PTAB

IPR2024-00139

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

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Grounding System for Electrical Power Lines
Brief Description: The ’551 patent discloses a grounding system for electrical cables, such as those in a power grid or solar facility. The system uses existing conductive support components, including piles and mounting assemblies, along with a "multi-function line"—defined as a conductive tension member that supports the cables—to create a continuous ground path without requiring splices.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Grushkowitz (Patent 10,003,298).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Grushkowitz discloses every element of the challenged claims. Grushkowitz teaches a support and grounding system for solar energy installations comprising vertically-oriented piles, mounting brackets, and a cable tray. Petitioner asserted that Grushkowitz’s use of conductive components (e.g., galvanized steel) for the piles, brackets, and tray creates the claimed "continuous ground path." The central argument was that Grushkowitz's conductive cable tray, which is under tension and supports cables, meets the ’551 patent's express definition of a "multi-function line."
- Motivation to Combine: Not applicable (single reference ground). The argument relied on the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to understand the inherent properties and functions of the disclosed system.
- Expectation of Success: Not applicable (single reference ground).

Prior Art Relied Upon: CAB Website (a 2015 archived website from the Patent Owner) and CAB Whitepaper (a 2014 whitepaper linked from the website).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that the Patent Owner’s own prior art website and its associated whitepaper disclose the claimed grounding system. The references depict a solar cable management system using spaced metal piles, metal mounting brackets/clamps, and a "grounded steel messenger wire" to support current-carrying cables. Petitioner argued this bare metal messenger wire is conductive, under tension, and supports cables, thereby constituting the claimed "multi-function line." The coupled conductive components were alleged to form the claimed grounding system with a continuous electrical path to ground.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the CAB Website and Whitepaper because they concern the same subject matter and products. The Website explicitly linked to, quoted, and encouraged visitors to download the Whitepaper for more detailed information and to ensure compliance with the National Electrical Code (NEC).
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success as the references are complementary, describe the same commercial system, and the Whitepaper provides technical details for the system shown on the Website.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Petersen (Patent 3,001,749).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Petersen, which dates to 1961, teaches a support and grounding system for aerial cables. Petersen discloses a metallic "pole top extension bracket" (the mounting assembly) for a utility pole (the pile) that includes a "ground clamp means" to support a "neutral messenger cable." Petitioner asserted this neutral messenger cable is inherently a conductive tension member supporting other wires, thus meeting the definition of a "multi-function line." The use of all-metallic parts in Petersen’s assembly was argued to create the claimed continuous conductive path for grounding.
- Motivation to Combine: Not applicable (single reference ground). The argument relied on a POSITA’s knowledge to understand that Petersen’s system would be used on a plurality of spaced poles and that its metallic components are inherently conductive.
- Expectation of Success: Not applicable (single reference ground).
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges for claims 13-17 based on combining Petersen or the CAB references with MacLean (a 2010 hardware catalog). These grounds argued it would have been obvious to add a conductive "thimble-eye" terminal support from MacLean to the primary systems to terminate the messenger wire, as required by the NEC and common industry practice.

"multi-function line": Petitioner argued this term is expressly defined by the patentee as "a tension member that supports current wires and/or cable hangers and is conductive." This construction was central to all grounds, as Petitioner contended that conventional, well-known components like the cable tray in Grushkowitz and the messenger wires in the CAB references and Petersen fully satisfy this definition, thereby rendering the core novelty of the ’551 patent obvious.

Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be improper under both 35 U.S.C. §325(d) and the Fintiv factors.
§325(d): The grounds raised in the petition were argued not to be the same or substantially the same as those considered during prosecution. None of the primary references (Grushkowitz, Petersen, CAB Website, CAB Whitepaper, MacLean) were cited or considered by the Examiner.
Fintiv Factors: Petitioner asserted that the factors weigh in favor of institution. The parallel district court litigation was in its early stages with no substantive orders or discovery. The scheduled trial date was eight months after the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision in the IPR. Petitioner also stipulated that if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue the same invalidity grounds in the district court.

Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-19 of the ’551 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.