`
`
`
`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)
`Case IPR2017-01454 (Patent 6,978,195 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00580 (Patent 9,233,698 B2)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: August 17, 2018
`__________
`
`
`
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01263 (Patent 6,996,461 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01454 (Patent 6,978,195 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00580 (Patent 9,233,698 B2)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`BENJAMIN E. WEED, ESQUIRE
`JASON A. ENGEL, ESQUIRE
`ERIK J. HALVERSON, ESQUIRE
`KATHERINE L. HOFFEE, ESQUIRE
`K&L Gates LLP
`70 West Madison Street, Suite 3100
`Chicago, Illinois 60602
`(312) 807-4236
`(312) 781-7166
`(312) 807-4325
`benjamin.weed.PTAB@klgates.com
`jason.engel.PTAB@klgates.com
`erik.halverson@klgates.com
`katy.hoffee@klgates.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JACOB Z. ZAMBRZYCKI, ESQUIRE
`SCOTT L. BITTMAN, ESQUIRE
`Crowell & Moring LLP
`590 Madison Avenue, 20th Floor
`New York, New York 10022
`(212) 803-4012
`(212) 895-4223
`jzambrzycki@crowell.com
`sbittman@crowell.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01263 (Patent 6,996,461 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01454 (Patent 6,978,195 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00580 (Patent 9,233,698 B2)
`
`
`
`MARK SUPKO, ESQUIRE
`JEFFREY D. SANOK, ESQUIRE
`VINCENT J. GALLUZZO, ESQUIRE
`Crowell & Moring LLP
`1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`(202) 624-2734
`(202) 624-2995
`(202) 624-2781
`msupko@crowell.com
`jsanok@crowell.com
`vgalluzzo@crowell.com
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Friday, August 17,
`2018, commencing at 1:00 PM ET, at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01263 (Patent 6,996,461 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01454 (Patent 6,978,195 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00580 (Patent 9,233,698 B2)
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Page
`
`Case IPR2017-01263
`Petitioner's Affirmative Presentation
`Benjamin Weed ........................................................................ 5
`
`
`Patent Owner's Reply Presentation
`Jacob Zambrzycki. .................................................................. 28
`
`Petitioner's Rebuttal
`Benjamin Weed ...................................................................... 57
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01454
`Petitioner's Affirmative Presentation
`Katherine Hoffee .................................................................... 68
`
`
`Patent Owner's Reply Presentation
`Scott Bittman .......................................................................... 82
`
`
`Petitioner's Rebuttal
`Katherine Hoffee .................................................................. 105
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00580
`Petitioner's Affirmative Presentation
`Benjamin Weed .................................................................... 111
`
`
`Patent Owner's Reply Presentation
`Vincent Galluzzo .................................................................. 119
`
`
`Petitioner's Rebuttal
`Benjamin Weed .................................................................... 129
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01263 (Patent 6,996,461 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01454 (Patent 6,978,195 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00580 (Patent 9,233,698 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`
`
`
`1:00 p.m.
`
`JUDGE DROESCH: Please be seated.
`Good afternoon, everybody. We're here for an oral hearing for IPR
`2017-1263, IPR 2017-1454, and IPR 2017-00580 between Petitioner
`Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation and Siemens Mobility.
`Pursuant to our oral hearing order, I think we're going to proceed
`first with the 1263 IPR and in this case, each party will have 45 minutes for
`total argument time. Petitioner will proceed first and may reserve some of
`its 45 minutes for rebuttal and then Patent Owner may proceed after
`Petitioner is finished.
`And after that, we will get to the other two IPRs and I will go
`through this again.
`Counsel for Petitioner, please introduce yourself and everybody
`that's in attendance for you. And when you're ready to proceed, you may go
`ahead.
`
`MR. WEED: Good afternoon, Your Honor. This is Ben Weed
`from K&L Gates on behalf of the Petitioner.
`With me is Erik Halverson at counsel table, and sitting behind us is
`lead counsel, Jason Engel, and Katie Hoffee.
`MR. ZAMBRZYCKI: Good afternoon, Your Honors. My name is
`Jacob Zambrzycki from Crowell Moring and I'm here on behalf of the Patent
`Owner and with me at the counsel table is Mark Supko, lead counsel Jeff
`Sanok, Scott Bittman, and Vince Galluzzo.
`Thank you.
