G'day allI've emailed DC in regards to the patent objection as I...

G'day all

I've emailed DC in regards to the patent objection as I was looking for a bit of an update on the process, also after recent commentary on an audio file being removed from evidence of the patent objection and speculation that Dorfner Anzaplans process may not of been HF-free (specifically referring to one commentator on here). I was after a more clear, reliable answer from DC and below is DC's reply, which he was happy for me to share.

After checking the IP australia website, My question was basically; What is the next step in the processs and could DC provide a rough time frame at all?

DC's Response;

Thanks for your message

The patent opposition process now involves a significant amount of procedural pleadings in preparation of a hearing later this year. There is some uncertainty over the time-frame. We are hoping to see a resolution this year, but it may push into next year.

Irrespective of the outcome of the patent application, we do not anticipate that our plans will be adversely impacted, as we have flowsheets that are outside the scope of the application.

Sorry I cant offer more precise details on the patent process, but hopefully this is useful.


I then followed up with another question asking whether or not those other flow sheets that Renascor have are still HF-free and whether there would be a decrease in yields or an increase in production costs if those other flow sheets are used. I also mentioned that it was questioned (by one commentator here) that Dorfner Anzaplans previous public presentation of the purifiction process may not have been HF-free, and that I found that hard to believe, but just wanted some clarification, as this one commentator has speculated that Renascor was not aware that Dorfner Anzaplans process, wich was presented at a public forum was not HF-free;


DC's response;

We are planning an HF-free purification flowsheet. Our decision as to the exact parameters is based solely on the most efficient solution.

Our current design incorporates a flowsheet that commences with a leaching step, before a caustic roast and secondary leach. This is slightly different from our previous design, which commenced with a caustic roast. The reason for the latest change is that, in the course of the mineral processing and engineering work undertaken from last year as part of the BAM study, this flowsheet offered the best efficiencies in meeting customer specifications and offered some additional potential operating savings through lower water usage.

In any event, we dont consider anything that we are doing as infringing any patent - granted or pending.

With respect to your questions, there may be some misunderstanding. There is nothing novel per se about purifying graphite without HF. Our objection to the pending patent application is based on it being overly broad and neither novel or inventive. The particular pleadings and evidence offer relate to these issues (lack of novelty or inventiveness).

On a broader note, Anzaplan is not unique in offering services related to flowsheet development without using HF. Several labs offer the same services. Our decision to collaborate with Anzaplan was based in part on their experience in employinging flowsheet development to modern processing operations. Since commencing our work with Anzaplan several years ago, we have been extremely impressed with their capabilities and consider them a trusted partner in helping us deliver the best processing solution.

I hope these explanations are useful, if you have any further questions, feel free to contact me.



Just thought I'd share with everyone as I thought SH's might be interested.

Cheers, Jimmy