Opinion ID: 663180
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Donaldson's Assertions

Text: 19 For purposes of this appeal, Donaldson effectively concedes that Swift teaches or suggests each and every element of the apparatus recited in Schuler's claim 1 except for the means, responsive to pressure increases in said chamber caused by said cleaning means, for moving particulate matter in a downward direction recited in the last segment of claim 1. As to this limitation, Donaldson argues that the Board erred in holding that Swift teaches or suggests such a means as it is described in Schuler's specification. Donaldson further argues that the Board's error in this regard is the result of a fundamental legal error by the Board, namely the Board's failure to obey the statutory mandate of 35 U.S.C. Sec. 112, paragraph six, in construing this claim.