Patent Grant
8851323
This invention relates to a can end and a method of manufacture of such a can end. In particular, it relates to a can end which has improved performance characteristics.
Containers such as cans which are used for the packaging beverages, for example, may contain a carbonated beverage which is at a higher than atmospheric pressure. Can end design has been developed to withstand this “positive” buckle pressure (sometimes also referred to as “peaking” pressure) up to defined minimum values (currently 90 psi for carbonated soft drinks) under normal operating conditions before failure. About 8 to 10 psi above this value, failure of conventional can ends involves loss of the circular profile and buckling of the end which, ultimately, leads to eversion of the end profile. Abuse conditions may also arise when a container is dropped or distorted, or when the product within the container undergoes thermal processing.
One solution to the problem of loss of circular profile is provided by the can end which is described in our U.S. Pat. No. 6,065,634. The can end shell (that is, the unseamed can end) of that patent includes a peripheral curl, a seaming panel, a chuck wall at an angle of between 30° and 60°, a narrow anti-peaking bead and a center panel. During seaming of the shell to the can body, the chuck wall is deformed at its upper end by contact with an anvil portion of the seaming chuck. The resulting profile provides a very strong double seam since the annulus formed by the seam has very high hoop strength and will resist distortion from its circular profile when subjected to thermal processing or when packaging carbonated beverages.
Stiffness is also provided to the beverage can end by the anti-peaking or countersink bead. This is an outwardly concave bead comprising inner and outer walls, joined by a curved portion. In the '634 patent this bead has walls which are substantially upright, although either may vary by up to +/−15°. This patent uses a small base radius (best fit) for the bead, typically 0.75 mm or less.
It is known from U.S. Pat. No. 6,089,072 that the width of the anti-peaking bead can be reduced by free drawing of the inner wall of the bead. This latter method avoids undue thinning of the bead as it is reworked. The resultant narrower bead optimises the stiffness of the can and, consequently, its resistance to buckling when attached to a can body having high internal pressure in the can.
Can ends such as those described in the above patents have high hoop strength and/or improved buckle performance such that they resist deformation when subjected to high internal pressure. In particular, the buckle pressure of the end of the '634 patent is well above the 90 psi can making industry minimum standard.
Whilst high hoop strength is predominantly beneficial it will affect the manner in which the can end ultimately fails. In a conventional can end, the circular periphery of the can end will tend to distort and become oval under high internal pressure. If the circular shape of the seamed end is free to distort to an oval shape under high internal pressure, as is usual, then part of the anti-peaking bead will open out along an arc at one end of the long axis of the oval shape as the can end everts locally.
However, as the inventors have observed in the can end of the '634 patent in particular, it has been found that the stiff annulus formed by the double seam resists such distortion. As a result, when subjected to severe abuse conditions, dropping during transport, mishandling by machinery, freezing etc, it has been found that the resultant failure mode may lead to leakage of can contents. When distortion of the seam or anti-peaking bead is resisted by a strong seam and/or anti-peaking bead, failure can be by eversion of the bead at a single point rather than along an arc. Such point eversion leads to pin hole leaks or even splitting of the can end due to the localised fatiguing of the metal and extreme conditions may even be explosive
This invention seeks to control the failure mode and to avoid catastrophic failure and leaking, whilst still achieving buckle pressure performance well above the industry stipulated pressure of 90 psi.
According to the present invention, there is provided a can end shell comprising a center panel, a countersink bead, an inclined chuck wall portion, and a seaming panel, and further including one or more control features, each feature extending around an arc of part of the countersink bead and/or the chuck wall whereby the failure mode of the can end, when seamed to a can body, is controlled, and in which the or each control feature comprises one or more of: an expansion of the countersink bead, a shelf in the outer wall of the countersink, an indentation in the chuck wall, and/or coining.
For the avoidance of doubt, it should be noted that the term “arc” as used herein is intended to include a 360° arc, i.e. a control feature or features which extend around the whole circumference of the can end shell. Furthermore, it should be noted that the term “inclined” is not intended to be limiting and the inclined chuck wall may have one or more parts, any of which may be linear or curved, for example.
