Ex Parte Geiger

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 30, 2010

10835864 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 30, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GERARD G. GEIGER
____________

Appeal 2009-007763
Application 10/835,864
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: LINDA E. HORNER, JOHN C. KERINS, and KEN B. BARRETT,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-007763
Application 10/835,864

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Gerald G. Geiger (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-16, and 31-33,
which are all of the claims on appeal. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is a mounting assembly for securing
elongated articles, such as wires, cables, or hoses, that includes a mounting
element extending from the hardware and into the supporting structure or its
facing surface. Spec. 1:15-21. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative
of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A mounting assembly for anchoring an elongate member
to a supporting structure, said mounting assembly interacting
with an elongated flexible tie for surrounding said bundled
elongate member, said tie having an exposed surface including
a plurality of adjacent serrations extending lengthwise of said
tie, said mounting assembly comprising:
a support containing an aperture, said aperture allowing
insertion and withdrawal of said flexible tie through said
aperture, said support including a bottom surface;
a non-binding friction tab located in said aperture of said
support, said friction tab providing resistance to longitudinal
movement of said flexible tie when said support and said
flexible tie are arranged in a preassembled state, said friction
tab being arranged to allow bidirectional longitudinal
movement of said flexible tie when an external force is applied
to said tie; and
a mounting stud having a distal end and a proximal end,
said proximal end of said mounting stud extending from said
bottom surface of said support, said distal end being insertable
into said supporting structure.

Appeal 2009-007763
Application 10/835,864

3
THE REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections by the Examiner:
1. Rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Ikeda (US 5,224,244).2
2. Rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-16, and 31-33 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Geiger (US 6,533,226 B2).3
3. Rejection of claims 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ikeda and Rodman (US 3,250,505).
4. Rejection of claims 6-8, 10-12, 14-16, and 31-33 as unpatentable over
Ikeda and Wollar (US 4,936,530).
ANALYSIS
Rejections based on Ikeda
Appellant contends that, contrary to the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 3),
Ikeda’s flexible locking piece 5b is not a non-binding friction tab as called
for in independent claim 1. App. Br. 5. The issue before us is whether
Ikeda discloses a non-binding friction tab.
Independent claim 1 is directed to a mounting assembly for anchoring
an elongate member to a supporting structure comprised of a flexible tie and
a support. The support includes a non-binding friction tab located in an
aperture, arranged to allow bidirectional longitudinal movement of the

2 Appellant’s Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal incorrectly
lists claims 3-8, 10-12, 14-16, and 31-33 as subject to this ground of
rejection (App. Br. 5); however, only claims 1 and 2 are subject to this
ground of rejection. Office Action, May 31, 2007, page 4; Ans. 3.
3 Appellant’s Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal and Argument
sections incorrectly list claim 5 as subject to this ground of rejection (App.
Br. 5-6). Office Action, May 31, 2007, page 4; Ans. 4; see also Ans. 2
(identifying this error).
Appeal 2009-007763
Application 10/835,864

4
flexible tie. Appellant’s Specification describes that non-binding frictional
tab 30, located in an aperture 28 of support 20, “provides resistance and
friction for the elongated tie 12,” but permits movement forward and
backward as necessary. Spec. 9:24-26; 10:13-15. Claim 1 explicitly
requires that “the non-binding friction tab” be arranged to allow
bidirectional longitudinal movement of the flexible tie, which, consistent
with the disclosure in the Specification, would be movement backward and
forward.
Ikeda discloses a bundling fastener comprised of a bundling band B
and a bundling fastener A. Ikeda, col. 3, ll. 4-12; fig. 1. Bundling fastener
A includes an upper, inserting chamber 1, and a lower, accommodating
chamber 2. Ikeda, col. 3, ll. 13-17; fig. 3. Accommodating chamber 2 has a
height substantially equal to the thickness of band B, and is bounded on the
upper side by partition wall 3, and on the lower side by wall 5. Ikeda, col. 3,
ll. 18-20, 35; fig. 3. Wall 5 contains slits 5a that form a cantilevered flexible
locking piece 5b having saw-tooth-shaped locking protrusions 5c on its inner
surface. Ikeda, col. 3, ll. 34-39; fig. 3. In operation, a user inserts end
portion B′ of band B through opening 1a of inserting chamber 1 so that it
exits through opening 1b. Ikeda, col. 3, ll. 44-49; fig. 4(a). Then the user
passes band B around the items to be bundled, inserts end portion B′ into
opening 2a of accommodating chamber 2, and further inserts end portion B′
so that the locking protrusions 5c engage recesses 6 of band B, which
“positively prevents the end portion B′ from slipping out of opening 2a.”
Ikeda, col. 3, ll. 53-67; figs. 4(b), 4(c). Thus, the flexible locking piece 5b of
Ikeda’s bundling fastener permits longitudinal movement of the tie (band B)
in only one direction rather than in two directions.
Appeal 2009-007763
Application 10/835,864

