Metso Sweden AB v Hofmann Engineering Pty Ltd - [2019] APO 19

IP AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE

Metso Sweden AB v Hofmann Engineering Pty Ltd 2019 APO 19

Patent Application: 2015203343

Title:Edge Protection Assembly

Patent Applicant: Hofmann Engineering Pty Ltd

Opponent:Metso Sweden AB

Delegate:Dr W.E. Guinea

Decision Date: 6 May 2019

Hearing Date: 6 February 2019, in Canberra

Catchwords: PATENTS – s59 – novelty – inventive step – clarity – succinctness – some claims found to lack clarity – single claim lacks novelty – single claim lacks inventive step – no other claims lack novelty or inventive step – no lack of succinctness

Representation: Patent attorney for the applicant: Wrays Pty Ltd
Patent attorney for the opponent: Dr Jack King-Scott and Mr Wayne Slater of IP Gateway Patent and Trademark Attorneys Pty Ltd

IP AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE

Patent Application: 2015203343
Title:Edge Protection Assembly

Patent Applicant: Hofmann Engineering Pty Ltd

Date of Decision: 6 May 2019

DECISION

The Opposition is successful.

Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 24, 26, 28 and 29 lack clarity.

Claim 27 lacks novelty and is also lacking inventive step.

No other grounds of opposition were successful.

I award costs according to Schedule 8 of the Patents Regulations 1991 against the Applicant, Hofmann Engineering Pty Ltd.

I allow the Applicant, Hofmann Engineering Pty Ltd, two (2) months from the date of this decision to propose amendments that address the defects identified in this decision.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

Patent application 2015203343 (the “specification”) was filed on 17 June 2015. Examination was requested on 3 July 2015, and the specification was advertised as accepted on 22 December 2016. The specification has an earliest priority date of 7 September 2010. The applicant is Hofmann Engineering Pty Ltd (the “Applicant”).
A notice of opposition to the specification, under s59 of the Patents Act 1990 (the “Act”), was filed by Metso Sweden AB (the “Opponent”) on 22 March 2017. The Opponent filed a statement of grounds and particulars on 22 June 2017.
A notice of opposition to the specification (the “second opposition”) was also filed on 22 March 2017 by ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions AG (the “second Opponent”). The second opposition was withdrawn on 12 June 2018, and does not form part of this decision, save regarding some evidence as discussed below.
Both the Opponent and the second Opponent completed the filing of evidence in support (“EIS”) on 22 September 2017. For the Opponent this consisted of:
· a declaration by Michael John Daniel (“Daniel”), dated 22 September 2017, with supporting exhibits MJD-1 to MJD-12; and
· a declaration by John Daniel King-Scott, dated 22 September 2017, with supporting exhibits JKS-1 to JKS-14.
The EIS for the second Opponent consisted of:
·     a declaration by Jacobus Casparus Botha (“Botha”), dated 21 September 2017, with supporting exhibits JCB-1 to JCB-9;
·     a declaration by Andreas Jurgen Hartmann (“Hartmann”), dated 22 September 2017, with supporting exhibits AJH-1 to AJH-15;
·     a declaration by Johann Ferdinand Knecht (“Knecht”), dated 15 September 2017, with supporting exhibits JFK-1 to JFK-11; and
·    a declaration by Edward James Pownell (“Pownell”), dated 19 September 2017, with supporting exhibits JP-1 to JP-7.
On 27 December 2017 the Applicant filed voluntary amendments under s104 of the Act. These amendments were to the claims, description and to the drawings. Ultimately these amendments were allowed on 24 May 2018.
The opposition was stayed in view of the amendments indicated above, such that evidence in answer (“EIA”) was due to be filed on or before 7 June 2018. In any event the Applicant did not file any EIA, meaning that no evidence in reply (“EIR”) was filed.
On 14 June 2018 the Opponent wrote to the Commissioner requesting that the evidence of Mr Knecht, Mr Pownell and Mr Botha be admitted into the present opposition via the operation of Reg 5.23. The Commissioner wrote to both parties proposing to agree to the Opponent’s request. A direction under Reg 5.23 admitting the evidence indicated into the present matter was made on 29 June 2018.
On 26 October 2018 the Opponent requested to amend the SGP, in view of the amendments that had been made to the application. These amendments were allowed on 21 November 2018. Hereinafter where I refer to the SGP, it is to the SGP as amended on 21 November 2018.

10. Both parties filed written summaries of submissions. The Opponent filed their written submissions (the “Opponent’s written submissions”) on 22 January 2019, while the Applicant filed their written submissions (the “Applicant’s written submissions”) on 6 February 2019, shortly before the hearing of this matter.

11. Only representatives of the Opponent appeared at the hearing. As the Applicant filed their written submissions shortly before the hearing, rather than by close of business two business days before the hearing (as indicated in the hearing notice if appearing by submissions only), I allowed the Opponent five business days after the hearing to file any submissions responsive to the Applicant’s written submissions. These were received on 13 February 2019. Hereinafter I will refer to these as the “Opponent’s responding submissions”.

12. Due to issues raised in the Opponent’s responding submissions, I wrote to both parties on 15 February 2019 explaining that it was not usual to have a separate decision on costs, and that costs usually followed the event. In this respect I requested the parties to provide reasons as to why a separate hearing on costs is necessary (or not) and whether costs should be made other than following the event or in some other way that is sought.

13. The Opponent responded on 18 February 2019, indicating that it did not seek a separate hearing on costs, and was content for the Delegate to decide costs as part of deciding the substantive hearing. The Applicant responded on 22 February 2019 indicating that it was supportive of costs being dealt with as typically before the Patent Office.

The Invention as Described

14. The invention for this specification relates to an edge protection system for high pressure grinding rollers (“HPGR”) that are used for grinding materials, for example in the comminution of ore. HPGR systems comprise a pair of opposed rollers such that a nip is defined between the rollers. Ore, or other material is introduced to the nip such that the material is ground by the action of the rollers. The specification observes that it is known to provide the grinding surface (the cylindrical surface) of each roller with a protection system in the form of wear resistant elements spaced across the grinding surface. In use ground material builds up on the grinding surface of each roller between the wear resistant elements, thereby forming a retained layer of crushed material. This layer is effective in protecting the grinding surface of the rollers.

15. However, the specification goes on to state (at page 1, lines 22 to 26) that the above system…

“…does not necessarily provide adequate protection to the edge and side faces of the roller which are also exposed to the harsh environment. In practice it is often the case that the condition of the roller's working surface is relatively sound while the edges have substantially degraded, therefore limiting the life of the roller.”

16. A number of prior art edge protection methods are then discussed, as well as problems with the same. The prior art systems comprise the mounting of protective hard bodies to the edge of the rollers, these being mounted on or in a circumferential recess or annular shoulder formed at the roller edge. The stated problem with these systems is that where a hard body is worn away or breaks off, then the recess/shoulder is exposed to damage. This means that, if the hard body is not immediately replaced, the recess/shoulder can be damaged such that it can no longer support a hard body, resulting in the requirement for extensive repair or replacement of the roller.

17. To deal with the above problems, the specification proposes an edge protection system. The nature of this as disclosed is best understood by reference to the figures of the specification, all of which are given at annex A to this decision.

18. Figures 1 to 9 comprise a first embodiment of the edge protection system. These figures illustrate a HPGR 10 comprising a cylindrical grinding surface 11 extending between two lateral faces 12. The junction of the grinding surface 11 and each lateral face 12 defines an edge portion 19. A series of side bodies 21 are secured to each lateral face 12 by bolts 23, while a series of hard bodies 29 are mounted onto the side bodies such that they are flush with the cylindrical grinding surface 11.

19. Figure 7 demonstrates that each side body 21 is mounted below the level of cylindrical grinding surface 11. This means that the part of the lateral face 25 not covered by the side body 21 cooperates with the side body 21 to define a surface for placement of the hard bodies 29.

20. The hard bodies 29 comprise a projection 37, a side face 43 and a hole 44. The projection 37 engages a complementary recess 39 in each side body 21, thereby restricting axial movement of the hard body 29 (see figure 7). The side face 43 is complementarily inclined to a lateral face portion 25 of the lateral face 12, the complementary incline of these parts further restricting axial movement of the hard body 29 (see figure 7). The hole 44 receives a dowel 45, which also extends into side body 21 via the provision of hole 47 (see figure 9), thereby securing the hard body in place.

21. The effect of the edge protection system is noted in the specification at page 18, lines 21 to 28:

“In use, each hard body 29 supports and protects the edge portion 19 of the roller. Due to the harsh environment one or more hard bodies 29 may break away or wear down, exposing the side bodies 21. If the roller is not timely repaired, the side bodies 21 are then exposed to the harsh environment and will be damaged. If this were to occur, during maintenance an operator simply removes and replaces the side bodies 21, allowing new hard bodies 29 to be secured to the side bodies 21. This is not achievable with the prior art systems as prior art systems would require replacement of the roller edge.”

22. The remainder of the figures illustrate further embodiments of the invention. Figures 10 to 15 illustrate a second embodiment, figures 16 and 17 illustrate a third embodiment, while figures 18 to 23 show a fourth embodiment. While each of these are similar to the first embodiment, they do comprise a number of principle differences which are outlined below.

23. With respect to the second embodiment a first difference is that the hard bodies 229 comprise a recess 231 which is complementary to a recess 233 formed in the side bodies 21. The recesses 231, 233 form a blind cavity 235 (not labelled, but apparent on figure 15) that receives a pin 237, which helps prevent movement of the hard body 229 relative to the side body 21. Secondly, the hard bodies 229 also comprise mutually cooperating recesses 241. As best seen on figure 13 when the hard bodies 229 are mounted these recesses create a cavity where ground material may accumulate, thus providing additional force to assist in holding the hard bodies 229 in place. Finally, the outer surface 251 of each hard body 229 is curved (as best seen on figure 15) such that it stands proud of the cylindrical grinding surface 11, as opposed to being flush in the first embodiment.

