Affordable Wire Management LLC v. Cambria County Association For Blind Handicapped Inc

Prosecution History analysis

Examiner Search analysis

Invalidity Framework analysis

Petition

Petition Analysis

## 1. Case Identification
- Case #: [IPR2024-00139](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-00139)
- Patent #: [10,177,551](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/10177551)
- Filed: November 3, 2023
- Petitioner(s): [Affordable Wire Management, LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/affordable-wire-management-llc)
- Patent Owner(s): [Cambria County Association for the Blind and Handicapped, Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/cambria-county-association-for-blind-handicapped-inc)
- Challenged Claims: 1-19

## 2. Patent Overview
- Title: Grounding System for Electrical Power Lines
- Brief Description: The ’551 patent describes a system for grounding electrical power lines, such as those in a solar power facility, by using existing support system components. The alleged invention uses a conductive tension member, termed a "multi-function line," coupled to conductive piles via mounting assemblies to create a continuous ground path, thereby obviating the need for separate grounding splices.

## 3. Grounds for Unpatentability

#### Ground 1: Obviousness over Grushkowitz - Claims 1-12 and 18-19 are obvious over Grushkowitz.
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Grushkowitz](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-00139/doc/1003) (Patent 10,003,298).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
  - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued that Grushkowitz, which discloses a support and grounding system for solar energy collection, teaches every element of the challenged claims. Specifically, Petitioner asserted that Grushkowitz's conductive "cable tray" (502), which supports electrical cables between spaced, conductive piles (548) via mounting brackets (522), meets the ’551 patent's express definition of a "multi-function line." Grushkowitz described its system as comprising conductive materials (e.g., galvanized steel) arranged to provide a "continuous ground path" from the cable tray to the piles and into the earth, thus teaching the claimed grounding functionality without requiring splices.
  - **Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds):** This ground was asserted over a single reference. Petitioner contended that Grushkowitz alone, or in view of the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), renders the claims obvious because it describes a complete, integrated grounding and support system.
  - **Key Aspects:** The central argument was that the ’551 patent's only purported novelty—the "multi-function line"—was not novel at all, but rather a simple rebranding of a conventional, conductive cable tray as disclosed in Grushkowitz.

#### Ground 2: Obviousness over CAB Website and Whitepaper - Claims 1-19 are obvious over the CAB Website in view of the CAB Whitepaper.
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [CAB Website](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-00139/doc/1005) (an archived 2015 webpage from the Patent Owner) and [CAB Whitepaper](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-00139/doc/1006) (a 2014 technical document from the Patent Owner).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
  - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner contended that the Patent Owner's own prior art marketing and technical documents disclosed the claimed invention. The CAB Website and Whitepaper described a "Solar Cable Management" system using a "grounded steel messenger wire" to support solar power cables. This system included the messenger wire (a conductive tension member), metal piles, and metal brackets/clamps. Petitioner argued this combination of conductive components inherently created a grounding system and that the "grounded steel messenger wire" was a clear example of the claimed "multi-function line."
  - **Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds):** A POSITA would combine the CAB Website and Whitepaper because they concern the same subject matter and products from the same company. The Website explicitly referenced, quoted, and provided a direct link for visitors to download the Whitepaper for more detailed technical information and to ensure compliance with the National Electrical Code (NEC).
  - **Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds):** A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the references were designed to be used together to provide a complete description of the Patent Owner’s cable management products and their proper installation.

#### Ground 3: Obviousness over Petersen - Claims 1-19 are obvious over Petersen.
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Petersen](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-00139/doc/1004) (Patent 3,001,749).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
  - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued that Petersen, which dates to 1961, disclosed a support and grounding system for aerial cables. Petersen taught a metallic "pole top extension bracket" with a "ground clamp means" for securing a "neutral messenger cable." Petitioner asserted that this conductive "neutral messenger cable," which supports other wires, is a "multi-function line." The assembly of all "metallic parts" in Petersen would have been understood by a POSITA to form an integrated support and grounding system.
  - **Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds):** This ground was asserted over a single reference. Petitioner argued that it would have been obvious to a POSITA to use Petersen's system on a plurality of spaced poles, as is typical for aerial cable runs, thus arriving at the claimed invention.

- **Additional Grounds:** Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges against claims 13-17 by combining Petersen or the CAB references with [MacLean](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-00139/doc/1027) (a 2010 hardware catalog). These grounds argued that MacLean explicitly taught the use of a "conductive thimble-eye" terminal support, and a POSITA would have been motivated to add such a known component to the primary systems to ensure a robust, NEC-compliant termination of the messenger wire.

## 4. Key Claim Construction Positions
- The petition centered its arguments on the construction of the term **"multi-function line."**
  - Petitioner argued this term must be given the express definition provided by the patentee in the ’551 patent specification: "a tension member that supports current wires and/or cable hangers and is conductive."
  - This construction was critical to all grounds of unpatentability. By holding the patentee to this definition, Petitioner argued that conventional, well-known components from the prior art—such as the "cable tray" in Grushkowitz and the "messenger wire" in the CAB and Petersen references—fall squarely within the scope of the term, defeating the patent's novelty.

## 5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial
- Petitioner argued that discretionary denial of the inter partes review (IPR) would be improper.
  - **Under §325(d):** Petitioner asserted that denial was unwarranted because the primary references relied upon (Grushkowitz, Petersen, CAB Website, CAB Whitepaper, and MacLean) were neither cited nor considered by the Examiner during the original prosecution. Therefore, the petition raised new questions of patentability.
  - **Under Fintiv:** Petitioner argued the Fintiv factors strongly favored institution. The petition was filed early in a parallel district court litigation, with the court’s trial date scheduled for eight months after the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision (FWD) in the IPR. Petitioner noted that investment in the litigation was minimal and stipulated that, if the IPR were instituted, it would not pursue the same invalidity grounds in the district court case.

## 6. Relief Requested
- Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-19 of Patent 10,177,551 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Solar power grounding patent challenged: owner's own prior art cited to prove all 19 claims for a 'multi-function line' grounding system are obvious.