A control feature, such as a selectively weakened region, may be introduced onto the can end in a variety of different ways, all of which are intended to limit or prevent the concentration of strain. Control features or weakenings may be achieved by increasing the radial position of the outer wall of the countersink bead, a shelf in the countersink bead, an indentation in the chuck wall, or coining. Numerous variations are possible within the scope of the invention, including those set out below.
Usually, a shelf in the countersink bead will be in the outer wall of the bead, and may be at any position up that wall. Clearly when the shelf is at the lower end of the outer wall it effectively corresponds to an expansion in the bead radius. A shelf or groove may be provided on any part of a radial cross-section through the bead but as the inner wall diameter position is often used as a reference for machine handling purposes and the thickness of the base of the countersink should ideally not be reduced, the outer wall is the preferred location.
Preferably, an indentation in the chuck wall should be made so that in the seamed can end, the indentation is positioned approximately at the root of the seam. In the end shell this means that the indentation should be made about half way up the chuck wall or in the upper half of the chuck wall, depending on the type of seam. The indentation may be made using radial and indent spacers to control the radial and penetration depth of the tool.
In one embodiment, a control feature may extend over a single arc behind the heel of the tab, centered on a diameter through the tab rivet and nose. Alternatively, there may be a pair of control features, symmetrically placed one on either side of the tab, and ideally centered at +/−90° or less from the heel (handle end) of the tab. In this embodiment, the arc length may be anything up to 90° in order to encompass any “thin point” due to orientation relative to grain orientation.
A control feature may comprise a combination of different types of control features, usually over at least a portion of the same arc of the can end such that, where the arcs are not fully circumferential, the different types are centered on the same can end diameter. For example, there may be an expansion of the bead wall/radius and an indentation in the chuck wall for the same or each control feature. In this example, the indentation in the chuck wall may extend over the same length of arc as the bead expansion, a longer or a shorter arc length, with the centers of the arcs being on the same end diameter. In yet another embodiment, there may additionally be a shelf-type groove, as well as the bead expansion and chuck wall indentation.
The countersink bead may have its base radius enlarged and then incorporate a control feature comprising a shelf in its outer wall. In one example, the arc length of the bead expansion (and, where present, the shelf) is less than the arc length of the chuck wall indentation, such that the bead expansion (and shelf) acts as a trigger for local peaking.
Where the control feature comprises an indentation or coined region on the chuck wall, this may extend either internally or externally, or a combination of these around the arc. For the purpose of this description, it is the side of the can end to which a tab is fixed which is referred to as “external” as this side will be external in the finished can. Preferably, however, the indentation extends inwardly as otherwise it may be removed by the seaming tool during seaming.
In a further embodiment, the end shell may additionally include coining of a shoulder between the inner wall of the countersink and the center panel over an arc or pair of arcs.
The control feature is preferably made in a conversion press but it may be made in a shell press or even in a combination of the shell and conversion presses providing that orientation of the end is not an issue.
Whilst the terms “groove”, “indentation” and “indent” have been used above, it should be appreciated that these terms also encompass any reshaping of the can end to form a control feature, including the use of a point indent or series of indents and other variations of points and grooves.
According to another embodiment, a can end shell and seamed can end are provided having an increased wall angle that forms a control feature or weakening. The unseamed end includes a circumferentially extending peripheral curl including a cover hook, a seaming panel, and a radiused portion; a wall extending circumferentially and radially inward from said radiused portion of said peripheral curl at a first point; an annular reinforcing bead extending radially inward from said wall at a second point, wherein a line between said first and second points is inclined between about 30° and about 60° with respect to an axial centerline of said can end; a center panel; and one or more control features, each control feature extending around an arc of at least part of the countersink bead and/or the chuck wall, whereby the failure mode of the can end, when seamed to a can body, is controlled, and in which the or each control feature comprises one or more of: an expansion of the countersink bead, a shelf in the outer wall of the countersink, an indentation in the chuck wall, and/or coining.
The wall comprises an upper wall portion and a lower wall portion and a juncture therebetween, said upper wall portion extending inwardly from said first point, said lower wall portion extending radially outwardly from said second point. The lower wall portion preferably is inclined greater than 46°, preferably between 46° and 60°, more preferably between 46° and 54°, more preferably between 48° and 54°, and most preferably about 52°.
