Appeal No. 2001-2557 Application No. 08/888,996 present application, the broad invention of a ductile metallic surrounded by an ionically conductive ceramic matrix. Hence, it is our view that the alloys recited in claim 10 on appeal are sub-genuses encompassed by the broader genus originally described in appellant’s specification. Also, as argued by appellant, the original specification describes specific alloys that qualify as the claimed “stainless steel, iron based alloys, cobalt based alloys, or nickel based alloys or super alloys.” Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 10 under § 112, first paragraph. The examiner also does not find original descriptive support in the specification for “the temperature limits of claims 1 and 7" (page 4 of answer, second paragraph). Claim 1 recites “less than 1700ēC”, but claim 7 has no recitation of a temperature. Claim 9 recites “less than 1550ēC.” Accordingly, we will presume that the examiner’s rejection of claim 7 is directed to claim 9. Also, we note that appellant has considered the examiner’s rejection to be directed to claims 1 and 9 (see page 6 of brief,Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007