Hi SS76,

Our process of review and rebuttal took about 4 years for our US patent and then another year for our Canadian patent (the system is a bit ponderous). Keep in mind though, that as soon as the original application is made, you are protected from being copied by the international patent treaty rules. No one else can "scoop" your invention during the application process. That is why people place the "patent pending" label on new products. It lets people know that they cannot copy your invention, even though the patent is not yet granted. Of course, if you do not receive a patent, then all bets are off at that time.

The upshot of this is that KWG (if they were in a position to do it) could institute their process today under protection of patent law. However, if at the end of the application process they do not receive a patent, then they would not own the rights to the invention. Anyone could copy and use it to process chromite anywhere.

This is an very over-simplified version of the issue, but it summarizes the basic idea of a patent as I know it.

RHammer

Hi Lakeside,

I believe that your interpretation is the correct one. I (along with two partners) currently hold two patents, and went through the entire process (same one as KWG) to get them. Basically, you are required to demonstrate all three of novelty, inventive step, and industrial usefulness. Since, in the opinion of the international search reviewer, KWG does not acheive the inventive step, they are not in a position to receive a patent. As you suggested, they have the ability to make appeals (more than one if necessary), so it is not over yet. However, their patent application is not, at this time, a success.

It should be noted that the reviewer had a fairly long list of objections and so KWG's patent lawyers have quite a bit of work ahead of them if they are to prove that the inventive step exists. One should not necessarily despair, because a good patent lawyer can make quite a difference in resolving this.

FYI, our patents required appeals to get them through, and our lawyer informed us that this is quite normal.

Best of luck to KWG supporters,

RHammer

Hi Been There,

Thanks for following up with Agoracom with regard to my question about the djje banning.

Since, in my opinion, none of djje's comments were particulary offensive to anyone on a personal level, I would suggest that his banning might have had something to do with comments regarding KWG's access control behaviours (real or perceived) in the Ring of Fire. As I recall his comments, there was really nothing else there that it could have been. Lacking information from Agoracom on the matter, I am going with this assumption and all that it entails.

It has been interesting to exchange some good information with a number of people on this site. I have always thought that the purpose of this exercise was to seek out the best knowledge that we could, as investors, find out about our investment. This includes the agendas (good, bad, or otherwise), of the other players in the Ring of Fire. These agendas have a very significant potential effect upon our investment and we need to discuss them openly in order to understand what effect they might have. If our discussions about these other players raise uncomfortable questions, then so be it. While we cannot openly assert that there are poor behaviours taking place without significant facts in hand, we can certainly pose the questions. One wonders if "The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

Anyhow, I think that it is a good time to move on from this forum. I will have to continue to discuss the various merits of the players in the ring of fire with a smaller group, I guess.

All the best to you, and take care,

RHammer.

Agreed Keegan,

Who banned djje and why? It certainly cannot relate to KWG since this is not a KWG site. In any case, it is a matter of record that KWG is at odds with Noront (in court as it happens), and so it would be somewhat of a conflict of interest for a KWG member to ban a Noront member on the Noront site. Perhaps there was some other reason and if so, I think that we all need to know what it was.

Does anybody know?

RHammer

Hi rosbg,

Your brief post sums it up very nicely, in my opinion.

It should be noted that the Ministry of Natural Resources is the lead administrator of public lands in Northern Ontario (by law), and that is why the decision gave them back their power to manage access into the Ring of Fire. The mistake made by the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines that granted access control to public lands to a single company, has been correctly reversed. They (KWG) still get to keep and operate their claims, but they cannot control access to the Ring of Fire.

As you noted and was suggested by Edgy as well, everybody has to go back to square one and negotiate the North/South access via the Ministry of Natural Resources, as they should have from the beginning. Sigh... that was a lot of wasted effort for nothing.

RHammer

Hi rosbg,

Although Cliff's "won" this decision, it is really the public and all of the other claim holders in the Ring of Fire who won. The decision simply upholds the reason for the claim staking regulations (re: linear claims) in the first place. That is, no one can reasonably expect to stake linear claims as a means to exclude others from access to public land.

Now, as others have rightly pointed out, all parties (including the claim holder) must negotiate the process of accessing the Ring of Fire via this route. One might think that this decision would have an effect upon how things proceed on the Koper Lake claims as well.

I think that this is a good thing as now, nobody can exercise any sort of autocratic control over how the Ring of Fire is accessed. The routes may now be planned jointly by all parties in whatever fashion is deemed to be the most effective way to enter the area and get it going.

RHammer