5
Because the claimed non-binding friction tab must permit
bidirectional longitudinal movement of the flexible tie, Ikeda does not
disclose a non-binding friction tab as called for in independent claim 1.
Appellant correctly points out that the rejections based on Ikeda in
combination with another reference (i.e., Rodman or Wollar) are based on
the same erroneous finding that Ikeda discloses a non-binding friction tab,
and the other references are not used to correct this deficiency. App. Br. 8-
9. Thus, these rejections are in error for the reasons explained in the
analysis of claim 1, supra.

Rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-16, and 31-33 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Geiger
The Examiner’s determination of anticipation is based in part on the
finding that Geiger discloses a support (saddle mount 16a) with an aperture
(throughway 86) and having a non-binding friction tab (upstanding tension
tab 90) in the aperture. Ans. 4.
Appellant argues claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-16, and 31-33 as a group.
App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2. We select claim 1 as the representative claim,
and claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-16, and 31-33 stand or fall with claim 1. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellant contends that Geiger’s friction tab
(upstanding tension tab 90) is spaced apart from either of the inner apertures
84 located in saddle mount 16a, and therefore is not “in” those apertures as
called for in claim 1. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2.
The issue before us is whether Geiger discloses a non-binding friction
tab positioned in the aperture of the support as called for in independent
claim 1.
Appeal 2009-007763
Application 10/835,864

6
Appellant’s contention that Geiger’s non-binding friction tab
(upstanding tension tab 90) is not in the aperture of the support refers to
inner apertures 84 as corresponding to the claimed aperture. The Examiner
found, however, that Geiger’s throughway 86, not what Geiger terms as
inner apertures 84, corresponds to the aperture of claim 1. Ans. 4.
Geiger discloses that inner apertures 84 and side apertures 76 create
“a throughway 86 for receiving and guiding the cable tie 56,” and that
upstanding tension tab 90 is positioned so that its distal end 92 applies a
small amount of friction to the conventional cable tie 56. Geiger, col. 8,
ll. 25-28, 33-40; fig. 14b. Appellant’s contention relating to Geiger’s inner
apertures 84 fails to address the Examiner’s finding that Geiger’s
throughway 86 is the claimed aperture. Thus, we agree with the Examiner
that Geiger discloses a non-binding friction tab (upstanding tension tab 90)
positioned in the aperture (throughway 86) of the support (saddle mount
16a).
Appellant also contends that Geiger does not disclose “spaced apart
shoulders.” App. Br. 7. This limitation is not contained within the claims,
and as the Examiner correctly points out, while this limitation is present in
Appellant’s Specification, such limitation is not read into the claims.
Ans. 10.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ikeda, claims 3-5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ikeda and Rodman; and claims 6-8, 10-12, 14-
16, and 31-33 as unpatentable over Ikeda and Wollar.
Appeal 2009-007763
Application 10/835,864

7
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to rejection claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-
12, 14-16, and 31-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Geiger.

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) (2007).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

nhl

RYAN KROMHOLZ & MANION, S.C.
POST OFFICE BOX 26618
MILWAUKEE WI 53226