PTAB

IPR2026-00134

Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp v. Railware Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Centralized Railway Control System
  • Brief Description: The ’835 patent describes a centralized traffic control (CTC) system for railways. The system blocks a section of track for maintenance, generates a "removal code" that is transmitted to a railway worker's device, and subsequently receives the same code back from the worker to authorize unblocking the track.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over FRA-Report and Kruijswijk - Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-41 are obvious over FRA-Report in view of Kruijswijk.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: FRA-Report (a 2004 U.S. Dept. of Transportation report) and Kruijswijk (WO 2007/107554).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that FRA-Report, a two-volume publication on supporting railroad roadway worker communications, discloses every element of the challenged claims except for the generation and use of a secret "removal code." FRA-Report allegedly taught a known CTC system where a dispatcher uses a console to block and unblock tracks at a worker's request, communicating with the worker's mobile device (PDA) via a network and maintaining a database of personnel and track status. To supply the missing element, Petitioner pointed to Kruijswijk, which taught a railway safety system that generates a personal secret code (e.g., a random number) on a server, transmits it to a technician's device, and requires the technician to send it back for verification after performing track maintenance.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references to improve the known safety protocols of the FRA-Report system. FRA-Report itself identified a need for better verification systems to prevent human error and enhance worker safety. A POSITA would have been motivated to implement the known secret code verification technique from Kruijswijk into the FRA-Report's CTC system to create a robust "handshake" protocol, ensuring that only the authorized worker could clear a track block.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because combining a known software-based verification method (Kruijswijk) with a known, highly configurable, software-based CTC system (FRA-Report) was a predictable application of existing technologies to achieve an improved, more secure system.

Ground 2: Obviousness over FRA-Report and Schmitz - Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-41 are obvious over FRA-Report in view of Schmitz.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: FRA-Report and Schmitz (Patent 6,078,908).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Similar to Ground 1, Petitioner relied on FRA-Report to teach the foundational CTC system. Petitioner then asserted that Schmitz, which was not limited to the railway field, taught a general system for controlling access to secure locations by verifying a user's identity with a secret code. Schmitz disclosed an authentication server that generates a one-time transaction authorization number (TAN) or password and transmits it to a user's mobile device. The user then sends the TAN back to the server to gain access. Petitioner argued this taught the claimed "removal code" generation and verification process.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was again to improve the safety and security of the CTC system described in FRA-Report. FRA-Report urged the implementation of robust verification measures, including password-based systems, to positively identify workers. A POSITA would look to analogous arts, such as the general-purpose secure access control taught by Schmitz, to find a well-understood, low-cost, and secure method to implement the needed verification protocol, thereby preventing accidental or unauthorized removal of a track block.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected, as implementing the well-known, one-time code verification method from Schmitz into the FRA-Report system was a straightforward application of a known security technique to a known control system to solve a recognized problem.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining FRA-Report, Kruijswijk, and Macey (WO 2010/012040), and combining FRA-Report, Byford (Patent 6,581,161), and Macey. These grounds relied on similar arguments, using Macey and Byford as alternative or additional sources for teaching the use of secret codes for unblocking tracks or controlling access in a railway or general security context.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that no terms required express construction but addressed constructions proposed in related district court litigation to show the prior art renders the claims obvious even under the Patent Owner's interpretations.
  • "removal code" / "secret code": Patent Owner previously proposed this means "A code that is not readily available to the user of the railway [traffic] control apparatus (i.e., the dispatcher)." Petitioner contended that the codes in Kruijswijk and Schmitz met this construction because they are described as "secret," generated for and transmitted only to the remote worker, and often for one-time use, making them not "readily available" to a dispatcher at the central control system.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial, noting that this was its first challenge to the ’835 patent. It distinguished a prior IPR filed by an unrelated party (Amtrak), which was denied institution, by stating this petition relies on new grounds, different combinations of prior art, and arguments not previously considered by the Board.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-41 of RE47,835 as unpatentable.