CQMS Pty Ltd v Metalogenia Research & Technologies S.L - [2025] APO 22

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
CQMS Pty Ltd v Metalogenia Research & Technologies S.L. [2025] APO 22
Patent Application: 2020316932

Title:Fall detection method, corresponding system and machine

Patent Applicant: Metalogenia Research & Technologies S.L.

Opponent:CQMS Pty Ltd

Delegate:Xavier Gisz

Decision Date: 15 July 2025

Hearing Date: 20 May 2025

Catchwords: PATENTS - opposition to the grant of the patent under s 59 – grounds of opposition: manner of manufacture and inventive step – opposition unsuccessful – costs awarded

Representation: Counsel for the Applicant: Marcus Flemming
Patent attorney for the Applicant: Chris Schlicht and Peter Wassouf of Phillips Ormonde Fitzpatrick

Counsel for the Opponent: Peter Creighton-Selvay
Patent attorney for the Opponent: Joseph Garven of James & Wells

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE

Patent Application: 2020316932

Title:Fall detection method, corresponding system and machine

Patent Applicant: Metalogenia Research & Technologies S.L.
Date of Decision: 15 July 2025
DECISION

The opposition is unsuccessful. The claimed invention is a manner of manufacture. The claimed invention involves an inventive step.
Subject to appeal, I direct that the patent application proceed to grant.
I award costs according to the amounts specified in Schedule 8 against CQMS Pty Ltd.
REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

