Ex Parte COX et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 25, 2018

13782978 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2018)

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.
13/782,978 03/01/2013 Martin COX PAT 102079-2 1033
24242 7590 01/29/2018
NORTON ROSF FTTT RRTOTTT PANADA T T P
EXAMINER
1800-510 West Georgia Street GUAN, GUANG H
VANCOUVER, BC V6B 0M3
CANADA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2018 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):
Richard. Johnson @ nortonrosefulbright.com
Amy.Truscott@nortonrosefulbright.com
Nicole.Cutura@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARTIN COX and MATT NEILSON
Appeal 2017-005394
Application 13/782,978
Technology Center 3600
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
MATTHEW S. METERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants1 appeal from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—7, 10—15, 17, and 19. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
According to Appellants, their invention “relates generally to an
electrical cable support apparatus for supporting electrical cables of different
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Superior Tray Systems Inc.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-005394
Application 13/782,978
sizes in a cable tray.” Spec. 12. Claim 1 is the only independent claim on
appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed claims.
1. An apparatus for supporting a plurality of electrical
cables passing through the apparatus from a first side of the
apparatus to a second side of the apparatus, comprising:
a first block having a bottom portion configured for
attachment to a cable tray and a top interfacial surface
comprising a set of guide-receiving features extending from the
first side of the apparatus through to the second side of the
apparatus;
a second block comprising a bottom interfacial surface
attachable to the top interfacial surface of the first block, the
bottom interfacial surface of the second block comprising a set
of guide-receiving features extending from the first side of the
apparatus through to the second side of the apparatus, wherein
the sets of guide-receiving features on the top interfacial surface
of the first block and the bottom interfacial surface of the second
block cooperatively form a plurality of spaced-apart passages
passing through the apparatus at an interface between the first
and second blocks when the first block is attached to the second
block; and
a plurality of guides for placement into the plurality of
passages to receive the plurality of cables, wherein each guide
comprises:
a first insert having an outer surface shaped to
conform to a guide-receiving feature in the top interfacial
surface of the first block such that the outer surface is in
contact with the guide-receiving feature in the top
interfacial surface, and having a first longitudinal end at
the first side of the apparatus and a second longitudinal
end at the second side of the apparatus, when the first
insert is positioned in the guide-receiving feature, and an
inner surface shaped to conform to an outer surface of an
electrical cable of a predetermined type such that the inner
surface directly contacts the outer surface of the electrical
2
Appeal 2017-005394
Application 13/782,978
cable of the predetermined type positioned within the first
insert;
and a second insert having an outer surface shaped
to conform to a corresponding guide-receiving feature in
the bottom interfacial surface of the second block such that
the outer surface is in contact with the guide-receiving
feature in the bottom interfacial surface, and having a first
longitudinal end at the first side of the apparatus and a
second longitudinal end at the second side of the
apparatus, when the second insert is positioned in the
guide-receiving feature, and an inner surface shaped to
conform to the outer surface of the electrical cable of the
predetermined type such that the inner surface directly
contacts the outer surface of the electrical cable of the
predetermined type positioned within the second insert;
wherein each of the first and second inserts is longer in a
longitudinal direction than the guide-receiving features on the
top interfacial surface of the first block and the bottom interfacial
surface of the second block, and each of the first and second
inserts comprises a first flange extending radially outward [from]
the first longitudinal end and a second flange extending radially
outward from the second longitudinal end, and a tab extending
radially outward from each of the first flange and the second
flange,
wherein each of the first and second blocks comprises a
first lip extending from each guide-receiving feature at the first
side of the apparatus and a second lip extending from each guide­
receiving feature at the second side of the apparatus, such that
the tab extending from the first flange engages the first lip and
the tab extending from the second flange engages the second lip,
and
wherein the first and second blocks are constructed from a
first material having a first rigidity and the guides are constructed
from a second material having a second rigidity less than the first
rigidity.
3
Appeal 2017-005394
Application 13/782,978
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART2
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. claims 1, 2, 4, 11—13, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Morehouse (US 2,355,742, iss. Aug. 15,
1944) and Hayes (US 5,689,862, iss. Nov. 25, 1997);
II. claims 3 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Morehouse, Hayes, and Pollard (US 2010/0123048 Al, pub.
