Ex Parte 7854627 et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 25, 201695001799 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 95/001,799 10/31/2011 7854627 38629-14REEX 6884 30010 7590 07/25/2016 The Jackson Patent Group, LLC 1500 Forest Avenue, Suite 212 RICHMOND, VA 23229 EXAMINER DEB, ANJAN K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3992 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/25/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC. Requester and Respondent v. ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant ____________________ Appeal 2015-007896 Reexamination Control 95/001,799 Patent US 7,854,627 B1 Technology Center 3900 ____________ Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, ERIC B. CHEN, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL UNDER 37 C.F.R § 41.77(f) Appeal 2015-007896 Reexamination Control 95/001,799 Patent US 7,854,627 B1 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This appeal comes to us under 37 C.F.R §41.77(f). On May 19, 2014, the present panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) issued a Decision On Appeal affirming the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-17 and 19. The Examiner’s failure to adopt a proposed rejection of claim 18 was reversed, and the reversal was designated as a new ground of rejection. On June 19, 2014, Patent Owner submitted an amendment to claim 18 and a concomitant request to reopen prosecution in view of the Board’s new ground of rejection. On July 21, 2014, Requester proposed five alternative bases for rejection of claim 18 and submitted comments regarding the patentability of claim 18. On April 27, 2015, the Examiner issued a determination that Patent Owner’s amendments had indeed overcome the new ground of rejection set forth in the Opinion of May 19, 2014 (“Examiner Determination”). However, the Examiner further found that claim 18 is not patentable over each of the five alternative rejections proposed by Requester. Patent Owner did not file any comments pursuant to 37 C.F.R § 1.77(c) in response to the Examiner’s determination that claim 18 is not patentable. On August 4, 2015, this proceeding was returned to the Board for reconsideration pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(f). Appeal 2015-007896 Reexamination Control 95/001,799 Patent US 7,854,627 B1 3 Claim 18 18. An electrical fitting for securing an electrical cable to a panel or junction box comprising: a connector body including a leading end and a trailing end; a fastening arrangement on said leading end for securing said leading end of said connector body to said panel or said junction box; a cavity in said trailing end of said connector body, said cavity including a wall; a substantially tubular cable retainer secured within said cavity, said cable retainer including a leading end and a trailing end; a securing arrangement for locking said cable retainer within said cavity of said trailing end of said connector body; a single cable retaining tang projecting inward from one side of said tubular body and angled toward said leading end of said cable retainer; said single cable retaining tang including a base portion, an end, and a first finger and a second finger defined by a notch extending from said end of said single cable retaining tang, said fingers of said single cable retaining tang each include an outer side, an inner side, and distal edges extending from the outer side to the inner side, the distal edges include a flat portion along the outer side of the fingers and an arcuate portion along the inner side of the fingers, said electrical cable being pressed against said wall of said connector body solely by engagement of the distal edges of the fingers of the single cable retaining tang irrespective of a size of the electrical cable within a range of sizes, thereby locking said electrical cable between said single cable retaining tang and said wall; and Appeal 2015-007896 Reexamination Control 95/001,799 Patent US 7,854,627 B1 4 said notch extends at least half of the length of said cable retaining tang. Prior Art Kiely US 6,872,886 B2 Mar. 29, 2005 (hereinafter “Kiely ‘866”) Gretz US 7,161,095 B1 Jan. 9, 2007 (hereinafter “Gretz ‘095”) Auray US 7,151,223 B2 Dec. 19, 2006 (hereinafter “Auray ‘223”) Gretz US 6,177,633 B1 Jan. 23, 2001 (hereinafter “Gretz ‘633”) Auray US 7,057,107 B2 July 6, 2006 (hereinafter “Auray ‘107”) Kiely US 6,555,750 B2 Apr. 29, 2003 (hereinafter “Kiely ‘750”) Rejections The Examiner finds claim 18 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over the following combinations of references: A. Kiely ‘886 and Gretz ‘095; B. Kiely ‘886, Gretz ‘095, and Auray ‘223; C. Kiely ‘886, Gretz ‘095, and Gretz ‘633; D. Auray ‘107 and Gretz ‘095; E. Kiely ‘750 and Gretz ‘095. Analysis With respect to ground of rejection A, noted above, the Examiner finds that the limitation “single cable retaining tang projecting inward from one side of said tubular body and angled toward said leading end of said cable retainer” is taught by Kiely ‘886. Examiner Determination 10. Further, the Examiner finds that Gretz ‘095 discloses a “tang 46,” which includes two fingers, each having an outer side, an inner side, distal edges that include a flat portion 100 along the outer side of the fingers, and an Appeal 2015-007896 Reexamination Control 95/001,799 Patent US 7,854,627 B1 5 arcuate portion 102 along the inner side of the fingers, as shown at column 8, lines 8–11 and as illustrated in Figure 12. Id. The Examiner also finds that Gretz ‘095 discloses an electrical cable 96 that is pressed against a wall of connector body 32 solely by engagement of the distal edges of the fingers of a single cable retaining tang 46A, as depicted in Figure 17. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the distal edges of the fingers of the cable retaining tang of Kiely ‘886 with the distal edges disclosed by Gretz ‘095, including an arcuate portion and a flat portion, the reason being to increase the contact area between the cable and the distal portion of the cable retaining tang. Examiner’s Determination Id. We find no error in the Examiner’s analysis set forth above. Further, Patent Owner has not filed any comments pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(e) to dispute the Examiner’s findings. Consequently, we find that claim 18 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over the combination of Kiely ‘886 and Gretz ‘095. Because we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 18 based on the combination of Kiely ‘886 and Gretz ‘095, we do not address any of the remaining four rejections asserted by Requester and upon which the Examiner relies. See In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 138 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Pursuant to 37 C.F.R §41.77(f) this opinion is deemed to incorporate our earlier decision with respect to all claims other than claim 18. Appeal 2015-007896 Reexamination Control 95/001,799 Patent US 7,854,627 B1 6 Summary/Conclusion We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18. DECISION The Examiner’s decision adverse to the patentability of claim 18 is affirmed. Requests for extensions of time in this proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.956 and 41.79(e). AFFIRMED Patent Owner: The Jackson Patent Group, LLC 1500 Forest Avenue, Suite 212 Richmond, VA 23229 Third Party Requester: Briggs and Morgan P.A. 2200 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MC 55402 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation