Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01824/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01824-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wilfred Washington Holness
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE WILFRED WASHINGTON HOLNESS,

Appellant

______________________ 

2014-1824

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in No. 11/204,754.

______________________ 

Decided May 20, 2015

______________________ 

WILFRED WASHINGTON HOLNESS, Bronx, NY, pro se.

NATHAN K. KELLEY, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for 

appellee. Also represented by MEREDITH HOPE 

SCHOENFELD, COKE STEWART, THOMAS W. KRAUSE. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, REYNA, and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges.

WALLACH, Circuit Judge. 

Appellant Wilfred Holness appeals the Patent Trial 

and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) affirmance (“PTAB 

Decision”), J.A.5–18, of the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office’s (“Director”) rejection of claims 1–35 

Case: 14-1824 Document: 50-2 Page: 1 Filed: 05/20/2015
IN RE HOLNESS 2

and 37–38 of patent application No. 11/204,754 (“the ’754 

Application”) as anticipated and obvious primarily in light 

of U.S. Patent No. 4,765,613 (“Voris”) and additional prior 

art references including: 1) U.S. Patent No, 7,160,042 

(“Burrell”); 2) U.S. Patent No. 6,234,939 (“Moser”); 3) Pub. 

No. U.S. 2003/0211916 (“Capuano”); and 4) U.S. Patent 

No. 5,556,362 (“Whipps”). For the reasons set forth below, 

this court affirms. 

BACKGROUND

A. The ’754 Application 

The ’754 Application is titled “Apparatus for Isometric 

and Incremental Muscle Contractions” and is directed to 

resistance exercise machines such as leg extension 

machines found in many fitness centers. For example, 

with respect to leg extension machines, when a person is 

exercising on the machine, the exerciser will move the pad 

up to a certain point, and upon reaching that point, the 

pad will stop moving for a fixed period of time. The 

restriction of movement allows the user to work the 

muscles isometrically or by holding the weight in a fixed 

position. 

According to the ’754 Application, as the user applies 

external force “to a movable surface[1] linked to a 

resistance source,”2 a sensing mechanism detects the 

1 According to the ’754 Application: 

A movable surface includes but is not limited to: 

the surface on [a] bar, a pad, a mat, a handle, a 

strap, a rope, a belt or such the like wherein an 

entity or user of an exercise apparatus can place a 

body part and exert a force and move the surface 

in which there is contact. 

’754 Application at 27 ll. 12–14. 

2 The ’754 Application defines a resistance source as 

a mechanism that “includes but is not limited to weight 

stack, free weights, a flexible rod, a leverage system or 

 

Case: 14-1824 Document: 50-2 Page: 2 Filed: 05/20/2015
IN RE HOLNESS 3

distance the movable surface has traveled “in the 

direction of the applied force and opposite the direction of 

the resistance source force.” ’754 Application, at 3 ll. 19–

23. Upon determining this position along the range of 

motion of the exercise being performed, the sensing 

mechanism dispatches an activation signal to a timer. 

The timer controls the duration of an activation signal 

sent to a halting effector mechanism which inhibits 

movement of the movable surface. The halting effector 

mechanism subsequently performs one of three actions: 1) 

“mechanically inhibit further movement of the surface in 

the direction of the external applied force,” id. at 7 ll. 27–

28; 2) in addition to performing action (1), simultaneously 

“signal[] for the cessation and immediate stasis of 

movement of the moveable surface for a given amount of 

time,” id. at 8 ll. 1–2; or 3) “signal for the cessation and 

immediate stasis of movement of the moveable surface for 

a given amount of time.” Id. at 8, ll. 2–3.

Independent claim 1 recites: 

An apparatus comprising: 

a mechanism which can inhibit for an amount of 

time, 

movement of a movable surface on the apparatus

in a direction caused by an external force applied

to the movable surface, while the apparatus

permits uninhibited movement of the movable 

surface in the opposite direction to the external

force, and . . . 

wherein the movable surface is linked to a 

resistance source which applies force which is

diametric to the external applied force, and . . . 

the amount of time is determined by a timer.

such the like as to create an opposing resistance to the 

user’s applied force.” ’754 Application, J.A. 280 at 27 ll. 8–

9. 

 

Case: 14-1824 Document: 50-2 Page: 3 Filed: 05/20/2015
IN RE HOLNESS 4

’754 Application, J.A. 280, ¶ 1.

