Aerosol dispenser valve

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 9434529
  • Patent Number
    9,434,529
  • Date Filed
    Tuesday, August 20, 2013
    11 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, September 6, 2016
    8 years ago
Abstract
An improved valve member, aerosol dispenser valve containing the valve member, aerosol container for dispensing moisture curable foams, and moisture curable foam and dispenser, in which the valve member is made of a glass filled polyolefin. The polyolefin is preferably a polyethylene. The glass content is between about 2% and about 40%, more preferably between about 10% and about 30%; and most preferably between about 15% and about 25%.
Description
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

This invention relates to aerosol dispenser valves for products, and in particular to dispenser valves for moisture curable products such as foams.


Moisture curable products, such as moisture curable polyurethane foams, have found wide application in homes and businesses. These foams are excellent fillers and insulators. The foams are often packaged in aerosol cans with a polypropylene dispenser valve. A problem with these valves is that moisture can migrate through the valve and into the aerosol can. Once inside, the moisture cures the foam, and impairs the function of the valve. The problem is exacerbated if the can is not stored upright, so that the contents of the can surround the valve member. The migration path is shorter, and when the foam cures around the valve member it interferes with the operation of the valve, sealing it closed.


SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

A preferred embodiment of the present invention is a dispenser valve for a moisture-curable foam made from a glass-filled polyolefin. In the preferred embodiment the polyolefin is a high density polyethylene. The polyethylene preferably has a glass content of between about 2% and about 40%, and more preferably between about 10% and about 30%, and most preferably between about 15% and about 25%. The valve member of the preferred embodiment is more resistant to failure from moisture infiltration than the polypropylene valve members of the prior art. The valve member of the preferred embodiment is less adhesive than the propylene valve members of the prior art, so that to the extent that the contents of the container does inadvertently cure inside the container, it is less likely to adhere to the valve member and interfere with the operation of the valve. Thus embodiments of valves in accordance with the principles of this invention can extend the shelf life of urethane foams and other moisture curable or moisture affected products dispensed from aerosol cans.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWING


FIG. 1 is a cross sectional view of a dispenser valve for an aerosol can in accordance with the principles of this invention.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

A preferred embodiment of dispenser valve constructed according to the principles of this invention is indicated generally as 20 in FIG. 1. The dispenser valve 20 comprises a valve member 22 in a seal 24. The valve member 22 has first and second ends 26 and 28, and a central passage 30 extending partially therethrough. A plurality of openings 32 extend through the valve member 22 and communicate with the central passage 30. The openings are covered by the seal 24, but when the valve member 22 is deflected, it opens a space between the valve member 22 and the seal 24, so that the pressurized contents can exit the container between the valve member 22 and the seal, through the openings 32, and out the passage 30.


In accordance with the principles of this invention, the valve member 22 is made from a glass-filled polyolefin. The inventors believe that glass-filled polyethylene is more resistant to adhesion than the polypropylene valve members of the prior art, or other suitable polymer materials.


The inventors have also discovered that chemically coupled glass-filled polyolefin, and specific glass-filled polyethylene is less adhesive than the valve members of the prior art, to the extent that the foam does inadvertently cure inside the container, it is less likely to adhere to the valve member and interfere with the operation of the valve.


The polyethylene is preferably a high density polyethylene. The polyethylene preferably has a glass content of between about 2% and about 40%, and more preferably between about 10% and about 30%, and most preferably between about 20% and about 30%.


Thus the valve member of the preferred embodiment are more resistant to moisture infiltration, and less adhesive to moisture curing foams, such as polyurethanes. Thus the valves constructed in accordance with the valve members of this invention are less likely fail, even when the cans on which they are used are not properly stored, and provide a greater product shelf life.


Example 1

Cans of moisture curable polyurethane foam components were prepared with valve parts made of different plastics. The cans were stored upside down at ambient temperature and 90-100% relative humidity. Each week three cans of each type were examined and rated on whether the can was fully functional, stuck but functional, or stuck. Failure was determined when all three cans of the sample failed. The results of the test are given in Table 1.