24. With respect to the third embodiment, this differs from the first embodiment in that each hard body 329 comprises a protrusion 336 (apparently cited as 335 in the text of the description) that engages a complementary recess 333 (not shown) in the side body 21. The engagement of the protrusion 336/recess 333 assists in preventing movement of the hard body 329 with respect to the side body 21.

25. With respect to the fourth embodiment, this differs from the first embodiment in that each side body 421 supports only a single hard body 329. Each side body also comprises a projection 451 which is received in a complementary recess 453 in the lateral face 412 of the roller; this helps prevent sideways movement of the side body 421. As in the third embodiment, each side body 421 comprises a recess 435 (best seen on figure 19) for receiving a protrusion 336 (not shown on figures of the fourth embodiment) of the hard body 329.

The Claims

26. The specification at present comprise 29 claims, of which claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 24, 26, 28 and 29 are independent. The claims are attached to this decision as annex B.

The Opposition

27. In the SGP the Opponent pursued grounds under:

· s18(1)(b)(i) – lack novelty;
· s18(1)(b)(ii) – lack of inventive step; and
· s40(3) – lack of clarity and succinctness

28. All of these grounds were pursued in the Opponent’s written submissions and at the hearing.

29. I note that putative issues outlined in the Opponent’s written submissions with respect to the validity of the earliest priority date were abandoned at the hearing. This appeared to be spurred by the fact that all the documentary prior art relied upon by the Opponent, as well as the putative common general knowledge (“CGK”) was published or existed before the latest priority date asserted as being valid by the Opponent.

Onus of Proof

30. The request for examination in relation to the application was filed on 17 June 2015. Consequently, substantive amendments of the Act brought about by the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 apply to the application. This includes the amendment to subsection 60 (3A) that allows the Commissioner to refuse a patent application if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a ground of opposition exists. Notably it is the Opponent who bears the onus of proving their case to the requisite standard during opposition proceedings.

Who is the Skilled Addressee?

31. The skilled addressee is taken to be a non-inventive worker in the art with respect to the invention concerned, is taken to have the CGK in the art, and could be a team of people; see Root Quality Control Pty. Ltd. v Root Control Technologies Pty. Ltd. [2000] FCA 980 at [70] to [71] (“Root Quality Control”); Catnic Components Limited and Another v Hill & Smith Limited (1982) RPC 183 at 242 to 243 and Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. vBeiersdorf (Australia) Ltd. [1980] HCA 9 at [115]; (1980) 144 CLR 253 at 292. In particular, in Root Quality Control at [71] Finkelstein J. stated that “... the patent is directed to a person interested in making, constructing, compounding or using the invention...”

32. I consider that the skilled addressee is a person or team of persons involved in the designing, construction or use of HPGRs.

33. I note that the skilled addressee, as I have construed it, largely accords with the Opponent’s position at [4.6] of their written submissions and [3.3] of their responding submissions. I further observe that the Applicant has not provided an opinion on the nature of the skilled addressee.

34. I have reviewed the experience and qualifications of the expert declarants (Daniel, Botha, Knecht and Pownell), and I consider that each is able to provide evidence as to what the skilled addressee would know or do. I note that Dr Scott-King’s declaration merely serves to place prior art documents into evidence, rather than providing purported information on what the skilled addressee would know or do.

Construction of the Claims

35. Rules of construction have been provided by the authorities to assist in determining the ambit of claims. These have been conveniently summarised in Pfizer Overseas Pharmaceuticals v Eli Lilly and Company [2005] FCAFC 224 (“Pfizer”) at [247] to [250]. These comprise, from (Re Décor Corporation Pty Ltd (Formerly Brian Davis and Company Pty Ltd) and Rian Tooling Industries Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc [1988] FCA 399), cited at [249] of Pfizer:

“1. The claims define the invention which is the subject of the patent. These must be construed according to their terms upon ordinary principles. Any purely verbal or grammatical question that can be answered according to ordinary rules for the construction of written documents is to be resolved accordingly.
2. It is not legitimate to confine the scope of the claims by reference to limitations which may be found in the body of the specification but are not expressly or by proper inference reproduced in the claims themselves. To put it another way, it is not legitimate to narrow or expand the boundaries of monopoly as fixed by the words of a claim by adding to those words glosses drawn from other parts of the specification.
3. Nevertheless, in approaching the task of construction, one must read the specification as a whole.
4. In some cases the meaning of the words used in the claims may be qualified or defined by what is said in the body of the specification.
5. If a claim be clear, it is not to be made obscure because obscurities can be found in particular sentences in other parts of the document. But if an expression is not clear or is ambiguous, it is permissible to resort to the body of the specification to define or clarify the meaning of words used in the claim.
6. A patent specification should be given a purposive construction rather than a purely literal one.
7. In construing the specification, the court is not construing a written instrument operating inter partes, but a public instrument which must define a monopoly in such a way that it is not reasonably capable of being misunderstood.
8. The body, apart from the preamble, is there to instruct those skilled in the art concerned in the carrying out of the invention; provided it is comprehensible to, and does not mislead, a skilled reader, the language used is seldom of importance.
9. Nevertheless, the claims, since they define the monopoly, will be scrutinised with as much care as is used in construing other documents defining a legal right.
10. If it is impossible to ascertain what the invention is from a fair reading of the specification as a whole, it will be invalid. But the specification must be construed in the light of the common knowledge in the art before the priority date.”

36. Three additional principles were also cited in Pfizer (at [250]) from Nesbit Evans Group Australia Pty Ltd v Impro Ltd (1997) 39 IPR 56:

“1. There is a danger in considering the integers of a claim individually and in isolation. This could yield a literal rather than a purposive construction – see Catnic Components Ltd v Hill & Smith Ltd [1982] RPC 183 at 243 (Lord Diplock).
2. The Court should avoid too technical or narrow a construction of claims.
3. A construction according to which the invention will work is to be preferred to one according to which it may not do so.”

37. I will now construe each of the claims. Where convenient I have broken each claim into a labelled set of integers, for example as 1.1, 1.2, 1.3. etc. In doing so I note that have been careful to ensure that no meaning has been lost to the claim as a whole.

Claim 1

38. 1.1 An edge protection assembly for a pressure roller used in the grinding of materials…, the edge protection assembly comprising…

39. I take this to define an edge protection assembly that is suitable for a pressure roller used in the grinding of materials, such as in HPGR or the like, and as defined further in feature 1.2. “Assembly” I take to mean that there are several components that are fitted together to create an edge protection unit for the pressure roller, these components including the features defined further below in the claim. I observe that claim 1 does not comprise a roller as such, only an edge protection assembly suitable for a pressure roller as defined in the claim.

40. 1.2…a pressure roller used in the grinding of materials, the roller having an outer face on a roller body, the outer face extending between two lateral faces, each junction of the respective lateral face with the outer face providing an edge portion...

41. I take this to define a pressure roller as per feature 1.1 having a cylindrical outer face or surface which is used for the grinding of materials, with this outer face extending between two lateral faces. While the nature of the “lateral face” is apparently innocuous, there are some ambiguities in what this means that I will consider further below. The junction or meeting of the respective lateral faces and the outer face each define an edge portion of the roller.

42. 1.3…a plurality of side bodies adapted to be releasably secured to one or both of the lateral faces of the roller, whereby when fitted a portion of each side body abuts the lateral face.…

43. The first thing I note here is that this feature comprises “the lateral faces of the roller” and also “the lateral face”, while feature 1.2 has previously introduced “two lateral faces”. Consequently, it is not entirely clear whether the “the lateral faces of the roller” is simply another way of referring to the “two lateral faces” from feature 1.2 or whether something different is meant. It is also not clear whether the subsequent recital of “the lateral face” is a reference to one of the “two lateral faces” or to one of “the lateral faces of the roller”, or whether something different is meant altogether.

44. I observe that there are also further recitals of “lateral face” in feature 1.5 and 1.8. However, I consider that it is apparent that the recital of “the lateral face” in feature 1.5 is the same as “the lateral face” of feature 1.3, due to these being identical in wording and the use of “abuts” with respect to these in each case, it not being apparent in purposive terms why “abuts the lateral face” would mean a different lateral face in each of feature 1.3 and feature 1.5, especially noting the relationship in the claim between the hard bodies and the side bodies. Similarly, the recital of “the lateral face of the roller” is to my mind a reference to a respective one of “the lateral faces of the roller” of feature 1.3.

45. However, given the use of the definite article for each recital of a “lateral face’ after introducing “two lateral faces”, I consider that the various recitals of “lateral face” is best understood as referring to the same thing i.e. the “two lateral faces” or a respective one of the “two lateral faces”. This is further supported by the fact that the hard bodies must clearly contact one of the “two lateral faces” that help define the edge portion, further suggesting that the “lateral face” which each hard body “abuts” in feature 1.5 (and thus also “the lateral face” of feature 1.3) is one of the “two lateral faces”, it not being apparent in purposive terms why the hard body would need to abut a different lateral face for the purposes of the edge protection assembly.

46. I also note that feature 1.8 defines that the projection of the hard body “…is wedged in position by the recess and the lateral face of the roller” (emphasis added). This means that the hard body also abuts this instance of “the lateral face of the roller”. Again, it is difficult in a purposive sense to see why the abutment with respect to “the lateral face of the roller” would be different to abutting “the lateral face” of feature 1.5. Consequently, on balance I consider that the various references to a “lateral face” in the claim are to the same lateral face.

47. However, having resolved this difficulty, a further problem is apparent when one considers what is meant by a “face” in the first place. In this respect I have supplied the most relevant definitions of “face” from the Macquarie Dictionary Online, 2019, Macquarie Dictionary Publishers, an imprint of Pan Macmillan Australia Pty Ltd, (“Macquarie Dictionary”) below:

“face noun…
…12.  the surface: the face of the earth.
13.  the side or part of a side upon which the use of a thing depends: the face of a cloth; the face of a document; the face of a playing card; the face of a watch.
14.  the most important side; the front: the face of a building; the face of an arch.
15.  the acting, striking, or working surface of an implement, tool, bat, club, etc.
16. Geometry any one of the bounding surfaces of a solid figure: a cube has six faces...”