B. The Prior Art

1. Voris

Voris is directed to “a progressive resistance exercise 

device.” Voris, col. 1 ll. 6–7. Voris seeks to minimize 

injuries during resistance training by providing an 

exercise device which “gradually applies resistance, in 

accordance with a predefined resistance gradient, to the 

movement of a lifting mechanism by an exerciser in at 

least a first positive resistance direction, while reducing 

the resistance to substantially zero when the lifting 

mechanism is moved in a negative resistance direction.” 

Id. col. 3 ll. 6–12. According to Voris, “[a] preferred time 

threshold limit is about two seconds.” Id. col. 5 ll. 18–19. 

Therefore, when a user fails to move the bar in an upward 

or positive direction for more than two seconds, “the 

resistance mechanism [] functions to gradually reduce the 

supplied resistance opposing the movement of the bar [] to 

substantially zero.” Id. col. 5 ll. 18–24.

The “resistance mechanism includes a brake, a torque 

converting transmission, a chain which is coupled to the 

transmission and attached to the bar, a position encoder 

and a microprocessor and display unit.” Id. col 6. ll. 32–

36 (patent figure numbers omitted). According to Voris, 

“the position encoder is a suitable mechanism which can 

determine the relative position of the bar by directly 

reading the rotational position of the primay shaft of 

either the brake or the torque converter . . . and develops 

an output signal corresponding to this positional 

movement.” Id. col. 5 ll. 61–67 (patent figure numbers 

omitted). 

The “position encoder” is an optical encoder that 

“determines the relative position of the bar by directly 

reading the rotational position of the primary axle of 

either the brake or the torque converting transmission in 

Case: 14-1824 Document: 50-2 Page: 4 Filed: 05/20/2015
IN RE HOLNESS 5

incremental units sufficient to allow for the gradual 

movement of the bar.” Id. col. 7 ll. 30–36 (patent figure 

numbers omitted). The microprocessor “compares the 

position of the rotating shaft, by using the encoder output 

signal, to a resistance force gradient curve[3] to determine 

the amount of resistance [to be] applied to the rotating 

brake shaft at any given instance.” Id. col. 8 ll. 3–8 

(patent figure numbers omitted). If the exerciser fails to 

continue moving the bar forward for greater than a 

predetermined amount of time, the microprocessor causes 

the brake to reduce the resistance substantially to zero. 

2. Burrell

Burrell discloses a method of controlling the 

movement of an object using sensors. The invention 

discloses the interchangeability of sensors and asserts any 

two binary sensors, including optical and snap action 

switch sensors, may be used to perform the same function. 

3. Moser 

Moser discloses an exercise bicycle that, in a 

particular mode, allows the exerciser to vary the 

resistance on one side without affecting the other side in 

order for the user to exercise both legs separately. 

Furthermore, an “optical encoder circuit [is] used to 

provide the optical data necessary . . . to perform 

measurment of the user’s [p]ower, [d]istance and [s]peed 

values.” Moser, col. 8 ll. 53–56. 

3 According to Voris, a “force curve is obtained by 

measuring the amount of force exerted by numerous 

individuals at different positions throughout the range of 

motion for a particular exercise in the first progressive 

resistance direction and averaging the amounts of force 

applied by these numerous individuals at each position.” 

Voris, col. 8 ll. 33–38.

 

Case: 14-1824 Document: 50-2 Page: 5 Filed: 05/20/2015
IN RE HOLNESS 6

4. Capuano 

Capuano allows users of exercise equipments such as 

free weights, weight stacks, and/or sport simulation 

devices to monitor and record personal and/or group 

exercise results. Bar codes are affixed to weights and 

during exercise, when a user is lifting the weights, the bar 

code tracks the movement of the weights. The bar code 

reader determines the duration the weight is in a position 

for each stage of lifting the weight by recording the 

weight’s upward and downward movements. Capuano, 

[24], [53]. 

5. Whipps

Whipps discloses “[a] self-releasing pin for a weight 

training machine having a vertical stack of weights” that 

“automatically releases a selected number of weights from 

engagement.” Whipps, Abstract, ll. 1–4 Furthermore, 

Whipps discloses that it was known in the prior art to use 

a solenoid-operated pin controller to retract a pin from a 

weight stack and vary the amount of resistance. “Upon 

receipt of a signal representative of momentary muscle 

failure of the user, solenoid operated pin controllers 

retract the pin supporting the stack of weights being 

lifted and insert a higher pin in the weight stack to 

automatically decrease the weights being lifted.” Whipps, 

col. 2 ll. 17–21.

