http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/trudeau-resolute-on-trans-mountain-pipeline-expansion-despite-expected-protests/article33397590/

I think the most interesting comment from Trudeau was in regards to the position that aboriginal groups do not posses a veto over development.   I may be wrong, but in the current round of reconcilitation with First Nations,  I have not heard the Feds every clearly put this position out.  

"The Prime Minister acknowledged that First Nations such as the Tsleil-Waututh, who have launched a legal challenge to the project, are entitled to their views. “But no, they don’t have a veto,” he said, noting some First Nations along the route have signed benefits agreements."

Isn't it odd that Dr. Mark Kuhlberg did not reference previous work by the Northern Policy Institute by Rick Millette and Dr. Mike Commito (Commentary #7 October 2015), which was adapted from a presentation at the Ontario Good Roads Convention/Rural Ontario Municipal Assoc. .........a much more balanced analysis

http://www.northernpolicy.ca/upload/documents/publications/commentaries/commentary-roads-rail-and-the-ring-of-fi001.pdf

lakeside

Thank You RHammer,

As I remember the advice from our Patent Lawyer, it was normal to have a reviewer object to any of the claims where prior 'art' of any relevance could be found, so as you say it is not over yet.

As I recall, this will put the application in what is called a 'prosecution' phase and if KWG is eventually successful on some level, the resulting patent claims will have a more narrow interpretation than if the application had not gone to prosecution, and the original claims were accepted without objection.

lakeside

Patent Law is complex. I have been through the process before, and my understanding was that a patent must be both novel and inventive as well as having industrial application.

The fact that the inital reviewer's opinion is that the proposed patent is not inventive because prior 'art' or knowledge is already in the public domain that would make what KWG is claiming obvious to another person with similar skills in the same technology ( or 'trained in the art' in patent speak) .

'Inventiveness' is the most difficult of the three standards to define. If I am right, KWG will have an oportunity to argue their position, maybe amend their claims, and otherwise show why their patent is inventive, but right the first review is not positive

lakeside

So as I research the International Patent Office docs more thoroughly, I found the following initial search report from the International Searching Authority, which appears to catagorize all of KWGs claims under catagory "Y". ( "....claimed invention cannot be considered to involve an inventive step.....")

See source doc at International Search Report dated 30-04-2015 under Search and Examination Records

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2015060951&recNum=1&tab=PCTDocuments&maxRec=26&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=Pub+Date+Desc&queryString=FP%3A%28kwg%29

Good find. The claims are the important section. My understanding is:

In patent terms the key claim will be the first. All other claims flow from this. If patent authorities accept it without 'prosecution' then the patent will be interpreted more widely. If patent authorities, question claims, and 'prosecute' the application, then claims may be narrowed.

Claim 1. A process for producing chromium iron alloys suitable for steel making directly from chromite ore, comprising; agglomerating fines of chromite ore with additions of carbon fines, an accelerant and a binder, and drying the agglomerates; and feeding the agglomerates into a reaction vessel with natural gas as a reducing agent at elevated temperatures adequate for reduction for thereby producing a chromium iron alloy suitable for steel making.

KWG may not get all their claims. #15 is an interesting one.

15. The process of claim 1 , wherein the chromite ore is from the ROF.

I'm not sure I understand KWG's intent of this claim.

Lakeside