References missing RE in their patent numbers
To continue the fun, the following references are incorrect. The patent numbers stated
in the referencing patent are missing the RE making the reference appear to be a
utility patent when it is actually to a reissued patent. Check the links for yourself, the left most ones will bring up a uspto page showing the issue date and link to see the image.
Then you can check the referencing patents to find the patent number being referenced without the RE that has a matching issue date and inventor from the left most link. Pretty fun, huh?
I didn't check for similar references where the D of a design patent is missing but I did come across one accidentally. It's at the very bottom of this page. It might become a
page of its own if I find more of them.
|Bad reference||Found in patent(s)|
|[RE]9029 Acker||4,479,289 4,056,645|
|[RE]9622 Best||8,119,012 7,922,008 7,850,859 7,749,394 7,740,765 7,615,152 D501,912|
|[RE]9687 Cox||D719,789 D609,060 D584,573|
|[RE]9305 Heineman||5,503,088 4,438,606 4,419,939|
|[RE]9787 Schade||5,502,991 5,088,306|
|[RE]9241 Willson||5,342,390 5,192,298 5,171,256 5,156,633 5,152,778 5,133,735|
|[RE]9790 Winkless||6,991,064 D288,376 |