Where the word "remainder" is not used in the specification, is there any need to explicitly define the word as in claim 1b?
1a) A bat comprising a handle.
1b) A bat consisting of a handle and a remainder.
2) A bat according to claim 1 wherein the handle is blue and wherein the remainder is red.
I think there will be issues with "remainder" if it is not used in the spec.
I disagree, I think "remainder" is inherent. But also so broad, in and of itself, as to be basically useless.
IMHO, claim 2
might be vulnerable to a 112 First rejection, depending on the spec. Even though it's inherent that a bat has a handle and a remaining portion, it's not inherent that the remaining portion has any particular characteristics. So you'd need some support in your spec/drawings showing that a non-handle portion of the bat has different characteristics.
Maybe dbmax is focusing only on the word choice for the non-handle portion of the bat, and support for different characteristics isn't a problem. In that case, like I said, I view a remainder portion to be inherent in a bat with a handle. Doesn't mean an Examiner won't take exception to it, though.