TABLE 1





20% glass-
Impact


Internally


filled
modified


Lubricated


polyethylene
propylene
Polypropylene
Acetal
polypropylene







No failure
Failure
Failure after
Sticking
Sticking after


after 16
after 5
5 weeks.
after 7
5 weeks;


weeks.
weeks.

weeks;
failure after 6 weeks





failure





after 9





weeks









Example 2

Cans of moisture curable polyurethane foam components were prepared with valve parts made from different plastics. Sixteen cans of each type were stored upside down at 120° at 80% relative humidity for 11 weeks. Cans were inspected at the end of 11 weeks to determine whether the valves were stuck or were functional. The results are given were given in Table 2.













TABLE 2








Number of





stuck
% of stuck



Plastic
valves
valves




















50% polyethylene and
0
  0%



50% polyethylene with



20% glass



100% polyethylene
2
12.5%



with 20% glass



90% polyethylene -
3
18.8%



10% polypropylene



with 30% glass



75% polyethylene -
3
18.8%



25% polypropylene



with 30% glass



100% polypropylene
4
  25%



50% polyethylene -
5
31.3%



50% polypropylene



50% polyethylene -
5
31.3%



50% polypropylene



with 30% glass



100% polyethylene -
6
37.5%



90% polyethylene -
6
37.5%



10% polypropylene



75% polyethylene -
10
62.5%



25% polypropylene










This test shows that valves made of glass filled polyethylene (from 10% to 20%) had the lowest number of stuck valves.


Example 3

Cans of moisture curable polyurethane foam components were prepared with large valve parts made from different plastics. Twenty-two cans of each type were stored upside down at ambient with caps filled with water. Two cans of each type were tested periodically, and it was noted whether the valve worked, whether the valve was stuck but broke free, or whether the valve failed. The results are given in Table 3.













TABLE 3







20% glass-





filled



polyethylene
Polypropylene
Acetal









No failure
Stuck but broke
Stuck but broke free,



after 22
free, after 18
after 13 weeks-



weeks.
weeks.
failure after 22





weeks










Example 4

Cans of moisture curable polyurethane foam components were prepared with small valve parts made from different plastics. Twenty-two cans of each type were stored upside down at ambient with caps filled with water. Two cans of each type were tested periodically, to determine whether the valve worked, whether the valve was stuck but broke free, or whether the valve failed. The results are given in Table 4.












TABLE 4





20% glass-
Impact

Ethylene


filled
Modified

Telefluorethylene


polyethylene
Polypropylene
Acetal
polymer (ETFE)







No sticking
Failed, after 8
Stuck but broke
Failures after 19


or failure
weeks.
free, after 12
weeks


after 22

weeks; failure,


weeks.

after 17 weeks.









Example 5

Cans of moisture curable polyurethane foam components were prepared with valve parts made from different plastics. Cans of each type were stored upside down with caps filled with water at 130° F. (to accelerate sticking of the valves). Two cans of each type were periodically tested to determine whether the valve worked, whether the valve was stuck but broke free, or whether the valve failed. The results are given were given in Table 5.













TABLE 5







20% glass-





filled



polyethylene
Polypropylene
Acetal









No sticking or
Stuck but broke
Stuck but broke



failure after 51
free after 14
free after 14 days;



days.
days, failure
failure after 37




after 35 days.
days.










Example 6

Cans of moisture curable polyurethane foam components were prepared with valve parts made from different plastics. Cans of each type were stored upside down with caps filled with water at 130° F. (to accelerate sticking of the valves). 20% glass filled polyethylene was compared with impact modified propylene for two different neoprene seal materials. Two cans of each type were periodically tested to determine whether the valve worked, whether the valve was stuck but broke free, or whether the valve failed. Failure was determined when both valves tested stuck or failed. The results are given were given in Table 6.














TABLE 6









Seal 1

Seal 2













20% glass-
Impact
20% glass-
Impact



filled
Modified
filled
Modified



polyethylene
polypropylene
polyethylene
polypropylene







No sticking
Failure after
Failure, after
Failure after



or failure
11 days.
21 days.
11 days.



after 23



days.










This testing indicates that glass-filled polyethylene provides improved performance with different seal materials.


