Opinion ID: 770809
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claims at Issue

Text: 7 Only claims 1, 4, and 11 of the Luke patent are at issue. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 8 1. A finished cigarette of commercially acceptable quality and elegant appearance 9 in the form of an elongated rod of uniform cross-section throughout its length capable of sustained smoulder when lit but not being smoked, said elongated rod consisting of 10 a cut tobacco filler, 11 a cigarette paper wrapper, circumscribing said cut tobacco filler, a filter in abutment with one end of said cut tobacco filler and 12 a tipping wrapper maintaining said filter in abutment with said one end of said cut tobacco filler, 13 the circumference of said elongated rod being within a range of 10 mm to 19 mm, and having a cut tobacco filler packing density within the range of 150 mg per cm 3 to 350 mg per cm3 yielding a free burn rate of said rod within a range of 25 to 45 mg min-1, 14 the aforesaid cigarette utilizing tobacco at greater efficiency than conventional commercially marketed cigarettes. 15 Luke patent, col. 3, ll. 22-38. Although the claim appears in the Luke patent as one continuous paragraph, without parsing, we have parsed the claim for clarity in our analysis. 16 Claim 4 reads as follows: A cigarette as claimed in claim 1, wherein the packing density of said cut tobacco filler is within a range of 200 mg per cm3 to 300 mg per cm3. Id. at col. 4, ll. 1-3. Claim 11 reads as follows: A cigarette as claimed in claim 1, which provides in excess of about 8 puffs. Id. at col. 4, ll. 26-27. The construction of these claims is not in dispute.