Desiccant entrained polymer

Details Desiccant entrained polymer Desiccant entrained polymer

2006-02-28

2006-02-28

McDowell, Suzanne (Department: 1732)

Synthetic resins or natural rubbers -- part of the class 520 ser

Synthetic resins

Processes of preparing a desired or intentional composition...

C523S122000, C523S132000, C521S905000, C524S387000, C524S503000

Reexamination Certificate

active

07005459

ABSTRACT:
The present invention includes a composition having a co-continuous interconnecting channel morphology. These co-continuous interconnecting channels are predominately occupied with a polymer and particles that control the percolation through the composition. The particles are composed of a material such as an absorbing agent, releasing agent and/or activation agent. The polymer composition may be used to form a desired shaped article such as plug type inserts and liners for closed containers, or it may be formed into a film, sheet, bead or pellet.

REFERENCES:
patent: 3375208 (1968-03-01), Duddy
patent: 4425410 (1984-01-01), Farrell et al.
patent: 5130342 (1992-07-01), McAllister et al.
patent: 5432214 (1995-07-01), Lancesseur
patent: 5494155 (1996-02-01), Evans et al.
patent: 5496397 (1996-03-01), Fischer et al.
patent: 5518761 (1996-05-01), Hatsuda et al.
patent: 6486231 (2002-11-01), Hekal
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: “SCI'S Fifth Supplemental Objections and Responses to CSP'S First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 1-11”, (pp. 1-70) (Attachment: “The Prior Art Invalidates The Asserted Claims”) (p. 1-15).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: “CSP'S Supplemental Responses to SCI'S First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 1-4”, (pp. 1-8) (Attachment: “Exhibit A” —Chart Comparing U.S. Patent No. 5,911,937, 6,124,006 and 6,214,255 to “SCI Infringing Product”).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: “CSP'S Second Supplemental Responses to SCI'S First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 1-4”, (pp. 1-14) (Attachment: “Exhibit A”-Letter From Kevin W. McCabe to Margaret M. Duncan, Esq., “Exhibit B”-Dictionary (p. 847), “Exhibit C”-Dictionary (p. 756) “Exhibit D”-Dictionary (p. 1305), “Exhibit E” (p. 1250), “Exhibit G”-Chart Comparing U.S. Patent No. 5,911,937, 6,124,006 and 6,214,255 to “SCI Infringing Product”).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: “CSP'S Third Supplemental Responses to SCI'S First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 1-4”, (pp. 1-18) (Attachment: “Exhibit A”-Letter From Kevin W. McCabe to Margaret M. Duncan, Esq., “Exhibit B”-Dictionary (p. 22), “Exhibit C”-Dictionary (p. 847) “Exhibit D”-Dictionary (p. 756), “Exhibit E”-Dictionary (p. 921), “Exhibit F”-Dictionary (p. 1305), “Exhibit G”-Dictionary (p. 1250), “Exhibit H”-Dictionary(p. 1251) “Exhibit I”-Chart Comparing U.S. Patent No. 5,911,937, 6,124,006 and 6,214,255 to “SCI Infringing Product”).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: “CSP'S Fourth Supplemental Responses to SCI'S First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 1-4”, (pp. 1-15) (Attachment: “Exhibit A”-Letter From Kevin W. McCabe to Margaret M. Duncan, Esq., “Exhibit B”-Dictionary (p. 22), “Exhibit C”-Dictionary(p. 847) “Exhibit D”-Dictionary (p. 756), “Exhibit E”-Dictionary (p. 921), “Exhibit F”-Dictionary (p. 1305), “Exhibit G”-Dictionary (p. 1250), “Exhibit H”-Dictionary(p. 1251) “Exhibit I”,Chart Comparing U.S. Patent No. 5,911,937, 6,124,006 and 6,214,255 to “SCI Infringing Product”).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: “CSP'S Objections and Responses to SCI'S Second Set of Interrogatories Nos. 5-6”, (pp. 1-6).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: “CSP'S Supplemental Responses to SCI'S Second Set of Interrogatories Nos. 5 and 6”, (pp. 1-5).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: “CSP'S Responses to SCI'S Third Set of Interrogatories Nos. 7-11”, (pp. 1-9).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: “CSP'S Objections and Responses to SCI'S Fourth Set of Interrogatories” (pp. 1-8).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: CSP Technologies' First Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 5 (pp. 1-11).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: “CSP Technologies' Corrected First Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 5”, (pp. 1-11).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: “CSP'S Answers to Plaintiff SCI'S First Set of Requests for Admission”, (pp. 1-3) (Attachment: “CSP'S Objections And Responses to SCI'S Second Set of Requests For Admission” (pp. 1-4) with Attachment).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: “SCI'S Third Supplemental Objections and Responses to CSP'S First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 1-11”, (pp. 1-63) (Attachment: “The Prior Art Invalidates The Asserted Claims”) (pp. 1-13).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: “Complaint for Declaratory Judgment”. (pp. 1-5).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: “Declaration of Robert S. Abrams in Support of CSP Technologies, Inc.'S Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Sud-Chemie's-Declaratory Judgment Action”. (pp. 1-5) (Attachment: “Exhibit 1”- Letter From Klaus Langer to Robert S. Abrams, “Exhibit 2”- Letter From Robert S. Abrams Klaus Langer.
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: “CSP Technologies, Inc.'s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of its Motion to Dismiss or Transfer-Sud-Chemie's Declaratory Judgment Action”, (pp. 1-23).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: “Sud-Chemie, Inc.'s First Amended Complaint”, (pp. 1-7).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: “Consented to Motion for Leave to Withdraw the Defendants Motion to Dismiss or-Transfer”, (pp. 1-3).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: “Answer and Counter Claims of Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff CSP Technologies, Inc.”, (pp. 1-13).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: “Joint Proposed Case Management Plan”, (pp. 1-21).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: Plaintiff Sud-Chemie, Inc.'s Reply to the Counterclaims of Defendant CSP Technologies, Inc., (pp. 1-6).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: “CSP's Motion for Leave to Amend Its Answer and Counterclaims”, (pp. 1-8).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: “CSP Technologies' Motion to Dismiss Sud-Chemie's Declaratory Judgment Action for Lack of a Certain Controversy as to Certain-Patents and Products”, (pp. 1-3).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: “CSP Technologies' Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings Dismissing Sud-Chemie's Amended Third Count for Inequitable Conbuct”,- (pp. 1-6).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: “CSP Technologies' Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss Sud-Chemies Declaratory Judgment Action for Lack of a-Justiciable Controversy as to Certain Patents and Products”, (pp. 1-15).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: “SCI's Opposition to CSP's Motion for Leave to Amend Its Answer and Counterclaims”, (pp. 1-4).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: “SCI's Opposition to CSP's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings” (pp. 1-12).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: “CSP's Opening Breif on Claim Construction”, (pp. 1-30).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: “Plaintiff SCI's Breif on the Construction of the ′937, ′006, and ′255 Patents”, (pp. 1-29).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: CSP Technologies'Reply in Support of Its Motion for Leave to Amend Its Answer and Counterclaims, (pp. 1-4).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: “CSP Technologies' Reply in Support of Its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Dismissing Sud-Chemie's Amended Third-Count for Inequitable Conduct”, (pp. 1-9).
Sud-Chemie, Inc. vs. CSP Technologies, Inc.: CSP Technologies' Reply in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss Sud

Affiliated with

Also associated with

Rating

Desiccant entrained polymer does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.

If you have personal experience with Desiccant entrained polymer, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Desiccant entrained polymer will most certainly appreciate the feedback.

Rate now

Comments { 0 }

Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3706556