Patent application 2020316932 (the Application) in the name of Metalogenia Research & Technologies S.L. (the Applicant) is the national phase entry of PCT/EP2020/070620 (publication number WO2021013866A1) which claims priority from EP 19382633.6 (priority date 24 July 2019).
Acceptance was advertised on 17 August 2023. A Notice of Opposition was filed on 17 November 2023 by CQMS Pty Ltd (the Opponent). A Statement of Grounds and Particulars was filed on 16 February 2024.
Evidence in Support was filed on 16 May 2024. Evidence in Answer was filed on 16 August 2024. Evidence in Reply was filed on 16 October 2024.
Evidence
Evidence in support
The Evidence in Support comprises a declaration by Dr Nicholas Simon Hillier (which I will refer to as Hillier 1) dated 14 May 2024 and accompanying Exhibits NH-1 to NH-9.
Evidence in answer
The Evidence in Answer comprises a declaration by Dr Edgar Ripoll Vercellone (which I will refer to as Vercellone) dated 15 August 2024 and accompanying Annexures ERV-1 to ERV-5.
Evidence in reply
The Evidence in Reply comprises a declaration by Dr. Nicholas Simon Hillier (which I will refer to as Hillier 2) dated 15 October 2024 and accompanying annexure NH-10.
Applicable Law and Onus
The present Application is governed by the Act as amended by the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 as the Application was filed after 15 April 2013.
The Opponent has the onus to satisfy me, on a balance of probabilities, that a ground of opposition to grant exists. Then, if satisfied, I may refuse the application or, where appropriate, give the Applicant a reasonable opportunity to amend the relevant specification to remove any ground of opposition, as per Section 60(3A) & (3B) of the Act.
Grounds of Opposition
The Statement of Grounds and Particulars opposes the grant of the patent on the following grounds: Novelty, inventive step, clear and complete enough disclosure, best method, clarity, support, manner of manufacture, and utility.
The Opponent’s submissions (and Applicant’s responding submissions) were limited to the grounds of manner of manufacture and inventive step.
The experts
Dr Hillier’s educational qualifications include a doctorate in mechanical engineering (paragraph 14 of Hillier 1). His work experience extensively is in the field of mining involving research and development in relation to hydraulic excavators (paragraph 15), recording data through sensors in hydraulic excavators (paragraph 18), and ranging sensor research and evaluation in mining robotics technologies (paragraph 17).
Dr Vercellone’s educational qualifications include a doctorate in electronic engineering (paragraph 3 of Vercellone). His work experience has been in the development of systems to detect the loss of teeth attached to the bucket of an excavator used in underground mining operations (paragraphs 4 and 5).
Dr Hillier and Dr Vercellone each provide expert evidence regarding the invention and common general knowledge at the priority date. I am satisfied that both have provided relevant evidence. I will assess the evidence according to its relevance to particular aspects of the analysis.
The Specification
Field of the invention
The description provides a summary of the field of the invention at page 1 lines 10 to 29:
The invention is comprised in the field of earth moving machines, for example, excavators, provided with replaceable wear elements that contact the earth to perform works, such as excavation works. In the field of the art, these wear elements are also known with the name ground engaging tools (GETs). They comprise elements such as:
- teeth: they have the function of penetrating the ground and protecting the blade of the excavator shovel;
- tooth adapters: they have the function of protecting the blade and bearing teeth;
- front guards: they have the function of protecting the lip in the areas comprised between the teeth and also perform penetration function, but to a lesser degree than the teeth; and
- side guards: they protect the sides of the excavator bucket.
More specifically, the invention relates to a fall detection method for detecting the fall of a wear element from among a plurality of wear elements of an earth moving machine, in which each wear element is provided with a three-axis accelerometer. Said accelerometer is formed as a single element or by several individual accelerometers which, together, are capable of providing measurements with respect to three axes.
The invention also relates to a fall detection system implementing the preceding method, as well as to an earth moving machine provided with said fall detection system.
The invention
The invention is a method which utilises accelerometers and transmitters that are embedded in GET (ground engaging tools). The accelerometers can be used to determine the orientation of each GET.
The orientation of each GET is transmitted to a control module. The orientation of the GETs are averaged together. The orientation of each GET is compared against the average. If the orientation of a GET is different from the average (beyond a threshold level), then the GET is determined to have fallen off the earth moving machine.
A cross section of a GET and accelerometer is shown in Figure 2:
Figure 2 also shows the three axes of orientation. Two of the axes of rotation: pitch (107) around the Y’ axis and roll (108) around the X’ axis, can be calculated from the accelerometer data.
A flow-chart of the algorithm is shown in Figure 4:
As can be seen in the flow chart, there is a split in the flow from step (100) which indicates that the calculation for pitch (107) and roll (108) are performed independently. The steps of: determining a mean reference value (103), determining a deviation value (104), and determining if the deviation value exceeds a threshold value (105), are performed independently for pitch (107) and roll (108).
Example of the invention
I will use an example to help to illustrate the invention. First, consider a machine with 6 GET/wear members. The pitch and roll of the GET can be derived from the accelerometer data (see description page 9 lines 7 to 19). The mean calculations are done for pitch and roll separately (see Figure 4 already reproduced above in the decision).
Each orientation is measured in degrees between the alignment axes of the wear member (page 7 lines 21 to 26) and the Earth’s natural alignment axes (“X and Y are parallel to the ground and axis Z is vertical”, page 5 line 8).
In this example, consider a roll measurement. If the orientation of the first five GET had an orientation 2° (indicated on the chart below by the blue dots on the 2 row) and the sixth GET had an orientation of 8° (indicated by the blue dot on the 8 row), then the average of these values (2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 8) would be 3° (indicated by the orange line).
A threshold is chosen to be 1.5; the threshold is indicated by the magenta lines 1.5 above and below the average (i.e. at 0.5 and 4.5):
The first 5 values fall within the threshold. The sixth value falls outside the threshold. Thus, the sixth GET is at an orientation sufficiently different from average that it is determined that it has fallen off the machine.
Claims
There are 14 claims including 1 independent claim:
1. A fall detection method for detecting the fall of a wear element from among a plurality of wear elements of an earth moving machine, wherein each wear element is provided with a three-axis accelerometer;
wherein at least one reference axis is selected, and said method comprises the following steps
when said earth moving machine is in an operative state:
a) for each of said wear elements, obtaining an accelerometer measurement of said wear element provided by said three-axis accelerometer of said wear element;
for each of said at least one reference axis:
b) for each of said wear elements, determining a rotational position measurement with respect to said reference axis of said wear element based on said accelerometer measurement of said wear element;
c) determining a mean reference value based on said rotational position measurements of each of said wear elements;
d) for each of said wear elements, determining a deviation value of said wear element based on the deviation between said rotational position measurement of said wear element with respect to said mean reference value;
e) for each of said wear elements, determining that there is a fall of said wear element if said deviation value of said wear element exceeds a threshold value; and
f) repeating steps (a) to (e) in successive iterations.
Manner of Manufacture
Subsection 18(1) of the Patents Act states, in part, that:
“Subject to subsection (2), an invention is a patentable invention for the purposes of a standard patent if the invention, so far as claimed in any claim:
(a) is a manner of manufacture within the meaning of section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies”
The concept of manner of manufacture has developed over time and is not readily reduced to a simple formula. The classic definition of manner of manufacture is set out in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents [1959] HCA 67 at [14]:
“The inquiry which the definition demands is an inquiry into the scope of the permissible subject matter of letters patent and grants of privilege protected by the section ... The right question is: ‘Is this a proper subject of letters patent according to the principles which have been developed for the application of s 6 of the Statute of Monopolies?’”
In Grant v Commissioner of Patents [2006] FCAFC 120 (“Grant”) it was found at [47] that the claimed systems and methods were not for a manner of manufacture in the sense described in NRDC:
“It has long been accepted that ‘intellectual information’, a mathematical algorithm, mere working directions and a scheme without effect are not patentable. This claim is ‘intellectual information’, mere working directions and a scheme. It is necessary that there be some ‘useful product’, some physical phenomenon or effect resulting from the working of a method for it to be properly the subject of letters patent. That is missing in this case.”
More recently, there have been a number of Full Court decisions which considered some of the more specific considerations relevant to computer implemented inventions, relevantly including Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents [2014] FCAFC 150, Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 177, and Encompass Corporation Pty Ltd v Infotrack Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 161. In Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents [2014] FCAFC 150, it was stated that at paragraph 94:
“When the authorities in Australia prior to and including Grant are considered, a consistent approach emerges as to the relevance of:
Consideration
The Opponent’s submissions on manner of manufacture have several elements which are considered below.
(a) Mere idea or scheme
The Opponent submissions state at paragraphs 47-49:
The claimed invention is a mere scheme or idea, of the type which has never been considered patent eligible. In short, the claimed invention is directed to the idea of using a known sensor (an accelerometer) to obtain the very types of data that such a sensor is known to be appropriate to measure (roll and pitch), and then undertaking unspecified mathematical calculations on that data, to monitor whether a wear element has fallen (or not).
The asserted ingenuity in the claimed invention resides in a series of “steps”, which involve nothing more than taking the data output by the accelerometer and undertaking unspecified mathematical calculations by reference to that data to determine whether a “deviation value” exceeds a “mean reference value” by more than a “threshold value”.
As in RPL, “the ingenuity of the inventors must be in the steps of the method itself”.
This is not sufficient to establish a MM.
I consider that the mathematical calculations are not ‘unspecified’ as argued by the Opponent. I consider that the steps of calculation to determine if the wear member has fallen off are adequately disclosed and defined. I agree that “the ingenuity of the inventors must be in the steps of the method itself”, and I consider that this (the steps of the method itself) is where the invention lies in this case.
One indicator that the claimed invention is more than a ‘mere idea or scheme’ is that the invention results in a technical solution to a technical problem. The technical problem (not being aware when wear member falls off the earth moving machine) has been solved with a technical solution (using accelerometer data passed through an algorithm to determine if a wear member has fallen off the earth moving machine).
(b) Proper characterisation, physical integers and analogous cases
The Opponent submissions state at paragraphs 50 and 57:
Whilst the claimed invention might refer, in passing, to some physical components (such as an accelerometer and a wear element), it is properly characterised, as a matter of substance, as an idea or mere scheme for the monitoring of wear elements, using known components and generic computing technology.
…
The claimed invention, in the Application, when characterised as a matter of substance, is indistinguishable from those considered by Delegates of the Commissioner in each of Caterpillar Inc, Re Amsted and Re Carefusion and by Rofe J in Dei Gratia.
The present invention is a method of determining if a wear member has fallen from an earth moving machine. This invention is quite different from:
·Caterpillar Inc [2024] APO 8 - “[a] system for detecting a load location and a dump location at a worksite”
·Amsted Rail Company, Inc. [2021] APO 25 - “a plurality of transportation vehicles” with “data control system”, and a “first reader device” and “plurality of second portable reader devices”
·CareFusion 303, Inc. [2022] APO 40 - “system for managing a retrieval of a prepared medication”
·Dei Gratia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2024] FCA 1145 - “an improved logistics method or scheme for delivering goods to an optimal location”
I consider that summarising the invention to be “known components and generic computing technology” is reductionist and unhelpful. At some level all inventions are a combination of known elements; inventions reside in how those elements are combined. In this case, the invention (the characterisation of the invention) resides in three axis accelerometers and using the accelerometer data in an algorithm for determining if a wear member has fallen off the earth moving machine.
I note that the Opponent’s use of the words “matter of substance” do not make inventions in referenced case law that are ostensibly quite different from the present invention to be somehow “indistinguishable” from the present invention. I further note that the cases chosen by the Opponent (which all happen to be cases where the claims were found to lack a manner of manufacture), though generally relevant to the consideration of manner of manufacture, are not necessarily the closest or most analogous to the present case.
(c) Use of known components for known functionality
The Opponent submissions state at paragraph 58-60:
The claimed invention features the use of a known component, an accelerometer, for its known functionality (to monitor roll and pitch, or more generally, orientation). The ingenuity in the claimed invention does not reside in any characteristic of the accelerometer, nor in the selection or the use of an accelerometer per se.
Notably, Dr Vercellone has confirmed that the “sensing and hardware components described in AU932 were known to the persons skilled in the art (PSA) in July 2019”. In this respect, the claimed invention uses off-the-shelf components which are simply utilised for their known properties.
Further, the high level of “genericity and functionality” at which those components are recited reveals that they “are not part of the substance of the present invention”. The use of “an uncharacterised apparatus (which includes an uncharacterised electronic processing device) to carry out the steps of [an] abstract method” will not constitute a MM.
It is correct that the invention “features the use of a known component, an accelerometer, for its known functionality (to monitor roll and pitch, or more generally, orientation)”. However, it is typical in almost all inventions that a known component is used for its known functionality. If the invention includes interactions between components in ways that is not commonly known in the art, then the existence of a known component in the invention being used for its known functionality is not helpful in determining whether the invention is a manner of manufacture.

