MARK ANTONUCCI

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 7, 2021

2020001071 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 7, 2021)

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.
15/281,864 09/30/2016 MARK ANTONUCCI 01438-Antonucci 3276
122500 7590 01/07/2021
The Humphries Law Firm, P.C.
1904 Eastwood Road, Suite 310A
Wilmington, NC 28403
EXAMINER
GUSHI, ROSS N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2833
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/07/2021 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):
contact@kinglawonline.com
russell@kinglawonline.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK ANTONUCCI
Appeal 2020-001071
Application 15/281,864
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, RAE LYNN P. GUEST, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21–30 and 37–39. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Mark Antonucci
(Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2020-001071
Application 15/281,864

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a push-in electrical connector. Claims 21
and 37, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
21. An electrical connector that fits into a knockout featured by
an electrical housing comprising:
a body with an interior channel running the length of the
longitudinal axis of the body;
wherein the interior channel features at least two protrusions
that define at least two grooves within the interior channel; and
said grooves are each shaped to encircle and snugly secure a
flattened cable of a first gauge inserted in a first orientation.

37. A non-metallic push-in connector for use in residential
wiring comprising:
a body with an interior channel running the length of the
longitudinal axis of the body; wherein the interior channel is
shaped to encircle an exterior surface of and thereby secure two
flattened electrical cables of a first gauge inserted in a first
orientation; wherein the interior channel further features a space
that snugly secures a cable of a second gauge inserted separately
from the cable of the first gauge in a second orientation made
accessible by rotating the connector body about a longitudinal
axis;
a flange around the exterior circumference of the body;
at least one protrusion extending outward from the exterior
surface of the body at one end of the body in a spaced relationship
to the flange;
at least one longitudinal incision traversing the connector
body from the interior channel to the exterior of the connector
body and extending from the end of the body opposite the
protrusion extending outward from the exterior surface of the
body in a spaced relationship to the flange; and a cuff having a
diameter equal to or less than the diameter of the exterior surface
of the body; and
teeth featured in the interior channel, the teeth being
configured to grip a cable inserted into the interior channel of the
connector body.
Appeal 2020-001071
Application 15/281,864

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Sachs US 3,056,852 Oct. 2, 1962
Mizusawa US 4,089,496 May 16, 1978
Collins US 7,049,515 B1 May 23, 2006
Thompson US 8,357,854 B2 Jan 22, 2013

REJECTIONS
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
21, 22 102(a)(1) Collins
23, 24, 27–30 103 Collins
21–25, 27–30 103 Thompson, Mizusawa
26, 37–39 103 Thompson, Mizusawa,
Sachs

OPINION
Rejections over Collins
We need address only the sole independent claim among claims 21–
24 and 27–30, i.e., claim 21. That claim requires an electrical connector
having an interior channel with at least two protrusions that define at least
two grooves each shaped to encircle and snugly secure a flattened cable.
“Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be
disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior
art reference.” Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868
F.2d 1251, 1255–56 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Collins discloses a grommet “that can be inserted into a hole in a
housing wall of an electrical device through which one or more electrical
Appeal 2020-001071
Application 15/281,864

4
connectors exit to thereby seal the hole from the exterior environment.”
(col. 1, ll. 8–11). The grommet (100) comprises an aperture (120) which
generally resembles a three-leaf clover but can be circular (col. 3, l. 66 –
col. 4, l. 7; Figs. 7, 19). The aperture (120) has sidewalls configured to
conform around electrical connectors (122) when the grommet (100) is
positioned within a hole (114) in a housing wall portion (160) (col. 4, ll. 31–
39; col. 5, ll. 46–52; Figs. 16, 17).
The Examiner finds that Collins’s apertures (120) “are each inherently
shaped to encircle and snugly secure a flattened cable of a first gauge
inserted in a first orientation” (Final Rej. 5). In support of that finding, the
Examiner provides a marked-up copy of Collins’s Fig. 10 which shows a
flattened cable inserted into Collins’s three-leaf clover-shaped aperture (120)
and touching the sidewalls of the aperture (120) only at the cable’s ends
(Final Rej. 5, 9).
“[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Translogic
Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007), quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Appellant’s Specification states:
When this applicant uses the phrase "fits securely" or "snugly" the
Applicant means the cables are held in place snugly enough by the
physical structures, i.e. the grooves 6 and the longitudinal
protrusions 4, that the cables cannot be easily removed from the
connector body. More specifically, when cables of a first gauge are
inserted into the interior channel 3, the grooves 6 formed by the
interior of the body and the longitudinal protrusions 4 contact and
snugly secure the wire(s) or cable(s) in more than one dimension,
direction or axis, i.e., the wire(s) or cable(s) contact the inner surface
of the grooves 6 as well as longitudinal protrusions 4 and are thereby
securely held in place from more than one side or angle.

