PTAB

IPR2024-00178

AfFordable Wire ManageMent LLC v. Cambria County AsSociATION for BLind Handicapped Inc

Title: Cable Hanger System for Solar and Electrical Industries
Brief Description: The ’291 patent relates to a cable management system for use in solar, mining, and electrical industries. The system uses cable hangers suspended from a messenger wire, where each hanger has multiple, separated cable-carrying surfaces to organize and support different types of electrical and data cables.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Caveney (Patent 7,520,476).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Caveney discloses a multi-tiered cable support system for high-performance cabling that meets the limitations of independent claim 1. Caveney’s hanger features a plurality of cable-carrying surfaces ("cable support members") that are separated by a vertical "hanger plate," which Petitioner contended serves as the claimed "cable carrier divider."
- Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be motivated to apply Caveney's well-established cable management system to solar installations to address the same fundamental problems of cable support and organization. The principles are directly transferable from general electrical applications to the solar industry, which faces common wire management challenges.
- Expectation of Success: Applying Caveney's known hanger design, which addresses common issues in wire management, to the similar technical field of solar power would be a routine implementation with a high and predictable likelihood of success.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Caveney (Patent 7,520,476), Almy (Application # 2010/0139731).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Almy explicitly teaches a "wire-based hanging wire-way" for supporting bundles of electrical cables from photovoltaic modules in a solar plant. Caveney provides a more robust, multi-tiered hanger with superior separation capabilities compared to Almy's simple wire loops.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Caveney's multi-tiered hanger with Almy's solar application to create an improved system. The motivation was to replace Almy's basic wire loops with Caveney's more structured hanger to achieve better separation of current-carrying and data cables, a known benefit for preventing crosstalk and improving system robustness.
- Expectation of Success: Replacing one type of hanger with another, more advanced hanger to gain known benefits is a standard design choice, making the combination's success highly predictable and the implementation routine.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Carr (Patent 2,384,440), Almy (Application # 2010/0139731).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Carr teaches a rigid cable hanger constructed from a single steel strip, formed into two cable-carrying loops (L1, L2) separated by an inverted loop (L3) that acts as a divider. The hanger includes a "helical-shaped hook" (spiral gripper) and a "hook portion" (locking hook) for secure attachment to a messenger wire. Almy again provides the context of a solar plant wire management system.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to substitute Carr's rigid, purpose-built hanger for the simple wire loops in Almy's solar system. This would provide a more durable and reliable solution for long-term cable support and separation, preventing induction effects and deformation, which are benefits explicitly taught by Carr.
- Key Aspects: Petitioner asserted this ground is particularly strong because the Patent Owner overcame an Examiner's rejection based on Carr during prosecution by submitting an inventor declaration that such hangers had never been used in the solar industry. Petitioner argued this declaration is demonstrably false in light of Almy, which explicitly teaches such systems for solar applications.

Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) is improper. Grounds 1 and 2 rely on Caveney and Almy, references the Examiner never considered. For Ground 3, which uses the previously-cited Carr reference, Petitioner contended that the Examiner committed a material error by overlooking the broad applicability of Carr and relying on a factually incorrect inventor declaration to allow the claims. This error, compounded by the new combination with Almy, warrants a fresh review.
Petitioner also argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv. The parallel litigation is in its earliest stage, with no answer filed, no discovery conducted, and a trial date set for December 2025, which is eight months after the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision (FWD). Petitioner further stipulated that if the inter partes review (IPR) is instituted, it will not pursue the same invalidity grounds in the district court, mitigating concerns of duplicative efforts.

Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-10, 14-22, and 24-25 of the ’291 patent as unpatentable.