In re Short
Opinion of the Court
This appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals involves the rejection of claims 1-10 in appellant’s patent application
The application describes a composition said to inhibit migration of deposited silver used as a conductor in many electrical and electronic applications, e.g., printed circuits. It appears, particularly under conditions of high humidity, that silver deposited on a ceramic substrate in closely adjacent conductor paths of different polarity migrates from an anodic conductor (in the form of silver hydroxide.) to a cathodic conductor (where it is deposited as metallic silver). A “bridge” gradually forms between the adjacent conductor paths which results in circuit failure because of a shorting out of the paths. To solve that problem, appellant includes platinum particles and, optionally, palladium particles in his silver composition in what he terms critical proportions, whereby silver migration is prevented or lessened.
The board found that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in view of Martin
The board was on solid ground when it concluded that the claims were unpatentable under § 103:
* * * Short states that a surface coating of Pt or Pd will inhibit migration of silver conductors in a moist atmosphere. Weller says that silver migration can be avoided by alloying, coating or plating the surface of the silver with a material which inhibits silver migration, i.e., the inhibitor may be a surface coating or it may be distributed throughout the body of the silver. In our opinion, it is then obvious to workers of ordinary skill in this art to alloy or mix Pt and/or Pd with a silver conductor, for the purpose of inhibiting migration of silver. Determination of optimum proportions of the three metals is a routine matter, based on relative costs of the metals and degree of inhibition desired.
In our view, the nuances between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that appellant’s compositions would surely have been obvious to the person or ordinary skill in the art. The decision is therefore affirmed.
Serial No. 551,211, filed May 19,1966.
U.S. Patent No. 3,293,501, issued December 20,1966.
U.S. Patent No. 3,154,503, issued October 27,1064.
U.S. Patent No. 3,021,539, issued February 20, 1962.
U.S. Patent No. 2,75S,267, issued August 7,1956.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.