Appeal No. 97-0292
Application 07/814,779
Neither magnesium oxide nor the chemical
adjuvant salts when used alone as a filler or
coating in smoking article wrappers substantially
reduce visible sidestream smoke. . . . The amounts
of magnesium oxide and chemical adjuvant employed in
the wrapper are critical and it has been found that
amounts of magnesium oxide less than 15% and of
chemical adjuvant salt of less than 0.5% by weight
are ineffective in combination to achieve the
desired reduction in visible sidestream smoke. . . .
Preferably and for maximum sidestream smoke
reductions, the wrapper should contain at least 35%
magnesium oxide and at least 2.0% of the chemical
adjuvant salt.
We must point out, however, the fact that Cline subse-
quently states that (1) magnesium oxide when used alone does
not “substantially reduce” visible sidestream smoke and (2)
“preferably” the wrapper should contain at least 35% magnesium
oxide, does not “contradict” what has previously been stated
in lines 39-43 of column 2 as the appellants allege. While,
of course, that portion of Cline noted by the appellants
indicates that magnesium oxide when used alone is ineffective
or unsatisfactory and that the “preferred” embodiment is one
which contains at least 35% magnesium oxide, all of the
teachings of a particular reference must be evaluated for what
they fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art, including
those teachings that are “phrased in terms of a non-preferred
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007