Example 7

Cans of moisture curable polyurethane foam components were prepared with valve parts made from different plastics. Cans of each type were stored upside down with caps filled with water at 130° F. (to accelerate sticking of the valves). 20% glass filled polyethylene was compared with propylene and with a conventional valve using a stick resistant coating on the seal. Two cans of each type were periodically tested to determine whether the valve worked, whether the valve was stuck but broke free, or whether the valve failed. The results are given were given in Table 7.













TABLE 7









Polypropylene



20% glass-

with stick



filled

resistant seal



polyethylene
Polypropylene
coating









Stuck but
Stuck but
Stuck but



broke free
broke free
broke free



after 30
after 22 days;
after 22 days;



days; no
failure after
failure after



failure at 36
28 days
30 days



days










This testing indicates that glass-filled polyethylene continued to function after conventional valves and conventional valves with lubricated seals, failed.


Example 8

Cans of moisture curable polyurethane foam components were prepared with gun valve (vertically opened) parts made from different plastics. Sixteen cans of each type were stored upside down at 130° with caps full of water. Two cans of each type were tested periodically, and its was noted whether the valve worked, whether the valve was stuck but broke free, or whether the valve failed. Failure was determined by sticking or failure of both cans. The results are given were given in Table 8.













TABLE 8








First
First



Plastic
Sticking
Failure









100% polyethylene





with 20% glass-filled



polyethylene (ribbed



for extra strength)



Impact Modified
10 days




Polypropylene co-



polymer (ribbed for



extra strength)



Polypropylene
13 days
55 days



Acetal
10 days
33 days



Impact Modified
13 days
33 days



Polypropylene



Polyethylene

 26 days*



75% polyethylene -
10 days



25% polypropylene



50% polyethylene -
10 days



50% polypropylene



100% polyethylene





with 20% glass-filled



polyethylene



Impact Modified
10 days



Polypropylene







*stem failure due to weakness of material






This testing shows the superiority of glass filled polyethylene in both ribbed and unribbed configurations.


Example 9

Cans of moisture curable polyurethane foam components were prepared with gun valve (vertically opened) parts made from different plastics. Twelve to Fourteen cans of each type were stored upside down at 130° with caps full of water. Cans of each type were tested periodically, and its was noted whether the valve worked, whether the valve was stuck but broke free, or whether the valve failed. Failure was determined by sticking or failure of both cans. The results are given were given in Table 9 below, which shows that some standard valves first stuck after only six days and the standard valves were stuck after 11 days, as compared to the valves with 20% glass-filled Polyethylene valve components which were not stuck after 20 days of testing. All of the 20% glass-filled Polyethylene valve components performed longer than the standard components. The plastic used is a 703 CC chemically coupled 20% glass filled polyethylene available from RTP company, having an impact strength (notched) of about 2.5 ft. lbs./inch and a water absorption of about 0.04 percent.













TABLE 9









Valves



Plastic
First Stuck
stuck









100% Polyethylene with
none of 14
no samples



20% glass-filled stems
samples
stuck after




stuck
20 days



Impact Modified
samples
12 samples



Polypropylene co-
first stuck
stuck w/in



polymer (ribbed for
w/in 6 days
11 days



extra strength)










In the testing conducted, a glass filled polyethylene was always the best performer, and only one other material—acetal—approached the performance of the glass-filled polyethylene in certain circumstances. Glass-filled polyethylene valve stems show surprisingly superior resistance to sticking (i.e. longer times to initial sticking, and longer times to valve failure) over valve stems of other materials in a variety environments, different valve sizes, and different sealing materials. Glass-filled polyethylene even showed superior resistance to sticking than conventional valves with available stick resistance coatings.


While the description of the preferred embodiment and the examples and tests focused primarily on moisture curable foams, and more specifically moisture curable polyurethane foams, the invention is not so limited and the valves and containers with valves of the present invention can be used with other moisture curable products that are dispensed from aerosol cans, and even with products that are not moisture curable, but adversely affected by moisture infiltration.

