The patent discussion is side show now that RNU appears to be using something different and water efficient.
To quote DC's passages from
@Jimmy08 Post #:
67855900:
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).
In any event, we don’t consider anything that we are doing as infringing any patent - granted or pending.
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.
– –
Patents are designed to protect the time and energy one has made to invent something that they believe to be new, novel and useful. They are not there to disenfranchise an entire industry from the use of all other possible methods. That stifles improvements and developments which may lead to better outcomes for a
healthy competitive industry to evolve for the betterment of everyone and the environment.
Therefore, I assume that the US submission has spelt things out a bit more, so that the industry can be sure where they stand. That way, they’ll be more likely to keep their patent in tact and avoid lengthy challenges.
AIMO, DYOR GLTA(patient)H
