free motion, ormco, tec air,

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Luzzatti 10/079,569 WALSH 103(a) AJAY PATHAK 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Morrow et al 10/830,754 GARRIS 103(a) COMMSCOPE BY MUNCY,GEISSLER, OLDS & LOVE, PLLC 

Ex Parte YAGI et al 11/697,842 PAK 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. 

Ex Parte Allibert et al 11/433,713 ROBERTSON 103(a) WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Bodin et al 10/105,122 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP 

“The doctrine of claim differentiation creates a presumption that each claim in a patent has a different scope . . . . The difference in meaning and scope between claims is presumed to be significant to the extent that the absence of such difference in meaning and scope would make a claim superfluous.” Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int’l, Inc., 423 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte De Jonge et al 10/820,424 HORNER 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) PRICE HENEVELD COOPER DEWITT & LITTON, LLP 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Babbidge et al 10/794,092 BARRETT 103(a) KING & SCHICKLI, PLLC 

Because claims 24 and 25 include all the limitations recited in claim 23, we conclude claim 23 must have been obvious based on our conclusion of obviousness of claims 24 and 25. See Ormco v. Align Tech., 498 F.3d 1307, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (when a dependent claim is “found to have been obvious, the broader claims . . . must also have been obvious”). 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Strebelle et al 10/534,299 FREDMAN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT P.C. 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Gu et al 10/447,862 BARRY 103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Parry et al 09/861,991 HAHN 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Ross et al 11/265,671 OWENS 103(a) CHRISTOPHER P. RICCI 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Ruppert et al 11/210,461 BAHR 102(b)/103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. 

See Tec Air Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Michigan Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Where the proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified inoperable for its intended purpose, the proposed modification would not have been obvious.)