It may be the case that “[t]he use of ‘an uncharacterised apparatus (which includes an uncharacterised electronic processing device) to carry out the steps of [an] abstract method’ will not constitute a MM”. However, the present invention is not an “uncharacterised apparatus” and does not carry out the steps of an “abstract method”. The specification provides an adequate level of detail, and the features of the claim are adequately defined, so is not an “uncharacterised apparatus”. The steps of the method, and the result of the method, are adequately defined and are not abstract.
(d) Generic computer implementation
The Opponent submissions state at paragraphs 61:
It is implicit, in claim 1, that these steps of the method are to be undertaken, in an automated manner, by a generic computing device. The stated objective of the Application is to solve the known problems with existing methods and systems for detecting fall of wear elements. Self-evidently, the claimed method would not provide any solution to such problems if the PSA was required to calculate by themself, in realtime, the “mean reference value”, “deviation value” and “threshold value”. The method only has utility if automated, by way of its implementation in a computing device.
I do not consider it necessarily true (let alone self-evident) that “the claimed method would not provide any solution to such problems if the PSA was required to calculate by themselves”. I note that claim 1 does not define that the invention is performed on a computer, nor do dependent claims 2-12. Claims 13 and 14 define that the invention is performed on a “control module configured for carrying out the method”; the control module is understood to be a computer.
The method involves steps which are agnostic as to how the steps are carried out, whether by automation or by hand, though it is clear that the invention is far more practical when performed by automation (i.e. by computer) than by hand. The specific computing device has not been specified in the description implying that a generic computer would be adequate to perform the invention. I note that the use of a generic computer in an invention is incidental to the determination of whether the invention is a manner of manufacture. An invention using a generic computer may be patentable when there is a material advantage in the invention – simply looking to the computer is too narrow an analysis.
(e) Invention resides in use of mathematical calculations
The Opponent submissions state at paragraph 67:
Dr Vercellone appears to identify the “new or innovative” aspect of the claimed invention as the use of accelerometer data (a well-known component) to “determine the mean reference value”, the “deviation value” and “a threshold”. Even if this is correct, these are mathematical calculations, and the Application repeatedly teaches that “different formulations can be used” to undertake these calculations and admits that the PSA will be able to “perform suitable calculations”. Thus, it is apparent that, even adopting the characterisation urged by Dr Vercellone, the claimed invention is concerned with (non-inventive) “mathematical modelling” which is “by nature an idea or scheme”, and not a MM.
The “mathematical modelling” of the type considered in Caterpillar Inc. [2024] APO 8 at paragraph 91 are calculations of hypothetical scenarios. The present invention is not “mathematical modelling” since it is a real-world calculation, with an immediate and real-world result: the determination of whether a wear member had fallen off the earth moving machine. This is a material advantage of the type long held to be patentable.
(f) No contribution of the type that attracts patent protection
The Opponent submissions state at paragraphs 68-70:
It is useful to consider the type of contribution of the claimed invention to the art, noting that “the contribution for the purposes of novelty and inventive step under s18(1)(b) of the Act is not the same as the contribution for the purposes of manner of manufacture under s 18(1)(a). Manner of manufacture assesses whether the contribution of the invention is of a nature or type that attracts patent protection” (emphasis added).
As will be explained in more detail below, D1 discloses providing monitoring devices comprising accelerometers and/or orientation sensors to GETs to monitor presence, that “Loss of a product member is detected when one monitoring device deviates beyond a certain range from its established position, or orientation” and refers to “detecting the presence of the product through its relative position and orientation with the other products”.
Accordingly, the contribution of the claimed invention cannot relate to the detection of lost GET by comparing the orientation of each GET with the others (since that idea is already known from D1, for example). The contribution, if any, could only relate to the mathematical calculations referenced in claim 1. This is clearly not a contribution “of a nature or type that attracts patent protection”.
The contribution of the invention is not mathematical calculations alone. The contribution of the invention is not the articulation of the problem alone. The contribution of the invention is the new method of determining if a wear member has fallen. This method includes data from accelerometers, a specific algorithm to calculate with that data, and an output. The contribution of the invention is not common general knowledge and is the type that attracts patent protection.
Does the invention provide a concrete, tangible, physical, or observable effect?
I have considered (and rejected) each of the Opponent’s arguments on manner of manufacture. However, there is one aspect of manner of manufacture which was not explicitly raised in the Opponent’s written submission but is worth considering. In the hearing I asked the Applicant why the claimed method did not include a step of using the information when it was determined that the wear element had fallen off (such as an alert/alarm). The Applicant said that this was an implicit feature. The Applicant noted that an analogous situation occurred in UbiPark Pty Ltd v TMA Capital Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] FCA 885.
The UbiPark decision states at paragraph 205:
While at one level the claims comprise a series of instructions to be executed by a computer, the invention as claimed does have some “concrete, tangible, physical, or observable effect” (Aristocrat at [25]), namely the opening of the entry barrier and the exit barrier. While this is not explicitly stated in claims 1, 11 and 16, it flows from the references to generating and transferring an entry request and exit request, read in the context of the specification as a whole. Similarly, and for the same reasons, the invention as claimed constitutes an abstract idea that is “implemented on a computer to produce an artificial state of affairs and a useful result” (Aristocrat at [122]). The artificial state of affairs is the opening of the entry barrier and exit barrier. The useful result is that the user associated with a vehicle is granted entry into, and exit from, a restricted area.
I agree with the Applicant that the reasoning in paragraph 205 of UbiPark is relevant to the present consideration. I consider that the use of the information to alert the operator of the missing wear member appears to be implied in the preamble of the claim.
The preamble of the claim states:
“A fall detection method for detecting the fall of a wear element from among a plurality of wear elements of an earth moving machine…”
I consider the words “fall detection” and “detecting the fall of a wear element” imply detection and informing the operator of the fallen wear element. This implication is derived from the description, for example at page 2 lines 6 to 14:
For these reasons, in the present cases, if the operator suspects that a wear element may have fallen, he/she must stop the machine as soon as possible for inspection, which entails a loss of time and productivity resulting in financial loss. Moreover, the element can be mixed with the excavated soil and, for example, in the case of an installation for extracting minerals that must be ground, if the wear element enters the grinder and can cause serious damage thereto. This point is particularly problematic regarding safety because it would imply that an operator must access the grinder manually to extract the tooth from inside it. Generally, this involves a direct action by the operator, subsequently putting his/her physical integrity at risk.
I am satisfied that the claimed invention is implicitly directed to informing the operator of a fallen wear member which is a concrete, tangible, physical or observable effect analogous to the UbiPark decision.
Conclusion on manner of manufacture
I have addressed each of the Opponent’s manner of manufacture arguments and have found none to be persuasive. Although the claimed invention does not have an explicit step for using the information that a wear member has fallen to alert the operator, I consider this to be implicit to the claim.
The claimed invention is a manner of manufacture.
Inventive step
Pursuant to subsection 7(2) of the Patents Act (1990), an invention is taken to involve an inventive step when compared with the prior art base unless the invention would have been obvious to a person skilled in the relevant art in the light of the common general knowledge as it existed before the priority date of the relevant claim, whether that knowledge is considered separately or together with the information mentioned in subsection (3).
Subsection 7(3) provides that the information for the purposes of subsection (2) is:
(a) any single piece of prior art information; or
(b) a combination of any 2 or more pieces of prior art information that the skilled person mentioned in subsection (2) could, before the priority date of the relevant claim, be reasonably expected to have combined.
A test for obviousness was provided by Justice Aicken in Wellcome Foundation Ltd v VR Laboratories (Aust) Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 12 at [45] as follows:
“The test is whether the hypothetical addressee faced with the same problem would have taken as a matter of routine whatever steps might have led from the prior art to the invention, whether they be the steps of the inventor or not.”
The High Court in Aktiebolaget Hässle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 59 at [51]- [53]; approved this approach, in addition to that taken in Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation v Biorex Laboratories Ltd [1970] RPC 157 at 187 in which Graham J had posed the question:
“Would the notional research group at the relevant date in all the circumstances directly be led as a matter of course to try [the claimed invention] in the expectation that it might well produce a useful [desired result]?”
The usual approach to determining inventive step is the problem-solution approach. Once the problem has been formulated and the common general knowledge and the prior art base has been determined, the question of whether the claimed solution is obvious must be addressed.
Consideration
The use of accelerometers in GET/wear members was known before the priority date; for example, in D1 (US 2016/0237657), D2 (WO 2018/095536) and D3 (US 2015/0284935).
D1 (US 2016/0237657) discloses at paragraph 122:
Alternatively, the remote device 38 detects the positions of the monitoring devices 25 to ensure the presence of each product in its established position relative to the other monitoring devices 25.
And at paragraph 116:
The monitoring device 25 and/or remote device 38 may be, for example, passive or active and may include a receiver, transmitter, and/or a digital sensor. The receiver and/or transmitter may be, for example, a radio communication device, an electromagnetic wave receiver and/or transmitter, a mechanical wave receiver and/or transmitter, a laser receiver and/or transmitter, or Global Positioning System (GPS). The electromagnetic waves preferably have a wavelength outside of the visible spectrum (e.g., infrared, microwave, or Radio Frequency [RF]), but may be in the ultrasonic spectrum. Further, the devices 25, device 35 may include a temperature sensor, a camera, a digital inclinometer unit, a digital compass, an RFID, an accelerometer, a timer, a proximity sensor, a force sensor, a position sensor, and/or other sensors that provides information regarding the operating conditions in which the ground engaging product is being used.
D2 (WO 2018/095536) discloses at page 23 line 30 to page 24 line 1 states:
Optionally, the SOS signal may be based on sensor data 52 that is outside of a predefined range (or beyond a threshold value) as would be expected from a 'detached' GET. For example, such an SOS signal could be based on the accelerometer data 54 in that a detached GET will be stationary.
D3 (US 2015/0284935) states at paragraph 37:
Now, however, it may happen that the dredger tooth 4 is still signed onto the reader 11 with its wireless communication 7, despite the fact that the dredger tooth itself is no longer functional. In such a case, the additional feature of the present invention provides a remedy, so that an acceleration sensor 6 is also provided in the dredger tooth 4 in addition to the RFID tag 5. The acceleration sensor may be connected directly to the RFID tag or may be installed with it in a shared housing.
In summary, the use of accelerometers to determine if a GET had fallen off the machine is disclosed in D1-D3 as follows:
·D1 discloses accelerometers to establish the relative position of the GETs
·D2 discloses using accelerometers to determine if a wear member is stationary
·D3 is not clear how the accelerometer is used, but it could be inferred that (similar to D2), it determines if a wear member is stationary
The present invention is not merely the use of accelerometers to determine if a GET has fallen off the machine. The present invention is also specific to the algorithm to determining if a GET has fallen off the machine.
D1 - US 2016/0237657 A1 (Carpenter et al.)
The Opponent’s inventive step argument in their written submissions is made only in relation to D1 (and not D2 or D3 which were raised in the Statement of Grounds and Particulars).
The Opponent summarises the disclosure of D1 in their submissions at paragraphs 80:
“D1 is entitled “Monitoring Ground-Engaging Products For Earth Working Equipment”. The abstract discloses that D1 concerns both a “product and system” for “monitoring a characteristic” including “presence” of GET used on “various kinds of earth working equipment”.
The system and product can be explained, at a high level, by reference to Figure 5:
The GET is the point/tip (15). It has a cavity (18) to receive a base upon which it is
mounted. There are one or more recesses (50C and 50D) in the mounting portion of
the point/tip into which one or more monitoring devices (25) are inserted.
The monitoring device “is secured to a ground engaging product to monitor characteristics such as … presence” and that monitoring device “may include one or more sensors from a group consisting of radio frequency enabled modules, orientation sensors, temperature sensors, accelerometers, proximity sensors, force sensors and position sensors”.
D1 repeatedly explains that the monitoring device (25), in conjunction with a range of sensors, including accelerometers and orientation sensors, can be used to monitor the presence, orientation and relative positions of the GET.”
The Opponent provides at paragraph 81 a table indicating where features of claim 1 are asserted to be disclosed in D1:

