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

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2024-00178
• Patent #: 11,349,291
• Filed: November 10, 2023
• Petitioner(s): Affordable Wire Management, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Cambria County Association for the Blind and Handicapped, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-10, 14-22, and 24-25

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Cable Hanger and Management System
• Brief Description: The ’291 patent discloses a cable management system using hangers suspended from a messenger wire to organize a plurality of electrical cables, particularly those extending from solar panels. The hangers feature multiple distinct cable carrying surfaces, separated by dividers, to manage and separate different types of wires such as AC, DC, and data cables.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Caveney - Claims 1-5 and 9-10 are obvious over Caveney.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Caveney (Patent 7,520,476).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Caveney taught a multi-tiered cable support system for organizing high-performance electrical cables. This system included hangers with a vertical "hanger plate" and multiple "cable support members" attached in tiers. Petitioner contended that these support members are the claimed "plurality of cable carrying surfaces" and the vertical hanger plate separating them constitutes the claimed "cable carrier divider." Caveney’s explicit teaching of hangers configurable with up to six or more support members was argued to render claims 2-4 (requiring at least three, four, or five surfaces) obvious. Furthermore, Petitioner asserted that any of Caveney’s surfaces could support a data carrier (claim 9) and a POSITA would place it on an upper tier, closer to the support structure, to minimize electrical interference from power cables on lower tiers (claim 10).
  • Motivation to Combine: While Caveney did not explicitly mention solar panels, Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have been motivated to apply its well-known cable management system to the solar industry to solve the analogous problem of organizing and separating numerous electrical cables. This was presented as a predictable application of a known technology to a similar field.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because applying Caveney’s system involved routine implementation of standard wire management techniques to address common challenges of cable support and separation that were not unique to the solar industry.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Caveney and Almy - Claims 14-18 and 21-22 are obvious over Caveney in view of Almy.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Caveney (Patent 7,520,476) and Almy (Application # 2010/0139731).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Almy supplied the explicit solar context missing from Caveney. Almy taught a "wire-based hanging wire-way" system using a messenger wire specifically for supporting bundles of electrical cables extending between photovoltaic modules in a solar plant. However, Almy’s system used simple "support loops" which were insufficient for separating different cable types. Caveney provided the claimed multi-tiered hanger structure with distinct, separated cable carrying surfaces. The combination of Almy's solar plant system with Caveney's hanger was argued to meet all limitations of independent claim 14. The dependent claims were met by Caveney’s teachings as detailed in Ground 1.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Almy’s solar-specific system with Caveney’s more robust, multi-surface hanger to improve wire organization and solve the known problem of separating AC, DC, and data cables. Petitioner contended this combination was obvious because it involved replacing Almy’s simple hanger with a superior, known hanger from Caveney to achieve the predictable benefit of better cable separation.
  • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because the teachings were highly compatible, employing well-known overhead wire management devices. The combination represented a simple substitution of components to improve a known system for a known purpose.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Carr and Almy - Claims 1-10, 14-22, and 24-25 are obvious over Carr in view of Almy.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Carr (Patent 2,384,440) and Almy (Application # 2010/0139731).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented this ground to overcome the prosecution history, where the examiner allowed the claims after the Patent Owner argued messenger wire/hanger systems were not used in the solar industry. Almy, which was not before the examiner, was used to prove such systems were known for solar applications. Carr, a 1940s-era patent, taught a hanger made from a "laminated steel strip" ("high tensile strength wire") for suspension from a "supporting strand" (messenger wire). Carr’s hanger included two "open loops" ("U-shaped configurations") for carrying separate cables, an inverted loop between them serving as a "cable carrier divider," and opposing shoulders with a "helical-shaped hook" (spiral gripper) and a "hook portion" (locking hook) to secure the hanger.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, knowing from Almy that messenger wire systems were used in solar plants, would look to well-known hanger designs like Carr's to improve upon Almy's simple wire loops. Carr provided a cheap, robust, and readily available design for separating aerial cables to prevent induction, a problem analogous to separating cable types in solar installations.
  • Key Aspects: This ground’s core purpose was to demonstrate that the examiner made a material error by accepting an unsupported declaration. Petitioner argued Almy proved the premise of the declaration was false, making the application of a very old hanger design from Carr to a solar system obvious.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), asserting that the grounds were not the same or substantially the same as those considered during prosecution. Specifically, neither Caveney nor Almy were cited or considered. Further, the combination of Carr and Almy was never before the examiner and was presented to correct a material error in the prosecution record.
• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, stating that the parallel district court litigation was in its earliest stages, with the trial scheduled for December 2025, eight months after the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision. Petitioner noted that minimal resources had been invested in the litigation and stipulated that it would not pursue the same invalidity grounds in district court if the IPR is instituted.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-10, 14-22, and 24-25 of Patent 11,349,291 as unpatentable.