Naked assertions inadequate in an appeal brief

Of the need for substantive arguments in an appeal brief:

see also In re Jung, 637 F.3d
1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (approving of Board’s practice of requiring an
applicant to identify alleged error in an Examiner’s rejection); In re Lovin,
652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“In sum, we hold that the Board
reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in
an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”).
We sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 15.

from Ex parte Cho