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.” 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007