PTAB again holds that motivation to combine does not exist when art possesses the benefit, prior to modification

Ex parte Allen, Appeal No. 2018-008208, July 1, 2020.  Allen’s claims were directed to a method of introducing a cable or plurality of cables into a longitudinally extending conduit using a pliant material having a lower coefficient of friction than the cable.  The Examiner rejected the claims over a combination of art, the primary reference of which being alleged to meet the recitations of the claims but for the attachment of the pliant material.  Appellant argued that the primary reference disclosed application of lubrication to the cable, rendering the need for attachment of a pliant material superfluous.  PTAB sided with Appellant:

However, as Conti already discloses an effective supply quantity of lubricant that is “continuously fed” during the cable installation process in order to reduce friction and the pulling force required to install the cable, we fail to see, and the Examiner fails to adequately explain, why modifying Conti’s cable to include a pliant material attached to the cable, as taught by the “unlubricated system” of Holland, would resolve the problems suggested by the Examiner associated with any imperfections in lubrication systems…As the Examiner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the combined teachings of [the prior art] disclose the [claimed] cable introduction method…

Three times makes it a thing, right?