`
`5
`
`1
`
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01263 (Patent 6,996,461 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01454 (Patent 6,978,195 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00580 (Patent 9,233,698 B2)
`
`
`MR. WEED: Your Honor, I'm not sure whether the Panel would
`like to handle -- there were a few objections to some demonstratives. And
`I'm not sure whether you would like to handle them here or in some other
`way.
`
`JUDGE DROESCH: This is for the 1263 case?
`MR. WEED: Correct.
`JUDGE GOODSON: I think we can -- if the parties care to present
`any argument beyond what they said in their paper, we can hear that.
`Otherwise, we can just take that under submission and address it in our final
`decision.
`MR. WEED: Okay. From our perspective, we are willing to rest
`on the papers.
`MR. ZAMBRZYCKI: Yes, that's fine for us as well.
`JUDGE GOODSON: Okay, thank you.
`MR. WEED: Good afternoon, Your Honors. As I mentioned, Ben
`Weed from K&L Gates.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: Are you going to reserve any time for
`rebuttal?
`MR. WEED: Oh, yes. I'd like to reserve 15 minutes, please.
`The first of the cases we'll talk about today is the case involving the
`461 Patent. On slide number 2 of our demonstrative -- if we could get the
`slides on the screen. Slide 2 of the Petitioner's demonstrative slides here
`contains an excerpt from the 461 patent. But I think before we dive in, I
`think it's important to remember the context of what we're talking about
`here. 461 in the background of the patent at column 1, line 13 tells us the
`reason why the patent exists and that is for train safety. So this is a patent
`6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01263 (Patent 6,996,461 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01454 (Patent 6,978,195 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00580 (Patent 9,233,698 B2)
`
`that's all about freight train control systems and these are devices that weigh
`thousands and thousands of pounds. These are very heavy machines that
`are very difficult to stop and they can go 60 to 80 miles an hour. So once
`they get going, it's incredibly important to make sure that the train is
`operating safely.
`Now this tab in particular is especially related to safety because it's
`all about how the train interacts with wayside devices, in particular
`configurable devices. In the context of the first example that the 461 patent
`gives on the passage of column 1 that we've highlighted here, a configurable
`device could be a grade crossing. So I'm sure the Board has experienced
`driving around in your car and crossing a train track. That is a grade
`crossing. So that kind of device exists to prevent these massive freight
`trains from hitting motorists and pedestrians.
`The second kind of configurable device that the 461 patent is all
`about is switches. And in some sense, the switch might be even more
`important to safety because instead of having collisions between freight
`trains and a car or two at a grade crossing, a switch can result in a freight
`train running into another freight train or, even worse, a freight train running
`into a passenger train. And if the Panel has read through the RSAC report,
`which is one of the references at issue here, a lot of the motivation behind
`the work that went into the RSAC report was to try to minimize the impact
`of these kinds of collisions, these massive fatality collisions, where these
`freight trains hit passenger trains, killing hundreds.
`So as we walk through this case today, I think it's important to keep
`in mind that all the protocols we'll talk about, all the communication
`
`7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01263 (Patent 6,996,461 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01454 (Patent 6,978,195 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00580 (Patent 9,233,698 B2)
`
`schemes we'll talk about are with that in mind. They are about train safety
`and safety is of the utmost importance.
`Now if you flip over to slide number 3 of our demonstrative slides
`for the 461 patent, one thing that the 461 patent is not about is new kinds of
`configurable devices. The passage on slide number 3 is a passage from the
`background of the 461 patent, column 1, line 30. And what this tells us is
`that there existed, before the 461 patent, configurable devices that were
`capable of communicating with trains and we see that in all the prior art
`references as well. Each of the three references underlies a ground of
`review here as configurable devices that can talk to devices onboard the
`train, directly or indirectly, as we'll get into.
`This is not a patent about new kinds of configurable devices.
`Instead, from slide number 4, we can see from Claim 1, and it's
`representative of the other claims and even of the disclosure, what the 461
`patent is really about is the logic that occurs onboard the train to interact
`with those configurable devices.
`So we've highlighted two of the limitations that are of critical
`importance to the Board's decision on this matter, the first of which is a
`function done by the control unit to transmit what the patent calls an
`interrogation message. So this patent claim is all about the perspective of
`the onboard computer. The brain of the patent claim here is the onboard
`computer. It must transmit a message, an interrogation message off the
`train and it says to a configurable device.