C. Procedural Posture

The PTAB affirmed the United States patent 

Examiner’s (“Examiner”) rejection of claims 1–5, 25, 28–

32, 35, 37 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2012), and 

claims 6–24, 26, 27, 33–34 under § 103(a). PTAB Decision 

at 3. Following this decision, Mr. Holness now appeals to 

this court, seeking reversal of the PTAB’s affirmance of 

the Examiner’s rejections. Pursuant to § 141 and 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) (2012), this court has jurisdiction 

over this appeal.

Case: 14-1824 Document: 50-2 Page: 6 Filed: 05/20/2015
IN RE HOLNESS 7

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

“Anticipation is a question of fact.” In re Rambus Inc., 

694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). This court upholds the 

PTAB’s factual findings unless they are unsupported by 

substantial evidence. In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315 

(Fed. Cir. 2000). “Substantial evidence is ‘such relevant 

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate 

to support a conclusion.’” In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 

1384 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 

305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). “If the evidence in [the] record 

will support several reasonable but contradictory 

conclusions, [this court] will not find the [PTAB’s] decision 

unsupported by substantial evidence simply because the 

PTAB chose one conclusion over another plausible 

alternative.” In re Jolley, 308 F.3d 1317, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 

2002).

Whether an invention would have been obvious is a 

legal question based on underlying findings of fact. 

Gartside, 203 F.3d at 1316. “The presence . . . of a 

motivation to combine references in an obviousness 

determination is a pure question of fact.” Id. 

B. Substantial Evidence Supports the PTAB’s 

Finding of Anticipation

1. Voris Discloses a Mechanism to Inhibit Movement

Mr. Holness contends Voris does not anticipate 

independent claims 1 or 37 or their dependent claims 

primarily because “[t]here is no inhibition of movement in 

the direction of the user’s force (external force) brought 

about by the Voris device.” Appellant’s Br. 47. 

Additionally, Mr. Holness seeks to distinguish the ’754 

Application on the ground that upon inhibition of the bar 

in a positive direction, it allows the user to move in the 

direction opposite of the external force. Id. 

Case: 14-1824 Document: 50-2 Page: 7 Filed: 05/20/2015
IN RE HOLNESS 8

The PTAB agreed with the Examiner’s determination 

that “Voris discloses that the apparatus permits 

uninhibited movement of the movable surface in the 

opposite direction to the external force, while the 

mechanism inhibits movement of the movable surface in 

the direction caused by the external force.” PTAB 

Decision at 6. Specifically, the PTAB affirmed the 

Examiner’s finding, asserting that “if the user is too weak 

to overcome the applied resistance, the mechanism 

inhibits movement of the movable surface.” Id. In 

addition to the Examiner’s findings, the PTAB quotes a 

passage in Voris stating the invention “gradually applies 

resistance . . . to the movement of a lifting mechanism by

an exerciser in at least a first positive resistance 

direction.” Id. (quoting Voris, col. 3 ll. 5–10). Therefore, 

the invention expressly contemplates restricting the 

movement of the exerciser’s positive external force. 

Moreover, contrary to Mr. Holness’s contention, the 

invention recognizes the resistance present from a preexisting resistance source (i.e., the weights on a movable 

surface) in addition to the gradual resistance applied by 

the mechanism itself. 

With respect to Mr. Holness’s claim that Voris, by 

substantially reducing the variable resistance to zero, 

fails to satisfy claims 1 and 37 of the proposed invention 

because it does not permit uninhibited movement of the 

movable surface in the opposite direction, we reject this 

argument. The distinction Mr. Holness seeks to establish 

is de minimis. Ostensibly, in a situation where the 

resistance has been substantially reduced to zero, an 

exerciser may choose to complete the lift by raising the 

bar to the highest point permitted by his/her full range of 

motion or alternatively, move the bar in a direction 

diametric to the external force being applied. That is, the 

exerciser may choose to lower the bar back down. Thus, 

an exerciser’s discretion to move the bar in a position 

diametric to the initial positive external force being 

Case: 14-1824 Document: 50-2 Page: 8 Filed: 05/20/2015
IN RE HOLNESS 9

applied, constitutes uninhibited movement of the movable 

surface in the opposite direction as disclosed by 

independent claim 1 of the ’754 Application. J.A. 280.

