`
`Paper No. 48
`Entered: August 23, 2018
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIEMENS MOBILITY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01263
`Patent 6,996,461 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01263
`Patent 6,996,461 B2
`
`
`
`The Petition in this case asserted three proposed grounds of
`unpatentability:
`
`
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`1. Petit1 and Blesener2
`
`2. RSAC3 and Blesener
`
`§ 103 1, 4–6, 14, 16, 17, 19, 28, 32, 35,
`42–44, and 48
`
`§ 103 1, 4–6, 14, 16, 17, 19, 28, 32, 35,
`42–44, and 48
`
`3. RSAC, Blesener, and Petit § 103 1, 4–6, 14, 16, 17, 19, 28, 32, 35,
`42–44, and 48
`
`See Paper 2, 11.
`In our initial Decision on Institution, we determined that Petitioner
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge to claims
`1, 4, 14, 16, 19, 28, 42–44, and 44 based on the combination of RSAC,
`Blesener, and Petit. Paper 10, 24–35. We further determined that Petitioner
`had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to the other
`claims challenged in Ground 3, or as to the challenges in Grounds 1 and 2.
`Id. at 15–35. In accordance with the Board’s practice at that time, we
`instituted an inter partes review only as to claims 1, 4, 14, 16, 19, 28, 42–44,
`and 44 based on the combination of Ground 3. Id. at 35. Subsequently,
`pursuant to the holding in SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 2018 WL 1914661, at *10
`(U.S. Apr. 24, 2018), we modified our institution decision to institute on all
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 5,092,544, issued Mar. 3, 1992, Ex. 1008.
`2 Int’l Pub. No. WO 02/091013 A2, published Nov. 14, 2002, Ex. 1007.
`3 Railroad Safety Advisory Committee, Implementation of Positive Train
`Control Systems, Ex. 1005.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01263
`Patent 6,996,461 B2
`
`
`of the challenged claims and all of the grounds presented in the Petition.
`Paper 21, 2. We also authorized supplemental briefing to permit the parties
`to address the additional grounds. Paper 23, 3–6.
`In Petitioner’s Reply, Petitioner argued that the Board correctly
`denied institution on Ground 2. Paper 33, 34–36. At the hearing on August
`17, 2018, Patent Owner indicated that the Board could permissibly treat
`Ground 2 as abandoned in view of Petitioner’s Reply.4 Petitioner initially
`stated that it was not abandoning Ground 2, but during the rebuttal portion of
`its argument, Petitioner indicated that it would be willing to stipulate to a
`withdrawal of Ground 2 from the Petition.
`We authorize the parties to file a Joint Motion to Limit the Petition to
`withdraw Ground 2 from consideration. In view of the advanced stage of
`this proceeding, the Joint Motion must be filed by within five business days
`of the entry date of this Order. In the absence of a Joint Motion by the
`specified deadline, the panel will proceed to issue a Final Decision with
`respect to all grounds.
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that the parties are authorized to file a Joint Motion to
`Limit the Petition within five business days of the entry date of this Order.
`
`
`
`
`4 The transcript for the hearing is not yet available. The summary in this
`Order of the parties’ statements during the hearing is based on the panel’s
`recollection.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01263
`Patent 6,996,461 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Jason A. Engel
`Alan L. Barry
`Benjamin E. Weed
`Erik J. Halverson
`K&L GATES LLP
`jason.engel.ptab@klgates.com
`al.barry@klgates.com
`benjamin.weed.ptab@klgates.com
`erik.halverson@klgates.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Jeffrey D. Sanok
`Mark M. Supko
`Vincent J. Galluzzo
`CROWELL & MORING LLP
`jsanok@crowell.com
`msupko@crowell.com
`vgalluzzo@crowell.com
`
`
`4
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