`JUDGE GOODSON: And is it correct that the parties agree that an
`interrogation message should be construed to mean a targeted request for
`status information?
`
`8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01263 (Patent 6,996,461 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01454 (Patent 6,978,195 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00580 (Patent 9,233,698 B2)
`
`
`MR. WEED: Correct, Your Honor. In the reply we mention that
`we don't dispute the Patent Owner's proposal to modify the Board's initial
`construction. It will resolve the issues before the Board hearing.
`So once the control unit, again, the focus of the claim, sends off the
`interrogation message, the next thing the claim tells us that it does is it
`listens for a response. So from the perspective of the control unit, it sends a
`message and listens for a response.
`Now the claim requires that the response contain some data. It
`requires that the response contain a configuration of the configurable device.
`But at the end of the day, this claim is all about a message from a control
`unit and then a following message received by the control unit. Based on
`the data that comes back, some additional logic is done through the step
`called allowing the train to continue, which again, if all is good, if
`everything is safe, the onboard will allow the train to continue.
`But the limitation that says stopping the train otherwise is the one
`that goes back to what I started with. This is the control unit being
`responsible for ensuring the train does not do something it shouldn't do.
`This is the control unit taking responsibility for these tens of thousands of
`pounds of metal running down the track at potentially 60 miles an hour and
`stopping if nothing -- if there's anything that might be amiss. That last
`limitation tells us how the control unit does that. It has to verify that it's
`talking to the correct configurable device. If it doesn't do that, drastic
`consequences could follow: either the train might be stopped when it
`shouldn't, which isn't a particularly drastic safety consequence, unless there's
`a following train; but more importantly, if the train is not talking to the
`correct configurable device, that it may continue when it shouldn't, running
`9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01263 (Patent 6,996,461 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01454 (Patent 6,978,195 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00580 (Patent 9,233,698 B2)
`
`through a switch into another train, through a grade crossing where the gates
`haven't been lowered, or some other kind of catastrophic event like that.
`On slide 5, as Judge Goodson mentioned, there is no dispute on the
`construction of interrogation message. So, we can move past it. I do want
`to point out quickly, though, that the patent Owner's Expert, Mr. Loud,
`agrees that the Petit messages that we rely on in the Petition are targeted
`messages under the now I think applicable construction of interrogation
`message. So while that term has been construed a bit differently by the
`parties, I still think there is no dispute that the targeted aspect of the
`messages is known at least in Petit.
`Slide 6 is an excerpt from a very long document, the RSAC report.
`It's the one that I mentioned in the beginning. This is probably the most
`germane excerpt of the document for this particular case. The Panel has
`heard a little bit about RSAC before and will continue to do so as we
`progress through the remainder of the hearings in this dispute.
`But the passage we have on slide number 6 is a passage from Exhibit
`1005 at pages 25 and 26. It's describing the operation of something called
`ITCS, which is a system that existed before RSAC. RSAC, set forth here to
`try to summarize some of the functionality of the ITCS system, but I think
`it's important to walk a little bit through what RSAC says about ITCS.
`In particular, in the top highlighted portion on slide 6, RSAC tells us
`that there is a database onboard the train that contains the locations of all
`devices with which it, it being the OBC, may be required to communicate.
`So we know that ITCS stored a database of device locations.
`The bottom call out talks about how the OBC talks to the wayside
`segment. It says the OBC establishes a session with each WIU-S. WIU-S
`10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01263 (Patent 6,996,461 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01454 (Patent 6,978,195 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00580 (Patent 9,233,698 B2)
`
`is a term I haven't mentioned yet. What that is, is a device that effectively
`acts like a data aggregator. The idea here is if you have a WIU-S that can
`talk to a few more localized configurable devices, then each individual
`configurable device doesn't have to be able to talk directly to the train or to
`the train at all. In other words, the WIU-S can aggregate data from
`configurable device and the train can talk to WIU-S. That's how ITCS
`worked.
`What it goes on to say is that when the train enters its zone of
`coverage, so what this says is when the train gets near to a WIU-S, it
`establishes the session that I mentioned; then it verifies that it has the
`updated track database and expects to receive a WIU-S broadcast every six
`seconds. So after the OBC establishes that session, it is now in a form, it's
`in a position, it's in a configuration where it is ready to receive status
`information about the devices attached to the WIU-S.
