NEXANS

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 1, 2021

2020006655 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 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.
14/880,328 10/12/2015 Gerhard Lindner 979-815 4889
39600 7590 07/01/2021
SOFER & HAROUN LLP.
215 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1301
NEW YORK, NY 10016
EXAMINER
MORRIS, TAYLOR L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2021 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):
dockets@soferharoun.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GERHARD LINDNER and HERMANN TEICHER
Appeal 2020-006655
Application 14/880,328
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, DANIEL S. SONG, and
MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SONG, 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 1–3. 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(a). The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Nexans. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-006655
Application 14/880,328

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an arrangement for fastening an elongated
object in a motor vehicle. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. Arrangement for fastening at least one elongated object in
a motor vehicle comprising:
a releasable locking mechanism having a receiving
element fastened, in a mounting position, to at least one fixed
point of said elongated object, said receiving element having an
opening;
said releasable locking mechanism also having a fastening
element that is configured to be connected to said receiving
element, and said fastening element also being connected to the
elongated object,
wherein the fastening element, composed of a bendable
material, has an unlocking lever and a locking wedge and a safety
stirrup,
wherein in a mounting position of the bendable fastening
element, said locking wedge of said unlocking lever engages in
said opening of the receiving element, said unlocking lever
partially protrudes from the fastening element and is constructed
as part of said fastening element between two cut away slots and
being capable of being bent aside from the receiving element
without tools to move the locking wedge out of the opening of
the receiving element,
wherein said safety stirrup is arranged on the fastening
element to limit the path of the unlocking lever during bending
the same aside from the receiving element.
Appeal Br. 15–16 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Appeal 2020-006655
Application 14/880,328

3
Name Reference Date
Suzuki US 5,494,245 Feb. 27, 1996
Brown US 7,377,472 B2 May 27, 2008
Sakata US 8,013,248 B2 Sept. 6, 2011
OPINION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Brown and Sakata. Final Act. 4. The
Examiner finds that Suzuki discloses an arrangement for fastening an
elongated object substantially as claimed, including the recited fastening
element with an unlocking lever, a locking wedge, and a safety stirrup.
Final Act. 4; see also Final Act. 6 (Fig. 8 of Suzuki with annotation “S”).
The Examiner finds that Suzuki “fails to disclose an unlocking lever that
partially protrudes from the fastening element and is capable of being bent
aside from the receiving element without tools to move the locking wedge
out of the opening of the receiving element.” Final Act. 4–5.
The Examiner finds that Brown discloses a partially protruding
unlocking lever to conclude that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to:
[M]odify the unlocking lever in Suzuki with the manual
accessibility from Brown in order to provide a lever which
extends outside of an opening a distance sufficient for a person
to manually actuate a locking wedge out of an opening, thereby
advantageously enabling a fastening element to be removed or
adjusted when necessary.
Final Act. 5 (citing Brown, col. 10, ll. 12–16; Fig. 17).
The Examiner further finds that Suzuki fails to disclose “an unlocking
lever constructed between two cut away slots,” but finds that Sakata
discloses an unlocking lever with such construction to conclude that claim 1
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill. Final Act. 5 (citing
Appeal 2020-006655
Application 14/880,328

4
Sakata Fig. 1; col. 5, ll. 31–42; Suzuki, col. 4, ll. 26–35). We agree with the
Examiner and address the Appellant’s arguments infra.
The Appellant initially argues that “Suzuki and Brown cannot be
combined as suggested, as the placing of a teeth connection as per Brown to
the clip of Suzuki does not appear to be possible or even of any particular
use.” Appeal Br. 10. However, this argument is unpersuasive because the
rejection does not propose providing a teeth connection, but rather, extends
the resilient locking arm 40 of Suzuki such that it protrudes in the manner
disclosed in Brown. See also Ans. 3 (“the teeth of Brown are not being used
in the modification.”).
The Appellant also argues that “Suzuki is not concerned at all with a
‘releasable’ locking mechanism” and that its retainer clip is destroyed upon
removal because it does not mention unlocking of the retainer clip or
disclose how it may be unlocked. Appeal Br. 10, 12. Based thereon, the
Appellant argues that “[i]t is not obvious to add any lever (Brown or
otherwise) to release a fixed clip as per Suzuki absent using the present
claims as a blueprint.” Appeal Br. 10.
However, as the Examiner points out, Suzuki discloses the provision
of “a strong, fatigue-resistant hinge” and “a strong, secure connection
between the two clip portions even after repeated openings and closings,”
thereby suggesting removability and reusability of its retainer clip. Suzuki,
col. 1, ll. 36–38, 51–54 (emphasis added); see also Ans. 4. Accordingly, we
agree with the Examiner that one having ordinary skill in the art would find
it obvious to modify the resilient locking arm/lever of Suzuki in view of
Brown “to further increase this reusability to [Suzuki’s] locking structure.”
Ans. 4 (citing Suzuki, col. 1, ll. 36–67); see also Ans. 8.
Appeal 2020-006655
Application 14/880,328

