Opinion ID: 2802190
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claims 7, 10, 13 and 19 Are Obvious in Light

Text: 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 optoIN 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. IN RE HOLNESS 14