Claims
  • 1. An aerosol can for dispensing a moisture-curable foam comprising: an aerosol can;a moisture-curable foam disposed within the aerosol can; anda valve comprising: a seal; anda valve member, the valve member being constructed to resist adherence of cured moisture-curable foam to the valve member, the valve member comprising a central passage extending partially therethrough, and a plurality of openings extending through the valve member and in communication with the central passage, the valve member being adapted for movement upon actuation between a first position in which the valve member is deflected off of the seal to allow the moisture-curable foam to flow into the central passage, and a second position in which the valve member seats on the seal to prevent flow of the moisture-curable foam into the central passage, the valve member being comprised of a glass filled polyolefin and being more resistant to adhesion to the cured moisture curable foam than the same valve member having no glass content.
  • 2. The aerosol can according to claim 1 wherein the glass filled polyolefin is a chemically-coupled glass filled polyolefin.
  • 3. The aerosol can according to claim 1 wherein the glass-filled polyolefin is a polyethylene.
  • 4. The aerosol can according to claim 3 wherein the glass filled polyethylene is a chemically-coupled glass filled polyethylene.
  • 5. The aerosol can according to claim 1 wherein the glass content is between about 2% and about 40%.
  • 6. The aerosol can according to claim 1 wherein the glass content is between about 3% and about 40%.
  • 7. The aerosol can according to claim 1 wherein the glass content is between about 8% and about 40%.
  • 8. The aerosol can according to claim 1 wherein the glass content is between about 10% and about 40%.
  • 9. The aerosol can according to claim 1 wherein the glass content is between about 2% and about 30%.
  • 10. The aerosol can according to claim 1 wherein the glass content is between about 3% and about 30%.
  • 11. The aerosol can according to claim 1 wherein the glass content is between about 8% and about 30%.
  • 12. The aerosol can according to claim 1 wherein the glass content is between about 10% and about 30%.
  • 13. The aerosol can according to claim 1 wherein the moisture-curable foam comprises at least two liquid components.
  • 14. The aerosol can according to claim 1 wherein the moisture-curable foam is polyurethane foam.
  • 15. The aerosol can according to claim 1 wherein the seal is made of neoprene.
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/189,656, filed Jul. 25, 2011, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,511,521, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/228,000, filed Sep. 15, 2005, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,984,834, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/627,850, filed Nov. 15, 2004, and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/610,282, filed Sep. 16, 2004, the entire disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference.