48. Consequently, I consider that there are two possible interpretations that could apply to each recital of “lateral face”:

a) it means a side of the roller when considered as a whole (the “collective face” interpretation); or
b) it means a particular sub-face or surface forming part of the roller, (the “individual face” interpretation).

49. I will now consider the expert evidence with respect to what would be understood by a “lateral face” of the roller, as well as the submissions of the parties relevant to this point.

50. Of the expert declarants, Mr Botha appears to use lateral face of the roller in the sense of referring to the side of the roller as a whole. This is exemplified at [5.23], [5.26], [6.7] (in reference to claim 1), [6.10] (also in reference to claim 1), [7.4] and [7.5] of Botha, as well as in the novelty table in JCB-7. However, there are other instances where it would seem that Mr Botha’s references to “lateral face” are to something which is less than or forms a part of the side of the roller, rather than the roller as a whole, for example at [5.20] and [5.45] to [5.48]. In particular these passages indicate that lateral face is being used to denote the vertical face of a shoulder machined into the end of the roller. In other places Mr Botha has referred to what is the whole side of the roller using different nomenclature, i.e. he has called the whole side of the roller something other than just a lateral face, or has defined certain parts of the whole side as being something specific in context, i.e. not just a lateral face in the sense that they form part of the whole side of the roller, but something else. This is apparent at [5.22], [5.37] and [7.11] to [7.15].

51. Thus, it can be seen that Mr Botha has positively identified “two lateral faces” as simply being the end faces of the roller (at [6.7]), however he does not seem to have noticed the multiple recital of nominally different lateral faces that existed in claim 1 even before amendment, nor the consequences that come from the fact that the nature of the lateral face is not explicitly specified in claim 1. This is despite the fact that in other parts of his declaration he uses lateral face to mean something different depending on context, as indicated above. In view of this it seems a little unusual that Mr Botha did not appreciate the potential ambiguity that would flow from the multiple uses of “lateral face” and the lack of explicit structural definition of these lateral faces.

52. Further, Mr Botha’s discussion of various parts of the side of the roller in a specific manner is in contrast to his discussion of some of the items of prior art. For example, at [5.22] the vertical face of a shoulder formed in the end face of the roller is referred to as “…the vertical shoulder (i.e. the rear face) of the recess”, that it is not simply identified as the side of the roller as such. Conversely in JCB-7 Mr Botha identifies, as can be best understood, the vertical face of the shoulder 11 from US 2007/0215733 as merely forming part of the “lateral face of the roller” i.e. simply the side of the roller when considered as a whole. While these two constructions may not be mutually exclusive, the lack of exploration of issues that flow from the multiple recital of “lateral faces” and the structure of the same make it difficult to take Mr Botha’s interpretation of “lateral face” at face value. It also suggests that Mr Botha may have been construing the prior art with a view to anticipation.

53. Mr Knecht does not explicitly state what he understands “lateral face” to mean in the context of the application. However, he appears to equate “lateral face” with the whole side of the roller at [5.14], [7.7] and [7.9] of Knecht as well as in the novelty table of JFK-11. However elsewhere Mr Knecht does not refer to a “lateral face” as such but also to terms such as “the lateral end face” or “end face” as well as or in addition to a “lateral face” as a reference to the side of the roller as a whole. This is evident at [5.17], [5.18], [7.2], [7.3], [8.4], [8.12], [8.13] and [8.18]. In other places the “lateral face” is used to indicate a distinct part of the side of the roller, rather than the side as a whole, for example at [8.3].

54. Mr Knecht, like Mr Botha, has also not appreciated the potential issues raised by the multiple recitals of lateral face in the claims and the lack of definition of these “faces”. Mr Knecht has also applied some apparently inconsistent uses of “lateral face” and other “faces” that form part of the side of the roller as discussed above with regard to Mr Botha. Again, this makes it difficult to rely on Mr Knecht’s contentions with respect to what comprises a “lateral face”.

55. Mr Pownell considers that “the lateral faces of the roll” (sic) in claim 1 is commensurate with the end i.e. the whole side of the roller at [20], [40] and [41], of his declaration. Elsewhere he appears to merely refer to “end-faces of the rolls” (at [38]) or “the side of the roll face” (at [40]). Like Mr Botha and Mr Knecht, Mr Pownell does not seem to have appreciated the difficulties presented by the various “lateral faces”.

56. Mr Daniel does not discuss or mention the lateral or side faces of the roll in any way in his declaration. Generally, Mr Daniel provides little discussion on the positioning of the edge protection systems, although he refers to one as being “…inserted into the base of the roll assembly…” at [105]. Consequently, Mr Daniel’s evidence has very little bearing on the “lateral face” issue.

57. Overall, I consider that the expert evidence is of little assistance when it comes to the “lateral face” issue as discussed above. At best it seems that all I can take from this is that what can be considered a lateral face can vary depending on the context. However, that simply reinforces the ambiguity I have discussed above, rather than resolving it.

58. The Opponent, in their written submissions merely equates the lateral face with the side of the roller. Despite the Opponent’s otherwise significant enthusiasm for pressing lack of clarity, the issue of the multiple “lateral faces” and the lack of definition of the structure of each of these was not commented upon by the Opponent.

59. In their written submissions, the Applicant states (at [26] and [27]) that:

“The Opposed Application provides an edge protection assembly which is adapted to co-operate with a planar lateral face of the roller. The lateral face supports a plurality of side bodies, whereby the side bodies are adjacent to the lateral face when secured thereto. The side bodies sit below the outer face of the roller such that they form an annular groove defined by a surface of the side bodies and the exposed portion of the lateral face. In this groove the hard bodies are placed so as to support the edge portion of the roller.
This assembly provides a significant advantage as the edge protection assembly is secured to the roller independent to the exposed surfaces of the roller. Furthermore, the edge of the roller is not compromised by requiring an annual(sic) groove to first be formed around each end of the roller.”

60. Although the Applicant has used nominally different “lateral faces” in the submissions above, it would seem that what is meant is that the side bodies and the hard bodies are mounted onto the same planar surface, especially when read in the context of [27] of the specification.

61. Elsewhere the Applicant uses language to describe the above features that is rather reminiscent of the “lateral face” issue in claim 1, and perhaps goes some way to explain how this occurred in the first place. Paragraph [57] provides an example of this:

“Independent claims 1 of the Opposed Application defines that a portion of each hard body and a portion of each side body abuts the lateral face of the roller. That is to say that the hard body and side body abut the same surface. This is evident from at least figure 7 of the Opposed Application (see above Image 2). This is not present in D1. In D1 the clamping plates (13) are fastened to the end face of the roller such that a portion thereof abuts the end face. The hard bodies (12) do not abut the end face of the roller, but rather engage the annular shoulder (11). The arrangement of claim 1 provides a significant advantage over D1 as the edge of the roller is never exposed to damage should a hard body become detached from the roller. With the arrangement of claim 1, should a hard body become detached, the end of the replaceable side body will be exposed to the crushing action.” (emphasis added)

62. It can be seen what the Applicant is getting at in [57], however the language used, similar to that of claim 1, is rather confusing. For example, precisely which surface do both the hard bodies and the side bodies abut? And is “the lateral face of the roller” the same as or different from “the end face of the roller”, and if they are different, then in what way?

63. In this respect the “differences” appear to reside in the hard bodies and the side bodies residing on the same planar surface, however there is an explicit absence of “planar” or other features in claim 1 that provide the limitations referred to by the Applicant above. In this respect the Opponent argued in their responding submissions at [2.8] that:

“Claim 1 in no way recites that a portion of each side body and each hard body abuts the ‘same’ surface. This is a gloss applied by the Opponent in an effort to differentiate the claimed invention from D1. Rather and as claimed in claim 1, D1 discloses that a portion of each side body and a portion of each hard body abuts the ‘lateral face’ of the roller.”

64. While I have some sympathy for the various positions of the parties, these make various (and diverging assumptions) as to what is meant by a “lateral face” in the context of claim 1 without really appreciating the ambiguous nature of the “lateral faces” and the consequences that flow from this. If anything, this situation reinforces the ambiguous nature of the lateral faces as discussed so far. I will now consider the consequences of this ambiguity below.

65. The consequences of either interpretation is perhaps best considered in conjunction with two illustrative HPGRs which are given below on Diagram A. I note that these are schematic in that the axle or other means for mounting and driving the roller are omitted for clarity, noting that in general I do not consider that the roller axle would form part of the side of the roller, however one may wish to define that. Each roller is shown in axial cross section and comprises a cylindrical outer face and two sides between which the outer face extends.

Diagram A, showing Roller1 and Roller2

66. Roller 1 is illustrated with flat circular sides. In this situation it is clear that there is only is only a single surface that is planar in nature which comprises the “lateral face”. Hence there is no ambiguity with respect to the nature of the lateral face.

67. Roller 2, however, has sides with a stepped profile made up of what can be considered three faces. This roller appears to be in keeping with the preferred embodiments, all of which comprise a shoulder; see for example figures 1 and 3 to 6 and figure 18, although the invention as described would seem in general to extend to rollers without a shoulder. I also note that it is apparent from both the specification and the evidence that rollers with a shoulder are well known in the art; see Botha at [5.15] and [5.18], Knecht at [5.4] and [5.11] and Daniel at [29] and [103] to [105].In this case either of the collective face or individual face interpretations, as identified earlier, could apply.

68. With respect to the collective face interpretation, I note that the claim requires that the side bodies and the hard bodies are in contact with the same lateral face, and that this lateral face also needs to define the edge portion in conjunction with the outer face of the roller. This means the hard bodies would need to be mounted, in use, such that they contact the 1^st (green) face so as to be effective in supporting the edge portion i.e., they extend at least flush to the junction defined by the 1^st face and the roller face, although they could also contact the 2^nd and/or 3^rd faces as well. In keeping with the claim language as I have construed it, the side bodies would then be mounted radially below the outer face on any one or more of the 1^st, 2^nd or 3^rd faces.

