Ann: EcoGraf Australian Patent Application, page-80

the Patent decision is out, and as usual very complicated, looks like EGR lost some and won some and have a few months to try and fix some things. Better people than me will need to read the decision and provide explanation.

Conclusion
164. The oppositions are successful.
165. Claims 1 to 16 and 20 to 25 lack inventive step in view of D2, D13 and D14. However,
Claims 17 to 19 are inventive in view of the prior art raised by the opponents.
166. The specification does not provide a clear enough and complete enough disclosure beyond the
use of spheroidal and flake graphite in the process of the invention. However, the oppositions
are unsuccessful in respect to other issues raised by the opponents under the ground of section
40(2)(a).
167. Claims 1 to 25 are not supported in respect to the use of the process for the purification of
graphite materials other than flake and spheroidal graphite. Claims 1 to 25 are not clear as the
term “graphite material” is unclear in scope. Claim 17 lacks clarity due to the term “low
temperature”. None of the other issues raised by the opponents under section 40(3) have been
made out.
168. The claims are novel. The oppositions are unsuccessful on this ground.
169. The claims are for a manner of manufacture. The Dorfner opposition is unsuccessful on this
ground.
170. I consider that the specification contains patentable subject matter. I therefore give the
applicant two (2) months from the date of this decision to file amendments to overcome the
deficiencies