>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Xu Wenqing v. the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the State Intellectual Property Office, and Xing Pengwan (Dispute over Decision on Declaring Patent for Invention Invalid)
许文庆与国家知识产权局专利复审委员会、第三人邢鹏万宣告发明专利权无效决定纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Xu Wenqing v. the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the State Intellectual Property Office, and Xing Pengwan (Dispute over Decision on Declaring Patent for Invention Invalid)
(Dispute over Decision on Declaring Patent for Invention Invalid)
许文庆与国家知识产权局专利复审委员会、第三人邢鹏万宣告发明专利权无效决定纠纷案

Xu Wenqing v. the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the State Intellectual Property Office, and Xing Pengwan
(Dispute over Decision on Declaring Patent for Invention Invalid)@#
@#
@#
@#
Administrative Judgment of the Supreme People's Court (Abstract)@#
@#
No. 2 (2005)@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Claimant in the post-final retrial instance (plaintiff in the first instance, appellant in the second instance): Xu Wenqing, male, of the Han nationality, borne on June 4, 1938, director of Petrochemical VesselContainer Equipment Anti-corrosion Factory of Mudanjiang City, Heilongjiang Province, senior engineer, dwelling at Group 31, Weifu 1, Daqing Office, Yangming District, Mudanjiang City, Heilongjiang Province.@#
Authorized Agent: Liu Ying, lawyer of Tianyuan Law Firm of Mudanjiang City, Heilongjiang Province.@#
Authorized Agent: Wu Zhongren, male, of the Han nationality, borne on November 14, 1937, patent agent of Beijing Shuangshou Intellectual Property Agent Ltd., dwelling at No. 102, Unit 1, Building No. 28, Anxiangli, Chaoyang District, Beijing.@#
Respondent in the post-final retrial instance (defendant in the first instance, appellee in the second instance): Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the State Intellectual Property Office, domiciled at No. 6, Xitucheng Road, Jimenqiao, Haidian District, Beijing.@#
Legal Representative: Liao Tao, vice director general of the Board.@#
Authorized Agent: Chai Aijun, examiner of the Administrative Lawsuit Examination Office of the Board.@#
Authorized Agent: Cui Guozhen, examiner of the Administrative Lawsuit Examination Office of the Board.@#
Third Person in the First Instance: Xing Pengwan, male, of the Han nationality, born on June 2, 1959, general manager of Anti-corrosion Company of Hailin City, Heilongjiang Province, dwelling at Residential Committee No. 32, Hailin ZhenTown, Hailin City, Heilongjiang Province.@#
Authorized Agent: Li Qingsong, lawyer of Beijing Shengzhi Law Firm.@#
Authorized Agent: Liu Hong, female, of the Han nationality, born on April 16, 1979, Hailin City, legal counselor of Anti-corrosion Company of Heilongjiang Province, dwelling at No. 161-4 Xiqing Avenue, Hongqiao District, Tianjin.@#
With regard to the case under the dispute between Xu Wenqing (claimant in the post-final retrial instance), the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the State Intellectual Property Office (respondent in the post-final retrial instance, hereinafter referred to as BPAI) and Xing Pengwan (third person in the first instance) over a decision on declaring a invention patent for invention invalid, the Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality (hereinafter referred to as Beijing Higher Court) rendered the No. 72 (2000) administrative judgment of the second instance on April 9, 2001, which had become legally effective. Xu Wenqing was dissatisfied with the judgment, and applied to the present court for post-final retrial. The present court decided by the No. 20-1 (2001) administrative ruling on March 28, 2005 to bring the case up for post-final retrial, and formed a collegial panel according to law, composed of Wang Yongchang as the presiding judge, He Zhonglin and Li Jian as acting judges, who took part in the deliberation. Cui Lina acted as the court clerk in the present case. On April 15, 2005, the Parties of the present case exchanged evidence, and clarified the main issues in dispute in the present case. On April 21 and August 5, 2005, the collegial panel heard the present case publicly in court. Xu Wenqing and his authorized agents Liu Ying and Wu Zhongren, BPAI's authorized agents Chai Aijun and Cui Guozhen, Xing Pengwan and his authorized agents Li Qingsong and Liu Hong, appeared in the court and participated in the litigation court proceedings. The case has now been finalized.@#
PROCEDURAL POSTURE@#
It was verified by Beijing Higher Court that: on June 8, 1988, Xu Wenqing filed an application for patent for invention patent to China Patent Office, with the name of the application as “an anti-corrosive method for the interior and exterior walls of the steel tube bundle”. The patent right was granted on March 6, 1991, and the patent number was 88103519.X. The claims of the patent for invention are as follows:@#