2. Voris Discloses a Timer

Mr. Holness next argues that unlike claims 1, 4 and 

37 and all other claims that depend therefrom, “Voris does 

not comprise a timer that inhibits movement of a 

moveable surface for an amount of time or a sensor linked 

to a timer.” Appellant’s Br. 51. According to Mr. Holness, 

Voris does not: 1) “disclose a timer”; 2) “suggest in anyway 

how any alleged timer is to be implemented in the Voris

device”; and 3) “Voris has no mechanism to inhibit 

movement of a movable surface for an ‘amount of time,’ 

there can be no timer control of any such mechanism in 

Voris.” Id. 

The PTAB concluded Voris inherently teaches a timer. 

PTAB Decision at 8. The PTAB credited the Examiner’s 

finding that: 

[A] timer must necessarily be used to determine 

the amount of time that the movement of the 

movable surface disclosed in Voris is inhibited, 

because Voris describes that the time period 

wherein the movable surface is inhibited begins 

when the user fails to continue moving the bar in 

the positive resistance direction and ends when a 

period of time greater than a given threshold time 

limit is reached.

Id. (citing Voris, col. 5 ll. 11–24). 

Mr. Holness’s contention that Voris does not disclose a 

timer, because it fails to employ the term “timer” is not 

persuasive. “[A] prior art reference may anticipate 

without disclosing a feature of the claimed invention if 

that missing characteristic is necessarily present, or 

inherent, in the single anticipating reference.” Schering 

Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 

Case: 14-1824 Document: 50-2 Page: 9 Filed: 05/20/2015
IN RE HOLNESS 10

2003) (citing Cont’l Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 

1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). 

Indeed, Mr. Holness’s assertion that Voris cannot 

disclose a timer because it has no mechanism to inhibit 

movement of a movable surface for a specific amount of 

time is unsupported by any evidence. In Voris, when a 

user fails to continue moving the bar in a positive 

direction for “[a] preferred time threshold limit [of] about 

two seconds,” the system’s resistance mechanism 

gradually reduces the supplied resistance opposing the 

movement of the bar effectively to zero. Voris, col. 5 ll. 

18–24. Mr. Holness’s argument fails to explain how, in 

the absence of a timer, Voris could detect when a user has 

failed to continue moving the bar in a positive direction 

for more than two seconds. In an effort to provide a 

response to that inquiry, Mr. Holness contends that to the 

extent there is a time delay in Voris, it is caused by the 

movement of its gears, as opposed to a separate “timer.” 

The PTAB’s finding that the gears in Voris may serve 

as a timer is correct. The ’754 Application recites a 

“timer,” however, it does not place any restriction on the 

form or structure the timer may take. “[C]laims . . . are to 

be given their broadest reasonable interpretation 

consistent with the specification.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. 

Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). This court 

sustains the PTAB’s rejections of independent claim 1 and 

of dependent claims 2–5, 25, 28, 29, 30–32, and 35. 

3. Claims 37 and 38 of the ’754 Application Are 

Anticipated by Voris

Mr. Holness contends the PTAB made a factual error 

when it “ruled that Voris anticipates claim 37 by 

disclosing the same components that perform the same 

functions.” Appellant’s Br. 54. Mr. Holness’s contention 

is similar to his assertion regarding claim 1 of the ’754 

Application. Here, he reiterates his previous argument 

Case: 14-1824 Document: 50-2 Page: 10 Filed: 05/20/2015
IN RE HOLNESS 11

that “Voris does not comprise a mechanism which can 

inhibit for an amount of time, movement of a movable 

surface on the apparatus in a direction caused by an 

external force applied to the movable surface with the 

limitation that the movable surface be linked to a 

resistance source.” Id. With respect to claim 38 of the 

’754 Application, Mr. Holness again raises the previouslyasserted contention that “Voris makes no mention of a 

timer of any kind as in Claim 38.” Id. 

Mr. Holness raises no new arguments concerning how 

the kit of claim 37 is not anticipated by Voris. The 

arguments raised by Mr. Holness have already been 

addressed and are rejected for the same reasons. We 

therefore affirm the PTAB’s determination that Voris 

anticipates the claims 37 and 38. 

