News: LIT Lithium Australia NL Announces Renounceable Rights Issue To Raise Up To $6.5 Mln, page-29

I can only ask so many times rockett. Show me where... Idk who is making unsubstantiated claims now, but you seem very reluctant to demonstrate any evidence...Here is our only accepted patent, and therefore the only one of which the details can be seen (the rest remain pending, or lapsed). This is the only patent you could have seen. A quick search of the entire 37 pages will show you precisely 0 reference to hydrofluoric acid. The only acid is sulfuric, as i have stated numerous times.

There is reference to Hydrogen fluoride twice, but only to state that we do not use this in our process, unlike other processes. This is explicitly mentioned as something we do not do to demonstrate this step is novel, and inventive (as it was deemed so by the patent office).

The fluorine salt we use with aluminium fluoride and alumina, is instead of mixing aluminium fluoride with HF. If we used the conventional method that uses HF we would not be novel and inventive, and would not be patent worthy.

Not only is there no mention of HF as something we do use, but it is also something we explicitly make clear we do not use. In fact, usage of HF was one of the elements of LIT's patent that was rejected, precisely because it is something which has been done before. You cannot see the use of HF in this way in an approved patent. You would have to be talking about one of the pending patents which require explicit permission for viewing. So you would have had to email a request and be approved. In which case, you would have a copy of the pending patent and would know precisely where it is and could show me, but you haven't.

Conclusion: You're lying or mistaken. Prove me wrong.

http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/pdfSource.do?fileQuery=cozrHqz%C2%831qtwpylxpHL%60%3D%3B%3CA%3C%3B%3C%40%3DAL%3F%3D%3B%3CA%3BD%3DD9%7Boq1wl%C2%85%C2%84H%7Fsp