).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Birkin taught the core concept of an onboard system interrogating an upcoming track circuit transponder to receive information about the track's physical condition (e.g., a broken rail). However, Petitioner asserted Birkin was silent on what action the train system takes upon receiving the response. Petit allegedly supplied the missing elements by teaching an onboard CPU that communicates with an upcoming wayside device (a crossing), receives a response, and is configured to activate the train's brakes or an alarm if the response indicates an unsafe condition.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Birkin and Petit to create a complete and commercially viable safety system. Petit provided a known solution (automatic braking/alarms) to the problem created by Birkin’s silence on response action. Furthermore, Petit’s use of device-specific identifiers in its messages would have been a natural way to solve Birkin's failure to address how a system could distinguish between multiple upcoming wayside devices.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that success was expected due to the fundamental similarity of the systems, as both relied on an interrogation-response protocol between a train and a wayside device to ensure operational safety.

Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 8, 16, 20-22, and 27 are obvious over Birkin in view of RSAC.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Birkin (Patent 4,932,614) and RSAC (Report of the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee to the Federal Railroad Administrator, August 1999).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: As in Ground 1, Petitioner asserted Birkin taught the interrogation of a track circuit but failed to disclose a response mechanism. The RSAC report, presented as an authoritative survey of existing Positive Train Control (PTC) technology, allegedly disclosed the remaining limitations of the challenged claims. Specifically, Petitioner argued RSAC taught various systems with onboard computers (OBCs) that could automatically stop trains, provide emergency alerts, and communicate with wayside devices (including track circuits) using unique identifiers to distinguish them.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to consult a comprehensive industry report like RSAC to find solutions for the technical shortcomings in Birkin's subsystem. RSAC provided established industry solutions—such as automatic braking—for responding to unsafe conditions, thereby addressing the critical issue of engineer inattentiveness that would render Birkin's system unsafe. The combination would have improved the safety and functionality of Birkin’s system.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that because RSAC represented the accumulated, public knowledge of the railroad industry and described interoperable PTC systems, its teachings would have been readily and predictably combinable with Birkin's foundational concept.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted further obviousness challenges for claims 8-10 and 27-29 by adding Blesener (WO 02/091013) to the Birkin/Petit and Birkin/RSAC combinations. Blesener was cited primarily for its teaching of using an onboard database and positioning system (e.g., GPS) to identify upcoming wayside devices, which Petitioner argued would motivate a POSITA to replace the trackside triggering hardware of the primary combinations to reduce potential failure points and improve system reliability.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner proposed that the term "indication as to a condition of a section of track" be construed as "data reflecting the state of a section of track." This construction was argued to be critical for patentability, distinguishing the claimed invention from prior art that only indicated track occupancy. Petitioner asserted that the patentee relied on this distinction during prosecution to overcome prior art, arguing that the claimed invention monitors the track's actual physical condition (e.g., a broken rail).

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-3, 8-10, 16, 20-22, and 27-29 of the ’953 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.