Appeal No. 1997-0221 Application 08/248,496 follow. We also remand this application to the examiner for appropriate action as noted below. OPINION A. The Rejection under § 112, ¶1 The examiner states that “[i]n claims 3 and 4, it is not clear if there is support for the limitation that there is less than 1% of each of the specified minerals.” (Answer, page 4). The examiner further states that it is “ambiguous” as to whether the total of all elements listed in these claims is less than 1% or if each element is present in an amount less than 1% (id.). The examiner also questions the support for the amendments to claim 5 (id.). Appellant argues that the examiner admits that the specification appears to support either interpretation of the amounts of minerals, and thus there is support for the subject matter of claims 3-6 (Reply Brief, page 1). We presume that the examiner’s rejection for “fails to provide support” is premised on the “written description of the invention” requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007