US Referenced Citations (38)
Number Name Date Kind
3830760 Bengtson Aug 1974 A
3954208 Brill May 1976 A
4216884 Giuffredi Aug 1980 A
4429814 Scotti et al. Feb 1984 A
4437592 Bon Mar 1984 A
4558073 Kluth et al. Dec 1985 A
4667855 Holleran May 1987 A
4852807 Stoody Aug 1989 A
4865351 Smithson et al. Sep 1989 A
5014887 Kopp May 1991 A
5456386 Jesswein Oct 1995 A
5553755 Bonewald et al. Sep 1996 A
5687911 Boakye-Danquah et al. Nov 1997 A
5836299 Kwon Nov 1998 A
5865351 De Laforcade Feb 1999 A
5894958 De Laforcade Apr 1999 A
5916953 Jacoby et al. Jun 1999 A
5921447 Barger et al. Jul 1999 A
5975356 Yquel et al. Nov 1999 A
5988699 Quandt Nov 1999 A
6013691 Braun et al. Jan 2000 A
6113070 Holzboog Sep 2000 A
6202899 Lasserre et al. Mar 2001 B1
6245415 Keller et al. Jun 2001 B1
6291580 Kukkala et al. Sep 2001 B1
6750265 Pauls et al. Jun 2004 B2
7226553 Jackson et al. Jun 2007 B2
7227108 Clothier et al. Jun 2007 B2
7282170 Dutmer et al. Oct 2007 B2
7456242 Smith et al. Nov 2008 B2
7984834 McBroom et al. Jul 2011 B2
8511521 McBroom et al. Aug 2013 B1
20020132950 Smith et al. Sep 2002 A1
20040025852 Kanekawa et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040104373 Dutmer et al. Jun 2004 A1
20040260046 Smith et al. Dec 2004 A1
20050011883 Clothier et al. Jan 2005 A1
20060065678 McBroom et al. Mar 2006 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (6)
Number Date Country
1 606 195 Mar 2007 EP
1 577 229 Sep 2009 EP
2 664 649 Nov 2013 EP
9749974 Dec 1997 WO
2005102867 Nov 2005 WO
2011095499 Aug 2011 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (63)
Entry
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Complaint,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Jul. 30, 2012, 9 pages.
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem Nv's Answer and Counterclaims,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Oct. 4, 2012, 9 pages.
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Momentive Performance Materials Inc.'s Answer to Clayton Corporation's Complaint,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Oct. 4, 2012, 9 pages.
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Clayton Corporatin's Answer to Defendant's Counterclaims,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Oct. 29, 2012, 5 pages.
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem Nv's Answer and First Amended Counterclaims,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Jul. 15, 2013, 13 pages.
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Clayton Corporation's Answer to Defendants' First Amended Counterclaims,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Aug. 1, 2012, 6 pages.
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Clayton's Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions Against Defendant Momentive Performance Materials Inc. Under Local Patent R. 3-1,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Mar. 29, 2013, 10 pages.
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Clayton's Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions Against Defendants Lindal and Altachem Under Local Patent R. 3-1,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Mar. 29, 2013, 12 pages.
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Altachem NV's and Lindal North America, Inc.'s Preliminary Counter-Infringement Contentions,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Apr. 26, 2013, 10 pages.
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Momentive Performance Materials, Inc.'s Preliminary Counter-Infringement Contentions,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Apr. 26, 2013, 12 pages.
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Altachem Nv's and Lindal North America, Inc.'s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed May 17, 2013, 57 pages.
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, Excerpts of “Clayton Corporation's Answers to Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV's First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-12),” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Nov. 29, 2013, 10 pages.
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Altachem NV's and Lindal North America, Inc.'s Memorandum in Support of Their Motion for Claim Construction”, Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Sep. 9, 2013, 22 pages.
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Clayton's Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Claim Construction”, Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Sep. 9, 2013, 20 pages.
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Altachem NV's and Lindal North America, Inc.'s Reply Memorandum in Support of Their Motion for Claim Construction”, Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Sep. 24, 2013, 18 pages.
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Clayton's Responsive Claim Construction Memorandum”, Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Sep. 24, 2013, 20 pages.
De Beir, K., “Design of a 2-Component System and a Non-Adherent Tipping Valve Aerosol,” A Thesis Presented to the Department of Industrial Sciences of Hogeschool (University College) Gent, Jun. 2004, 150 pages.
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Altachem's Grounds for Opposition,” Filed Aug. 22, 2012, 24 pages.
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Letter from the Opponent,” Filed Dec. 10, 2012, 4 pages.
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Letter from the Proprietor,” Filed Mar. 28, 2013, 16 pages.
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Letter from the Opponent,” Filed Jun. 29, 2013, 9 pages.
Plast-O-Matic Valves, Inc., “Introduction to Plastic Valves,” accessed at http://www.plastomatic.com/intro-to-plastic-valves-ebook.pdf, Dated Apr. 20, 2003, 45 pages.