Integer Claim feature Exemplary disclosure in D1

1(i) A fall detection method for detecting the fall of a wear element from among a plurality of wear elements of an earth moving machine, [0002]: “The present invention pertains to a device and system for identifying and monitoring characteristics such as… presence”. See also: [0099], [0118].

1(ii) wherein each wear element is provided with a three-axis accelerometer;
It is clear from Figure 5 (above) that the monitoring device (25) and sensor (35) are provided at the wear element. See also: [0018]-[0019].

[0019] and [0116] disclose that the sensor may be an accelerometer.

Further, [0017] discloses the monitoring devices (mounted on the GET) are to determine whether they are “in established relative positions for the equipment on which they are secured”. See also: [0122].

The use of a three-axis accelerometer would be the routine way of undertaking such monitoring at the Priority Date.

1(iii) wherein at least one reference axis is selected, and said method comprises the following steps when said earth moving machine is in an operative state: This is not expressly disclosed, but is an implementation detail that would be “immediately apparent” to a PSA which they would consider, as a matter of routine, and without the need for any ingenuity, for the reasons set out below.

1(iv) a) for each of said wear elements, obtaining an accelerometer measurement of said wear element provided by said three-axis accelerometer of said wear element; This is disclosed. As explained, [0019] and [0116] disclose that the sensor may be an accelerometer or orientation sensor. In order for such sensors to be used to monitor “presence” (see: [0019]) an accelerometer measurement must be provided by the accelerometer.

1(v) for each of said at least one reference axis: See integer 1(iii) above.

1(vi) b) for each of said wear elements, determining a rotational position measurement with respect to said reference axis of said wear element based on said accelerometer measurement of said wear element; [0017] discloses using the monitoring device in the following manner: “Loss of a product member is detected when one monitoring device deviates beyond a certain range from its established position, or orientation”. It would be routine and intuitive for a PSA to determine the orientation of the wear element based on the accelerometer measurement. See also [0122] which refers to “detecting the presence of the product through its relative position and orientation with the other products”. D1 discloses that one embodiment is the use of accelerometers as part of the monitoring devices in the GETs and the subsequent detection, and comparison, of each GET to detect presence/loss of the GET. When the PSA follows these instructions they would consider determining a rotational positional measurement about a reference axis as this is a routine and intuitive way of determining orientation.

1(vii) c) determining a mean reference value based on said rotational position measurements of each of said wear elements; This is disclosed by [0017] and [0122] and, in any event, is an implementation detail that a PSA would consider, as a matter of routine, and without the need for any ingenuity, for the reasons set out below.

1(viii) d) for each of said wear elements, determining a deviation value of said wear element based on the deviation between said rotational position measurement of said See integer 1(vii) above.

1(ix) e) for each of said wear elements, determining that there is a fall of said wear element if said deviation value of said wear element exceeds a threshold value; and This is disclosed by [0017] (“Loss of a product is detected when one monitoring device deviates beyond a certain range from its established position”) and [0122] (“Loss of a product … a significant change in position of the monitoring device is detected when one monitoring device deviates beyond a certain range of its established position”).

1(x) f) repeating steps (a) to (e) in successive iterations. This is disclosed. [0002] discloses a system for identifying and monitoring characteristics. To have any utility, D1 must be describing a system which is “iterated in practice”.

The submissions on the integers of the claims are considered below.
Integer 1(i)