`JUDGE GOODSON: Until that session begins, the signals that the
`device is broadcasting every six seconds, where are they going? Is this train
`receiving any information or signals from the device itself until this session
`is established with the wayside interface unit?
`MR. WEED: It's an interesting question, Your Honor. There is a
`bit of a dispute about how the experts read the disclosure of ITCS. There
`are some passages in the briefing about experts reading this as being the
`WIU-S is always broadcasting the status information of its connected
`devices. There are some experts who talk about the fact that one way it
`could be done and it's just not clear that WIU-S may only broadcast status
`when it's logged into by a train.
`
`11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01263 (Patent 6,996,461 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01454 (Patent 6,978,195 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00580 (Patent 9,233,698 B2)
`
`
`But I think your question is if the WIU-S is broadcasting the status
`information, are the trains receiving it. And the answer is the trains aren't
`doing anything with the data. The question is not whether the RF waves are
`impinging on the train itself. The physical waves are propagating and
`hitting anything within a range of the transmission. But the critical question
`is what we just saw on slide number 6 is that the OBC is not listening for,
`looking for, or otherwise responding to those messages until it has
`established a session. Just like the claims of the 461 patent, the ITCS
`description is a system where the train controller is the brain of the system.
`It initiates the communications with the WIU-S. So the question about
`whether the WIU-S is broadcasting messages or not all the time is irrelevant
`to the claims, which are about the way the control system operates.
`JUDGE GOODSON: But it may be relevant to the distinction that
`was drawn over prior art in prosecution or in the specification where it
`describes that the shortcoming of that approach was that the device had to
`continuously operate.
`MR. WEED: Correct. I think that would be a shortcoming of an
`approach where the configurable device would have to continuously operate.
`I think what it's talking about there is you can have power constraints in
`rural areas, where if you have a device that is sending off its status and not --
`nothing is being done with it, there's not a reason to do that.
`But again, the claims here are about the control unit on the train and
`the patent, the 461 patent talks about improving on the system you
`mentioned because the control unit initiates conversations with the wayside
`segment. And even in the 461 patent I think it's important to mention that
`the preferred embodiments are described as being repeated interrogation.
`12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01263 (Patent 6,996,461 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01454 (Patent 6,978,195 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00580 (Patent 9,233,698 B2)
`
`
`So this is not a system where the patent inventor said hey, it would
`be better if we could send just one message and get just one response. What
`they said is, it's better if the onboard unit is the initiator of the conversation
`but because this is such a safety-critical system, because it's so important
`here to ensure that things are done safely, the onboard, as the initiator, would
`still have to continually interrogate if it can't get a response.
`So again, this gets back to my point about thinking of this as a one
`message/one response system is not consistent with either the 461 patent, the
`ITCS description or the safety concepts that underlie all of this.
`I also don't think, Your Honor, that there's anything in the claims that
`talked about what the configurable device has to do with regard to how it
`broadcasts messages. Again, the claims say onboard sends an interrogation
`message and listens for a response. If that's done in the prior art, then that's
`enough to meet those claims, assuming all of the content is there.
`Turning now to slide 10 of Petitioner's demonstrative slides, another
`passage of RSAC that I think is important to keep in mind is a section of the
`document, which we've excerpted here on slide 10, titled role of PTC and
`utilizing information from wayside detectors. And Patent Owner has
`argued here in this case that we have focused on the ITCS disclosure and
`because there hasn't been an analysis about why ITCS disclosures can be
`combined with other system disclosures in RSAC, somehow there is a
`problem from the obviousness perspective.
`We don't think that's right but I mention it here because this section
`is not about any specific system. This section is about a generic description
`of how PTC systems interact with the wayside segment of the existing
`railroad infrastructure. And what this section tells us on the portion that
`13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01263 (Patent 6,996,461 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01454 (Patent 6,978,195 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00580 (Patent 9,233,698 B2)
`
`we've highlighted at the bottom of the excerpt on slide 10 is that there are
`really two options. One option is the train can talk to the configurable
`device itself. And this might exist if the case is like what the background of
`the 461 patent says, where the device is already configured for radio
`communication. There wouldn't be a need in that scenario to have a WIU-
`S. That might be the case if you were in a rural part of the country and it
`just doesn't make sense to put a second, major piece of hardware near a
`device that can already talk to the train.
`This also says another way to do things, which is what ITCS gives us
`an example of, is having some kind of an aggregator aggregate data from
`configurable devices and then use the aggregator as effectively a router so
`that the train only has to talk to one device and can get status about a whole
`bunch of different configurable devices.
