Charlestowne Premium Beverages Inc. (FPWM)

[Caradoc]

dfh/ others: Here's one supplier's spiel on vitreous carbon as opposed to graphite:
http://www.2spi.com/catalog/mounts/vitreous.html

snip: "Carbon can also be prepared in the glassy state, sometimes called the vitreous state. Carbon in this form is completely amorphous and shows no signs of crystallinity whatsoever; by x-ray diffraction one sees only an "amorphous halo". From our perspective, the glassy carbon ... exhibits properties that are nearly as dramatically different from the properties of graphite as diamond."

I haven't looked at Firefly's patent, but this difference in material is at least a difference in the two approaches being pursued. On the other hand, I've spent a fair amount of time going over AS's original patent and the use of any material (including regular graphite) if foamed in a dodecahedronal structure would be an infringement of AS's patent.

So, even if the wording of the two patents is such that there's no automatic conflict, it behooves PWTC to be/ become aware of specificly how Firefly chooses to implement their approach to "foaming." I can imagine a scenario where their approach to foaming the graphite just happens to be dodecahedronal since that's the most efficient way to expose more plate surface to the electrolyte. No point in letting them get away with the benefits of AS's patent just because their patent is broadly worded.

Caradoc