The Integer 1(i) is uncontroversial, both parties accepting that this integer is disclosed in D1.
Integer 1(ii)
The Opponent’s submissions on Integer 1(ii) at paragraph 85-88 state:
Integer 1(ii): There does not appear to be any contest that D1 discloses the use of an accelerometer. Nevertheless, it appears that Dr Vercellone takes two points, neither of which withstand scrutiny.
First, Dr Vercellone asserts that “I am not told that an accelerometer (which is mentioned later) is provided with each GET”. This point has no substance. D1 discloses that “each ground engaging product on a digging edge includes at least one monitoring device”, and two paragraphs later, that “As examples, the at least one monitoring device may include … accelerometers”. It is quite irrelevant that D1 might also disclose other systems, in which an accelerometer is not used on each GET.
Second, Dr Vercellone asserts that “I can find no statement elsewhere in D1 as to the type of accelerometer that could be used”, and in particular, “D1 does not tell me to use a three-axis accelerometer”. This point has no more substance than the first point. It was CGK at the Priority Date that accelerometers could be used for orientation detection and D1 repeatedly teaches that the monitoring device (which may include an accelerometer) may be used for this purpose. As to whether a “three-axis accelerometer” is disclosed, it is relevant to note that claim 2 exposes that a “three-axis accelerometer” may be either a single three-axis accelerometer, or alternatively, three single-axis accelerometers. Either way, however, the key point is that the evidence makes clear that the use of such accelerometers would be inevitable, if a PSA was to follow the teaching in D1 to implement a monitoring system using an accelerometer [Hillier 2 at [18]]:
I consider it inevitable that the person skilled in the art following the directions in D1 would select a three-axis accelerometer or three single-axis accelerometers. When using accelerometers for orientation detection, the first choice, would be an accelerometer, or set of accelerometers, configured to provide readings with respect to three axes. Otherwise, some orientations would be indistinguishable from one another. Three-axis accelerometers were common by 2019 for orientation detection and they were also inexpensive.
Therefore, it is unlikely that the person skilled in the art, at July 2019, would select less than a three-axis accelerometer device/arrangement when following the directions in D1 to use accelerometers to monitor orientations of GET on a lip, particularly so if the orientation monitoring was to differentiate between GET on a lip and those that are detached.
Put simply, there was a known, technical need, to use a three-axis accelerometer when implementing the teaching of D1 at the Priority Date. Further, there was no technical difficulty in doing so.
The Applicant’s submissions at paragraphs 73-74 regarding the integer 1(ii) are as follows:
Integer 1(ii): It is implicit from OS [Opponent submissions] that the Opponent accepts D1 does not disclose any particular type of accelerometer, let alone a three-axis accelerometer. The submission at OS [87] relies on the proposition that it was "inevitable" a PSA would select out of the myriad sensors described in D1 an accelerometer, and would then select a three-axis accelerometer, or an arrangement of three single-axis accelerometers, when implementing D1. That submission cannot be sustained.
The contention that it was CGK at the Priority Date to use three-axis accelerometers (or three single-axis accelerometers) for orientation detection is unsupported by probative evidence. In his first declaration, Dr Hiller provides a general account of sensors used in systems for monitoring GETs, including inertial sensing systems, but does not identify any instance in which three-axis (triaxial) accelerometers were known to be used in any such application, including in the context of wear element loss detection. While Dr Hillier asserts in his second declaration that the use of three-axis accelerometers for orientation detection was well-known at the Priority Date, he does not provide any specific references to technical publications or other contemporaneous materials to support that evidence which demonstrate such use at the Priority Date.
In the context of accelerometers used to determine orientation, I consider Dr Hillier’s evidence that three-axis accelerometers would be used to be persuasive. I consider Integer 1(ii) to be obvious in light of D1.
Integer 1(iii)
The Opponent submissions state at paragraph 89:
Integer 1(iii): Dr Vercellone asserts that “D1 makes no mention of selecting … reference axes”, and further, “D1 also does not direct me to use an accelerometer to determine the orientation of a GET”. This is another example of Dr Vercellone adopting an unduly narrow and literal approach to disclosure. There can be no debate that D1 teaches the use of accelerometers in the monitoring device, nor that D1 teaches the use of the monitoring device to determine orientation of a GET. That being so, as Dr Hillier explained, “[d]efining orientation by reference to a reference axis would be immediately apparent as a possible approach to the PSA”, “defining the orientation by reference to reference axes (about which the rotation is measured) would be the most likely approach the PSA would have taken” and “any orientation must be defined relative to some other (known) orientation and the reference is most commonly defined by an orthogonal set of (reference) axes” (emphasis added). Indeed, the reality is that any orientation must be defined relative to some other (known) orientation. Thus, the use of a reference would be “required as part of the way to define orientation”, as taught in D1. Notably, Dr Vercellone does not suggest that the use of a reference axis would involve some contribution “beyond the skill of the calling” or any difficulty to be overcome. Rather, the extent of his evidence seems to be that he cannot locate a literal disclosure of this routine implementation step.
The Applicant’s submissions at paragraph 75 state:
Integer 1(iii): The submissions at OS [89] rest on the assumption that, when following D1, the PSA would implement a system for monitoring attachment of a wear element using orientation measurements obtained from an accelerometer. As observed above, D1 refers to the possible inclusion of various types of sensors in the “monitoring device”. It does not state that an “accelerometer” is to be used for orientation, as opposed to any other purpose. The submissions at OS [89] are therefore circular. They assume that an accelerometer would be used to determine orientation and then argue that, having made that assumption, it would be routine to define orientation with respect to a reference axis. For the reasons outlined above, the underlying proposition is not established on the evidence.
I accept that D1 is using accelerometers to determine orientation of the wear members, which undermines the Applicant’s argument on this point. Although I agree with Dr Vercellone that a reference axis is not explicitly disclosed in D1, I also agree with Dr Hillier’s evidence that a reference axis would be used by a person skilled in the art to measure orientation against. I consider Integer 1(iii) to be obvious in light of D1.
Integer 1(vi)
The Opponent’s submissions state at paragraph 90:
Integer 1(vi): Dr Vercellone asserts that “D1 does not tell me to use an accelerometer measurement to determine the rotational position of a GET”. Again, this is an example of Dr Vercellone adopting an unduly narrow and literal approach to disclosure. The point being made by Dr Vercellone is that, even though D1 teaches the use of accelerometers in the monitoring device, and even though D1 teaches the use of the monitoring device to determine orientation of a GET, D1 does not expressly state “what characteristics an accelerometer is to determine” and it would also be possible to use an accelerometer to measure other characteristics (such as “the extent of usage of the GET”). This may be literally true, but is quite irrelevant. The question is whether it would be obvious to a PSA, armed with D1, which teaches the use of accelerometers and the measurement of rotational position of GET, to use accelerometers to measure rotational position of GET. In circumstances where Dr Vercellone has admitted that “[a]ccelerometers were known and used in a wide variety of devices and vehicles prior to July 2019”, and the evidence makes plain that “it is, and was at July 2019, well known that accelerometers can be used for orientation detection”, it would have been obvious to a PSA, armed with D1, to use the type of sensor disclosed (an accelerometer) to detect the metric disclosed (rotational position, that is, orientation).
The Applicant’s submissions at paragraph 76 state:
Integer 1(vi): The submissions at OS [90] overlook the significance of the point being made by Dr Vercellone. In the absence of any express teaching in D1 regarding the use of an accelerometer for orientation detection, it is entirely appropriate to consider other potential uses of such a device. That observation is not irrelevant pedantry, but a reflection of the lack of disclosure in D1. Where a component has several plausible applications, it cannot simply be assumed that a PSA would understand a bare reference to that component as teaching its use for the purpose that aligns with the claimed invention. Further, the uses postulated by Dr Vercellone – calculation of use time or assessments of machine operation or efficiency by reference to information provided by an accelerometer based on movement measurements – are entirely consistent with the limited teaching in D1 regarding the use of accelerometers, namely, to provide “information regarding the operating conditions in which the ground engaging product is being used” (at [0116]).
Though brief, the disclosure in D1 at [0122] which refers to “detecting the presence of the product through its relative position and orientation with the other products” seems to be only possible as being understood as a disclosure of Integer 1(vi).