The can end shell may also be formed with the above inclined wall without other control feature or weakening. Such seamed can end includes a circumferentially extending peripheral curl including a cover hook, a seaming panel, and a radiused portion; an annular reinforcing bead extending radially inward from said wall lower portion at a second point, wherein a line between said first and second points is inclined between about 20° and about 60° with respect to the axial centerline; a center panel; and a wall extending circumferentially and radially inwardly from said radiused portion of said peripheral curl at a first point and extending circumferentially and radially outwardly from the bead at a second point; said wall including a lower portion, an upper portion, and a juncture therebetween, said lower wall portion being inclined between 46° and 60° with respect to an axial centerline of said can end and measured between said second point and said juncture. The lower wall portion preferably is inclined between 46° and 54°, more preferably, between 48° and 54°, even more preferably at approximately 52°. The seamed can end having a wall inclined at the above angles.
Preferred embodiments of the invention will now be described, by way of example only, with reference to the drawings, in which:
The can end of
The can end of
It has been found by the present Applicant, however, that where a container has an end which is, by virtue of its design, substantially stiffer and has greater hoop strength than that of
Whilst the higher hoop strength exhibited by this can end is of great importance in maintaining the overall integrity of the container, the mode in which the can fails under severe abuse conditions may be unacceptable and even, on occasion, catastrophic. Typical failure modes may compromise the integrity of the can by pin hole(s) and/or splitting of the can end. In extreme cases, the center panel 28 is pushed outwardly by excessive internal pressure. As the panel moves outwardly, it pulls the inner wall 26 of the anti-peaking bead 25 with it. The inner portion 23 of seam 22 is “peeled” away from the rest of the seam as the can end is forced out. The explosive nature of this so-called “peaking” failure results in the formation of a bird's beak configuration with a pin hole at the apex of the “beak” where the force is concentrated in a single point at the base of the countersink 25.
The Applicants have discovered that by providing the can end with a control feature, a preferential “soft” peak is obtainable when the can end fails. Although this means that the can end may fail at a lower buckle pressure, the softer, less explosive nature of the peak results in a failure mode without pin hole or tearing. The introduction of a control feature thus controls the failure mode and avoids concentration of the forces at a single point.
Control features in accordance with the invention can take a variety of forms including, without limitation, one or more of the following with reference to
When a type D region is at the lower part of the outer countersink wall, this may be equivalent to a type A control feature. Higher up the outer wall, a type D region takes the clear form of a shelf.
In a preliminary trial of the present invention, the shell having an overall shape shown in
Modelling and bench testing has revealed that even better control of the failure mode was achievable when a pair of grooves were made at the base of the countersink outer wall. A variety of variables were modelled and then bench tested as follows:
In bench testing of a small batch of cans using each of the above combinations, it was found that whilst the majority of cans leaked, the provision of a control feature controlled the position of peaking to the indentation site and all leaks were located on the peaks rather than on the tab rivet or score.
In spite of the fact that the cans of the initial trial still leaked on peaking, the application discovered that the incident of leakage was greatly reduced by a combination of types of control features which may, individually, exhibit unacceptable leaking on peaking. The following examples show how the failure mode can not only be focussed on a particular site on the can end but also be controlled such that the can also has acceptable buckle performance. In all of these further trials, cans were heated to 100° F. before carrying out the drop tests.
Can ends were modified in the conversion press by expanding the countersink bead over a 60° arc at positions +/−90° of the tab heel. These ends were then seamed onto filled cans and dropped vertically, tab end down, onto a steel plate, the sheet steel being inclined at 30°. This extreme test is non-standard and tested the cans for severe abuse performance. The tests used the Bruceton staircase analysis and results are set out in table 1, where P=standard peak and PS=peak and score burst.
All cans tested peaked at the control feature without splitting. As with preliminary bench testing, the position of peaking was focussed on the indentation site.
Can ends modified in this way were also tested by pressurising a can to which the end was seamed (“seamed end test”). These results are shown in table 2. Whilst the cans all peaked on the indentation site and were still openable after peaking, only 25% survived testing without leaking on the peak location.
Further can ends were then modified in the conversion press both by expanding the countersink bead over a 60° arc at positions +/−90° of the tab heel, and also by providing a indentation over a 50° arc at positions +/−90° in the upper chuck wall. These ends were then seamed onto filled cans and drop tested by dropping vertically, tab end down, onto a steel plate, the sheet steel being inclined at 30°. The results of the second tests are given in table 3, where again P=standard peak and PS=peak and score burst.