69. It is apparent that this interpretation allows for a wide variety of placements of the side bodies that provide for a structural separation between these and the hard bodies that is otherwise odd when the claim is considered in a purposive sense. For example, this interpretation allows for the side bodies to only be in contact with either one of or both the 2^nd and 3^rd faces, but still allow for the side bodies to abut the same “lateral face” as the hard bodies. It can thus be seen that the nature of the lateral face has very important consequences for determining the ambit of the claim.

70. For the “individual faces” interpretation, where each distinct face is potentially a lateral face, the hard bodies would need to be mounted such that they contact the 1^st face so as to support the edge portion. Consequently, in view of my construction above, each of the “two lateral faces”, “the lateral face” of features 1.3 and 1.5, “the lateral faces of the roller” of feature 1.5 and “the lateral face of the roller” of feature 1.8 are defined by the 1^st face.

71. The question now is which of the collective face or individual face interpretations is appropriate for the ambit of the claim. On balance I consider that the individual faces interpretation is most appropriate to the claim language. The fact that the claim as best understood defines that the side bodies and the hard bodies are mounted to the same lateral face, which face also defines the edge portion in conjunction with the outer face, is suggestive of the lateral face being a discrete or distinct entity in line with definitions 13 to 16 from the Macquarie Dictionary. In addition, to the extent that there is still any ambiguity, this interpretation is commensurate with the specification when read as a whole, where it is apparent that the lateral face is such that the side bodies cover the shoulder of the roller so that this is not exposed if a hard body is worn away or breaks off, this being the entire point of the edge protection system of the application.

72. Conversely the “collective face” interpretation requires, to my mind, a rather more artificial construction of the claim by adding more to the lateral face than legitimately comes from the claim when read as a whole. In addition, the apparently artificial separation of some of the elements of the claim using this interpretation, for example with respect to the lateral face for the hard and side bodies as discussed above, is indicative that this is not an appropriate way to construe the claim. Finally, to the extent that there is any remaining ambiguity, I also observe that this interpretation comprises options that are not commensurate with the operation of the invention as described in the specification.

73. While it is apparent that the individual faces interpretation is appropriate where the roller is of a form similar to roller 2, it is also apparent that this interpretation is unnecessary for a roller of the type of roller 1. In addition, merely defining the lateral face as “a distinct or individual face” without specific recourse to the considerations above simply reintroduces the very problem that it was meant to solve, i.e. the whole side of the roller could be considered an individual or distinct face.

74. Consequently, I consider it appropriate to settle on a construction of the lateral face that is agnostic with respect to the structure of the roller used and that is also reasonably clear. To that end I take that each recital of a “lateral face” in claim 1 to mean a lateral face of the roller that is substantially planar from the edge portion to where the side bodies are positioned. In further support of this construction I note that this coincides with the nature of the lateral face and the operation of the edge protection system as described in the specification.

75. Consolidating all the above, I take feature 1.3 to define that further components of the edge protection assembly comprise a plurality of side bodies which can be attached to one or both (in the sense of one or the other) of the lateral faces or subface of the roller, this lateral face or subface being substantially planar from the edge portion to where the side bodies are positioned, such that they can be removed from the lateral face or subface.

76. 1.4…and each side body terminates at a position below the roller's outer face;

77. There is nominally some confusion as to what constitutes “below” with respect to the roller’s outer face, noting that the roller moves around with respect to what would normally be understood as the “up” and “down” directions. However, the roller is cylindrical in nature such that it makes most sense to consider the roller in a cylindrical polar coordinate system. Noting that each side body is secured to the lateral face of the roller, it is thus apparent that terminates at a position below the roller's outer face means that the side body terminates at a position radially inward of the roller’s outer face. This construction is also supported by the specification when considered as a whole, where all of the embodiments illustrate that the side bodies terminate at a position radially inward of the roller’s outer face.

78. To the extent that the terminating at a position radially inward of the outer face could be construed as an end or extremity only of the side body terminating radially inward, I observe that it is difficult to reconcile the operation of the edge protection assembly of the claim as a whole with such an interpretation. In addition, the claim language refers to the termination of each side body, that is the side body as a whole rather than a part thereof. Finally, all of the embodiments of the specification have the entirety of each side body being located radially inward of the outer face, further supporting the interpretation I have taken.

79. 1.5…a plurality of hard bodies adapted to be secured relative to the plurality of side bodies when the side bodies are secured to the roller, the hard bodies being arranged to support the edge portion of the roller whereby when fitted a portion of each hard body abuts the lateral face…

80. I take this to define a further component of the edge protection assembly comprising hard bodies which are able to be secured in some way such that they are connected to the side bodies when these are secured to the roller. When in place the hard bodies support the edge portion of the roller in the sense that they sustain or protect the edge portion, such that each hard body abuts, in the sense of contacts the lateral face.

81. 1.6…wherein each hard body has a bottom face which engages an end face of one of the plurality of side bodies in a dovetail arrangement…

82. I take this to mean that each hard body has a radially innermost (i.e. bottom) face or surface that engages an end face or surface of one of the side bodies in a dovetail arrangement. Noting that each side body must contact the lateral face as construed above, that the side bodies are radially inward of the hard bodies (since the hard bodies must extend to the edge of the roller), and the nature of the dovetail arrangement discussed below, the end face of the side bodies that engages the bottom face of the hard bodies must be the radially uppermost face of the side bodies. I also note that my construction of “face” here for both the hard/bodies and side bodies is essentially coincident with a surface, rather than a distinct planar area as discussed above regarding “the lateral face”, also due to the nature of the “dovetail arrangement” as discussed below.

83. I now consider it appropriate to provide further explanation on what is meant by a “dovetail arrangement”. In this respect the expert declarants have had scant regard to what this term means. Mr Daniel has not considered the term at all. It seems at 9.6 of his declaration that Mr Botha simply equates a dovetail arrangement as merely being a dovetail as known in the art. However, Mr Botha has given virtually no explanation as to why he equates a “dovetail arrangement” with a “dovetail” to the extent that it seems that he has simply read through the term without properly considering it in the context of the application. The fact that Mr Botha was also construing this term after he had considered the application (and in the context of asserting a lack of inventive step) is suggestive that perhaps Mr Botha was construing with a view to a finding of obviousness (which in itself is rather curious given that Mr Botha already believes this feature to be disclosed in D1, as discussed below), rather than attempting to make sense of the term from the point of view of the skilled addressee.

84. I also observe Mr Botha considers that D1 (in figure 1) comprises a “dovetail arrangement” as per the claims, due to the wedging of the hard body in a “dovetail manner”; see the novelty table with respect to claim 12, as it was prior to the claims being amended, in JCB-7. Clearly the “dovetail arrangement” of D1 is not a dovetail as would be understood in the art. If, as noted above, Mr Botha considers that a “dovetail arrangement” is merely a “dovetail” then it is difficult to reconcile his labelling of the system of D1 as having a dovetail arrangement i.e. in effect a dovetail. This apparent contradiction further confounds Mr Botha’s evidence on this point and suggests that he has not undertaken a proper consideration of the meaning of the term.

85. Mr Knecht (at [8.4] of his declaration) discusses the similarities between the “dovetail shaped groove section” of the application and the operation of the side plate and lateral face in US 2007/021215733, but this seems to be an argument that D1 comprises a dovetail arrangement similar to that of the application, rather than an indication of whether a dovetail arrangement is a dovetail or something else. Mr Knecht also considers that D1 discloses a dovetail arrangement (see table in JFK-11 with respect to claim 12 prior to amendment) as the “wedge surface 15 of clamping plate 13 forms a dove tail, which interfaces, and abuts, corresponding wedge surface 16 of hard body 12”. Thus, it seems that Mr Knecht is equating what is clearly not a dovetail as something that is, with very little explanation on this point.

86. Mr Pownell discusses the application having a “dovetail” groove (at [18] and [21] of his declaration), but again this is not particularly illuminating as to what he considers a dovetail arrangement to mean.

87. Ultimately, I do not find the expert evidence particularly helpful in determining what a “dovetail arrangement” means, although it is suggestive that a dovetail arrangement is not a term of art and that the expert declarants were having some difficulty in understanding the ambit of this feature.

88. The Opponent argues, at [8.8] of their written submissions, that a “dovetail arrangement” is not a term with a specific meaning, unlike a dovetail joint, and this was reiterated at the hearing by Mr Slater, who also suggested that it was not a term of art. The Applicant’s written submissions appear to support this contention at [107]:

“The addition of the features in amended claim 1 go beyond describing a traditional dovetail arrangement. A traditional dovetail arrangement, which is common place in carpentry, seeks to secure a first item to a second item to prevent the two items from being pulled a part. This is not the case with the Opposed Application. The dovetail arrangement between the hard body and the side body requires a third item, the lateral face of the roller, in order for the hard body to be secured and locked in place. The dovetail arrangement relies on the co-operation of the side body with the lateral face of the roller to lock a portion of the hard body therebetween to secure the hard body in position. This is a unique dovetail arrangement, and is by no means traditional.”

89. Putting all the above together, on balance I consider that a “dovetail arrangement” is not a term of art. I will now consider what a “dovetail arrangement” means in the context of the claim.

90. Notably, and unsurprisingly, the Macquarie Dictionary provides no definition of a “dovetail arrangement” however it defines “dovetail” as “noun 1. Carpentry a joint or fastening formed by one or more tenons and mortices spread in the shape of a dove's tail.” In view of this I consider that a “dovetail” or “dovetail joint” would be understood by the skilled addressee as per the dictionary definition when applied to the materials used in the present art, as opposed to the wooden materials from carpentry.

91. Similarly, the Macquarie Dictionary provides a number of definitions of “arrangement”, of which the following are most pertinent for present purposes:

“noun 1.  the act of arranging.
2.  the state of being arranged.
3.  the manner in which things are arranged…
…6.  something arranged in a particular way: a floral arrangement.”

92. In view of the above it appears that one could construe “dovetail arrangement” as being nothing more than a dovetail as such. In effect this makes the use of “arrangement” meaningless. However, the definitions provided above also open the possibility that a “dovetail arrangement” is something which is arranged in the manner of a dovetail. In this interpretation the “dovetail arrangement” could be something which is not a dovetail per se, and thus would give meaning to the use of “arrangement”.