Integers 1(vii), 1(viii) and 1(ix):
The Opponent states at paragraph 91-100:
Integers 1(vii) & 1(viii): These integers require the calculation of a “mean reference value” based on the “rotational position measurements” of the wear elements and a “deviation value” of a wear element based on the deviation between the “rotational position measurement” of that wear element and the “mean reference value”.
Dr Vercellone disputes that there is any disclosure of the determination of a mean reference value, on the basis that the disclosure in D1 “is vague” and does not expressly recite that “there is a comparison made of one GET to another GET”. It appears that Dr Vercellone denies the disclosure of a deviation value on the same basis.
Yet again, this involves Dr Vercellone requiring a strict, literal disclosure, rather than approaching the nature of the disclosure in D1, and how it would be implemented by a PSA at the Priority Date, with commonsense.
At [0017], D1 teaches that “Loss of a product member is detected when one monitoring device deviates beyond a certain range from its established position, or orientation.” At [0122], D1 then further teaches that (emphasis added):
Loss of a product (e.g., through breakage or pin ejection) results in loss of the monitoring device from the established electronic framework; i.e., a significant change in position of the monitoring device is detected when one monitoring device deviates beyond a certain range of its established position with the other monitoring devices…Alternatively, the remote device 38 detects the positions of the monitoring devices 25 to ensure the presence of each product in its established position relative to the other monitoring devices 25. In either case, by detecting the presence of the product through its relative position and orientation with the other products, the system operates irrespective of the movement and operation of the earthworking equipment with the ground engaging products.
These passages make clear that D1 is teaching that a comparison be made between the rotational position of the monitoring device on a GET and the rotational position of the monitoring devices on the other GET (i.e. the “other monitoring devices” which are on “the other products”). As Dr Hillier has explained, “In order to detect the presence (or absence is implied) of the GET relative to the others via orientation, then evaluating the general or average orientation of the other GET is implicit”. Dr Hillier also noted that his view of this point is supported by the “broad meaning of “mean reference value” that is established by the Opposed Application” and observed that when following the directions in D1 to compare the orientation of one GET to the other GETs, the PSA “would immediately consider comparing the orientation of the GET under investigation to an arithmetic mean of the orientation of the other GETs, as this is a very straightforward and intuitive way to determine how far one measurement deviates from a set of measurements”.
Similarly, in order to determine whether a GET has “deviate[d] beyond a certain range” and its “relative position and orientation with the other products”, it is necessary to undertake a comparison between the position/orientation of that GET and other GET, thereby resulting in the calculation of a deviation value. These are straightforward implementation details that a PSA would address when following the teaching of D1 to detect the orientation of a GET relative to the other GET, as described in D1.
Dr Vercellone merely asserts that “It is not necessary to obtain a mean reference value in order to compare the orientation of one GET with the orientation of another”. However, that is not what D1 discloses. D1 at [0122] expressly, and repeatedly, teaches a comparison between the orientation of one GET “with the other monitoring devices”, that is, all such other devices. The comparison which Dr Vercellone asserts to potentially avoid the need for a mean reference value is not the comparison which D1 teaches and discloses. It follows that the point made by Dr Vercellone goes nowhere.
Further, and importantly, Dr Vercellone does not anywhere suggest that the use or calculation of a mean reference value or deviation value would be “beyond the skill of the calling” or require any difficulty to be overcome. Indeed, it is to be recalled that the Application expressly admits that “the skilled person will understand that different formulations can be used to obtain representative values” and otherwise allows the PSA complete discretion as to how a mean reference value or deviation value is to be calculated, thereby revealing that this involves nothing more than the deployment of CGK. Thus, even taken at face value, the evidence of Dr Vercellone appears to rise no higher than an assertion that there might have been another, equally obvious, and technically straightforward, way of implementing the teaching of D1. That is no answer to an allegation of lack of inventive step.
Integer 1(ix): this integer requires a determination that there has been a fall of the wear element if its deviation value exceeds a threshold value. Although Dr Vercellone denies this is disclosed, that appears to be on the basis that D1 does not literally use the words “threshold value”. It could not be clearer that D1 discloses this integer at [0017] & [0122], where it is explained that “significant change in position” of a monitoring device “beyond a certain range” will indicate “loss of a product”. The “certain range” discussed in [0017] & [0122] is the “threshold value” required by this integer.
It follows that claim 1 of the Application does not involve an inventive step over D1 when combined with the CGK.
The Applicant states at paragraph 77-79:
Integers 1(vii) and 1(viii): The submissions at OS [91]-[98] rely heavily on the proposition that D1 teaches or necessarily implies the calculation of a “mean reference value” based on “rotational position measurements” of the wear elements and a “deviation value” based on the deviation between the “rotational position measurement” of that wear element and the “mean reference value”. That proposition cannot be sustained.
D1 does not disclose the use of comparative statistical operations – such as determining an average or deviation – as part of the detection method. Instead, it refers generally to detecting when a monitoring device “deviates beyond a certain range”, without identifying what that range is or how it is derived. Dr Hillier’s evidence regarding these integers – including that “evaluating the general or average orientation of the other GET is implicit” and that the PSA “would immediately consider comparing the orientation of the GET under investigation to an arithmetic mean of the orientation of the other GETs” – improperly elevates hindsight reasoning.
Further, the Opponent’s attempt (at OS [97]-[98]) to dismiss Dr Vercellone’s evidence is misplaced. Dr Vercellone correctly identifies that D1 does not describe determining a mean reference value based on the rotational position of all monitoring devices or GETs.
Dr Hillier states in Hillier 2 at [23]:
Regarding paragraph 49vii., Dr Vercellone says that D1 does not disclose the determination of a mean reference value based on rotational position measurements of each wear element. I disagree and stand by the comments in my First Declaration that, when following the directions at paragraph [0122], for example, to detect the presence (and therefore loss) of a product (GET) through its relative orientation with the other products (GETs), it is implicit that the orientation of each GET is compared to the general or average orientation of the others (described in D1 as the “established orientation”). My view on this point is strengthened by the broad meaning of “mean reference value” that is established by the Opposed Application. Regardless of how broad the meaning of “mean reference value” may be, when the PSA follows the directions in D1 to compare the orientation of one GET with the orientation of the other GETs, I believe they would immediately consider comparing the orientation of the GET under investigation to an arithmetic mean of the orientation of the other GETs, as this is a very straightforward and intuitive way to determine how far one measurement deviates from a set of measurements.
Reiterating an excerpt from the above passage, it is Dr Hillier’s evidence that a person skilled in the art would:
“…compare the orientation of one GET with the orientation of the other GETs…”
“…comparing the orientation of the GET under investigation to an arithmetic mean of the orientation of the other GETs…”
Dr Hillier states that the orientation of the GET under investigation would be compared with the mean of the other GETs. However, this is not the invention as presently defined.
The present invention is to take the mean of all the GETs orientations. The orientation of each GET is then individually compared with this calculated mean of all the GETs.
Dr Hillier, even after he had read the opposed specification, gave evidence that the person skilled in the art would make an invention in a different way to the claimed invention. This is clearly detrimental to the Opponent’s position that these claimed features (Integers 1(vii), 1(viii) and 1(ix)) are obvious.
Additionally, in other parts of Dr Hillier’s evidence he also does not arrive at the claimed invention. For example, Hillier states in Hillier 1 at paragraph 85:
There are any multitude of ways to quantify that the orientation of one item of GET is different to the others – the most obvious being variations on that presented in AU ‘932, i.e. simple comparisons of the difference of the orientations of the GET against each other, and against a threshold, although I would consider minor adjustments in the method to take advantage of simple statistical outlier analysis methods would also be quite run-of-the-mill ways to identify the lost item of GET given this data.

