COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
OBVIOUS & LACK NOVELTY: Patentable Advance Not Defined on
the Claims.
Amended claims proposed in response to Final Action, fail to set
out the essentials of what may be considered the patentable
advance in the art on the points argued by the applicant.
FINAL ACTION: Affirmed.
**************************
This decision deals with a request for review by the Commis-
sioner of Patents of the Examiner's Final Action dated June 6,
1973 on application 984,415 (Class 204-25). This application
was filed on March 8, 1967 in the name of Edgar J. Seyb and
refers to a "Process for Electrodepositing Chromium".
Briefly this application relates to a process for electro-
depositing chromium comprising maintaining a chromium plating
bath containing chromic acid; maintaining in said bath
(a) a cathode and (b) an anode core bearing an anodically
electrodeposited coating of lead dioxide covering the immers-
ible active portion of said anode; and passing electric current
from said anode to said cathode thereby depositing chromium
upon said cathode.
In the Final Action the examiner refused claims 1 to 3 for
lack of novelty, and claims 3 and 6 for obviousness in view
of the following reference (only some of the group of substances
of claim 3 lack novelty):
British Patent
946,958 Jan. 15, 1964 Brandes
In the Final Action the examiner stated (in part):
Brandes has shown that it is known to electrodeposit chro-
mium from a chromic acid plating solution by using an
electrolytic cell the anode of which has a core of precious
metal such as platinum or palladium, having a coating of
lead dioxide (page 1, lines 68 to 75). Reference to chromic
acid is found on page 1; line 34 and page 4, line 16.
Attorneys have submitted that the lead dioxide of the re-
ference is formed in situ, but this argument is not borne
out by the fact that Brandes explicitly refers to anodes
being used which have a coating. Such coating must evidently
have been formed prior to the use of the anode in the elec-
trolytic process, and as at present, in a different bath.
The anode of claims 1 and 2 is shown on page 1, line 45 as
well as Tables 4 and 5 of the reference, which also applies
to claim 3 with respect to platinum and silver (line 72).
The metals iron, titanium, nickel, lead, steel, and aluminium
in claims 3 and 6 are of the type not readily attacked by
the acid bath as referred to on page 1, line 50 of the
reference. Steel anodes would not be inventive, as the term
includes those of stainless steel which is in the group of
metals just referred to.
The applicant in his response dated September 6, 1973 to the Final
Action stated (in part):
Prior art anodes may possess thick heavy scales of lead chro-
mate and lead oxides after extended use in a chromium plating
bath and one to several hours may be required to "activate"
such a lead alloy anode before a "steady state" current is ob-
tained. When such anodes have been used over a long period
of time, it may be necessary to remove the anodes from the
bath and clean the scale from the lead by chemical means or
by physical scrubbing. This procedure is difficult in large
installations and generally is employed as a last resort. Thus,
it has heretofore been common to start up a chromium plating
bath (especially after an extended period of idleness) by
using "dummy" or warm-up conditions. According to this method,
the bath may be electrolyzed with any desired cathode until
the build up of current indicates that the operation under
actual plating conditions can be expected to be normal. Typi-
cally, this warm up may take several hours, depending upon the
duration of the "downtime" and the thickness of the scale on
the anode. It is clear that the anodes employed in prior art
chromium plating processes have caused extensive problems which
render the plating operation relatively inefficient.
While it is believed that the reason for the relatively
poor performance of prior art anodes is due to the inclu-
sion of impurities in the lead dioxide deposits which may
form on these conventional lead or lead alloy anodes during
chromium plating, whereas the applicant's novel anodes are
prepared so as to be essentially free of such inclusion
impurities, the applicant s invention is clearly not to be
construed as dependent upon any particular theory of opera-
tion.
The applicant respectfully submits that the process claims
placed on file by this amendment, clearly and explicitly
distinguish the present invention from the invention to Brandes
and are novel, useful and unobvious. The subject matter of
the claims is directed to a problem not mentioned in the cited
art and the claimed invention is not anticipated, suggested,
or rendered obvious by the reference of record.
The Brandes et al reference, is concerned with a process for
the electrolytic deposition of high purity chromium using a
precious metal anode coated with lead dioxide which is partially
immersed in an electrolyte bath which is saturated with lead
chromate.
The BRANDES reference discloses that it is known to electro-
deposit chromium from a chromic acid plating solution by using an
electrolytic cell, the anode of which has a core of precious metal
such as platinum or palladium, which anode has a coating of lead
dioxide (page 1, lines 68 to 75). Claim 1 of this reference reads:
A method of electrolytically winning chromium of a high
degree of purity from an aqueous fluoride bath using an
anode of a metal or alloy that is not attacked by the bath,
the bath containing lead in solution and/or the anode having
a coating of lead oxide (Pb0 2).
