PTAB cites In re Lovin against IBM arguments
In Ex parte
FOLU OKUNSEINDE, IBM did win reversal
on two claims, but lost the rest of the appeal.
The appellants did win by arguing claim 6
We therefore conclude that
the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Suzuki and Lee teache
s or suggests the disputed limitation
of claim 6.
But arguments directed specifically to
claim 33 did not succeed:
The Examiner responds that Appellants’
argument is no more than a
general allegation instead of showing
distinction between claimed features
and cited prior art and that Lee teaches
or suggests the disputed limitations
of claim 33. Ans. 16 (citing
Lee, ¶¶ ; ; ).
We agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ contentions, with
respect to claim 33, amount to no more
than a general allegation that the
claim defines a patentable invention.
Ans. 16. Accordingly, Appellants fail
to show error in the Examiner’s rejection.
See In re Lovin
, 652 F.3d 1349,
1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (interpreting Rule 41.37).
from footnote 1:
Appellants also appeal the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3, and 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Ap
p. Br. 4. Because the
Examiner withdrew the
rejection of the claims on this ground,
we need not reach that issue in this
appeal. Ans. 3. Claims 9-27 a
nd 30 are cancelled. App. Br. 2.