Dr Hillier is envisaging a simple difference calculation between the orientation of the GET against each other GET. This is not the same as the calculating the mean value of the orientation of all GETs defined in the claims.
At paragraph 86 of Hillier 1 Dr Hillier states:
The specific use of a weighted sum (or weighted mean) to get the reference value seemed unusual to me, but as I alluded to before, there are any number of ways that this concept can be implemented, and within reason, the various implementations would perform the same function without real impact to the overall method’s or system’s performance.
Here Dr Hillier talks about a weighted mean which can be understood as a more generalised version of a mean (where a simple mean calculation would be where all the weightings were set to 1). However, it is not clear whether he is referring to the weighted mean of all the GETs, or calculating the weighted mean of the other GETs aside from one (as he discusses in further detail in Hillier 2). It is notable that Dr Hillier considers the use of weighted mean to be ‘unusual’ which seems to be the contrary of being obvious.
I consider that Dr Hillier’s evidence is not persuasive that the modifying D1 to include integers 1(vii), 1(viii) and 1(ix) would be obvious in light of D1. The evidence of Dr Vercellone is also not supportive of a finding that the claims lack an inventive step, at least with respect to these features.
Inventive step conclusion
I have found that integers 1(i) and 1(vi) are disclosed in D1. I have found that:
· integer 1(ii) – using a three-axis accelerometer rather than merely an accelerometer disclosed in D1; and
· integer 1(iii) – measuring the orientation with respect to a reference axis
would each be an obvious step for a person skilled in the art. I have found that a person skilled in the art would not, as a matter of routine, modify D1 such that it includes the integers 1(vii), 1(viii) or 1(ix).
Consequently, the claimed invention constitutes an inventive step over D1.
Conclusion
The claimed invention is a manner of manufacture.
The claimed invention is inventive in light of the prior art.
The opposition is unsuccessful. The Application can proceed to grant.
Costs
Costs typically follow the event. I see no reason to depart from this practice in this case.
Since the opposition is unsuccessful, I will award costs according to Schedule 8 against the Opponent, CQMS Pty Ltd.
Xavier Gisz
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents

Integer	Claim feature	Exemplary disclosure in D1
1(i)	A fall detection method for detecting the fall of a wear element from among a plurality of wear elements of an earth moving machine,	[0002]: “The present invention pertains to a device and system for identifying and monitoring characteristics such as… presence”. See also: [0099], [0118].
1(ii)	wherein each wear element is provided with a three-axis accelerometer;	It is clear from Figure 5 (above) that the monitoring device (25) and sensor (35) are provided at the wear element. See also: [0018]-[0019]. [0019] and [0116] disclose that the sensor may be an accelerometer. Further, [0017] discloses the monitoring devices (mounted on the GET) are to determine whether they are “in established relative positions for the equipment on which they are secured”. See also: [0122]. The use of a three-axis accelerometer would be the routine way of undertaking such monitoring at the Priority Date.
1(iii)	wherein at least one reference axis is selected, and said method comprises the following steps when said earth moving machine is in an operative state:	This is not expressly disclosed, but is an implementation detail that would be “immediately apparent” to a PSA which they would consider, as a matter of routine, and without the need for any ingenuity, for the reasons set out below.
1(iv)	a) for each of said wear elements, obtaining an accelerometer measurement of said wear element provided by said three-axis accelerometer of said wear element;	This is disclosed. As explained, [0019] and [0116] disclose that the sensor may be an accelerometer or orientation sensor. In order for such sensors to be used to monitor “presence” (see: [0019]) an accelerometer measurement must be provided by the accelerometer.
1(v)	for each of said at least one reference axis:	See integer 1(iii) above.
1(vi)	b) for each of said wear elements, determining a rotational position measurement with respect to said reference axis of said wear element based on said accelerometer measurement of said wear element;	[0017] discloses using the monitoring device in the following manner: “Loss of a product member is detected when one monitoring device deviates beyond a certain range from its established position, or orientation”. It would be routine and intuitive for a PSA to determine the orientation of the wear element based on the accelerometer measurement. See also [0122] which refers to “detecting the presence of the product through its relative position and orientation with the other products”. D1 discloses that one embodiment is the use of accelerometers as part of the monitoring devices in the GETs and the subsequent detection, and comparison, of each GET to detect presence/loss of the GET. When the PSA follows these instructions they would consider determining a rotational positional measurement about a reference axis as this is a routine and intuitive way of determining orientation.
1(vii)	c) determining a mean reference value based on said rotational position measurements of each of said wear elements;	This is disclosed by [0017] and [0122] and, in any event, is an implementation detail that a PSA would consider, as a matter of routine, and without the need for any ingenuity, for the reasons set out below.
1(viii)	d) for each of said wear elements, determining a deviation value of said wear element based on the deviation between said rotational position measurement of said	See integer 1(vii) above.
1(ix)	e) for each of said wear elements, determining that there is a fall of said wear element if said deviation value of said wear element exceeds a threshold value; and	This is disclosed by [0017] (“Loss of a product is detected when one monitoring device deviates beyond a certain range from its established position”) and [0122] (“Loss of a product … a significant change in position of the monitoring device is detected when one monitoring device deviates beyond a certain range of its established position”).
1(x)	f) repeating steps (a) to (e) in successive iterations.	This is disclosed. [0002] discloses a system for identifying and monitoring characteristics. To have any utility, D1 must be describing a system which is “iterated in practice”.