The combination of a countersink bead expansion and indentation in the chuck wall increases the average height at which peaking occurs. The countersink bead expansion was found to act as a trigger and this combination of a trigger and chuck wall indentation controls the peaking better than a countersink bead expansion alone (example 1).
Can ends modified in this way were also tested by pressurising a can to which the end was seamed (“seamed end test”). These results are shown in table 4.
In the results of table 4, all the cans again peaked on the indentation site and were still openable after peaking. In addition, 100% survived testing without leaking on the peak location, supporting the Applicant's discovery that by combining two types of control feature, performance in terms of leak-free failure mode is dramatically improved.
Can ends having an indentation in the upper chuck wall only (i.e. not in the countersink) were seamed to can bodies and then pressurised. Runs 1 to 8 had a single indentation behind the tab over an arc of about 40° to 50°. Runs 1-1 to 8-8 had indentations at +/−90° and over a 50° arc. Mean results are given throughout. Peak location indicates the incidence of a peak on the control feature. The spacer details explain the degree of indentation in the chuck wall.
Further trials were conducted to confirm the effect of expansion of the countersink radius and the indentation in the upper chuck wall, both separately and together. Unmodified can ends were tested by way of control. The results are shown in tables 6 and 7.
The chuck wall indentations comprised a indentation on each side of the tab, set at 90° to the tab. Spacer conditions were as in example 3, but with a 9 mm indent ring spacer (rather than 8.75 mm).
The countersink “trigger” comprised a single bead expansion within the arc of the chuck wall indentation and centered on the same diameter (arc mid-point). This bead expansion was selected to trigger a peak within the chuck wall indentation as identified in example 2.
The control can ends give very low survival figures in both drop tests and seamed end testing (SET), i.e. the control can ends leak when they peak. The chuck wall indentation alone gives good hot drop (100° F.) and SET performance but seems to have higher incidence of score bursts during hot drop testing. The countersink (“c′sk”) bead trigger creates a very symmetric end shape from the hot drop test and is very effective in determining the peak location. The countersink trigger reduces the SET performance to 89 psi average, but this is believed to be attributable to the tooling used to create the indentations. In general “1” means yes and “0” means no, except in position in which 1 indicates the position of peak on the control feature.
Further seamed end tests were carried out on both unmodified can ends (“control samples”) and can ends having a 360° control feature in the form of a shelf in the outer wall of the countersink bead. Results of these trials are given in table 8. Buckle pressure performance was well above the 90 psi industry standard for all cans, both standard and modified. Only 25% of the control samples survived testing without leaking, whereas 100% of the cans having a control feature (circumferential shelf in the countersink bead) passed the test without leaking.
As set forth in the Background section, although when subjected to severe abuse conditions can ends described in the 634 patent having a wall inclined at less than 45° will fail at a pressure greater than that of a conventional end, the mode of failure will be such that the bead will very locally peak, potentially resulting in fracturing and leaking—a situation referred to as “peak and leak.” The inventors have determined that such an end tends to fracture at the peak when the end fails by the countersink bead collapsing or folding in on itself in response to sufficient internal pressure. The end shown in the Figures of the 634 patent experienced the peak and leak failure mode at least in part because its high hoop strength or “locking” resisted failure by other modes, such as seaming unravelling.
In addition to the control features described above, the inventors have found that increasing the wall angle to 46° or more tends to diminish the formation of the peak and leak failure mode. In this regard, the inventors believe that the inventive seamed end is weakened such that it tends to fail in a manner that is not as localized as that described above and that promotes less localized bead eversion. The inventors have further found that incorporating a weakening in the countersink bead outer wall of the end, in addition to the increased wall angle inclination, enhances the controlled and non-catastrophic manner in which the end fails.