ASTM International, “Designation D 5630-01—Standard Test Method for Ash Content in Plastics,” 2001, 5 pages.
Basell Technology Company, Hostacom G2 U02 Product Sheet, Feb. 26, 2004, 2 pages.
British Standard, “Plastics—Determination of Ash, Part 1: General Methods,” Jul. 1997, pp. 1-4.
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North Amerida, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Ghent Courting Ruling for EP 1 789 343,” Issued Jun. 19, 2014, 33 pages.
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Certified Translation of Ghent Court Ruling for EP 1 789 343,” Case No. 4:13-cv-001349-AGF, Filed Jun. 19, 2014, 32 pages.
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Markman Order,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Sep. 30, 2014, 41 pages.
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Clayton's Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Final Infringement Contentions Against Defendants Lindal and Altachem Under Local Patent R. 3-7,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Nov. 20, 2014, 14 pages.
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Altachem NV's and Lindal North America, Inc.'s Final Invalidity Contentions,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Nov. 20, 2014, 62 pages.
Clayton Corporation v. Momentive Performance Materials Inc., Lindal North America, Inc. and Altachem NV, “Altachem NV's and Lindal North America, Inc.'s Final Counter-Infringement Contentions,” Case No. 4:12-cv-01349-AGF, Filed Nov. 20, 2014, 9 pages.
Communication Pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC issued for European Patent 1 789 343 B1, dated Jun. 3, 2009, 2 pages.
Communication Pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC issued for European Patent 1 789 343 B1, dated Jan. 7, 2011, 4 pages.
De Schrijver, A., The Foam Manual, 2012, pp. 13-21 and 98-131, Kluwer Technische Boeken.
European Search Opinion issued for European Patent 1 789 343 B1, dated Aug. 5, 2008, 3 pages.
Harper, C. A., Handbook of Plastics and Elastomers, 1975, pp. 1-96, 1-97, 1-100, 1-101, and 2-66 through 2-69, 1975, McGraw-Hill Book Company.
International Preliminary Report on Patentability issued for European Patent 1 789 343 B1, dated Mar. 20, 2007, 4 pages.
International Search Report issued for European Patent 1 789 343 Bl, dated Feb. 16, 2007, 3 pages.
Observations by Third Parties for European Patent 1 789 343 B1, filed Jun. 8, 2009, 4 pages.
Observations by Third Parties for European Patent 1 789 343 B1, filed Dec. 4, 2009, 5 pages.
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Letter Regarding the Opposition Procedure (No Time Limit),” Filed Dec. 11, 2012, 4 pages.
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Reply of the Patent Proprietor to the Notice(s) of Opposition,” Filed Mar. 28, 2013, 16 pages.
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Translation of the Evidence During Opposition Procedure,” Filed Mar. 28, 2013, 16 pages.
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Letter Regarding the Opposition Procedure (No Time Limit),” Filed Feb. 21, 2014, 4 pages.
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Witness Statement of Jan De Strooper (including attachments),” Dec. 19, 2013, 29 pages.
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Letter Regarding the Opposition Procedure (No Time Limit),” Filed Apr. 8, 2014, 4 pages.
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Annex to the Communication,” Sep. 10, 2014, 8 pages.
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, Written Submission in Preparation to/during Oral Proceedings, Filed Dec. 23, 2014, 28 pages.
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, Written Submission in Preparation to/during Oral Proceedings, Filed Dec. 29, 2014, 5 pages.
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Information Regarding the Result of Oral Proceedings,” Jan. 29, 2015, 3 pages.
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Notice of Appeal,” Filed Feb. 13, 2015, 1 page.
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Minutes of the Oral Proceedings (including Annexes),” Mar. 3, 2015, 19 pages.
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Interlocutory Decision in Opposition Proceedings (Art. 101(3)(a) and 106(2) EPC),” Mar. 3, 2015, 30 pages.
Opposition Against Clayton's European Patent 1 789 343 B1, “Annex to the Communication,” Mar. 3, 2015, 5 pages.
PolyOne, “On Force(TM) LFT PE-33LGF/000 White,” Provisional Datasheet, Mar. 14, 2012, 1 page.
RTP Company, “High Density Polyethylene (HDPE),” accessed from <http://www.rtpcompany.com/info/guide/descriptions/0700.htm> on Aug. 3, 2012, 1 page.
RTP Company, Letter to Clayton Corporation Regarding the Composition of RTP 703 CC and RTP 199X121708, dated Oct. 10, 2013, 1 page.
RTP Company, “RTP 703 CC HF High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Glass Fiber High Flow,” Product Data Sheet & General Processing Conditions, Mar. 3, 2011, 1 page.
Seymour, R. B., et al., Structure-Property Relationships in Polymers, 1984, pp. 134-137, Plenum Press.
Supplementary European Search Report issued for European Patent 1 789 343 B1, dated Jul. 29, 2008, 2 pages.
Technical Drawing, Faigle for Altachem NV, Mar. 5, 2004, 1 page.
Versuchsmusterprufbericht VM0281 Faigle to Altachem, dated Nov. 21, 2003, 1 page.
Visit Report, Dietmar Murnig (Faigle) to Altachem NV, dated Feb. 17, 2004, 5 pages.
Related Publications (2)
Number Date Country
20130341552 A1 Dec 2013 US
20140166920 A2 Jun 2014 US
Provisional Applications (2)
Number Date Country
60627850 Nov 2004 US
60610282 Sep 2004 US
Continuations (2)
Number Date Country
Parent 13189656 Jul 2011 US
Child 13971317 US
Parent 11228000 Sep 2005 US
Child 13189656 US