Appeal No. 2002-1657
Application No. 09/134,981
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of dependent claims 4, 5, 13, and 14,
grouped together by Appellant’s arguments (Brief, page 13), since,
contrary to Appellant’s contention, we find a clear suggestion in
Futamura of stitch angle determination at column 6, line 41 through
column 7, line 16 as pointed out by the Examiner (Answer, page 5).
We also sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
dependent claims 6-9, 11, 15-17, and 19 based on Futamura.
With respect to claims 6-9, the extent of Appellant’s
arguments (Brief, pages 13 and 14) is to repeat the language of the
claims with a general allegation that the references do not teach
or suggest the claimed limitations.2 Simply pointing out what a
claim requires with no attempt to point out how the claims
patentably distinguish over the prior art does not comply with 37
CFR § 1.192(c)(8) and does not amount to a separate argument for
patentability. In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d
1525,1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Further, our review of the Examiner’s
position finds no error in the Examiner’s analysis (Answer, pages 5
and 6) which identifies corresponding structure in the disclosure
of Futamura.
2 Although Appellant mentions (Brief, page 14) that dependent claim 8
recites the interpretation of regular and singular regions, we find no such
recitation since the claim language requires only “ . . . evaluating a
plurality of singular regions.”
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007