Peripheral curl 40 includes a radiused portion 45 that merges into chuck wall upper portion 44, a seaming panel 47, and a peripheral cover hook 48 suitable for forming a double seam with a can body. As previously discussed, the reinforcing bead 35 preferably includes a weakening in the bead that increases the circumferential extent of the eversion of the bead at failure, thereby preventing the peak and leak condition. As also previously discussed, such a weakening can be in the form of a coined and/or expanded section of the bead. The expansion of the bead may be in the form of an increase in the diameter of only a portion of the height of the bead outer wall, which can be done around the entire circumference or over only a portion of the circumference, or an increase in the diameter of the bead outer wall over its entire height but only around a portion of its circumference. In the embodiment shown in
Wall 38 includes a lower portion 42, an upper portion 44, and a juncture 46 therebetween. Juncture 46 encompasses any transition, such as a sharp transition between upper and lower wall portions or a radiused portion interposed therebetween. A point B is defined as the transition between bead outer wall 37 and lower portion 42 of chuck wall 38. A point C is defined as the transition between chuck wall 38 and peripheral curl 40.
Chuck wall lower portion 42 preferably is substantially straight and sloped such that its axis forms an angle A1 with a vertical axis of, preferably, between 46° and 54°, more preferably between 48° and 54°, and most preferably 52°, as demonstrated by the data provided in Tables 9-13. The upper limit on angle A1 will depend on the diameter and depth of center panel, bead configuration and dimensions, end thickness, and like practical parameters. The inventors estimate that 60° is an effective upper practical limit of angle A1.
Wall upper portion 44 preferably is substantially straight and sloped such that its axis forms an angle A2 with respect to a vertical axis of that is less than angle A1, and preferably less than about 44°, and more preferably approximately 28°. Such angle A2 promotes alignment of the can end onto the can body in the seamer and aids in the material deformation that occurs in the first seaming operation.
The magnitude of angles A1 and A2 preferably may be chosen such that a line between point B and point C forms an angle of between 20° and 60°, more preferably between 30° and 55°, even more preferably between 40° and 50°, and most preferably approximately 43°.
The present invention is not limited to walls 42 and 44 that are straight, but rather encompasses walls that are convex when viewed from above.
Table 9 shows the inclination A1 of lower wall portion 42 of the can end, the tool angle used in the shell press that forms the lower wall portion 42, and the corresponding angle of the preferred seaming chuck, shown in phantom in
Table 10 provides drop test results and failure modes for the end shown in
None of the samples provided in Table 10 had leaking at the peak. For comparison, the drop test results for ends having a wall inclined at 43.5°, without control features described herein, yielded 6 ends that leaked on the peak (12.5%), 36 ends that leaked on the peak and also burst at the score (75%), and 6 ends that peaked but did not otherwise leak (12.5%) out of 48 ends. Table 6 provides data for seamed ends having a wall that is inclined at 43.5°, unmodified by the teachings herein, which are heated to 100° F. such that their internal pressure is approximately 85 psi. The results of Table 6 may be generally compared to the results of Table 10 because the hot cans of Table 6 are dropped from a lower height than the cans of Table 10.
The end designated by reference H, having a wall angle of 52°, shows a somewhat higher percentage of ends that peak but do not leak and, thus, a lower percentage of ends that burst or vent at the score compared with the other ends.
Table 11 provides the numbers and percentages for each type of failure mode during a heating test, in which seamed cans were laid on their sides and heated to 130° F. for two to three hours. As shown below, leaking at the peak occurred only once for any of the cans tested.
For comparison, a heating test of 48 cans having ends with a wall inclined to 43.5° without a weakening or control feature described herein produced 30 failed by seam unravelling (and, thus, leaking) and 18 failed by the peak and leak failure mode.
Table 12 provides the pressure at which the unseamed, non-aged can ends failed in an Altek tester. To simulate the hoop strength of the seamed can end, the Altek tester was modified to constrain radial movement of the end. The failure mode is also provided. In Table 12, “L” refers to a leak at the peak. Table 13 provides pressure test data for a seamed can end.
As shown in Table 12 and Table 13, increasing the wall angle decreases the seamed strength of both the unseamed and seamed ends. The improved properties relating to leaking are apparent.
Referring to
Unseamed end 29′, that is, without an expansion of countersink bead 35 or other additional weakening feature, provides improved fracture resistance, when seamed onto a can body, upon failing compared with seamed ends having a wall inclined to 43.5 degrees. For example, no cans formed with an end 29′ leaked in a heating test.
Table 14 provides the failure modes by percent of ends 29′ having an angle A1 of 52° in a drop test. The cans were pressurized to 55 psi. Seven percent of the seamed ends leaked at the peak.