May 20, 2010);
III. claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Morehouse, Hayes, Pollard, and Kubli (US 3,531,071, iss.
Sept. 29, 1970);
IV. claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Morehouse, Hayes, and Jackson (US 2008/0251651 Al, pub.
Oct. 16, 2008);
V. claims 7 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Morehouse, Hayes, and Vantouroux (US 6,902,138 B2, iss.
June 7, 2005);
VI. claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Morehouse, Hayes, and Jobin (US 5,794,897, iss. Aug. 18,
1998);
VII. claims 1—5, 11—14, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fletcher (US 770,278, iss. Sept. 20, 1904)
and Hayes;
2 In the Answer, the Examiner withdraws an indefmiteness rejection.
Answer 4—5.
4
Appeal 2017-005394
Application 13/782,978
VIII. claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fletcher,
Hayes, and Thuesen (US 2011/0126934 Al, pub. June 2, 2011);
IX. claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fletcher,
Hayes, and Vantouroux;
X. claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Fletcher, Hayes, and Jobin; and
XI. claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Fletcher, Hayes, and Pollard.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Appellants argue that the obviousness rejection of independent
claim 1, from which claims 2, 4, 11—13, 17, and 19 depend, is in error
because no reference discloses the claimed tab extending radially outward
from a flange of an insert. See Appeal Br. 9-12; see also Reply Br. 1—3.
Based on our review of the record, Appellants do not persuade us of error,
and, therefore, we sustain claim 1 ’s rejection.
The Examiner relies on Hayes to disclose the claimed tab. See, e.g.,
Answer 6—7. We note that Hayes appears to disclose that each insert 46
includes inwardly projecting lip 52 that extends perpendicular to radially-
outward extending side portion 50. See Hayes Fig. 2; see also Reply Br. 2.
However, the Examiner does not rely on Hayes’s lip 52 to teach the claimed
tab—rather, the Examiner relies on a first part of Hayes’s side portion 50 to
teach the claimed flange, and relies on another part of Hayes’s side portion,
which includes lip 52, and which extends radially outward from the first part
of side portion 50, to teach the claimed tab. See, e.g., Answer 6—7.
5
Appeal 2017-005394
Application 13/782,978
Appellants argue that the rejection is in error because
[t]he Examiner’s Answer sets forth an interpretation that takes a
single feature from Hayes, namely . . . side portion 50, and
divides it up, equating an inner portion of the side portion with
the claimed flange, and an outer portion of the side portion with
the claimed tab. Appellants] respectfully submit[] that such an
interpretation is inconsistent with the interpretation of [claim 1 ’s
recitation of] “a tab extending radially outward from each of the
first flange and the second flange” that those skilled in the art
would reach, based on both the ordinary and customary meanings
of the terms in the claim and their use the in the [Specification
and drawings.
Reply Br. 3. Appellants do not provide evidence or a line of reasoning
sufficient to persuade us, however, that the Examiner’s interpretation is
improper. For example, Appellants do not provide a citation to anything in
the claims, Specification, or drawings persuading us that it is impermissible
to characterize different parts of Hayes’s side portion 50 as the claimed
flange and tab. Appellants also do not provide any other evidence as to how
one skilled in the art would understand the claim recitations.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain claim 1 ’s rejection. Inasmuch as
Appellants do not argue separately against the rejection of dependent
claims 2, 4, 11—13, 17, and 19, we also sustain the dependent claims’
rejection.
Rejections II—VI
Appellants do not argue separately against the rejections of dependent
claims 3, 5—7, 10, 14, and 14. Thus, we also sustain the dependent claims’
rejections for the same reasons we sustain claim 1 ’s rejection.
6
Appeal 2017-005394
Application 13/782,978
Rejection VII
Appellants’ argument against the rejection of claims 1—5, 11—14, 17,
and 19 is the same as that set forth above—i.e., Hayes does not teach the
claimed tab. See Appeal Br. 13. For the reasons set forth above, we sustain
this rejection of claims 1—5, 11—14, 17, and 19.
Rejections VIII—XI
Appellants do not argue separately against the rejections of dependent
claims 6, 7, 10, and 15. Thus, we also sustain the dependent claims’
rejections.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—7,
10-15, 17, and 19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7