loadpatents
Patent applications and USPTO patent grants for Grass; William E..The latest application filed is for "dual baffle apparatus for electrical switching device".
Patent | Date |
---|---|
Dual baffle apparatus for electrical switching device Grant 5,861,596 - Grass , et al. January 19, 1 | 1999-01-19 |
Remote control circuit breaker system Grant 5,373,411 - Grass , et al. December 13, 1 | 1994-12-13 |
Remote control residential circuit breaker Grant 5,301,083 - Grass , et al. April 5, 1 | 1994-04-05 |
Handle block for electrical switching device Grant 5,290,979 - Grass March 1, 1 | 1994-03-01 |
Adapter providing unitary mounting capability for standard circuit breaker Grant 5,047,604 - Grass , et al. September 10, 1 | 1991-09-10 |
Heat dissipating electrical connector joining circuit breaker terminal and panel supply conductor Grant 4,912,598 - Grass March 27, 1 | 1990-03-27 |
Residential circuit breaker with one piece slot motor Grant 4,546,337 - Petrie , et al. October 8, 1 | 1985-10-08 |
Latch Attachment For An Electromagnetically Operated Switching Device Grant 3,882,435 - Grass , et al. May 6, 1 | 1975-05-06 |
Relay With Time Delay Coil Grant 3,824,434 - Boley , et al. July 16, 1 | 1974-07-16 |
uspto.report is an independent third-party trademark research tool that is not affiliated, endorsed, or sponsored by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or any other governmental organization. The information provided by uspto.report is based on publicly available data at the time of writing and is intended for informational purposes only.
While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, we do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information displayed on this site. The use of this site is at your own risk. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
All official trademark data, including owner information, should be verified by visiting the official USPTO website at www.uspto.gov. This site is not intended to replace professional legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for consulting with a legal professional who is knowledgeable about trademark law.