5
The Appellant further argues that even if the references are combined,
the combination still fails to disclose a safety stirrup. Appeal Br. 11. In
particular, the Appellant argues that because Suzuki does not provide any
suggestion to extend its locking arm, “there is no safety stirrup mentioned in
Suzuki.” Appeal Br. 12. In addition, the Appellant argues that the distal
ends 60a and 60b of Brown are not safety stirrups as they are not needed to
limit the movement of the pawls 62 during actuation, and that a stirrup
“would hinder the actioning of the distal ends.” Appeal Br. 11, 13.
However, the Examiner is correct that claim 1 “only requires a
structure . . . that is located such that the lever would contact it at some point
along its bending arc.” Ans. 5. As such, we agree with the Examiner that
Suzuki “has a stirrup structure located in a bending path of its lever.” Ans.
5–6 (referring to annotated element “S” in Fig. 8 of Suzuki). Moreover,
although the Appellant’s argument directed to Brown is misdirected because
Suzuki already discloses a stirrup, this argument is nonetheless unpersuasive
because the distal ends 60a and 60b of Brown function to limit the
movement of its pawl 62. See Brown Figs. 10, 11, 13, 15, 17; Ans. 5.
Accordingly, this line of argument is unpersuasive because, as the Examiner
finds, “[b]oth Suzuki and Brown teach this feature.” Ans. 5.
The Appellant also asserts that “claim 1 includes a bendable fastening
element (4) which, in the mounting position, is bent around the elongated
object (1). In other words, the element (4) itself is bendable so it needs no
special form or adaption to a special form, e.g. the form of the object 1.”2

2 Although the following does not impact the disposition of the appeal, the
Specification is inconsistent in its identification of elements “2” and “4.” In
particular, element “2” is referred to as a “fastening element,” as well as
Appeal 2020-006655
Application 14/880,328

6
Appeal Br. 11. Accordingly, the Appellant asserts that claim 1 “is contrary
to the retainer clip of Suzuki which is not bendable around the wiring
harness (20) but it has two semi-cylindrical clip portions 12 and 14.”
Appeal Br. 12 (citing Suzuki, col. 2, ll. 60–61). The Appellant further
asserts that “Brown does not show any fastening element which can be
formed around a pipe or cable.” Appeal Br. 12.
However, this argument is also unpersuasive because, as the Examiner
explains, although claim 1 recites that the fastening element is “composed of
a bendable material,” it “does not contain any language directed towards it
being bent around a wiring harness” such that “a reference only has to
disclose a fastening element formed of a bendable material” to satisfy the
limitation. Ans. 7. Thus, as the Examiner further explains, Suzuki discloses
flexible webs 16 and that its clip portions 12 and 14 are made of the same
Nylon 66 material, such that “it is clear that the structure of Suzuki is formed
of a flexible material and its fastening element 10 has a portion which
enables it to flex.” Ans. 7 (citing Suzuki, col. 2, ll. 50–51); see also Suzuki,
col. 1, ll. 38–43, 55–58.
Lastly, the Appellant asserts that “the combination is not obvious and
there is no motivation to combine the references as suggested based on the
teachings of Brown and Suzuki themselves.” Appeal Br. 14. However, an
explicit teaching or suggestion in the references is not a requirement in
determining obviousness, and the Examiner has provided a reason with

“fastening means.” Spec. 4, ll. 17–21; 5, ll. 6–15. Confusingly, the
Specification also refers to element “4” as a “fastening means.” Spec. 4, ll.
19–20, 26–28. It appears that these terms refer to the same component “2”
of which element “4” is a sub-component.
Appeal 2020-006655
Application 14/880,328

7
rational underpinnings for extending Suzuki’s locking arm 40, which is
sufficient to support the conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex,
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see Final Act. 5.
Therefore, in view of the above considerations, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. The Appellant does not
submit any arguments directed to the limitations of claims 2 and 3 that
depend from claim 1. Accordingly, claims 2 and 3 fall with claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3 103 Suzuki, Brown,
Sakata
1–3

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