C. The PTAB’s Obviousness Determination Is Correct

1. Claims 6, 9, 12 and 18 Are Obvious in Light of 

Voris and Burrell

Claim 6 discloses various sensing mechanism 

embodiments including a snap action sensor switch with a 

roller and means to activate the switch.4 J.A. 281, ¶ 6. 

The PTAB concluded Burrell teaches a variety of sensors 

that can be substituted for one another to effectively 

produce similar results. Mr. Holness argues the PTAB 

“committed both legal and factual error . . . regarding the 

substitution of a snap action switch for an [optical shaft 

encoder] in Voris.” Appellant’s Br. 57. Specifically, Mr. 

Holness contends that these two sensing mechanisms are 

wholly disparate. According to Mr. Holness, “[a] snap 

action switch is a mechanical switch and is not an optical 

4 Claims 9, 12, and 18 depend directly or indirectly 

from claim 6. Mr. Holness has not made any arguments 

concerning the limitations for a halting effector 

mechanism recited in claims 9, 12, and 18 of the ’754 

Application. 

 

Case: 14-1824 Document: 50-2 Page: 11 Filed: 05/20/2015
IN RE HOLNESS 12

shaft encoder which reads or sense[s] very small 

incremental degrees of motion of the rotating shaft while 

mounted on the shaft.” Id. at 58. 

Voris teaches a position encoder used to “determine 

the relative position of the bar.” Voris, col. 5 ll. 61–63. In 

a particular embodiment, the position encoder is an 

optical encoder that senses the relative position of the bar 

by reading the rotational position of the primary axle of 

the brake or the torque-converting mechanism. Voris, col. 

7 ll. 30–40. Burrell discloses using sensors to control the 

movement of an object. Burrell, col. 1 ll. 44–47. 

Furthermore, Burrell recognizes that in place of an 

optical function, binary sensors such as a snap action

switch constitute an adequate substitute. Burrell, col. 3 l. 

66–col. 4 l. 9. The asserted claim merely substitutes the 

optical shaft encoder in Voris for the mechanical snap 

action switch in Burrell. However, the United States 

Supreme Court has established that “[w]hen a patent 

claims a structure already known in the prior art that is 

altered by the mere substitution of one element for 

another known in the field, the combination must do more 

than yield a predictable result.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, 

Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Here, Mr. Holness has not 

presented any evidence regarding why the substitution 

would yield any unpredictable results. Therefore, this 

court sustains the PTAB’s obviousness rejection of claims 

6, 9, 12 and 18. 

2. Claims 7, 10, 13 and 19 Are Obvious in Light

of Voris and Moser

Claim 7 of the ’754 Application incorporates the 

resistance exercise machine of claim 5 and requires the 

sensing mechanism comprise, inter alia, “an optoCase: 14-1824 Document: 50-2 Page: 12 Filed: 05/20/2015
IN RE HOLNESS 13

interrupter sensor and means to activate the sensor.”5 

J.A. 281, ¶ 7. 

Mr. Holness asserts that “[a]n opto interrupter sensor 

would not be possible to mount on a shaft and read 

incremental rotations.” Appellant’s Br. 60. Therefore, 

according to Mr. Holness, “[t]he combination of Moser

would render Voris unsatisfactory for its intended 

purpose.” Id. 

The PTAB affirmed the Examiner’s findings that it 

was obvious to substitute the encoder of Voris with the 

opto sensor of Moser which would render claims 7, 10, 13 

and 19 of the ’754 Application invalid under 35 U.S.C. 

§ 103. PTAB Decision at 12.

Voris states that “[w]hile any suitable type of 

mechanism which can sense the rotational position of the 

shaft may be utilized with the present invention, it has 

been found particularly advantageous to utilize an optical 

encoder.” Voris, col. 7 ll. 39–43 (patent figure numbers 

omitted). Furthermore, Moser discloses employing an 

opto[]interrupter sensor as part of an optical encoder 

circuit (“[O]pto interrupter sensors . . . are mounted to 

each drive sheave and each flywheel [] in order to provide 

the optical data to the 6811 microprocessor.”) (patent 

figure numbers omitted). Moser, col. 8 ll. 58–61. Voris 

discloses an optical encoder to sense the position of the 

bar at a particular distance. Moreover, because Moser 

teaches that the optical encoder is capable of receiving 

information from an opto interrupter sensor, modification 

of the optical encoder of Voris to incorporate the opto 

interrupter sensor of Moser would have been obvious. 

