Opinion ID: 2802190
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claims 6, 9, 12 and 18 Are Obvious in Light of

Text: 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. 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.