93. Taking the above into consideration, I am of the view that there are two potential interpretations of this term, which I have given below.

i.a dovetail or dovetail joint as such; or

ii.a way of joining that is characteristic of a dovetail, but does not include dovetails per se.

94. On balance, I do not consider that interpretation (i) is reasonable in the context of the claim. In this respect, if a dovetail per se was meant in the claim, then the use of arrangement is essentially meaningless, and this suggests to me that this interpretation is not appropriate. In addition, recourse to the specification indicates that a “dovetail arrangement” as described is not commensurate with a “dovetail” per se.

95. Having concluded that option ii is the most appropriate way to consider construe “dovetail arrangement”, I consider that this option still comprises some difficulties in terms of interpretation in that it is rather ambiguous as to what is or is not a way of joining that is arranged in the manner of a dovetail but is not a dovetail per se. The specification represents the “dovetail arrangement” as something that I would describe as a truncated dovetail between the hard body and the side body, wherein the truncated part of the dovetail on the hard body engages the lateral face of the roller when the edge protection assembly is in place on the roller.

96. However, it is reasonable to believe that there are a wide variety of things that could be arranged in the manner of a dovetail beyond what is disclosed in the specification. As discussed, there is little expert evidence on what is meant by a dovetail arrangement, although some of this reinforces the fact that a “dovetail arrangement” per se is necessarily ambiguous. For example, Mr Botha and Mr Knecht both refer to a “rounded dovetail” (Botha at [5.45] and [5.46] (and apparently before he saw the application in Mr Botha’s case), Knecht at [8.3]) in their declarations, which is suggestive of an example that the skilled addressee would call a dovetail arrangement that is not a dovetail per se.

97. Given this further ambiguity I consider it appropriate to have recourse to the specification and so construe a “dovetail arrangement” as being a truncated dovetail between the hard body and the side body, wherein the truncated part of the dovetail on the hard body engages the lateral face i.e. the hard body and the side body engage a lateral face of the roller at the point where the other half of the dovetail would have existed if a dovetail per se was used, and when the edge protection assembly is implemented on a roller.

98. 1.7…the bottom face of each hard body provides a projection, the projection is wider at an end thereof than at an intermediary position between the ends of the hard body, the projection is adapted to be received in a recess formed in the end face of the side body …

99. I take this to mean that the bottom face of each hard body comprises a projection or protruding part, this projection being wider at an extremity than at a position between the extremities of the hard body. The projection can be received in a recess in the end face of the side body.

1.8…the recess of the side body is complementary to the shape of the projection of the hard body such that when assembled the projection is wedged in position by the recess and the lateral face of the roller such that the hard body is prevented from moving away from the side body.
I take this to mean that the recess in the side body and the projection of the hard body complement each other such that that when assembled the projection is fixed in position by the recess and the lateral face, with the result that the hard body is prevented from moving away from the side body.
I note that, nominally at least, the features of 1.7 and 1.8 would seem to be doing nothing more than describing the features of the dovetail arrangement as construed for feature 1.6. That is there is some ambiguity as to whether features 1.7 and 1.8 are defining another projection/recess separate to that of the dovetail arrangement or are they simply redundant.
The fact that feature 1.7 refers to “the bottom face of each hard body” and “the end face of the side body” indicates that the projection and recess exist in the same place as the dovetail arrangement, and thus refer to the same projection and recess as per the dovetail arrangement. Recourse to the specification does indicates embodiments wherein there is a further protrusion in a bottom face of the hard body, besides the dovetail arrangement, which engages a recess in the side bodies, however this does not operate in the way defined in features 1.7 and 1.8.
On balance I consider that features 1.7 and 1.8 are outlining features of the dovetail arrangement as defined in feature 1.6.
There is a remaining question as to whether this leaves features 1.7 and 1.8 as merely redundant in view of feature 1.6. I do not consider this to be the case for several reasons. Firstly the “dovetail arrangement” of feature 1.6 has one side of the projection (and thus the recess) that follows the shape of a dovetail, for example as shown on figure 8 of the application. Conversely, the projection as defined in feature 1.7 need only be “wider at an end thereof than at an intermediary position between the ends of the hard body”. This opens the otherwise dovetail shaped part of the projection to being something other than this. For example, it allows a projection to be as per the hard body given below in diagram B.

Diagram B.

Secondly, feature 1.8 defines that the hard body is wedged into position such that the hard body is prevented from moving away from the side body. While this may be a result of the “dovetail arrangement” as construed in feature 1.6 it is not necessarily the case.
Consequently, it can be seen that feature 1.7 and 1.8 are not merely redundant in view of my construction of a dovetail arrangement in feature 1.6.

Claim 2

The features of claim 2 are identical to features 1.1. to 1.6 of claim 1. Consequently, I construe claim 2 as per features 1.1 to 1.6 of claim 1. I do not consider that the absence of features 1.7 and 1.8 in claim 2 fundamentally changes the construction of features 1.1 to 1.6.

Claim 3

The only difference between the features of claim 3 and the features 1.1 to 1.6 of claim 1 is that the “dovetail arrangement” in claim 3 is not limited to the bottom face of the hard bodies or an end face of the side bodies. That is, the face or surface of the hard body that engages the side body concerned need not be the bottom face (i.e. radially innermost face), and the face of the side body so engaged need not be an end face of the side body.
Consequently, I construe claim 3 as per features 1.1 to 1.6 of claim 1, with the proviso that any appropriate face/surface of the side bodies and hard bodies can engage in the dovetail arrangement.

Claim 4

The features of claim 4 are identical in scope to features 1.1 to 1.6 of claim 1, with the addition of the protrusion and recess as defined in the claim. I have construed these further below and numbered these starting at 4.7, noting that features 4.1 to 4.6 correspond to features 1.1 to 1.6 of claim 1.
4.7…wherein one or more hard bodies has at least one protrusion in a surface thereof, the protrusion being adapted to be received in a recess in one of the side bodies,…
I take this to mean that one or more of the hard bodies has one or more protrusions, each of which can be received in a respective recess in one of the side bodies.
4.8...whereby when the hard body is in position, the protrusion co-operates with the side body to minimise/prevent the movement of the hard body relative to the side body.
I take this as meaning that the protrusion(s) and recess(es) work to minimise or prevent movement of the hard body relative to the side body.
For avoidance of doubt I do not consider that the protrusion/recess here is a reference to the projection/recess of the dovetail arrangement. This is due to the fact that the protrusion/recess is not respectively restricted to a bottom face/end face of the hard bodies/side bodies, and that the protrusion/recess need not exist for every hard body, unlike the dovetail arrangement. Finally, to the extent that there is any further ambiguity on this point, I note that recourse to the specification indicates that the protrusion/recess is a distinct feature separate to the dovetail arrangement.

Claim 5

The edge protection assembly according to any one of the preceding claims wherein the hard bodies provide an extension to the edge portion of the roller.
I take this to mean that the hard bodies of any of one of the previous claims provide an extension to the edge portion of the roller. In general, an extension to the edge portion may be in the radial and/or the axial directions. Nominally any of these alternatives will fall within the scope of the claim. However, noting that any hard body must have a finite thickness in all three dimensions, it will necessarily comprise an extension to the edge portion in at least an axial direction, though it may also comprise an extension in the radial direction when it extends proud of the outer face. I observe that this construction is supported by the specification, where each embodiment of the hard bodies necessarily extends the edge portion in an axial direction, while in the second embodiment the hard bodies also stand proud of the outer surface of the roller.

Claim 6

The edge protection assembly according to any one of the preceding claims wherein the hard bodies are arranged in an end to end relationship.
I take this to mean that the hard bodies of any one of the previous claims are arranged such that their ends are adjacent i.e. in effect the hard bodies are arranged adjacent to each other. By adjacent here I take this to mean that any gap between the hard bodies is small enough that it does not detract from the ability of the hard bodies to support or protect the edge portion.

Claim 7

The edge protection assembly according to any one of the preceding claims wherein the gap between adjacent hard bodies is not sufficient to allow the ingress of material.
I take this claim to mean that any gap that exists between the hard bodies of any one of the previous claims is so small as to prevent the entry of material that is being ground. I observe that there is a lack of explicit antecedent basis for “…the gap between adjacent hard bodies…” in claims 1 to 6. However, it is clear that the edge protection assembly of the previous claims must define a series of hard bodies that must be mounted adjacent to each other along the circumference of the edge portion in order to provide support or protection to the edge portion. Such adjacent placement comprises within its scope a gap between each of the hard bodies that is not so large as to impair the ability of the hard bodies to support the edge portion. Consequently, while there is technically a lack of antecedent basis, and it would be better if the claim referred to “a gap” or “any gap”, it is reasonably clear to the skilled addressee what is meant by the “…the gap between adjacent hard bodies…when claim 7 is appended to any one of claims 1 to 6.

Claim 8

The edge protection assembly according to any one of claims 1 to 6 wherein the hard bodies are adapted to receive material therebetween, or in recesses formed in an edge of each hard body which abuts another hard body.
I take this to mean that the hard bodies of any one of claims 1 to 6 are arranged such that a gap between adjacent hard bodies is able to receive ground material, or alternatively each hard body comprises a recess to receive ground material in an edge which is adjacent to another hard body. It is apparent that the recess concerned must be formed in an edge that is formed by the junction of the radially outermost face of the hard bodies (i.e. the face parallel to the roller outer face) and one of the faces perpendicular to this that opposes another hard body.

Claim 9

The edge protection assembly according to any one of the preceding claims whereby when the side bodies are secured to respective lateral face, the roller and side bodies define a plurality of groove portions spaced around the edge portion.
I take this to mean that, in any one of the preceding claims, when mounted to the lateral face, the side bodies and the lateral face define a plurality of groove portions spaced around the edge portion. The use of “groove portion” indicates that each of the side bodies and lateral face define a part of a groove. It also implies that the plurality of side bodies and the lateral face collectively define a groove formed by the plurality of groove portions.

Claim 10

The edge protection assembly according to any one of claims 1 to 8 whereby when the side bodies are secured to respective lateral face, the roller and side bodies define a circumferential groove extending adjacent the edge portion, when the side bodies are in position.
I take this to mean that, in any one of claims 1 to 8, when mounted the side bodies and the lateral face define a circular groove extending adjacent the edge portion.

