PTAB

IPR2025-01046

FreightCar America Inc v. National Steel Car Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Bottom-Discharge Hopper Car
  • Brief Description: The ’892 patent relates to a bottom-discharge railway hopper car featuring reinforced sidewalls. The central inventive concept described is a sidewall stiffener composed of a lower portion mounted to the exterior of the sidewall and an upper portion mounted to the interior, with both portions aligned in the same vertical plane to provide "web continuity."

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Petitioner’s overarching argument was that the Examiner allowed the ’892 patent under the mistaken belief that the claimed two-part sidewall stiffener with "web continuity" was a novel and unobvious improvement. Petitioner asserted this feature was, in fact, commonplace in rail car design for over sixty years prior to the patent's 2009 filing date.

Ground 1: Claims 2-8 and 10-14 are obvious over 1946 Cyclopedia in view of Lindström, and optionally in view of Wong.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: 1946 Car Builders' Cyclopedia ("1946 Cyclopedia"), Lindström (Patent 1,321,928), and Wong (Patent 4,941,411).
  • Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that the [1946 Cyclopedia](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01046/doc/1004) discloses a base hopper car with all the primary structural features of the claims, including the key sidewall stiffener, and that [Lindström](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01046/doc/1005) and [Wong](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01046/doc/1006) provide teachings for remaining secondary features that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to incorporate.
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the [1946 Cyclopedia](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01046/doc/1004)'s schematics for an ore car show a hopper with upstanding sidewalls, a lower discharge, a top chord, side sills, and the critical two-part stiffener with web continuity. For limitations not explicitly shown in the [1946 Cyclopedia](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01046/doc/1004), Petitioner pointed to [Lindström](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01046/doc/1005) for teaching a complete door actuator mechanism (including a shaft, pinion, and toothed member) mounted above a shear plate. [Wong](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01046/doc/1006) was cited for its teaching of reinforcing the upper end of an end slope sheet with a cross-wise L-shaped beam.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references as they all address standard design elements for hopper cars. Petitioner argued that adding a door-opening mechanism like that in [Lindström](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01046/doc/1005) to the car in the [1946 Cyclopedia](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01046/doc/1004) is an obvious and necessary step to make the car functional. Likewise, adding a reinforcing beam as taught by [Wong](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01046/doc/1006) would have been a well-understood method to strengthen a known stress concentration point at the upper end of the slope sheet.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended a POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involved integrating well-known, standard components from the same technical field to achieve their predictable functions.

Ground 2: Claim 1 is anticipated by Lindström, or at least obvious over Lindström in view of the 1946 Cyclopedia.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lindström (’928 patent) and the 1946 Cyclopedia.
  • Core Argument for this Ground: This ground asserted that [Lindström](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01046/doc/1005) alone anticipates claim 1, or alternatively, that any missing element would have been rendered obvious by the common knowledge in the art, as exemplified by the [1946 Cyclopedia](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01046/doc/1004).
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that [Lindström](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01046/doc/1005) discloses a hopper car with all the structural elements of claim 1. This includes upstanding sidewalls with a two-part stiffener, comprising an exterior "stiffening member" (28) on the lower sidewall and an interior "stiffening stake" (41) on the upper sidewall. Petitioner contended that a POSITA would inherently understand these two portions must be aligned in the same vertical plane to avoid creating damaging bending moments, thereby satisfying the "web continuity" limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: If [Lindström](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01046/doc/1005) were found not to explicitly teach web continuity, a POSITA would have been motivated to align the stiffener portions as taught in the [1946 Cyclopedia](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01046/doc/1004). The motivation would be to follow established, sound engineering principles to ensure structural integrity, a practice that Petitioner argued had become commonplace by 1946.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have expected success in aligning [Lindström](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01046/doc/1005)'s stiffeners because it was a standard, non-complex design practice for strengthening rail car sidewalls.

Ground 3: Claim 15 is obvious over the art in Ground 1 in view of Coates.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: 1946 Cyclopedia, Lindström (’928 patent), Wong (’411 patent), and Coates (a 2006 publication showing a 1904 hopper car).

  • Core Argument for this Ground: This ground addressed the additional limitation in claim 15 requiring the sidewall stiffener to be made of "flat bar."

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the primary combination from Ground 1 (1946 Cyclopedia, Lindström, and Wong) disclosed all limitations of claim 15 except for the material form of the stiffener. To supply this limitation, Petitioner cited [Coates](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01046/doc/1007), which contains photographs of a 1904 "L&Y Hopper Car." These photographs allegedly show a sidewall stiffener with a lower, exterior portion made of a triangular flat bar and an upper, interior portion made of a rectangular flat bar.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teaching from [Coates](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01046/doc/1007) with the base design because using flat bar was a common, inexpensive, and conventional method for fabricating structural components in rail cars. The motivation was simply a matter of routine design choice, using a well-known material to perform a known function.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because this modification involved substituting one known and suitable material form for another in a predictable and straightforward manner.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on permutations of the primary references, such as using [Lindström](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01046/doc/1005) as the base reference for claims 2-14 and combining it with the [1946 Cyclopedia](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01046/doc/1004) and [Wong](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01046/doc/1006). These grounds relied on similar mapping and motivation arguments.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-15 of Patent 8,166,892 as unpatentable.