Lovin cited as to "naked assertions"
Of naked assertions:
Appellant’s argument amounts to a recitation of the claim elements and a “naked assertion” that the elements are not found in the prior art. Such assertions do not constitute a separate argument for patentability of claim 11. See In re Lovin, 6562 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the Board had reasonably interpreted 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) as requiring “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”).