Also, the unseamed can end 29′ withstood 100.4 psi and the seamed end withstood 84.6 psi.
The inventors estimate that wall angles of 46° or more, with or without a bead expansion 50, will weaken the seamed end for reasons relating to resolving the component vectors of the force transmitted through the wall to the seam, as described more fully above. Accordingly, the present invention encompasses an end having a wall inclined at an angle A1 equal to or greater than 46° and preferably below 60°, preferably in between approximately 48° and approximately 54°, and most preferably approximately 52°. The inventors believe that the conclusions of Tables 9 through 13 apply to end 29′ shown in
Preferred ranges of angle A1 are provided for the ends shown in
A portion of chuck 70 is shown in
The invention has been described above by way of example only and numerous changes and/or permutations may be made within the scope of the invention as filed. It should also be noted that the control features of the invention are particularly intended for use on beverage can ends which are to be fixed to a can body and thereby subjected to internal pressure. Furthermore, the control features may be used on can ends having any chuck wall angle whether conventional (less than 15°) or larger, such as that of the '634 patent, i.e. 30° to 60°.
| Number | Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02252800 | Apr 2002 | EP | regional |
This is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 13/425,934, filed Mar. 21, 2013, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/551,907, filed Sep. 1, 2009, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/979,068, filed Nov. 1, 2004, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/770,791, filed Feb. 3, 2004, which is a continuation of PCT/EP03/03716 filed Apr. 10, 2003, which claims priority to EPO Application Number 02252800.4 filed Apr. 22, 2002, the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3441170 | Khoury | Apr 1969 | A |
| 3843014 | Cospen et al. | Oct 1974 | A |
| 4434641 | Nguyen | Mar 1984 | A |
| 4577774 | Nguyen | Mar 1986 | A |
| 4796772 | Nguyen | Jan 1989 | A |
| 4808052 | Bulso, Jr. et al. | Feb 1989 | A |
| 4832223 | Kalenak et al. | May 1989 | A |
| 4928844 | LaBarge | May 1990 | A |
| 5645189 | Clowes | Jul 1997 | A |
| 5829623 | Otsuka et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5950858 | Sergeant | Sep 1999 | A |
| 6065634 | Brifcani et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6089072 | Fields | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6102243 | Fields et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6158608 | Schlattl | Dec 2000 | A |
| D452155 | Stodd | Dec 2001 | S |
| 6370818 | Chabot et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6419110 | Stodd | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6460723 | Nguyen et al. | Oct 2002 | B2 |
| 6499622 | Neiner | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6516968 | Stodd | Feb 2003 | B2 |
| D471453 | Stodd | Mar 2003 | S |
| 6561004 | Neiner et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
| D480304 | Stodd | Oct 2003 | S |
| 6702142 | Neiner | Mar 2004 | B2 |
| 6736283 | SantaMaria et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
| 6772900 | Turner et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
| 7370774 | Watson | May 2008 | B2 |
| 7591392 | Watson | Sep 2009 | B2 |
| 8496132 | Watson et al. | Jul 2013 | B2 |
| 20020134788 | Nguyen | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20030010785 | Stodd | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030042258 | Turner et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030121920 | Zonker et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030173367 | Nguyen et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
| 20040074911 | Stodd | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040094559 | SantaMaria et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040159697 | Turner et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040238546 | Watson | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 0303837 | Feb 1989 | EP |
| 0828663 | Dec 1999 | EP |
| 1105232 | May 2002 | EP |
| 1361164 | Dec 2003 | EP |
| 5112357 | Jul 1993 | JP |
| 2003136168 | May 2003 | JP |
| WO 9834743 | Aug 1998 | WO |
| WO 9924326 | May 1999 | WO |
| WO 02043895 | Jun 2002 | WO |
| WO 03035494 | May 2003 | WO |
| WO 03059764 | Jul 2003 | WO |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20130306658 A1 | Nov 2013 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 13425934 | Mar 2012 | US |
| Child | 13952757 | US | |
| Parent | 12551907 | Sep 2009 | US |
| Child | 13425934 | US | |
| Parent | 10979068 | Nov 2004 | US |
| Child | 12551907 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 10770791 | US | |
| Child | 10979068 | US |
