RNU objects to EGR's purification Patent application, page-55

This is nonsense. If anyone looks at processes in hydroxide and carbonate production there are so many variations of patented processes its is ridiculous, yet they all seek to differentiate at calcination stages, in part because differing variations in producing 6% grade spodumene (impurities within that concentrate) require a tailoring of the solution. I suspect the same will goo here in producing concentrate to SPG. People tweak quite often so I think the issue is how much tweaking has been done by EGR to differentiate it.

Just for you simple google search and look how many patents out there for producig hydroxide:
patents for producing lithium hydroxide - Search (bing.com)

Another on producing graphite concentrate/psg:
patents for producing graphite concentrate - Search (bing.com)

and

patents for producing sephirical graphite - Search (bing.com)

Dorfner is not a speculatative company so just wonder what it is upset about to the point. I would be surprised if any of these objections succeed provided enough differentiation has been made.

Yes some processes are not patented btw - for example a classic example is try to find the patent for KFC 11 herbs and spices. This is because somethings are pretty easy to duplicate and differentiate and some processes are just stock standard that it ain't worth patenting.

Posted this last year - my take on Dorfner and the Zeto Ann - Post #: 51379544

All IMO