Opinion ID: 2722157
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The claimed “retainers”

Text: Claim 1 requires retainers “secured in each of said openings in said inbound end for accepting separate cables.” Arlington argues that the combination of Grindle with Schnittker (a) lacks a retainer entirely, (b) results merely in retainers secured to each opening of the connector, and (c) would not have been obvious because there was no motivation to combine and because the combination requires substantial reconstruction of the prior art. The Board found that Grindle is a duplex connector with “parallel inlets . . . adapted to receive armor clad electrical wires” that uses a set screw to hold the cables in place. J.A. 12–14; see also Grindle fig. 1. The Board further found that Schnittker discloses a single-cable connector with a metal grounding ring with tangs that engage a metal-clad cable. J.A. 14–15; see also Schnittker col. 2 ll. 22–31. We see no error in these factual findings. The Board in affirming the examiner’s final rejection found it obvious to combine Grindle and Schnittker, substituting Grindle’s single set screw with two grounding rings as taught by Schnittker, with one grounding ring per cable. J.A. 58. The Board reasoned that the resulting combination yielded retainers “secured in each of said openings in said inbound end for accepting separate cables” and thus rendered the limitation obvious. J.A. 23–35. Arlington argues that the examiner’s rejection was improper because Schnittker’s grounding ring cannot be a retainer because it merely grounds a metal-clad cable rather than restricting its removal. The Board disagreed, finding that Schnittker discloses that the grounding ring has a number of tangs that, when the grommet is tightened, “engage the outer surface . . . of [a] metal clad cable . . . to create a force which resists a rearward force ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC. 7 that could pull the cable out of the connector . . . .” J.A. 15. This finding is supported by substantial evidence in Schnittker’s disclosure. See, e.g., Schnittker col. 5 l. 66– col. 6 l. 2 (tangs are shaped and arranged “to aid in gripping the metal clad cable . . . .”), id. at col. 7 ll. 48–53 (grounding ring cannot move rearwardly once a gland nut is tightened to compress a grommet). Accordingly, we see no error in the Board’s conclusion that the combination of Schnittker with Grindle would have included the claimed retainer. Arlington also argues that Schnittker’s grounding ring is not in the “opening in said inbound end.” Arlington first argues that the combination results in the grounding ring being secured “to” the opening rather than “in” the opening. Arlington further argues that the grounding ring cannot be in the “inbound end” of the connector because the ring is placed towards the back of the connector disclosed in Schnittker. Both arguments fail, however, because Arlington focuses only on the spatial argument of components within the Schnittkertype connector separately from the Grindle-type connector. The proper focus is on the Grindle-Schnittker combination. The examiner’s combination involves placing two Schnittker-type connectors on the inbound end of a Grindle-type duplex connector. In that context, the connector’s “housing” is the Grindle-type duplex connector together with two of the Schnittker-type connectors, and we find no error in the Board’s conclusion that the grounding rings of Schnittker are secured in the inbound end of that housing as a whole. This court further sees no error in the Board’s affirmance of the examiner’s determination that substitution of Grindle’s set screw with the Schnittker-type retainers merely was the substitution of one known element for another. Arlington contends that there was no motivation to combine, but the Board specifically noted that the “combination would maintain equal resistance on each 8 ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC. inlet in a way that the single screw of Grindle could not.” J.A. 31. Arlington does not attack the Board’s explanation, and we see no error in it. Arlington further contends that the combination of Grindle with Schnittker-type retainers would not have been obvious because the combination of Grindle and Schnittker would require “substantial reengineering,” citing In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959). However, Arlington itself notes that the combination requires merely threading the parallel openings in Grindle to accept the connectors disclosed in Schnittker, Appellant’s Br. 47, a modification that hardly amounts to substantial reengineering. Arlington finally argues that the time-span between the prior art and the filing date of the ’831 patent’s application undermines any “obvious to try” inference, citing to Leo Pharma. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013). However, the Board’s decision was not predicated on an “obvious to try” rationale and the facts are unlike those in Leo. Here, the art is not unpredictable and Arlington does not argue that the prior art taught away from the combination.