Berliner Seilfabrik GmbH & Co.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 19, 2020

14818489 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2020)

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.
14/818,489 08/05/2015 Karl-Heinz KÖHLER 101215-499 9254
27387 7590 02/19/2020
LONDA, BRUCE S.
NORRIS MCLAUGHLIN, P.A.
7 TIMES SQUARE
NEW YORK, NY 10036-6524
EXAMINER
KENNEDY, JOSHUA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/19/2020 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
Ex parte KARL-HEINZ KÖHLER
Appeal 2019-003221
Application 14/818,489
Technology Center 3600
Before DANIEL S. SONG, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant0F1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 19–26. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as BERLINER
SEILF ABRIK GMBH & CO. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003221
Application 14/818,489
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a clamp for connecting ropes. Claim 19,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
19. A clamp, comprising two U-shaped recesses arranged on
opposite sides of the single-piece clamp, wherein a pair of
opposing walls is forming sides of the U-shape of each recess
and the opposing walls of each pair are deformable under
pressure, so as to create rings, with each ring being formed by
the opposing walls of one pair, wherein the clamp prior to
deformation essentially has the shape of a double cone including
two cone stumps, and each U-shaped recess is arranged in one
cone stump respectively,
wherein at least one of the opposing walls of each pair
comprises at least one elevation facing towards the other
opposing wall of the respective pair,
wherein the elevation extends in a direction transverse the
U-shape parallel to the respective pair of opposing walls,
and wherein the distance between the elevation and the
other opposing wall of the pair is slightly smaller than a diameter
of the ring formed by the opposing walls of the respective pair.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Wilks US 4,302,124 Nov. 24, 1981
Merritt US 6,010,100 Jan. 4, 2000
REJECTION
Claims 19–261F2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wilks and Merritt. Final Act. 2.

2 The Examiner’s inclusion of claim 27 appears to have been inadvertent;
claim 27 does not exist.
Appeal 2019-003221
Application 14/818,489
3
OPINION
The claims are argued as a group (Appeal Br. 6–9) for which claim 19
is representative under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner relies on
Wilks as disclosing most of the subject matter recited in claim 19. Final Act.
2–3. The subject matter of the present application purports to be an
improvement on the Wilks device, and the subject matter of claim 19 is
nearly identical to that disclosed in Wilks with the exception being that the
presently claimed subject matter includes an “elevation.” Cf, e.g., ref. num.
34 in Figures 3, 4 of the present application with Wilks, Figs. 3, 4.
To account for the aforementioned distinction, the Examiner cites
ridge 38 of Merritt. Final Act. 3–4 (citing Merritt, Fig. 3, col. 3, ll. 60–63).
The Examiner correctly reasons that it would have been obvious to include
such a ridge on the Wilks structure, thereby satisfying the “elevation”
limitation, in order to assist with temporary fixing of a rope, cable, or wire
structure prior to more permanent securement. Final Act. 4; Ans. 7.
Appellant first argues the age of the Wilks reference is evidence of
non-obviousness. Appeal Br. 6–7; Reply. Br 2. The mere age of a reference
is generally not regarded as evidence of non-obviousness. See MPEP
§ 2145(VIII) (and cases cited therein). There is no evidence demonstrating
that “the presently claimed clamp was not recited in a new patent application
for more than thirty-four (34) years.” See Reply. Br. 2. First, particularly
where obvious subject matter is involved, the absence of an issued patent for
that subject matter is not evidence that no applications were filed containing
that subject matter. Second, the Examiner need not seek out and cite an
anticipatory reference in order to reject a claim for obviousness.
Appellant further argues that ropes, such as those used in Wilks, and
cables, such as those used in Merritt, are “located in a totally different
Appeal 2019-003221
Application 14/818,489
4
technical field of application.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant contends “cables
comprise totally different specific masses, surface properties and restrictions
with regard to deformation.” Reply. Br. 3. First, Appellant does not develop
this argument with any technical explanation as to how any of these stated
properties relate to the pre-fixation problem addressed by Appellant (Spec.
1) so that one skilled in the art would not have considered solutions related
to pre-fixing cables as relevant to the problems associated with pre-fixing
ropes. Ans. 4–5 (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
(A reference is analogous if the reference is reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the inventor was concerned.)). Roundness and
the ability to either deform slightly, or cause slight deformation of the
clamping structure, which are characteristics generally shared by many ropes
and cables, seem to be the only requirements for the effectiveness of
Merritt’s ridge for pre-fixation. Second, Wilks, the subject matter of which
Appellant seeks to improve upon,2F3 expressly and repeatedly indicates that
the invention disclosed and claimed therein is applicable to both “wire
cables or textile ropes.” Wilks, col. 1, ll. 9–10; see also Wilks, col. 5, ll. 8–9
(“In a connector for connecting together two strands of cables, ropes or the
like . . .”).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not apprised of error in the
Examiner’s rejection.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is AFFIRMED.

3 Spec. 1 (citing EP 0 007 607 B1, published as US 4,302,124 (Wilks)); see
IDS Aug. 5, 2015.
Appeal 2019-003221
Application 14/818,489
5
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
19–26 103(a) Wilks, Merritt 19–26

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED