Cambria County Association for the Blind and Handicapped

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2022

2021005502 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/953,548 04/16/2018 Allen Garrett Smith 308329-00019-1-1 6738 3705 7590 03/30/2022 ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT LLC U.S. Steel Tower 600 Grant Street, 44th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 EXAMINER MARSH, STEVEN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3632 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2022 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): ipmail@eckertseamans.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ALLEN GARRETT SMITH, FRANK EDWARD HODGE, DAVID JAMES PRASKO, and TIMOTHY JOSEPH WEDDING ____________ Appeal 2021-005502 Application 15/953,548 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-10, 14-18, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Cambria County Association for the Blind and Handicapped as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-005502 Application 15/953,548 2 CLAIMED INVENTON Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a gripping cable hanger system for use in the solar, mining, and electrical industries. See Spec. 1:12-13. Claims 1, 6, 14, and 20 are the independent claims. Claims 1 and 6, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A cable hanger arrangement comprising: a messenger wire; and a number of cable hangers fit on the messenger wire via an interference fit, each cable hanger comprising: a shape retention wire; an upwardly opening cable support receptacle having a trough area and lateral sides extending upwardly from each side of said trough area; a support arm extending toward the center of the hanger from each receptacle lateral side; and a separate and co-operating hook formed on each said support arm, wherein each hanger has a first uncompressed state with an opening between said hooks and a second compressed state wherein said hooks are aligned in a co-planar adjacent relationship, and wherein each hook of each hanger is sized to have an interference fit with the messenger wire prior to being fit on the messenger wire. 6. A cable hanger comprising: a shape retention wire; at least two upwardly opening cable support receptacles with each having a trough area and an outermost lateral side extending upwardly from one side of said trough area; Appeal 2021-005502 Application 15/953,548 3 a support arm extending toward the center of the hanger from each outermost lateral receptacle side; separate and co-operating hooks formed on each said support arm; said hanger having a first uncompressed state with an opening between said hooks and a second compressed state wherein said hooks are aligned; and each said hook continually narrows toward the bend forming said hook. Appeal Br. 14-15 (Claims Appendix). REJECTIONS To facilitate our analysis, we set forth the rejections in a different order than the order presented in the Answer and Appeal Brief. Claims 6, 7, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Carr (US 2,384,440, iss. Sept. 11, 1945). Claims 1, 2, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Carr, Brinton, Jr. (US 9,706,859 B2, iss. July 18, 2017) (hereinafter “Brinton”), and Sellati (US 5,957,416, iss. Sept. 28, 1999). Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Carr, Brinton, Sellati, and Powale (US 2011/0079427 A1, pub. Apr. 7, 2011).2 Claims 8-10 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Carr and Powale. 2 We treat the omission of Brinton from the rejection as inadvertent. See Final Act. 8. Appeal 2021-005502 Application 15/953,548 4 ANALYSIS Independent Claims 6 and 14, and Dependent Claims 7 and 15 We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 6 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because Carr does not teach that “each . . . hook continually narrows toward the bend forming said hook,” as recited in claim 6, and similarly recited in claim 14. Appeal Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 4. Appellant argues that for the sides of the hook to continually narrow toward the bend, the sides cannot be parallel. The Examiner finds that a hook with parallel sides and a U-shaped bend meets the limitation because as the parallel sides begin to curve, the distance between the sides decrease. See Ans. 12. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s interpretation is unreasonably broad in light of the Specification and claim language. See Reply Br. 4 (“[u]sing the Examiner’s flawed reasoning . . . , all hooks would ‘continuously narrow toward the bend’”). Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the argued claim limitation, in view of the Specification, to require sides of the hook that are not parallel to one another. Id. (arguing that “the sides of the hook cannot be parallel, as a hook with parallel sides . . . plainly would not narrow ‘toward the bend that forms each hook’”) (emphasis omitted); see also Appeal Br. 11 (arguing that “sides that are parallel do not narrow”). Appellant has the better position. As an initial matter, we note that the claim language recites that each hook continually narrows “toward” the bend, which indicates that the hook narrows along a course leading to the bend - not within the bend. The description of the hook in Appellant’s Specification is consistent with this understanding. For example, Appellant’s Specification describes that Appeal 2021-005502 Application 15/953,548 5 hook 52 is formed by bending tip 54 of first support arm 46 back substantially parallel (but not parallel) to the centerline of first support arm 46. See Spec. 8:12-14, Fig. 1. Eye 56 is formed by hook 52, and is sized to fit snugly around a support wire. Id. at 8:14-15, Figs. 1, 7. Hook 58 having eye 62 is formed in a similar fashion. See id. at 8:15-18, Fig. 1. Eyes 56, 62 of hooks 52, 58 “are sized so that whether coated or uncoated the eyes continually narrow toward the bend forming the hook so that the eyes will have a resilient interference fit with the intended support structure (the messenger wire).” Id. at 3:31-4:3; see also id. at 10:16-22 (describing that hook 52 has eye 56, and that eye 56 and its coating 14 form a friction fit with messenger wire 78, preventing eye 56 from slipping along messenger wire 78), 10:25-28, Figs. 1, 7. In our view, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand, in light of the Specification, the language “each said hook continually narrows toward the bend forming said hook,” as recited in claim 6 and similarly recited in claim 14, to require