Claim 11

The edge protection assembly according to claim 9 or 10 wherein the groove is adapted to receive the plurality of hard bodies therein.
I take this to mean that the groove defined in claims 9 or 10 is able to receive a plurality of hard bodies therein. I note that there is a lack of explicit antecedent basis for “the groove” in claim 9. However, as noted in construing claim 9, a groove must exist in claim 9. Consequently, I consider it reasonably clear what is meant by referring to “the groove” with respect to claim 9.

Claim 12

The edge protection assembly according to any one of claims 1 to 11 wherein one or more hard bodies has a projection which extends from surface thereof and is adapted to be received in a hole in one of the side bodies when the hard body is in position.
I take this to mean that, for any one of claims 1 to 11, one or more of the hard bodies, when mounted, has a projection which extends from a surface of the hard body, the projection being able to be received in a hole in one of the side bodies.
I note that when ultimately appended to claim 4 that it is not entirely clear, at the first instance, as to whether the projection/hole is the same as the protrusion/recess of claim 4. However, the use of different language suggests that these are different entities, and I have construed these as such when claim 12 is ultimately dependent on claim 4.

Claim 13

The edge protection assembly according to any one of claims 1 to 11 wherein one or more hard bodies has a hole extending through the hard body the hole adapted to receive a dowel which is first received in the hard body before passing into a hole in one of the side bodies when the hard body is installed on the roller.
I take this to mean that, for any one of claims 1 to 11, one or more of the hard bodies, when mounted, has a hole that passes through the hard body and is able to receive a dowel, this dowel passing into a hole in one of the side bodies.

Claim 14

The edge protection assembly according to any one of claims 1 to 11 when dependent on claims 1, 2 or 3 wherein one or more hard bodies has at least one protrusion in a surface thereof, the protrusion being adapted to be received in a recess in one of the side bodies, whereby when the hard body is in position, the protrusion co-operates with the side body to minimise/prevent the movement of the hard body relative to the side body.
I take this claim to be appended to any one of claims 1 to 11, when those claims ultimately append from any one of claims 1, 2 or 3. There is nominally some confusion here as the claim nominally appends claims 1, 2 and 3 to themselves, and also appends these claims to each other, which does not make sense since each is an independent claim. These nominal appendances clearly make no sense and can be ignored, especially as it is apparent that the claim structure has been used to cover dependent claims 5 to 11 when they ultimately depend from any one of claims 1, 2 or 3, and to also cover claim 14 when it is directly appended to any one of claims 1, 2 or 3.
Having resolved this it is apparent that this claim is defining that one or more of the hard bodies has at least one protrusion which can be received in a respective recess in one of the side bodies, such that this minimises or prevents movement of the hard body relative to the side body.
I note that when claim 14 is ultimately appended to claim 4 that it is not entirely clear, at the first instance, as to whether the protrusion/recess of claim 14 is the same as the protrusion/recess of claim 4. However, the use of identical language indicates that these are in fact the same thing, despite the redundancy. Consequently, I consider that claim 14 is redundant when ultimately dependent on claim 4.

Claim 15

The edge protection assembly according to any one of the preceding claims wherein the portion of the lateral face of the roller which extends beyond the side body is inclined inwardly from the outer face of the roller towards the roller axis such that the edge portion of the roller extends laterally into the groove.
Although claim 15 is appended to any one of claims 1 to 14, there is neither implicit or explicit antecedent basis in claims 1 to 8 or 12 to 14 (when not appended to any one of claims 9 to 11) for “the groove”. It might be that the antecedent basis issue arises due to a drafting error whereby it was intended to refer to “a groove”, rather than “the groove”. The difficulty with doing this is that the nature of “a groove” and how this works with the other features of the claim is completely absent from the claims indicated above. Hence treating the claim as though it uses an indefinite article solves the antecedent problem, however this creates further significant difficulties. Consequently, to make sense of this claim, I consider that it should be treated as being appended to only those claims for which there is antecedent basis for “the groove”. This means that I will treat claim 15 as though it is appended to any one of claims 9 to 11 or claims 12 to 14 (when claims 12 to 14 are ultimately appended to any one of claims 9 to 11).
Having resolved the issue with “the groove” I take this claim to be defining that the part of the lateral face that extends radially above the side body is inclined inward from the edge portion towards the roller axis (i.e. such that this part of the lateral face or an imaginary extension thereof crosses the roller axis at an angle of less than 90 degrees at an axial position within the interior of the roller).
It is not entirely clear how the inclination of part of the lateral face results in the edge portion of the roller extending into the groove. The reasons for this are:
i.the edge portion is defined by the junction of the outer face of the roller and the lateral face;
ii.the side body terminates radially inward of the outer face (and thus the edge portion); and
iii.the groove is defined by the side bodies and the lateral face.
Putting this together, it is apparent that the groove must be located radially inward of the edge portion. Consequently, it is difficult to see how the edge portion as recited in the claim can be said to extend laterally into the groove. Rather the edge portion would seem to laterally extend over or above the groove, and this is the interpretation I have taken with regard to claim 15. This is consistent with the specification when read as a whole, as the embodiments comprising an inclination of part of the lateral face (for example see figure 8) show the edge portion extending over the groove, despite the coincidence of language in the body of the specification with claim 15.

Claim 16

The edge protection assembly according to any one of the preceding claims wherein the portion of each hard body which abuts the lateral face is a side face, the side face of each hard body engages the lateral face of the roller, the side face being inclined in a complementary manner to the inclined portion of the roller's lateral face portion.
Firstly, I note that the reference to “the inclined portion of the roller’s lateral face portion” is somewhat problematic, however I consider that the double use of “portion” is indicative of a particular inclined part of the lateral face. In effect I take this to mean that part of “the lateral face” is inclined.
Secondly there is no implicit or explicit antecedent basis for “the inclined portion of the roller’s lateral face portion” in claims 1 to 14. Conversely, claim 15 comprises a portion of the lateral face which is inclined. This inclined portion of the lateral face would logically contact a side face of the hard body when mounted, due to the positioning of the hard bodies to support the edge portion. Consequently, I consider that there is an appropriate antecedent basis in claim 15 for “the inclined portion of the roller’s lateral face portion”.
It may be that the antecedent issue with regard to claims 1 to 14 was due to a drafting error, and it was intended for the claim to refer to “an inclined portion of the roller’s lateral face portion”. On doing so the nature of the feature in the context of the preceding claims is understood as the lateral face comprising an inclined part, which is complementarily inclined to the side face of each hard body.
However, replacing the definite article with the indefinite article means that claims 1 to 14 include within their scope an incline of the roller’s lateral face that is not countenanced in the specification. It is apparent that the incline as described in the specification must be inward from the outer face as per claim 15 in order to assist in the locking of the hard bodies in place. Secondly the change to the indefinite article creates a nominal difficulty when claim 16 is appended to claim 15 in that it is no longer clear whether the inclined portion of the lateral face in claim 16 is the same as that defined in claim 15. Consequently, I consider it appropriate to treat claim 16 as though it is only appended to claim 15.
In view of the above I take claim 16 as defining that the hard bodies engage the inclined portion of the lateral face of claim 15 via a complementary incline to the inclined portion of the lateral face.

Claim 17

The edge protection assembly according to any one of the preceding claims wherein an outer surface of the hard body is flush with the roller's outer face.
I take this claim to mean that an outer surface of the hard body of any one of the preceding claims is flush or level with the roller’s outer face. In effect this means that the radially outermost surface of the hard body must be level with the roller’s outer face.

Claim 18

The edge protection assembly according to any one of claims 1 to 16 wherein an outer surface of the hard body is curved.

At an initial level of consideration, it is not clear, firstly, which outer surface of the hard body is curved, and secondly, whether more than one outer surface of the hard body is curved. In this respect I observe that claim 19, which is appended to claim 18, refers to “the curved outer surface” in the singular, rather than in the plural. Hence claim 18 can be understood as referring to a particular surface of the hard body being curved.
With respect to which outer surface is curved, I note that in purposive terms, the hard bodies are used to support or protect the edge portion. Consequently, the radially outermost surface of the hard body is most relevant in terms of edge protection, and hence it makes most sense for this surface alone of the hard body to be curved, it not being apparent why any of the other outer surfaces would need to be curved.
I observe that recourse to the specification as a whole is supportive of the above interpretation, in particular as described with respect to the second and third embodiments where the radially outermost surface of the hard bodies are curved.

Claim 19

The edge protection assembly according to claim 18 wherein the curved outer surface has a portion which extends above the surface of the roller when in place.
I take this claim to mean that the curved outer surface of claim 18 has a portion that extends above the surface of the roller when in place. Although there is no explicit antecedent basis for “the surface of the roller”, I take this to simply be an alternative reference to the outer face of the roller. Again, noting that the invention is best understood in a cylindrical polar coordinate system, I consider that “extends above” means that the “curved outer surface” of claim 18 has a portion that is at a position that is radially superior to the grinding surface (or outer face) of the roller.

Claim 20

The edge protection assembly according to any one of the preceding claims wherein each side body is secured to the lateral face by bolting the side body through the lateral face into the roller body.
I take this claim to mean that the side body of any of the preceding claims is fixed to the lateral face by using a bolt or bolts that pass though the side body and terminate within the roller body.

Claim 21

The edge protection assembly according to any one of the preceding claims wherein each side body is adapted to secure one or more hard bodies relative to the roller.
I take this to mean that the side bodies of any one of the preceding claims is able to hold or fasten the hard bodies relative to or against the roller.

Claim 22

The edge protection assembly according to any one of the preceding claims wherein each side body has at least one protrusion extending therefrom, such that when the side body is secured to the lateral face of the roller the protrusion is received in a recess in the lateral face.
I take this to mean that in any one of the preceding claims each side body has one or more protrusions which are received in a recess in the lateral face when the side body is secured to the lateral face.

