APPLICATION OF BOYER
Decision Date | 06 October 1966 |
Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 7562. |
Citation | 150 USPQ 441,363 F.2d 455 |
Parties | Application of James B. BOYER. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
W. Philip Churchill, New York City, (Tyler S. Roundy, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D. C. (J. F. Nakamura, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents.
Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, and MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK.*
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals,1 adhered to on reconsideration, affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 17-21 in application serial No. 772,034, filed November 5, 1958, for "Smoking Method and Means." No claim is allowed.
The invention is a cigarette or cigarette-type smoking device consisting of a filter tip of non-tobacco filter material and a wrapper of combustible material surrounding a column of tobacco, the wrapper containing perforations or venting inlets distributed along substantially the entire length of the tobacco portion.
Appellant points out in his specification and brief that it has been found that because the amount of drawn-in oxygen for each unit of cross-sectional area is so much greater in cigarettes than in other smoking devices, cigarettes burn at temperatures as much as 200 degrees higher, and that published reports of independent researchers state that, although the specific component has not yet been identified as such, the lung cancer-causing component in smoke tar, as well as other undesirable components, is the result of these very high combustion temperatures.
Thus, according to appellant, one of the great problems facing the cigarette industry for a great many years has been the need for a cigarette which would give the smoker taste, flavor and enjoyment, without at the same time injecting into the smoker's mouth and lungs large quantities of tars and nicotine. Efficient, densely packed filters capable of reducing tars and nicotine to a safe low level had been tried, but were not acceptable to the smoking public, primarily because they were too efficient, i. e., a great amount of suction was required to bring flavor or taste through into the smoker's mouth. To reduce this pressure drop, filters were packed more loosely, with the obvious result of increasing the amount of nicotine, tars, and other harmful ingredients in the cigarette smoke entering the mouth and lungs.
Appellant discovered that by using an ordinary non-tobacco filter in combination with holes distributed along the length of the cigarette wrapper, tars and nicotine could be reduced to an allegedly "safe level," i. e., such level as to "significantly reduce cancer risk" according to recognized authorities in the field, and still provide the smoker with a pleasant smoke. The size, location, and number of holes vary, and are interdependent since it is the total amount of air which enters that matters, but three to five "pin-size holes of the same diameter located in the wrapper less than half way along the cigarette length from the lip end produce very satisfactory smoking enjoyment." The function and operation of the invention is further explained in appellant's brief:
All claims are directed to the above-indicated combination of a filter tip and column of tobacco enclosed by a combustible wrapper containing perforations. Claim 18 is illustrative:
18. A cigarette-type smoking device comprising as an article of manufacture a wrapper of combustible material and a column of tobacco inside said wrapper, said wrapper having a plurality of venting inlets spaced longitudinally from the mouth end of the tobacco column and distributed along substantially the full length of said tobacco column for admitting ambient air through said wrapper to enter behind the burning zone and to mix with and precondition the smoke in said tobacco when there is suction at the mouth end to reduce undesirable components of the smoke which would leave the mouth end of the tobacco column if said wrapper was an ordinary wrapper of a cigarette, and means for extending the total effective mixing length for mixing ambient air with the smoke in said device, said means including a filter of non-tobacco filter material mounted at the mouth end of the device for permitting the ambient air to mix additionally with the smoke after it leaves the tobacco column and before it reaches the mouth of the smoker.
The references are:
Harris 439,004 Oct. 21, 1890 Aghnides 2,923,647 Feb. 2, 1960 (Filed July 9, 1957, as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte Di Benedetto
...rationale without designating it as a new ground of rejection. In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1303 (CCPA 1976); see also In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2 (CCPA 1966). It is also well settled that "a disclosure that anticipates under § 102 also renders the claim invalid under § 103, for 'ant......
-
Ex parte Lyren
...in an obviousness rationale without designating it as a new ground of rejection. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2 (CCPA 1966). In the instant case, Heinen meets all of the limitations of, and therefore at least suggests, claim 21. The Board may r......
-
Ex parte Ovard
... Ex parte DAVID K. OVARD and ROY GREEFF Appeal No. 2006-2048 Application No. 09/265, 073 United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board November 16, 2006 ... ON ... BRIEF ... rejection. In re Bush , 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 ... U.S.P.Q. 263, 266-67 (CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 ... F.2d 455, 458, n.2, 150 U.S.P.Q. 441, 444, n.2 (CCPA ... 1966) ... [ 2 ] We recommend that the clause be moved ... ...
-
Ex parte Bleizeffer, Appeal 2006-2354
... ... 2006-2354 Application No. 09/877, 157 United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board November 30, 2006 ... This ... Opinion ... rejection. In re Bush , 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 ... U.S.P.Q. 263, 266-67 (CCPA 1961); In re Boyer , 363 ... F.2d 455, 458 n.2, 150 U.S.P.Q. 441, 444 n.2 (CCPA 1966) ... Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claims ... ...