spacing between opposite sides of each hook to continually decrease toward the bend forming the hook. Put another way, the sides of the hook joining the bend are not parallel. Carr teaches a hanger constructed of a laminated steel strip Y. Carr 1, col. 1, ll. 47-51. One end of strip Y has hook h2 having parallel sides P and P1 and being semicircular. Id. at 1, col. l. 51-col. 2, l. 2, Fig. 1. The semicircular portion of hook h2 has a diameter corresponding to that of the support strand ST. Id. at 1, col. 2, ll. 2-4, Fig. 1. The Examiner finds that Carr teaches that each hook h1, h2 “continually narrows toward the bend forming the hook.” Final Act. 7. Specifically, the Examiner finds that the parallel sides of Carr’s hook “begin to curve towards the meeting point of Appeal 2021-005502 Application 15/953,548 6 the ‘U’, thus reducing the distance between the sides of the opening.” Ans. 12. However, we agree with Appellant that a narrowing within or at the bend, as taught by Carr, does not teach that the hook continually narrows toward the bend that forms each hook, as required by independent claim 6, and similarly required by independent claim 14. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of independent claims 6 and 14, and dependent claims 7 and 15. Independent Claims 1 and 20, and Dependent Claim 2 Claim 1 recites a hanger arrangement having “a messenger wire” and a “number of cable hangers fit on the messenger wire.” Each hanger has, in part, two support arms (i.e., “a support arm extending toward the center of the hanger from each receptacle lateral side”) and a separate and co- operating hook on each support arm. In particular, in a compressed state, the hooks “are aligned in a co-planer adjacent relationship” and each hook “is sized to have an interference fit with the messenger wire prior to being fit on the messenger wire.” Appellant’s Specification describes separate and co- operating hooks 52 and 58 aligned in a co-planner adjacent relationship when the hanger is in a compressed state and sized to have an interference fit with the messenger wire 78. Spec. 9:12-14, Figs. 7-9. Specifically, hook 52 “forms a friction fit with messenger wire 78 so as to resist the eye 56 from slipping one way or another down the messenger wire 78.” Id. at 10:19-22. Likewise, hook 58 “also forms a frictional fit with the diameter of the guy [sic] wire 78.” Id. at 10:26-27. The interference fit of both hooks 52, 58 on messenger wire 78 solves a problem with prior hangers that fall off or slide out of position along the messenger wire during installation. Id. at 3:1-3; see also id. at 9:12-14 Appeal 2021-005502 Application 15/953,548 7 (describing that each hook 52, 58 has an interference fit with wire 78). For example, installation of the claimed hanger typically involves an operator first placing hook 58 of hanger 10 on messenger wire 78. See id. at 9:1-2. Because hook 58 has an interference fit with messenger wire 78, hook 58 does not move when the operator loads hanger 10 with cables. See id. at 9:2-8. Then, the operator squeezes lateral sides of the hanger together to fit separate, co-operating hook 52 on support wire 78. Id. at 9:8-10. Next, the operator releases the lateral sides of hanger 20 and the lateral sides expand, firmly securing hanger 10 on the messenger wire. See id. at 9:8-12. In rejecting independent claims 1 and 20, the Examiner relies primarily on Carr as disclosing the recited limitations. See Final Act. 3. The Examiner acknowledges that Carr does not teach that each hanger fits on the messenger wire via an interference fit, or that a separate and co-operating hook formed on each support arm is sized to have an interference fit with the messenger wire prior to being fitted on the messenger wire, as cited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 20. See Ans. 10; see also Final Act. 3. However, the Examiner finds that “Brinton . . . provides a teaching for suspending hangers from conduits utilizing an interference fit between the hanger and the conduit.” Ans. 10 (citing Brinton 5:34-35); see also Final Act. 3-4. The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious “to have utilized an interference fit between the hanger and conduit of Carr as taught by Brinton . . . to further secure the hanger to the messenger wire.” Ans. 10. Brinton teaches a hanger assembly for a wire shelf that includes a bracket configured to releasably couple to wire members of the wire shelf. Brinton, Abstract, 1:39-56, Fig. 1. The bracket includes a hook-shaped end Appeal 2021-005502 Application 15/953,548 8 portion 116 and an elbow portion 120. Id. at 1:45-46, 6:26-27. Hook- shaped end portion 116 defines a channel for receiving first wire member 108a, and an elbow portion 120 defines a bend for receiving second wire member 108b. Id. at Abstract, 1:46-51, Figs. 1, 4. The coupling between the bracket and the wire members of the wire shelf is a snap-fit coupling that allows the brackets to be coupled, uncoupled, and recoupled to the wire members as desired. Id. at 1:51-56. Alternative to a snap-fit coupling, brackets 112 are configured to releasably couple to wire members 108a and 108b via an interference fit without welding. Id. at 5:31-35. Thus, Brinton teaches an interference fit between a bracket (i.e., hanger) and two wire members, but it does not teach an interference fit between the bracket (i.e., hanger) and one wire (i.e., the messenger wire), as required by claims 1 and 20. Therefore, the Examiner’s finding that Brinton teaches hangers fit on a messenger wire via an interference fit, and that each separate and co- operating hook formed on each support arm of each hanger is sized to have an interference fit with the messenger wire prior to being fit on the messenger wire lacks adequate evidentiary support. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of independent claims 1 and 20 and dependent claim 2. Dependent Claims 3-5, 8-10, and 16-18 The Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 3-5, 8-10, and 16-18 do not cure the deficiencies of the rejections of the independent claims from which they depend. Therefore, we also do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of dependent claims 3-5, 8-10, and 16-18 for the same reasons described above with respect to the independent claims. Appeal 2021-005502 Application 15/953,548 9 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 6, 7, 14, 15 103 Carr 6, 7, 14, 15 1, 2, 20 103 Carr, Brinton, Sellati 1, 2, 20 3-5 103 Carr, Brinton, Sellati, Powale 3-5 8-10, 16- 18 103 Carr, Powale 8-10, 16-18 Overall Outcome 1-10, 14-18, 20 REVERSED