Well, I guess that seals it then, a non-patented catalyst that nobody knows the formula isn't something innovative because...
I'm sorry, why again? I lost my train of thought.
lol
Is the patent application rejection as likely as an SEC settlement rejection or is it as likely as they never filed an application in the first place, which I heard millions of times?
So now if I understand correctly the non-existent patent application actually exists but because there's a baseless prediction that it will be rejected that means the catalyst which isn't even part of it is not innovative?
Do I have that clear now? Excellent!
I think this story has patent-potential.