Claim 23

A pressure roller assembly, the assembly comprising a roller for use in the grinding of materials, and an edge protection assembly, the edge protection assembly according to any one of the preceding claims.
I take this claim to define a pressure roller unit formed by the fitting together of a roller suitable for the grinding of materials and the edge protection assembly of any one of the preceding claims.

Claim 24

24.1 A pressure roller assembly for use in the grinding of materials,…
I take this to define a pressure roller unit suitable for the grinding of materials that is formed by fitting together a number of subcomponents, including a pressure roller and further subcomponents as defined in the claim.
24. 2 …the roller having a cylindrical outer face defined between two lateral faces, each lateral face providing a substantially continuous surface…
I take this to define a cylindrical roller with an outer face that extends between two lateral faces. Hence the “cylindrical outer face” is the same as the “outer face” defined in the preceding claims. By “substantially continuous” I take that the surface of each lateral face is substantially or essentially uninterrupted or unbroken.
It is at this point convenient to consider what is meant by the “two lateral faces”, each “lateral face” and “respective lateral side face” for each of the hard bodies and side bodies as recited in the claim. While it is clear that each “lateral face” is a recital with respect to the “two lateral faces” defined earlier in the claim, it is not entirely clear to me whether “respective lateral side face” is referring to the lateral faces mentioned beforehand or is something different. It is not apparent that I can resolve this issue here by simply applying the reasoning with regard to feature 1.3, as the claim language and structure is rather different.
In this respect I note that the reference to “its respective lateral side face” with regard to the hard bodies and side bodies is rather more suggestive of the hard bodies and side bodies potentially abutting different lateral side faces, there also being no use of a definite article as per feature 1.3 that could help resolve this issue.
However, although the claim does not explicitly define an “edge protection system” it is apparent that the claim would be understood by the skilled addressee in a purposive sense to be directed towards a system for protecting the edge of a pressure roller, i.e. the junction of the cylindrical outer face and each lateral face (the “junction” for the purposes of this claim), via the hard bodies defining the outer edge of the assembly. This means that the hard bodies must abut, in the sense of contact, at least part of one of the “two lateral faces”. Therefore, it makes most sense on taking a purposive view of the claim to consider the “respective lateral side face” for the hard bodies to simply mean a reference to one of the “two lateral faces”.
The claim also defines that the side plates are secured to one of the “two lateral faces”. Consequently, in a purposive sense the reference to the “respective lateral side face” for the side plates would be understood as a reference to one of the “two lateral faces”.
Consequently, I consider that each of the various recitals of “lateral faces” or “lateral side face” in the claim are to the same “lateral face”.
However, as discussed with regard to feature 1.3, there is nominally still ambiguity as to whether the “lateral face” is a reference to a side of the roller when considered as a whole or to a part thereof. In this respect the recital of “substantially continuous” appears to be of little assistance in potentially distinguishing the various lateral faces, since a roller with a step or shoulder that is continuously joined can be considered to comprise a substantially continuous lateral face when the side is viewed as a whole, while a particular sub-face that is planar would also be substantially continuous.

The second issue is that the Opponent has not pointed to, in any systematic or detailed way, elements of evidence that support their contentions of CGK. Nevertheless, I consider that the following items comprise CGK before the priority date:
i.the use of HPGR, comprising the use of two spaced apart rotating rollers to comminute ore material (Botha at [4.1], [4.2], [5.7] and [5.9]; Knecht at [4.2] and [4.3]; Pownell at [11] and [12] and Daniel at [67] and [77];
ii.that HPGR roller surfaces are subjected to a high level of wear stress, especially when crushing ore material (Botha at [4.2] to [4.4], [5.12] and [5.13]; Knecht at [4.4] to [4.9]; Pownell at [13] and Daniel at [58], [88] to [90])
iii.the provision of stud inserts to protect the grinding surface of the roller via the autogenous build up of a crushed material layer between the studs, and that this greatly reduced the wear rate of HPGRs used to crush hard ore materials (Botha at [4.4], [5.7], [5.13] and [5.14]; Knecht at [4.7] to [4.9] and [5.4] and Daniel at [58] and [79]
iv.that the edges or end faces of HPGR rollers are also subject to wear (Botha at [5.14]; Knecht at [4.9] and Daniel at [ 82], [84] and [128] to [132]);
v.the KHD edge protection system, comprising a circumferential shoulder formed in the end faces of the roller, and a series of recesses machined such that they radially extend from the grinding surface of the roller to the base of the circumferential shoulder. A series of T shaped blocks are mounted on the circumferential shoulder such that the stem of the T resides in the machined recess (Botha at [5.15], [5.44] to [5.48]; Daniel at [58] and [105]). The nature of the KHD system is perhaps best illustrated by figure 16 from Daniel, which is reproduced below.
Figure 16 from Daniel.
vi.The Polysius fixed shoulder edge protection system comprising a circumferentially extending shoulder formed in the end face of the roller. A series of hard tungsten steel blocks are then mounted onto the recess such that they extend from the base of the shoulder to a point that is either flush with the grinding surface of the roller or flush with the studs embedded therein. The base of the tungsten steel block comprises a stud which is received in a recess machined into the base of the shoulder (Botha at [5.15], [5.18] and [5.42] and [5.43]; Knecht at [4.10], [4.11], [5.5] and [5.11]). This edge protection system is best understood by reference to figure JCB-8a from JCB-8, which is reproduced below.
vii.The Polysius replaceable shoulder edge protection system comprising a circumferentially extending shoulder formed from replaceable elements. A series of hard edge blocks are then mounted onto the replaceable elements to protect the edge of the roller. (Botha [5.23], [5.42] and [5.43]; Knecht at [5.3] and [5.17]; Daniel at [29], [58] and [108] and [149]). The general nature of this edge protection system is best illustrated by figures from page 6 of JFK-6, all of which are reproduced below.
Figures from page 6 of JFK-6.
Although the discussion from Daniel does not explicitly demonstrate the replaceable nature of the segments to which the hard bodies are mounted, on balance I accept that Mr Daniels’ evidence supports this system being CGK. This is due to his statements at [108], taken to represent the background to the art, when read in conjunction with his discussion of US 2005/0061901 at [149] which indicate that he was familiar with the Polysius replaceable shoulder edge protection system.
In coming to the above determinations, I have given regard to the Applicant’s arguments on CGK at [93] to [99] of their written submissions. However, I consider that the weight of evidence of certain features being CGK by the declarants leaves little room to determine otherwise in the absence of any countervailing evidence. In this respect the fact that three of the declarants are current or former employees of the second Opponent or related entities is not a reason per se to give their evidence no weight, unless there are other reasons to properly reject their evidence, such reasons not being apparent in the present situation. In any case the assertions of Mr Botha, Mr Knecht and Mr Pownell are generally supported by Mr Daniel, who has only performed consulting work for both the Opponent and the second Opponent.
It can thus be seen that the Polysius replaceable shoulder edge protection system is closest in nature to the invention as claimed. However, this system does not comprise a dovetail arrangement as defined in the claims as I have construed it, and there is no evidence indicating that such a dovetail arrangement is CGK in the art. In addition, there is no evidence that a skilled addressee would arrive at this dovetail arrangement in any of the CGK edge protection systems using CGK alone and in view of the problem to be solved. It follows that none of claims 1 to 26, 28 and 29 lack inventive step in view of the CGK alone.
With respect to claim 27, I consider that any of the rollers from the known edge protection systems are suitable for use with the edge protection system of claim 23. It follows that claim 27 lacks inventive step in view of CGK alone.

Lack of Inventive Step in View of CGK and Prior Art (s 7(3))

The Opponent’s s7(3) arguments are primarily put at [7.1] to [7.13] of their written submissions, and as noted above these appear to be significantly intermingled with arguments under s7(2). However as suggested at the hearing, that Opponent has mainly based their s7(3) arguments on D1, although there is a s7(3) against claim 22 at [7.13] of the Opponent’s written submissions, this also being reiterated at the hearing.
Consequently, it is worth briefly discussing the disclosure of D2 before continuing. In this respect D2 discloses a wear protection system for grinding rollers, such as in HPGR, comprising a series of protection elements for the roller surface. The nature of these is best understood by reference to figures 2 and 4 from D2, both of which are reproduced below.

Figure illustrates a grinding roller 10 in cross section, comprising a plurality of wear protection elements 11, 12, 13, 14. The wear protection elements 11, 12, 13, 14 are made of hard material and are mounted in a series of recesses 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 that extend circumferentially around the grinding roll 10. The wear protection elements are at least provided at the edges of the roller 10a, 10b.
Figure 4 illustrates an embodiment wherein the wear protection elements 11, 12 positioned at the edges 10a, 10b of the roller are mounted on and bonded to a retaining body 15. The retaining boy 15 comprises a lug 16 which is received in a recess 10c of the grinding roller 10, such that the retaining body 15 can be secured by gluing the lug 16 to the recess 10c.
With respect to D1 and D2, neither of these documents disclose the dovetail arrangement as discussed earlier in this decision. There is no evidence that this dovetail arrangement is CGK, nor that the skilled addressee would arrive at such a dovetail arrangement in either of D1 or D2 when armed with the CGK and in view of the problem to be solved. It follows that none of claims 1 to 26, 28 and 29 lack inventive step in view of either of D1 or D2 when read with the CGK.
With respect to claim 27, since I have determined that the features of this claim are disclosed in D1, it follows that claim 27 also lacks inventive step in view of D1 and the CGK.
While it is perhaps superfluous, I also consider that the features of claim 27 are also obvious in view of D2. The roller of D2 is clearly suitable for use with the edge protection system of claim 23, and to the extent that D2 does not disclose the rollers being incorporated in an ore grinding mill and grinding ore as known in the art, these features are clearly well known in the art and thus comprise an obvious use of the rollers from D2. It follows that the features of claim 27 are obvious in view of D2 when read with the CGK.

Inventive Step – Conclusion

Claim 27 lacks inventive step in view of either of D1 or D2 when read with the CGK. The Opponent has not established that any of the other claims lack inventive step. This ground of opposition is successful.

