Opinion ID: 2722157
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The claimed “tangs”

Text: Claim 1 further requires that the retainer has tangs to “guide said separate cables toward said cylindrical outbound end in a manner that said separate cables are advanced to said outbound end.” Arlington contends that the combination of the prior art lacks “tangs” that “guide” and “advance[]” cables “toward” the outbound end. Arlington argues that the tangs of Schnittker’s grounding ring do not guide or advance the cables to the outbound end because the tangs instead merely direct the cable straight down the bore. Appellant’s Br. 52. Arlington contends that the shoulders of the Grindle-Schnittker housing, and not the tangs, actually guide the cables. Arlington further argues that the tangs cannot “advance” the cable because Schnittker’s grounding ring is not locked into place—by tightening a gland nut and grommet—until the cable already is fully inserted. Arlington ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC. 9 lastly repeats its argument that the tangs are not in the inbound end of the connector. Bridgeport counters that Arlington did not propose any construction for these terms and that under the terms’ broadest reasonable construction, the Board concluded correctly that “the inwardly extending tines of Schnittker’s grounding ring . . . incorporated into Grindle’s duplex connector would function to receive, engage, and guide or permit forward movement of the metal clad cables from the inbound end through the grounding ring and towards an outbound end, in a manner commensu- rate with the language of independent claim 1.” J.A. 25. Arlington’s arguments are not persuasive. Arlington’s argument that the examiner’s combination does not advance cables toward the outbound end, but only straight down the bore of the housing, assumes that the duplex connector must have an offset outbound end. However, an offset outbound end is not claimed. Moreover, even with an offset outbound end, straight down the bore still is “toward” the outbound end. That the shoulders of the housing provide additional guidance and advancing toward the outbound end does not negate the guidance and advancing initially provided by the tangs. Further, though a cable must already be fully inserted into Schnittker’s grounding ring before the ring is tightened and locked into place, the grounding ring’s tangs engage the cable before that point. See Schnittker at col. 7 ll. 33–37. Moreover, Arlington does not appear to have presented this particular argument to the Board in the first instance. Lastly, the argument that the tangs are not in the inbound end of the connector has been ad- dressed and rejected above.