General Discussions, page-23046

Because it’s overly broad and because it’s stated as “HF-free” technology, and HF-free purification of graphite isn’t novel or inventive, although the one specific HF-free way EGR are proposing to process graphite may be. RNU and ANZAPLAN are objecting to the patent application because it’s overly broad and not novel or inventive in regards to it being “HF-free”. Doesn’t mean that EGR aren’t doing it their own specific way, it just means that EGR can’t claim to own “HF-free” purification of graphite, because there may be many other methods of purifying graphite without the use of HF acid, that aren’t in fact the method that EGR uses.

And here is the definition of materially affected - materially affected means there has been a significant or large effect. The effect must be more than minor.

you could have googled that yourself.

cheers, Jimmy