CommScope Technologies LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 15, 2020

2019003491 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 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.
15/278,339 09/28/2016 Ronald A. Vaccaro 9833-70 5961
79207 7590 09/15/2020
MYERS BIGEL, P.A.
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
EXAMINER
GARFT, CHRISTOPHER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/15/2020 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):
myersbigel_pair@firsttofile.com
uspto@myersbigel.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RONALD A. VACCARO
____________________

Appeal 2019-003491
Application 15/278,339
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JAMES A. WORTH, BRADLEY B. BAYAT, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ronald A. Vaccaro (Appellant)1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the decision rejecting claims 17–19 and 22–28, which are all the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as “CommScope Technologies LLC.”
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003491
Application 15/278,339

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s “invention relates generally to devices for supporting
cables and, in particular, to hangers for securing cables to support
structures.” Spec. ¶ 2. Independent claim 17, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
17. A cable hanger, comprising:
a first half including a main body with a first cable
recess, a latch adapted for mounting to a mounting structure,
and a first securing feature;
a second half including a main body with a second
cable recess, a bore adapted for receiving a latch of a second
cable hanger, and a second securing feature;
wherein the first half is mated with the second half
such that the first and second cable recesses form a pocket for
receiving and grasping a cable, and wherein the first and second
securing features engage to maintain the first half and the
second half in a mated condition; and
wherein the first half and the second half are
connected via a hinge; and
wherein the main body of the first half includes a bore
that is coaxial with the latch; and
wherein the cable hanger further comprises a plunger,
the plunger configured to reside in the bore of the first half and
maintain the latch in a latched condition; and
wherein the plunger is attached to the first half within
the bore of the first half and configured to break away from the
bore of the first half to be moved to maintain the latch in the
latched condition.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 17, 19, 23–25, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Allmann et al. (US 2007/0246614 A1, pub.
Appeal 2019-003491
Application 15/278,339

3

Oct. 25, 2007) (“Allmann”), Meyer (US 6,074,144, iss. June 13, 2000), and
Korczak et al. (US 2005/0109890 A1, pub. May 26, 2005) (“Korczak”).2
II. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Allmann, Meyer, Korczak, and Meyers et al.
(US 2013/0240684 A1, pub. Sept. 19, 2013) (“Meyers”).
III. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Allmann, Meyer, Korczak, and Kovac (US 2007/0018057
A1, pub. Jan. 25, 2007).
IV. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Allmann, Meyer, Korczak, and Nelson (US 5,393,021, iss.
Feb. 28, 1995).
OPINION
Rejection I
Claims 17, 19, 23–25, 27, and 28
In rejecting independent claim 17 as unpatentable over Allmann,
Meyer, and Korczak, the Examiner finds Allmann discloses a first and
second half including a main body with a first and second cable recess, a
first and second securing feature, “wherein the first half is mated with the
second half such that the first and second cable recesses form a pocket for
receiving and grasping a cable,” “wherein the first and second securing
features engage to maintain the first and second half in mated condition;”
“and wherein the first half and the second half are connected via a hinge;”
and “wherein the main body of the first half includes a bore that is coaxial

2 The statement of the rejection appears to inadvertently include claim 26.
See Final Act. 2–4.
Appeal 2019-003491
Application 15/278,339

4

with the latch.” Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner finds that Allman does not
disclose
a latch adapted for mounting to a mounting structure; the bore
in the second half adapted for receiving a latch of a second
cable hanger; and wherein the cable hanger further comprises a
plunger, the plunger configured to reside in the bore of the first
half and maintain the latch in a latched condition; and wherein
the plunger is attached to the first half within the bore of the
first half and configured to break away from the bore of the first
half to be moved to maintain the latch in the latched condition

Id. at 4–5. To partially cure this deficiency, the Examiner finds Meyer
discloses a fastener used with a cable support which includes a latch for
mounting to a mounting structure, the cable hanger comprising a hollow
plunger configured to reside in a bore of the first half, and maintain the latch
in a latched condition, and wherein the plunger is attached to the first half
within the bore of the first half and configured to break away from the bore
of the first half. Id. at 5–6. The Examiner determines that it would have
been obvious to an artisan “to replace the bolt of Allmann with the fastener
of Meyer since Meyer states that threaded fasteners require expensive and
hazardous installation tools (Col. 1, Lines 24–26) whereas the Meyer
fastener provides a fastener with a low pin insertion force, eliminates any
threaded components and provides a fastener which has low manufacturing
costs (Col. 1, Lines 31–47).” Id. at 6 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner
finds “[t]he combination of Allmann in view of Meyer does not disclose that
the bore of the second half is adapted for receiving a latch of a second cable
hanger” (id.), and, instead, relies on Korczak to further modify the
Allmann/Meyer device. The Examiner determines:
Appeal 2019-003491
Application 15/278,339

5

It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
modify the bore in the second half of Allman to be adapted for
receiving a latch of a second cable hanger as disclosed by
Korczak since Korczak states that such a modification enables
the devices to be combined or stacked without disassembling
prior hangers (Paragraph 0066, Lines 3–5).