5 Claims 10, 13, and 19 depend from claim 7.

 

Case: 14-1824 Document: 50-2 Page: 13 Filed: 05/20/2015
IN RE HOLNESS 14

3. Claims 8, 11, 14, and 20 Are Obvious in

Light of Voris and Capuano

Claim 8 incorporates the resistance exercise machine 

of claim 5, where “the sensing mechanism comprises a bar 

code reader and a processor and means to activate [the] 

reader.”6 ’754 Application, J.A. 281 ¶ 8. 

Mr. Holness contends the PTAB erred in combining 

Capuano and Voris because unlike Capuano, Voris’s 

sensor means “measures incremental shaft rotational 

movement.” Appellant’s Br. 61. Thus, combining 

Capuano and Voris “would render Voris unsatisfactory for 

its intended purpose and would change the principle [] 

operation of Voris.” Id. 

The PTAB affirmed the Examiner’s finding that 

substitution of Capuano’s bar code reader for the optical 

encoder of Voris would have been obvious because both 

sensing means “serve the same purpose and produce the 

same predictable result.” PTAB Decision at 13 (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted).

As noted by the PTAB, Capuano discloses a bar code 

system that indirectly recognizes a distance traveled by a 

movable surface. Furthermore, Capuano teaches a 

“[o]ptional progression bar-code readers record the 

weights passing upwards and downwards . . . [while a] 

peak-lift bar code reader ensure[s] [the] user has 

completed a lift.” Capuano, col. 5 ¶ 5. 

Here, Mr. Holness argues that an obviousness 

determination is improper because the bar code reader in 

Capuano is limited to recording the up and down motion 

of the movable surface and thus cannot be combined with 

Voris. Capuano teaches using the bar code system for 

recognizing a distance traveled by a movable surface and 

Voris discloses that another mechanism can serve as an 

6 Claims 11, 14, and 20 depend from claim 8.

 

Case: 14-1824 Document: 50-2 Page: 14 Filed: 05/20/2015
IN RE HOLNESS 15

adequate substitute in measuring the position of the bar. 

Here, because Mr. Holness has not provided any 

compelling evidence that the bar code reader in Capuano 

is incapable of working for a rotational motion, we affirm 

the PTAB’s determination. Thus, substantial evidence 

supports the PTAB’s rejection of claims 8, 11, 14, and 20.

4. Claims 15 and 21 Are Obvious in Light of

Voris, Burrell and Whipps

Claim 21 depends directly from claim 15. Claim 15 

incorporates the resistance exercise machine of claim 6, 

where “the halting effector mechanism comprises a 

solenoid and a retractable pin.” ’754 Application at 30, ll. 

15–16. Mr. Holness contends the PTAB committed legal 

and factual error in affirming the Examiner’s 

determination “that it would be obvious to substitute a 

solenoid with a retractable pin of Whipps for the Voris 

brake means.” Appellant’s Br. 61. Specifically, Mr. 

Holness argues that in the ’754 Application, the solenoid 

with a retractable pin is a binary device, capable of 

protruding or retracting. Accordingly, Mr. Holness 

asserts that “a solenoid with a retractable pin in the place 

of the Voris ‘brake means’ would not have the capacity to 

create a variable resistance or any resistance in the Voris

device since Voris ‘brake means varies resistance on a 

shaft.’” Id. at 62. Mr. Holness concludes that “it would be 

unsatisfactory to combine Whipps and Voris because 

Whipps teaches away from a solenoid and the use of a 

solenoid.” Id. 

The PTAB found that “Whipps discloses the use of 

solenoid operated pin controllers to adjust the resistance 

applied by an exercise machine based upon a signal 

representative of a user’s momentary muscle failure.” 

PTAB Decision at 14 (citing Whipps, col. 2 ll. 17–22).

“’A reference may be said to teach away when a 

person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, 

would be discouraged from following the path set out in 

Case: 14-1824 Document: 50-2 Page: 15 Filed: 05/20/2015
IN RE HOLNESS 16

the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent 

from the path that was taken by the applicant.’” In re 

Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re 

Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Mr. Holness 

has not provided any compelling grounds for his assertion 

that “Whipps teaches away from a solenoid.” Appellant’s 

Br. 62. His assertion that substituting a retractable pin 

in the place of a brake means in Voris teaches away from 

the use of a solenoid because the combination would fail 

to create a variable resistance in Voris misses the mark. 

