this is a copy and paste of the conclusion and are points 164 to...

this is a copy and paste of the conclusion and are points 164 to 170.

ConclusionThe oppositions are successful.
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.
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).
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.
The claims are novel. The oppositions are unsuccessful on this ground.
The claims are for a manner of manufacture. The Dorfner opposition is unsuccessful on this ground.
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.