1. A method of anticorrosion of the interior and exterior walls of the steel tube bundle of cooler and heat exchanger equipment, that is, to form a phosphorized layer on the surface of the interior and exterior walls of the steel tube bundle of the cooler or heat exchanger, and then coat them with paint. The features in accomplishing the process lie in (a) connecting the metal steel tube bundle, the pump, the valve manifold and the solution tank of the cooler or heat exchanger with rubber tubes and iron tubes according to the process and forming a closed circulation system; (b) the various treatment liquids (lye, acid liquor, and liquid phosphide) used in the whole process to treat the surface of the interior and exterior walls of the metal steel tube bundle of the cooler or heat exchanger are in a continuous circulation state.@#
2. In Claim 1, the steps of the process of forming a phosphorized layer on the surface of the interior wall of the steel tube bundle of the cooler or heat exchanger before coating include: (1) abrasive blasting; (2) pickling; (3) neutralization; (4) phosphorization; (5) drying; and (6) coating with paint.@#
3. As for the processing steps in Claim 1 on forming a phosphorized layer on the surface of the exterior wall of the steel tube bundle of the cooler or heat exchanger before coating, chemical deoiling is used to substitute abrasive blasting, and the remaining steps are the same as those described in Claim 2.@#
4. In the step of coating with paint as mentioned in Claim 2 or 3, the amount of paint used shall be two thirds of the volume of the tube pass or shell pass.@#
In the description of the patent for invention patent, this method of anticorrosion of the interior and exterior walls of metal steel tube bundle of the cooler or heat exchanger equipment in petroleum and chemical industries, etc. is a new process of anticorrosion for metals. It also says that abrasive blasting (or chemical treatment) may only be applied to the interior walls of the tube bundles of the coolers or heat exchangers, etc. in petroleum and chemical industries, and then organic paint (epoxy phenolic paint, 7910, CH784, etc.) shall be used for coating. The adherence between the paint and the metal tube causes a passivated film to be formed on the surface of the metal. In this anticorrosive treatment method, the coated layer and the principal body of the steel are poorly combined, and a little moisture may penetrate the coating and form an oxide on the surface of the metal. Then bubbles arise on the lamination film, the film begins to fall off, and the principal body gets rusted; the period of anticorrosive treatment is long when the high temperature resistant medium material is below 150℃. The concept of the invention is to, after abrasive blasting of the interior and exterior walls of the tube bundle of equipment with large complicated structure in petroleum and chemical industries, and after the oxidized film is got rid of, form a phosphorized layer on the interior and exterior walls of the tube bundle through connection process by making use of the pump, valves, pipeline and the solution tank, and then select paints of different physical and chemical natures for coating as required by different medium materials and different temperature requirements.@#
The description publicized an implemented example, and recorded the following technical solution: to, after derusting and abrasive blasting of the interior wall of the tube of the cooler with routine technologies, connect the pump, valve, pipeline, and solution tank of the auxiliary equipment according to the sketch map of the process. The steps of the anticorrosion process publicized in the implemented example on the interior wall of the tube of the cooler include: (1) pickling; (2) neutralization; (3) phosphorization; (4) washing the interior wall of the tube with clean water, and blowing it with compressed air; (5) drying; (6) coating. The implemented example also publicized the differences between anticorrosive treatment of the exterior wall of the tube and that of the interior wall in four aspects: (1) connecting the exit of the pump with the entrance of the shell pass, and connecting the exit of the shell pass with the solution tank in need; (2) chemical deoiling with alkaline wash, 45 minutes of alkaline wash at 70-90℃; (3) washing the equipment with hot water after alkaline wash, and then washing it with cold water; and (4) drying, with the steam entering the exit of the tube pass of the cooler.@#
On March 28, 1997, Xing Pengwan filed a request to BPAI for declaring the patent for invention patent “an anti-corrosive method for interior and exterior walls of steel tube bundle” invalid, with his ground as the said patent for invention did not conform to Paragraph 2 and Paragraph 3 of Article 22 of the Patent Law. On April 13, 1998, Xing Pengwan again proposed in the his statement of opinions that the patent for invention did not conform to Paragraph 4 of Article 26 of the Patent Law.@#
......