`But those are not steps forward and backward in technology
`development. Those are simply different applications that have different
`appropriate usages. RSAC recognizes that.
`On slide 11 of our demonstrative slides, one of the issues that's come
`up primarily in the reply is the content of the messages that the Petition
`identified as being the claimed interrogation messages and responses. And
`the Patent Owner has basically said that in some instances it doesn't believe
`there is sufficient disclosure to show identifiers and the targeting that's
`required by the independent claims.
`The Petition, starting at page 1, the second sentence of the
`substantive discussion of the technology here, introduces this notion of
`ATCS. ATCS was one of the earliest PTC systems that was out there. It
`was designed to be a system and a protocol that could serve as a standard for
`14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01263 (Patent 6,996,461 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01454 (Patent 6,978,195 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00580 (Patent 9,233,698 B2)
`
`future systems to rely on. In page 3 of the Petition, we talked about ATCS
`specifications, so in other words, the ATCS protocol being used in a
`Canadian Northern System, CN system. We cited to RSAC as description
`of that, Exhibit 1005 at 21.
`And what we have here on slide 11 is some more material from
`RSAC, which has become more germane as Patent Owner has presented its
`arguments about what RSAC tells the reader about ATCS. And in
`particular, the top passage on slide 11 is a quote out of RSAC and it says that
`ATCS is a bidirectional communications protocol that had, by 1999, quote,
`broad participation by suppliers, railroads, and the FRA -- sorry -- and the
`FRA had detailed specifications which were developed for multi-level open
`architectures that will permit participation by many suppliers while ensuring
`systems would work in harmony.
`So I'm not saying that ITCS used ATCS. That's not a relevant
`question. What I'm saying is ATCS was fundamental technology that those
`with skill in the art, including Mr. Ditmeyer and Mr. Loud, had at least heard
`of. And when we look at the bottom passage on slide 11, we've got a
`document about ATCS that was publicly available that describes the packet
`format for an ATCS packet.
`What we see here is that every ATCS packet had fields for
`destination address and source address. And that's not strange. That's
`every standard in communications protocols, even in the '80s and the '90s,
`and the 2000s before this patent application was filed. It's not uncommon
`for a communications protocol to require messages to specify the source and
`the destination. This allows for checking to make sure messages are
`received correctly. It allows receivers to say hey, I got a message I
`15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01263 (Patent 6,996,461 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01454 (Patent 6,978,195 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00580 (Patent 9,233,698 B2)
`
`shouldn't have or I expect a message I didn't get and especially in the context
`of train control, where safety is of critical importance.
`It's a little bit strange to think about a protocol existing where the
`destination and the source addresses are not provided in the messaging.
`That would just be a shortcoming which could be addressed and was
`addressed using ATCS and other protocols that wouldn't make sense to
`ignore.
`
`Not to belabor the point but, on slide 12, just to touch briefly on the
`top excerpt, we found a reference in the file history of the 461 patent, which
`is submitted as Exhibit 1038 with all the NPL included. And the document
`that was submitted during examination of the 461 talks about how ATCS
`appears to have the best chance as being selected as the standard PTC radio.
`So again, this reliance on ATCS is not some one-off protocol. This is a
`protocol that in the prior art time frame the industry believed had the best
`chance of being selected as a standard PTC Radio.
`JUDGE GOODSON: So, it seems to me that this ties into the
`Ground 1, the issue of whether Limitation G in Claim 1 is obvious or taught
`in the prior art but these slides 11 and 12 are explaining aspects of RSAC.
`RSAC isn't -- is RSAC part of Ground 1?
`MR. WEED: Your Honor, it is not part of Ground 1 but your
`question is a good one.
`Why don't we look ahead a few slides to slide 14? The two
`references that underlie Ground 1 are Petit and Blesener. And on slide 14
`we have excerpted a portion of our petition describing what Blesener was all
`about. And I think it's important to realize that in Blesener, in the abstract
`even, in some of the claims, Blesener tells us hey, for our system we're
`16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01263 (Patent 6,996,461 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01454 (Patent 6,978,195 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00580 (Patent 9,233,698 B2)
`
`relying on something called UDP or user datagram protocol. UDP is like
`ATCS in the sense that it has source address and destination address in every
`message in its protocol but this is an even more fundamental and even more
`ubiquitous technology that the Panel has probably heard about before as
`prior art. It's frequently cited as prior art because of how old it is. We've
`got documents in the record here establishing that UDP standard documents
`were available in the 1980 time frame.
