Appeal No. 96-0425 Page 11 Application No. 08/108,986 and said second conveyor means" as recited in claim 1. In that regard, we agree with the appellants position that Hognestad only teaches that the steps of removing the last product from a stack and supplying a new stack of products be performed sequentially. We have reviewed the entire disclosure of Hognestad and find no suggestion therein of the claimed simultaneous movement. Accordingly, we must conclude that the examiner has resorted to speculation, unfounded assumption or hindsight reconstruction to supply the deficiencies in the factual basis for the rejection. Furthermore, even if the position of the examiner was correct, the modified device of Hognestad would not have any structure corresponding to the claimed "means for moving." As explained in In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-49 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the PTO is not exempt from following the statutory mandate of 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6, which reads: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed toPage: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007