>>8531400 in reference to this post
>>8530835 LB
you missed my analysis (reposted below) that this patent expired in 1983.
A patent APPLICATION hangs around a long time and whether or not the corresponding patent was issued, the APPLICATION remains on the books as 'prior art' that could prevent similar inventions from being patented. The APPLICATION expired yesterday.
But a patent was issued in 1966 on the 1960 patent application, and that PATENT is only good for 20 years at most (see below) and it expired in 1983.
How come anon knows stuff about US patent law? Well, without doxing, anon KNOWS, OK?
>>8530885 LB
>You're saying a US patent application No. US3244591A held by DuPont's Endo Labs on
>Solutions of Adrenochrome Monosemicarbazone in 7-dimethylaminoethyl-1,3-dimethyl xanthine
>expired yesterday?
No, that's wrong.
>This patent was applied for in 1960 and granted in 1966, and expired in 1983.
>Sorry anon, that patent expired a long time ago.
>"In the United States, under current patent law, the term of patent, provided that maintenance fees are paid on time, is 20 years from the filing date of the earliest U.S. or international application to which priority is claimed."
So your analysis is partly based upon a false inference and needs to be rethought.
So I'm not really sure a notable is warranted.