`So Blesener tells the reader hey, our messaging protocol relies on
`UDP, which means that every message sent in Blesener contains the same
`thing ATCS had in the form of a source address and a destination address.
`So, again, the fact that some of the references may not specifically call out
`the level of detail of the standards documentation on the protocols that are
`used for communication doesn't mean that those features weren't obvious.
`In the context of Ground 1, I think the Patent Owner has made the
`argument that Petit doesn't specifically disclose that the responsive message
`from the configurable device includes an identifier of the configurable
`device. It may not say that. I think that they have testimony from our
`expert saying it doesn't specifically say that in the document and it doesn't.
`But again, we're talking about a system here for train safety. Petit is about
`making sure the train stops when it needs to stop and doesn't when it doesn't
`need to stop. If the train had no way to confirm it was talking to the right
`configurable device, you can have a situation where trains are barreling
`through crossings, taking out cars, barreling through switches, taking out
`passenger trains and that just doesn't make sense.
`Blesener provides the additional level of detail in the form of its
`disclosure of UDP but, again, I don't think it's even necessary to get that far.
`17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01263 (Patent 6,996,461 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01454 (Patent 6,978,195 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00580 (Patent 9,233,698 B2)
`
`
`I'll skip ahead a little bit in Ground 1, since we're talking about it
`now. Petit is the other reference. I mentioned it a little bit. And one of
`the arguments the Patent Owner makes about Petit is that Petit does not
`disclose receiving status information from crossings.
`And on slide 15 we have excerpted a portion of the petition
`describing what Petit is about and also a portion of Petit itself that I think
`shows that Petit does describe the train receiving status information from the
`configurable devices.
`In the excerpt at the bottom, what this tells us is that a failure of a
`component in the system may cause the output to set the brakes or an alarm.
`Failure of a component in the system is a failure of the configurable device.
`Again, Petit is a safety system. This is talking about Petit's onboard
`controller being able to receive information about the configurable device to
`cause the brakes to be applied when needed. So this is, I think, a pretty
`clear disclosure of this. It was in the petition.
`We also cited in the petition to a passage at column 8 of Petit on
`page 34 of the Petition. Mr. Ditmeyer brought it up in his deposition. And
`what that passage says, and I'll read it for the panel, it says at line 37, quote,
`a response from the highway crossing equipment, Figure 4, is needed for
`authority to permit movement across the highway. That's exactly what
`we're talking about here. Petit returns information from which the train can
`derive authority to proceed. It doesn't make sense if it doesn't because there
`is no safety benefit if the train doesn't know anything about the crossings
`steps.
`
`Unless the Panel has further questions on Ground 1, I'd like to spend
`a little bit of remaining time on Ground 3.
`18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01263 (Patent 6,996,461 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01454 (Patent 6,978,195 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00580 (Patent 9,233,698 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE GOODSON: Okay. Can I ask you about Ground 2?
`MR. WEED: Sure.
`JUDGE GOODSON: Is it fair to understand Petitioner's reply as
`having abandoned Ground 2?
`MR. WEED: I don't think that we've abandoned it, Your Honor. I
`think what we're saying is that we don't see a claim construction in which
`Ground 2 is applicable. Of course, the Board hasn't issued final claim
`construction. So if the Board does, goes back and does what we said they
`might do, what we said Patent Owner might argue in the Petition, the
`application of art to claims from Ground 2 still applies.
`But in our mind, looking at slide 27 of the -- of our presentation, I
`don't really think there's a way for that to happen. The Board in the
`institution decision said in the second sentence on the top excerpt, the issue
`is that the message Petitioner relies on as the interrogation does not appear to
`reach the crossing gate at all and in Ground 2, that's true. We put forth a
`ground where all the communication was with the -- between the onboard
`and the interface unit in the expectation that perhaps Patent Owner may
`argue that that would be broad enough to cover the claims or to be covered
`by the claims.
`But we don't think that's even possible, in view of the way that the
`claim is written. If you look at the bottom excerpt, it's not even a claim
`construction issue. It's an issue of the claim saying transmitting
`interrogation message to a configurable device. So unless the Board
`decides to read the claims in a way where that “to a configurable device” is
`n