The question to be decided is whether the applicant has made a
patentable advance in the art. Amended claim 1 now proposed by the
applicant reads:
A process for electrodepositing chromium wherein steady state
current is quickly reached and maintained, said process com-
prising maintaining a chromium plating bath containing
chromic acid, maintaining in said bath;
(a) a cathode, and
(b) an anode core bearing an anodically electrodeposited
coating of lead dioxide covering the immersible active portion
of said anode; and passing electric current from said anode
to said cathode thereby depositing chromium upon said cathode,
said coating of lead dioxide having been deposited precedent
to electrodepositing said chromium.
As previously mentioned this application relates to the use of
an electrodeposited coating of lead dioxide on the immersible
portion of an anode used in chrome plating apparatus.
It is observed from the reference that the patentee is concerned
with a method of electrolytically winning chromium of a high
degree of purity by electrolysis in an aqueous fluoride bath
using an anode of a metal ar alloy that is not attacked by the
bath, the bath containing lead salt and/or metallic lead in such
a way as to produce a coating of lead oxide on the anode.
The applicant has argued that "the modes are prepared so as to
be free of inclusion impurities. which would give rise to the re-
latively poor performance of the prior art anodes." The claims,
however, relate to an anodically electrodeposited coating of lead
dioxide which, according to page 10, line 26, may have been
derived from lead nitrate, lead perchlorate, or lead acetate,
rather than lead fluoride as disclosed in the reference (page 1,
line 63). If the difference of the source of lead is significant,
this has not been set out in the claims.
The applicant has also commented that the anode of the reference
"is partially immersed in an electrolyte bath which is saturated
with lead chromate." Page 1 line 59 of the reference, however,
merely states that "where a lead salt is added to the bath, it may
be lead chromate." The instant claims relate to a "plating bath
containing chromic acid." Table 1, on page 2 of the reference,
discloses the use of chromic anhydride (CrO3) in solution. These
terms however, may be interchangeably used.
In addition the applicant makes reference to the chromium electro-
deposit having "a specified thickness of 0.1-5 microns preferably
at a temperature of between 40 and 55·C." The disclosure of
this application does not suggest that this is a significant
feature as page 13 line 3 reads: ".,, to obtain a typical decora-
tive chromium plate having a thickness of 0.1-5 microns, say
1 micron." Hare again there is no restriction of this nature
in the claims.
On considering the difference between the reference cited and
that defined in claim 1 it is observed-from the previous
discussion that the claim lacks novelty. There has been added
to the claim a statement that "steady state current is quickly
reached and maintained." This effect would also occur in the
Brandes process, and proposed claim 1, therefore, in our view,
fails to distinguish from the reference.
Claim 2, which depends on claim 1, states that "the anode coca
is made of conductive material." The anode of the reference
is also made of conductive material, and therefore this claim must
also be rejected.
Claim 3, which depends on claim 1, specifies that the anode core
is selected from the group consisting of aluminum, steel, lead,
iron, graphite, platinum, titanium, copper, nickel and silver.
The reference states that the metal or alloy of the anode may be platinum
or palladium or any alloy of these sufficiently noble not to be
chemically attacked by the bath. As shown in the "Corrosion
Engineering Handbook, Fontana and Greene, 1967 at page 259,"
(which is not on the record) it is known that some steels, lead,
copper and nickel are resistant to hydrogen fluoride, and
consequently could be used in the electrolytic bath. While
aluminum was presumably not considered by Brandes (as it is
likely to be attacked by a fluoride bath Parry's Handbook 23-13),
it is obvious that in the absence of fluorides, a wider range
of metals would be available for the anode metal. The reference
stressed that the anode may be made of "a metal or alloy that
is not attacked by the bath" (see page 1, column 2, lines 42
and 43). We believe it is fair to say that any person skilled
in the art would know what materials satisfy the prerequisites
of not being attacked by a particular bath. This claim
therefore fails to distinguish in a patentable sense from the
reference cited.
Claim 6 differs from claim 1 in that the anode has an aluminum
core. However, the arguments with respect to claim 1 and also
of claim 3 (anode of aluminum) apply equally to this claim, and
it also fails for lack of a patentable advance in the art.
The Board is satisfied that proposed claims 1, 2, 3 and 6 do not
set out the essentials of a process which can be considered a
patentable advance in the art, and recommends that the Final
Action be affirmed.
J.F. Hughes,
Assistant Chairman,
Patent Appeal Board.
I concur with the findings of the Patent Appeal Board and
refuse to grant a patent on proposed claims 1, 2, 3 and 6. The
applicant has six months within which to appeal this decision
under the provisions of Section 44 of the Patent Act.
Decision accordingly,
A. M. Laidlaw,
Commissioner of Patents.
Dated at Hull, Quebec,
this 13th day of
September, 1974,
Agent for Applicant
Fetherstonhaugh & Co.,
Ottawa, Ontario.