Appeal 2020-001071
Application 15/281,864

5
The Examiner does not address the meaning of “snugly” set forth in
the Appellant’s Specification and establish that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim term “encircle and snugly secure” consistent with
that meaning includes a flattened cable inserted into Collins’s three-leaf
clover-shaped aperture (120) such that only the ends of the cable touch the
aperture (120)’s sidewalls.
We therefore reverse the rejections over Collins.2
Rejections over Thompson in view of Mizusawa and
over Thompson in view of Mizusawa and Sachs

We need address only the independent claims (21 and 37). Claim 21
requires an electrical connector having an interior channel with at least two
protrusions that define at least two grooves each shaped to encircle and
snugly secure a flattened cable. Claim 37 requires a non-metallic push-in
connector comprising an interior channel “shaped to encircle an exterior
surface of and thereby secure two flattened electrical cables of a first gauge
inserted in a first orientation; wherein the interior channel further features a
space that snugly secures a cable of a second gauge inserted separately from
the cable of the first gauge in a second orientation made accessible by
rotating the connector body about a longitudinal axis.”
Thompson discloses an elastomeric plug (13) for sealing cables (4)
exiting a circular conduit (6) through passages (32) in the plug (13) (col. 1

2 In the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of dependent claims 23, 24, and 27–
30 over Collins, the Examiner does not provide any obviousness rationale
regarding the deficiency in Collins as to the independent claim (Final
Rej. 10–11).
Appeal 2020-001071
Application 15/281,864

6
ll. 58–61; col. 4, ll. 54–60). The passages (32) vary in quantity, arrangement,
and size according of the type and shape of the cables (4) (col. 4, ll. 60–63).
Mizusawa discloses a cord grommet for fastening an electrical cord
stably to a perforation in an electrical appliance case (col. 1, ll. 5–11). The
grommet comprises a female member (1) and a male member (11) (col. 3,
ll. 17–21, 38; Fig. 1). The female member (1) has a flange (4) at one end and
has at the other end a wall (2) with an oblong hole (5) for passage of a cord
(col. 3, ll. 21–26). The male member (11) comprises a shaft (13) which is for
rotatable insertion into the cavity of the tube (3) of the female member (1)
and has throughout its length an oblong hole (15) identical in cross-sectional
shape to the female member (1)’s oblong hole (5) (col. 3, ll. 38–45). The
female (1) and male (11) members are brought into union with their oblong
holes (5, 15) in registration with each other, a flexible cord having two
parallel wires with an oblong cross-section is passed through the oblong
holes (5, 15), and then the cord is immobilized in a twisted state by rotating
the male member (11) relative to the female member (1) (col. 4, ll. 5–39;
Figs. 12A, 13A).
Regarding claim 21, the Examiner finds, in reliance upon a marked-up
copy of Mizusawa’s Figure 7, that “Mizusawa discloses a cord grommet
wherein the interior channel 15 is symmetrically partitioned by
projections 20 into two grooves each shaped to secure a flattened cable of a
first gauge” (Final Rej. 13). Mizusawa’s Figure 7 shows male member (11)’s
oblong hole 15 having on its inner face a projection (20) so its cross section
exactly conforms with the outside cross-section of a cord held therein,
thereby preventing the cord from being twisted within the hole (col. 5,
ll. 32–37). The Examiner’s markup adds to that figure, on each side of the
Appeal 2020-001071
Application 15/281,864

7
projection (20), a flattened cable which touches the surrounding wall only at
the cable’s ends (Final Rej. 15). The Examiner does not address the
Appellant’s Specification’s meaning of “snugly” set forth above and
establish that flattened cables inserted into Mizusawa’s oblong hole 15 such
that only the ends of the cables touch the oblong hole’s sidewalls are snugly
secure, as required by the Appellant’s claim 21, according to the broadest
reasonable interpretation of that term consistent with the Appellant’s
Specification.
With respect to the claim 37 limitation that “the interior channel
further features a space that snugly secures a cable of a second gauge
inserted separately from the cable of the first gauge in a second orientation
made accessible by rotating the connector body about a longitudinal axis,”
the Examiner relies upon a marked-up copy of Mizusawa’s Figure 7 wherein
a flattened cable is inserted into oblong hole 15 such that it is oriented
perpendicularly to the direction of the two flattened cables in the previously-
discussed marked-up copy of that figure and touches the surrounding wall
only at the cable’s ends (Final Rej. 16, 22). The Examiner, however, does
not establish that the flattened cable touching the surrounding wall only at
the cable’s ends in the marked-up figure is snugly secure according to the
broadest reasonable interpretation of that term consistent with the
Appellant’s Specification.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejections over Thompson in view of
Mizusawa and over Thompson in view of Mizusawa and Sachs.3

3 The Examiner relies upon Sachs (col. 2, ll. 47–51) only for a disclosure of
ribs (23–26) which the Examiner considers to correspond to the teeth in the
Appellant’s claim 37 (Final Rej. 22).
Appeal 2020-001071
Application 15/281,864

8
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21–30 and 37–39 is
REVERSED.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21, 22 102(a)(1) Collins 21, 22
23, 24, 27–
30
103 Collins 23, 24, 27–
30
21–25, 27–
30
103 Thompson,
Mizusawa
21–25, 27–
30
26, 37–39 103 Thompson,
Mizusawa, Sachs
26, 37–39
Overall
Outcome
21–30, 37–
39

REVERSED