Conclusion

The opposition is successful. Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 24, 26, 28 and 29 lack clarity. Claim 27 lacks both novelty and inventive step. No other claims were established as lacking in novelty or inventive step. The claims do not comprise a lack of succinctness.
I allow the Applicant, Hofmann Engineering Pty Ltd, two (2) months from the date of this decision to propose amendments that address the defects identified in this decision.

Costs

Costs usually follow the event. I see no reason to do otherwise here. I award costs against the Applicant, Hofmann Engineering Pty Ltd, according to Schedule 8 of the Patent Regulations 1991.

Dr W.E. Guinea

Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents

Annex A – Drawings from the Application

Annex B – Claims of the Application

1. An edge protection assembly for a pressure roller used in the grinding of materials, the roller having an outer face on a roller body, the outer face extending between two lateral faces, each junction of the respective lateral face with the outer face providing an edge portion, the edge protection assembly comprising:

a plurality of side bodies adapted to be releasably secured to one or both of the lateral faces of the roller, whereby when fitted a portion of each side body abuts the lateral face, and each side body terminates at a position below the roller's outer face;
a plurality of hard bodies adapted to be secured relative to the plurality of side bodies when the side bodies are secured to the roller, the hard bodies being arranged to support the edge portion of the roller whereby when fitted a portion of each hard body abuts the lateral face.

wherein each hard body has a bottom face which engages an end face of one of the plurality of side bodies in a dovetail arrangement, the bottom face of each hard body provides a projection, the projection is wider at an end thereof than at an intermediary position between the ends of the hard body, the projection is adapted to be received in a recess formed in the end face of the side body, the recess of the side body is complementary to the shape of the projection of the hard body such that when assembled the projection is wedged in position by the recess and the lateral face of the roller such that the hard body is prevented from moving away from the side body.

2. An edge protection assembly for a pressure roller used in the grinding of materials, the roller having an outer face on a roller body, the outer face extending between two lateral faces, each junction of the respective lateral face with the outer face providing an edge portion, the edge protection assembly comprising:

a plurality of side bodies adapted to be releasably secured to one or both of the lateral faces of the roller, whereby when fitted a portion of each side body abuts the lateral face, and each side body terminates at a position below the roller's outer face;
a plurality of hard bodies adapted to be secured relative to the plurality of side bodies when the side bodies are secured to the roller, the hard bodies being arranged to support the edge portion of the roller whereby when fitted a portion of each hard body abuts the lateral face;

wherein each hard body has a bottom face which engages an end face of one of the plurality of side bodies in a dovetail arrangement.

3. An edge protection assembly for a pressure roller used in the grinding of materials, the roller having an outer face on a roller body, the outer face extending between two lateral faces, each junction of the respective lateral face with the outer face providing an edge portion, the edge protection assembly comprising:

a plurality of side bodies adapted to be releasably secured to one or both of the lateral faces of the roller, whereby when fitted a portion of each side body abuts the lateral face, and each side body terminates at a position below the roller's outer face;
a plurality of hard bodies adapted to be secured relative to the plurality of side bodies when the side bodies are secured to the roller, the hard bodies being arranged to support the edge portion of the roller whereby when fitted a portion of each hard body abuts the lateral face;

wherein each hard body engages the respective side body using a dovetail arrangement.

4. An edge protection assembly for a pressure roller used in the grinding of materials, the roller having an outer face on a roller body, the outer face extending between two lateral faces, each junction of the respective lateral face with the outer face providing an edge portion, the edge protection assembly comprising:

a plurality of side bodies adapted to be releasably secured to one or both of the lateral faces of the roller, whereby when fitted a portion of each side body abuts the lateral face, and each side body terminates at a position below the roller's outer face;
a plurality of hard bodies adapted to be secured relative to the plurality of side bodies when the side bodies are secured to the roller, the hard bodies being arranged to support the edge portion of the roller whereby when fitted a portion of each hard body abuts the lateral face;

wherein each hard body has a bottom face which engages an end face of the respective side body in a dovetail arrangement;

wherein one or more hard bodies has at least one protrusion in a surface thereof, the protrusion being adapted to be received in a recess in one of the side bodies, whereby when the hard body is in position, the protrusion co-operates with the side body to minimise/prevent the movement of the hard body relative to the side body.

5. The edge protection assembly according to any one of the preceding claims wherein the hard bodies provide an extension to the edge portion of the roller.

6. The edge protection assembly according to any one of the preceding claims wherein the hard bodies are arranged in an end to end relationship.

7. The edge protection assembly according to any one of the preceding claims wherein the gap between adjacent hard bodies is not sufficient to allow the ingress of material.

8. The edge protection assembly according to any one of claims 1 to 6 wherein the hard bodies are adapted to receive material therebetween, or in recesses formed in an edge of each hard body which abuts another hard body.

9. The edge protection assembly according to any one of the preceding claims whereby when the side bodies are secured to respective lateral face, the roller and side bodies define a plurality of groove portions spaced around the edge portion.

10. The edge protection assembly according to any one of claims 1 to 8 whereby when the side bodies are secured to respective lateral face, the roller and side bodies define a circumferential groove extending adjacent the edge portion, when the side bodies are in position.

11. The edge protection assembly according to claim 9 or 10 wherein the groove is adapted to receive the plurality of hard bodies therein.

12. The edge protection assembly according to any one of claims 1 to 11 wherein one or more hard bodies has a projection which extends from a surface thereof and is adapted to be received in a hole in one of the side bodies when the hard body is in position.

13. The edge protection assembly according to any one of claims 1 to 11 wherein one or more hard bodies has a hole extending through the hard body the hole adapted to receive a dowel which is first received in the hard body before passing into a hole in one of the side bodies when the hard body is installed on the roller.

14. The edge protection assembly according to any one of claims 1 to 11 when dependent on claims 1, 2 or 3 wherein one or more hard bodies has at least one protrusion in a surface thereof, the protrusion being adapted to be received in a recess in one of the side bodies, whereby when the hard body is in position, the protrusion co-operates with the side body to minimise/prevent the movement of the hard body relative to the side body.

15. The edge protection assembly according to any one of the preceding claims wherein the portion of the lateral face of the roller which extends beyond the side body is inclined inwardly from the outer face of the roller towards the roller axis such that the edge portion of the roller extends laterally into the groove.

16. The edge protection assembly according to any one of the preceding claims wherein the portion of each hard body which abuts the lateral face is a side face, the side face of each hard body engages the lateral face of the roller, the side face being inclined in a complementary manner to the inclined portion of the roller's lateral face portion.

17. The edge protection assembly according to any one of the preceding claims wherein an outer surface of the hard body is flush with the roller's outer face.

18. The edge protection assembly according to any one of claims 1 to 16 wherein an outer surface of the hard body is curved.

19. The edge protection assembly according to claim 18 wherein the curved outer surface has a portion which extends above the surface of the roller when in place.

20. The edge protection assembly according to any one of the preceding claims wherein each side body is secured to the lateral face by bolting the side body through the lateral face into the roller body.

21. The edge protection assembly according to any one of the preceding claims wherein each side body is adapted to secure one or more hard bodies relative to the roller.

22. The edge protection assembly according to any one of the preceding claims wherein each side body has at least one protrusion extending therefrom, such that when the side body is secured to the lateral face of the roller the protrusion is received in a recess in the lateral face.

23. A pressure roller assembly, the assembly comprising a roller for use in the grinding of materials, and an edge protection assembly, the edge protection assembly according to any one of the preceding claims.

24. A pressure roller assembly for use in the grinding of materials, the roller having a cylindrical outer face defined between two lateral faces, each lateral face providing a substantially continuous surface and co-operating with a plurality of replaceable side plates secured thereto to define an annular groove, the groove being adapted to receive a plurality of hard bodies secured to an end face of the side bodies in a dovetail arrangement whereby the hard bodies define an outer edge of the assembly, each side plate and hard body having at least a portion thereof in abutment with its respective lateral side face.

25. The pressure roller assembly according to claim 23 or 24 wherein the hard bodies provide an extension to an outer surface of the roller.

26. An edge protection assembly for a pressure roller used in the grinding of materials, the roller having an outer face on a roller body, the outer face extending between two lateral faces, each junction of the respective lateral face with the outer face providing an edge portion, the edge protection assembly comprising:

at least one side body adapted to be releasably secured to one or both of the lateral faces of the roller, whereby when fitted the at least one side body terminates at a position below the roller's outer face;
a plurality of hard bodies adapted to be secured relative to the at least one side body when the at least one side body is secured to the roller, the hard bodies being arranged to support the edge portion of the roller,
wherein each hard body has a bottom face which engages an end face of the at least one side body in a dovetail arrangement.

27. An ore grinding mill incorporating a pair of rollers according to any one of claims 23 to 25, the rollers being supported in parallel spaced apart relationship and driven in contra-rotation so as in use to grind ore fed between the rollers.

28. An edge protection assembly for a pressure roller used in the grinding of materials, the roller having an outer face on a roller body, the outer face extending between two lateral faces, each lateral face providing a substantially continuous surface, each junction of the respective lateral face with the outer face providing an edge portion, the edge protection assembly comprising:

a plurality of side bodies adapted to be releasably secured to one or both of the lateral faces of the roller, whereby when fitted each side body terminates at a position below the roller's outer face;
a plurality of hard bodies adapted to be secured relative to the plurality of side bodies when the side bodies are secured to the roller, the hard bodies being arranged to support the edge portion of the roller
wherein each hard body has a bottom face which engages an end face which engages one of the plurality of side bodies in a dovetail arrangement.

29. A pressure roller having an edge protection assembly, the pressure roller having an outer face on a roller body, the outer face extending between two planar lateral faces, each junction of the respective lateral face with the outer face providing an edge portion, the edge protection assembly comprising:

a plurality of side bodies releasably secured to one or both of the lateral faces of the roller, whereby a portion of each side body abuts the lateral face, and each side body terminates at a position below the roller's outer face;
a plurality of hard bodies secured relative to the plurality of side bodies, the hard bodies being arranged to support the edge portion of the roller whereby a portion of each hard body abuts the lateral face,
wherein each hard body has a bottom face which engages an end face which engages one of the plurality of side bodies in a dovetail arrangement.