Opinion ID: 663180
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Swift

Text: 44 The Swift collector does not teach or suggest the flexible-wall, diaphragm-like structure claimed by Schuler. Indeed, there is no teaching or suggestion in Swift that the hopper walls therein be anything but rigid and non-responsive to any pressure increases within the collector. Consequently, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Swift to obtain Schuler's flexible-wall, diaphragm-like structure. In this regard, we note that the Board itself specifically held at page 6 of its initial decision that the examiner had failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness as to claims 2, 3, and 5, because Swift and the other references relied upon by the examiner 45 fail to disclose or render obvious the feature of the lowermost portion of the claimed apparatus comprising the flexible sloping surface which flexes in response to increases in pressure in the apparatus caused by the pulse-jet cleaning means whereby filtered particulate matter is moved in a downward direction. 46 Notwithstanding this explicit holding by the Board that Swift fails to teach or suggest the flexible-wall, diaphragm-like structure that Schuler discloses in his specification as corresponding to the means language recited in the last segment of claim 1, the Commissioner nevertheless argues that the examiner found, and the Board allegedly implicitly agreed, that Swift's hopper walls respond to jet-cleaning pressure increases by vibrating, and that Donaldson has failed to establish that this allegedly responsive structure is not an equivalent to Schuler's disclosed flexible-wall, diaphragm-like structure. The Commissioner further contends that the slanted hopper walls in Swift's collector satisfy the means, responsive to pressure language of claim 1. 47 The Commissioner's arguments appear to address concepts of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 102. However, neither the Examiner nor the Board imposed an anticipation rejection under section 102. The only rejection before this court is one of obviousness under section 103. 48 Nevertheless, as explained previously, section 112, paragraph six, requires us and the PTO to construe the means, responsive to pressure language recited in claim 1 as limited to a flexible-wall, diaphragm-like structure as disclosed in Schuler's specification, or an equivalent thereof. In this regard, the Commissioner has failed to establish the existence in conventional hopper structures like Swift's of any inherent vibrations resulting from pulse-jet cleaning sufficient to loosen hardened dust that gathers on hopper walls. 9 Thus, because the Commissioner's unsupported assertion that Swift's hopper walls would vibrate in response to pressure increases caused by pulse-jet cleaning is mere speculation unsupported by any rational basis for believing it might be true, the burden clearly did not shift to Schuler to establish non-equivalence. Furthermore, the Commissioner has failed to persuade us that such vibration, even if it did occur, should be viewed as making Swift's hopper structure an equivalent of Schuler's flexible-wall, diaphragm-like structure. 49 As to the Commissioner's arguments regarding Swift's slanted hopper walls, we note that neither the examiner nor the Board ever asserted that these slanted walls by themselves represent an equivalent of Schuler's flexible-wall, diaphragm-like structure. In addition, the Commissioner has failed to set forth any reasonable explanation as to how Swift's walls are responsive to pressure increases. 50 In summary, Schuler's claimed collector would not have been obvious in view of Swift's collector having hopper walls which are rigid and non-responsive to pressure increases within the collector. In addition, even if the issue of anticipation under section 102 were before us, which it is not, the Commissioner could not have argued anticipation because he has failed to establish that the rigid hopper wall structure in Swift's collector is an equivalent of the flexible wall, diaphragm-like hopper structure in Schuler's claim 1 collector.