PTAB

IPR2026-00135

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 RE’115 patent describes a centralized traffic control (CTC) system used to control railways. The system blocks a section of track upon a railway worker's request and then generates and transmits a "secret code" to the worker's remote terminal to manage the track block.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 20-36 are obvious over FRA-Report in view of Kruijswijk

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: FRA-Report (a 2004 U.S. Department of Transportation report) and Kruijswijk (WO 2007/107554).
  • Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that the RE’115 patent merely combines a known CTC track-blocking system, as detailed in the FRA-Report, with a known method of generating and transmitting a secret code for verification, as taught by Kruijswijk.
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that FRA-Report disclosed a railway control apparatus for centralized control of a railway network, including a dispatcher’s console with a processor and memory for blocking track sections upon a worker's request from a remote PDA. Kruijswijk was argued to supply the missing "secret code" elements, teaching a server station that generates a personal secret code (e.g., a random number) and transmits it over a network to a railway technician’s mobile device for identity verification and safety checks. The combination allegedly met all limitations of independent claims 20, 30, and 31.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to improve railway worker safety, a primary goal of the FRA-Report. Implementing Kruijswijk’s secret code verification would create a "handshake" protocol to prevent the dispatcher from erroneously removing a track block, thereby minimizing common human error. The FRA-Report itself recognized the need for password protection and verification systems.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because both references operated in the railway safety field using compatible, internet-based technologies. Modifying the highly configurable system of FRA-Report to include the known technique of secret code verification from Kruijswijk was presented as a predictable improvement.

Ground 2: Claims 20-36 are obvious over FRA-Report and Schmitz

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: FRA-Report and Schmitz (Patent 6,078,908).
  • Core Argument for this Ground: This ground is similar to Ground 1, but asserted that Schmitz, an authority on secure data transmission, provided the necessary teachings for generating and using a secret code for access control.
    • Prior Art Mapping: As in Ground 1, FRA-Report was alleged to provide the foundational CTC system. Petitioner contended that Schmitz taught an authentication server that generates a secret transaction authorization number (TAN) or password using a random number generator and transmits it to a user’s mobile phone. This code is then used to verify the user’s identity to control physical access, directly mapping to the "secret code" limitations of the challenged claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was to address the known problem of protecting railway workers from the improper removal of a track block. A POSITA would be motivated by the FRA-Report's stated goals of improving safety and implementing a verification system. Schmitz offered a "very secure, low cost" method for access control that was a predictable solution to enhance the safety of the FRA-Report system.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because implementing a known secret-code system (Schmitz) into a known CTC system (FRA-Report) was a straightforward application of known techniques to improve a known device. The simplicity of Schmitz's system and the configurability of the FRA-Report's system would ensure a high likelihood of success.

Ground 3: Claims 20-36 are obvious over FRA-Report, Byford, and Macey

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: FRA-Report, Byford (Patent 6,581,161), and Macey (WO 2010/012040).
  • Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that FRA-Report combined with Byford rendered the independent claims obvious, and Macey was relied upon for its teachings related to dependent claims concerning the unblocking of a track.
    • Prior Art Mapping: FRA-Report again supplied the base CTC system. Byford was argued to teach a system for controlling access to a secure location by having a server generate a "cipher lock code" and transmit it in encrypted, "one-time access" form to a user’s wireless device. This combination was alleged to teach generating and transmitting a secret code to a remote terminal. Macey was cited for its teaching of a railway worker entering a secret code, known only to the user, into a central system to change a track signal from red (blocked) to green (unblocked).
    • Motivation to Combine: The primary motivation was to enhance worker safety by preventing a dispatcher from revoking a blocked track prematurely. A POSITA would combine Byford's secure access control with the FRA-Report's system to create a robust verification protocol. Macey reinforced that using a secret code to unblock a track was a known and logical safety measure in the railway field.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success as all references address controlling access and ensuring safety in analogous fields. The combination addressed a known problem (improper block removal) with a known solution (secret code verification), making it a predictable and straightforward implementation.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that no claim terms required express construction. However, in response to positions taken by the Patent Owner in related district court litigation, Petitioner addressed the term "secret code" (claims 20-36).
  • "secret code": Petitioner contended that the Patent Owner's proposed construction, "A code that is not readily available to the user of the railway control apparatus (i.e., the dispatcher)," improperly imported a negative limitation ("not readily available") that is absent from the claims and unsupported by the specification. Petitioner argued the prior art codes (e.g., from Kruijswijk, Schmitz, Byford) were secret because they were intended only for the railway worker, thus satisfying the term's plain meaning and the Board's prior interpretation of the code being "only" received by the relevant worker.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued there is no basis for discretionary denial. The petition asserted it presents new grounds and evidence not previously considered by the Board.
  • A prior IPR on the RE’115 patent (IPR2023-01181), filed by an unrelated third party (Amtrak), was denied institution. Petitioner contended this current petition is substantially different because it relies on different combinations of prior art and presents arguments in a different manner than the prior petition.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 20-36 of the RE’115 patent as unpatentable.