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

Heading: Claims 8, 11, 14, and 20 Are Obvious in

Text: 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. 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.