Appellant loses in Ex parte ROKUI
Lovin is cited:
Concerning dependent claim 4, Appellant quotes the claim language
and urges that the references fail to teach the recited subject matter. See
App. Br. 17. However, merely pointing out what claim 4 recites and then
asserting that the recited references fail to teach this limitation (see id.) is not
considered a separate argument for patentability. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d
1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).