Id. at 7.
Alleging error in the rejection, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s
proposed modification would result in a device that would not function as
intended, because
the insert 3 of Allmann would prohibit the double tapered nose
20 of the fastener 10 of Meyer from functioning as intended.
The double tapered nose 20 is formed from two downwardly
extending arms 22, 24 which splay outwardly slightly so that
the outer surfaces at the lower ends thereof are separated by a
distance greater than the diameter of the opening to be engaged
by the fastener 10. Meyer, at col. 3, ln. 1–15. If the fastener of
Meyer were inserted into the holding device of Allmann, the
insert 3 of Allmann would prevent the downwardly extending
arms 22, 24 of the fastener from splaying outwardly.
Appeal Br. 7.
Responding to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner states that “the
Examiner’s proposed combination would simply attach the portion (20) of
Meyer to the bottom of surface (21) of Allman in the same manner that
Meyer discloses that (20) is attached to the bottom of the cable hanger as
illustrated in Fig. 10. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that since the
insert (3) is attached to the top surface of (21) in Allman, the insert (3)
would have no impact on the splaying outward of the arms (22 and 24).”
Ans. 11. Appellant’s position is more persuasive.
Appeal 2019-003491
Application 15/278,339

6

Allmann is directed to a holding device 1 for at least one pipe for
inserting an insert 3, which comprises abutment ribs 34 “made integral with
the insert 3” (Allman ¶ 27), into the basic body 21 of the housing 2 and is
aligned on the basis of a cylindrical pin 23, with a bolt inserted into the
through hole of the cylindrical projection 23, the basic body 21, the lid 22,
and insert 3. Id. ¶¶ 35–38. The Examiner’s proposed modification is “to
replace the bolt of Allman with the fastener of Meyer.” Final Act. 6.
Meyer’s fastener 10 includes a double tapered nose 20, which is
“formed from two downwardly extending arms 22, 24 with slot 26 formed
therebetween through which locking pin 14 traverses between the predriven
and driven states.” Id. 3:1–4. “Downwardly extending arms 22, 24 splay
outwardly slightly so that the outer surface at the lower ends thereof are
separated by a distance greater than the diameter of the opening to be
engaged by fastener 10.” Id. 8–11.
The evidence of record weighs in favor of Appellant’s position
because “the rib-like abutment projections 34 are part of the insert 3 of
Allman and pass through the housing bottom of the basic body 21.” Appeal
Br. 9. Even if we accept the Examiner’s position of “simply attach[ing] the
portion (20) of Meyer to the bottom of surface (21) of Allman,” we are not
convinced that when “the insert (3) is attached to the top surface of (21) in
Allman, the insert (3) would have no impact on the splaying outward of the
arms (22 and 24).” Ans. 11 (emphasis added). Although insert 3 is captured
in the top surface of the basic body 21, Allman discloses that “[i]n the
inserted state of the insert 3, the rib-like abutment projections 34 pass
through the housing bottom of the basic body 21 and project at the abutment
side of the housing 2 out of the housing 2.” Allman ¶ 35; see also Allman
Appeal 2019-003491
Application 15/278,339

7

Fig. 3 (showing the holding device with the insert being inserted into the
housing with abutment projections passing through bottom of the body 21).
The Examiner’s reliance on Figure 1 of Allman as “illustrat[ing] that
the projections are spaced apart away from the central portion or where the
bolt passes through and therefore would not interfere with the arms (22 and
24 of Meyer) from spreading outward” (Ans. 12) appears to be based on
speculation. See Appeal Br. 7. Figure 1 of Allman shows the abutment ribs
34 extending over the width of the insert 3, with the abutment ribs 34
extending from and adjacent to the central portion where the Examiner
proposes the double tapered nose 20 of Meyer would be attached. And, as
discussed, the arms of the double tapered nose of Meyer extend and splay
outwardly “so that the outer surface at the lower ends thereof are separated
by a distance greater than the diameter of the opening to be engaged by
fastener 10.” Meyer 3:9–11 (emphasis added). In other words, we are
persuaded that if the fastener of Meyer is inserted into the holding device of
Allman, as the Examiner proposes, the abutment ribs 34 adjacent to the
central portion of the insert 3 of Allman would interfere with Meyer’s
downwardly extending arms 22, 24 from splaying outwards, and, therefore,
the proposed modified device would not function as intended.
In sum, the Examiner has not established an evidentiary basis on this
record to support a conclusion that it would have been obvious to modify
Allman with Meyer and Korczak to arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and claims 19 and 23–25 which depend
from claim 17. We also do not sustain the rejection of independent claims
27 and 28 for the same reasons, because the Examiner relies on the same
Appeal 2019-003491
Application 15/278,339

8

proposed modification to Allman with Meyer’s fastener in rejecting those
claims. See Final Act. 3–7.
Rejections II, III, and IV
Claims 18, 22, and 26
Rejections of dependent claims 18, 22, and 26 rely on the same
proposed modification of Allman and Meyer discussed above, which the
additional references fail to remedy. As such, we do not sustain the
rejections of claims 18, 22, and 26 for the same reasons as claim 17.
CONCLUSION
The decision to reject claims 17–19 and 22–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is reversed.
Decision Summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Basis Affirmed Reversed
17, 19, 23–
25, 27, 28
103 Allmann, Meyer,
Korczak
17, 19, 23–
25, 27, 28
18 103 Allmann, Meyer,
Korczak, Meyers
18
22 103 Allmann, Meyer,
Korczak, Kovac
22
26 103 Allmann, Meyer,
Korczak, Nelson
26
Overall Outcome 17–19, 22–
28

REVERSED