RNU objects to EGR's purification Patent application, page-362

Hi Mallyrock

You must be nervous after reading Mr Freys response to RNU and Dorfner (RNU's testing partners) objections,

Mr Frey response makes RNU and Dorfner look amateurish and it sounds like Mr Frey educated both parties about the 25 New and Novel processes.

I really enjoyed reading his 28 pages.

There is way too much to add, but it well worth reading a few of his points.

D11 reports on an experimental method for purifying microcrystalline orcryptocrystalline graphite which is not suitable for producing battery gradegraphite.

D14 is an experimental study relating to treatment of sericite, not graphitematerial, through alkaline cleaning. Sericite is one typical impurity inmicrocrystalline or amorphous graphite which is not suitable for processing tographite anodes.

It's a bit of a worry RNU and its experts are claiming treatment of sericite is related to purifying graphite. he also killed your argument about Dorfners presentation that you alluded to claimed prior art. I do recall you or Topo did say RNU accessed EGR's earlier patent applications to come up with their own purification method? This sounds like a massive mistake if this is true and RNU are using some of the 25 new and novel steps that were granted which make up the patent.

Some might say RNU is screwed if the objection is unsuccessful and they use a similar process as the currently approved patent.