As this court has established, movement of combined 

elements is within the technical capabilities of a skilled 

artisan in the art. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 

F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[W]e do not ignore the 

modifications that one skilled in the art would make to a 

device borrowed from the prior art.”) (citing Optivus 

Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications, S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 

989–90 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Therefore, the appropriate test 

is not whether replacement of the solenoid pin controllers

with a retractable pin for the brake means in Voris would 

have been appropriate, but whether it would have been 

obvious for a person of skill in the art to replace one 

halting effector mechanism with another. See id. 

Here, as noted by the Examiner and affirmed by the 

PTAB, Voris disclosed its brake means as its halting 

effector mechanism and it would have been obvious for a 

skilled artisan to substitute one type of halting effector 

mechanism, such as a solenoid with a retractable pin, for 

another. Therefore, this court sustains the PTAB’s 

obviousness rejections of claims 15 and 21. 

D. Mr. Holness Waived Any Right to Claim a New 

Ground of Rejection

Mr. Holness asserts the Examiner issued rejections 

based on U.S. Patent No. 5,195,746 (“Boyd”)7 in every 

7 Boyd discloses an 

 

Case: 14-1824 Document: 50-2 Page: 16 Filed: 05/20/2015
IN RE HOLNESS 17

office action, and in the Examiner’s final answer, “claimed 

that Boyd was a ‘typographical error’[8] and then issued a 

new ground of rejection, not in prior prosecution, based on 

Burrell, which the [PTAB] affirmed.” Appellant’s Br. 65 

Mr. Holness asserts that because “[n]o notice of this 

ground of rejection was given [to him] during 

prosecution,” it violates his right to due process. Id. 

Consequently, he claims the PTAB’s affirmance of the 

Examiner’s new ground of rejection constitutes “a 

violation of [his] due process rights.” Id. at 64. 

The Director argues Mr. Holness has waived his right 

to assert there was a new ground of rejection. According 

to the Director, “[a]n Examiner is permitted to include a 

new ground of rejection in the Examiner’s Answer.” 

Appellee’s Br. 28 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 41.39). Upon issuing 

the rejection, the Director argues that the burden then 

shifts to the applicant to: “(1) request that prosecution be 

reopened before the primary examiner by filing a reply 

under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111; or (2) request that the appeal be 

maintained by filing a reply brief as set forth in 37 C.F.R. 

§ 41.41.” Id. at 28–29. The Director claims that Mr. 

Holness did not exercise either of these options. 

[a]pparatus for controlling the movement of an 

electronic image on a video display [which] 

includes a base member, a seat for an operator, a 

support assembly for mounting the seat on the 

base member in facing relation to the video 

display, such that the seat can be tilted relative to

the base member.

Boyd, Abstract, ll. 1–6.

8 The PTAB credited the Examiner’s determination 

that it made a typographical error and that “Boyd had not 

been relied upon for rejecting claims 15 and 21.” PTAB 

Decision at 14. 

 

Case: 14-1824 Document: 50-2 Page: 17 Filed: 05/20/2015
IN RE HOLNESS 18

In this case, the PTAB affirmed the Examiner’s 

rejection of the ’754 Application over Voris and in light of 

what Mr. Holness claims to be a new ground––Burrell. 

However, similar to the regulation related to an 

Examiner’s decision to reject an application on what 

constitutes new grounds, § 41.50(b), a subset of the same 

provision, titled “New ground of rejection,” allows an 

appellant to challenge the PTAB’s decision to reject an 

application based on new grounds “within two months 

from the date of the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). The 

appellant must either: 1) request a reopening of 

prosecution; or 2) request rehearing. Id. § 41.50(b)(1)-(2). 

Here, as noted by the Director, Mr. Holness appealed the 

PTAB’s decision to this court as opposed to requesting a 

rehearing of the PTAB’s decision as stipulated by the 

regulation. Thus, even if we assumed the PTAB based its 

determination on a new ground of rejection, Mr. Holness 

cannot now assert that such grounds constitute a 

violation of his due process rights. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the PTAB’s decision is

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Costs to Director.

Case: 14-1824 Document: 50-2 Page: 18 Filed: 05/20/2015