iam pretty suprised by the reasent ann. thought that they cant...

iam pretty suprised by the reasent ann. thought that they cant fix the negativ statement from the IP Aus agency from june 2018.

so in my understanding, Wrays could argue for the process that it is an innovativ one. iam keen in which way the agency back up the reasons for the granting. Especially, which steps the patented process will include and whether it makes it now really harder for the wannabies to go a similiar path.

"The subject matter of the present claims 1-17 and 20-23 essentially differ from D1 in that it
involves plurality of crystallisation and ion exchange steps. This appears to result aluminium
chloride crystals with reduced level on impurities. However, it would be obvious for a person
skilled in art to employ multiple crystallisation and ion exchange steps instead on just one
crystallisation and ion exchange step as disclosed in D1 to further decrease the impurity level
of the aluminium chloride crystals. Therefor the claims 1-17 and 20-23 do not involve an
inventive step in light of D1." !

http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/applicationDetails.do?applicationNo=2014253487#