 

许文庆与国家知识产权局专利复审委员会、第三人邢鹏万宣告发明专利权无效决定纠纷案@#
【裁判摘要】@#
(一)对请求人关于宣告专利权无效的请求,专利复审委员会在审查时,应当给予程序中的当事人就相关的具体事实、理由和证据等进行解释和申述理由的适当机会,尤其是在作出不利于当事人的决定之前。否则,即违反专利复审的听证原则,属于行政诉讼法五十四条第(二)项第3目规定的“违反法定程序”的情形;@#
(二)判断专利权利要求书是否以说明书为依据,主要应当考察权利要求书中每一项要求保护的技术方案,是否能够为所属技术领域的技术人员从说明书公开的内容中直接获得或者概括得出,以及权利要求的范围是否超出说明书记载的内容。@#
中华人民共和国最高人民法院@#
行政判决书(摘要)@#
(2005)民三提字第2号@#
@#
申请再审人(一审原告,二审上诉人):许文庆,男,汉族,1938年6月4日出生,黑龙江省牡丹江市石油化工容器设备防腐厂厂长,高级工程师,住所地:黑龙江省牡丹江市阳明区大庆办事处1委付31组。@#
委托代理人:刘英,黑龙江省牡丹江市天元律师事务所律师。@#
委托代理人:吴忠仁,男,汉族,1937年11月14日出生,北京双收知识产权代理有限公司专利代理人,住所地:北京市朝阳区安翔里28号楼1门102号。@#
被申请再审人(一审被告,二审被上诉人):国家知识产权局专利复审委员会,住所地:北京市海淀区蓟门桥西土城路6号。@#
法定代表人:廖涛,该委员会副主任。@#
委托代理人:柴爱军,该委员会行政诉讼审查处审查员。@#
委托代理人:崔国振,该委员会行政诉讼审查处审查员。@#
原审第三人:邢鹏万,男,汉族,1959年6月2日出生,黑龙江省海林市防腐公司总经理,住所地:黑龙江省海林市海林镇第32委。@#
委托代理人:李青松,北京市晟智律师事务所律师。@#
委托代理人:刘宏,女,汉族,1979年4月16日出生,黑龙江省海林市防腐公司法律顾问,住所地:天津市红桥区西青道161-4号。@#
申请再审人许文庆与被申请再审人国家知识产权局专利复审委员会(以下简称专利复审委员会)、原审第三人邢鹏万宣告发明专利权无效决定纠纷一案,由北京市高级人民法院于2001年4月9日作出(2000)高知终字第72号二审行政判决,已发生法律效力。许文庆不服该判决,向本院申请再审。2005年3月28日,本院以(2001)民三监字第20-1号行政裁定,决定对本案进行提审。本院依法组成合议庭,由审判员王永昌担任审判长,代理审判员郃中林、李剑参加评议,崔丽娜担任本案书记员。2005年4月15日本案当事人进行了证据交换,并明确了本案争议的主要问题。2005年4月21日和8月5日,合议庭公开开庭审理了本案。许文庆及其委托代理人刘英、吴忠仁,专利复审委员会的委托代理人柴爱军、崔国振,邢鹏万及其委托代理人李青松、刘宏到庭参加诉讼。本案现已审理终结。@#
@#
北京市高级人民法院查明:1988年6月8日,许文庆向中国专利局提出了名称为“一种钢管束内外壁防腐方法”的发明专利申请,1991年3月6日被授予专利权,专利号为88103519.X。该发明专利的权利要求为:@#
1.一种对冷却器、换热器设备钢管束的内外壁进行防腐的方法,即为使冷却器、换热器钢管束的内外壁表面先形成磷化层,然后再进行涂料涂装,其特征在于完成这一过程是采用(a)把冷却器、换热器金属钢管束、泵、阀组、溶液槽通过胶管和铁管按工艺流程联接形成闭路循环体系;(b)整个工艺流程中用于处理冷却器、换热器金属钢管束内、外壁表面的各种处理液(碱液、酸液、磷化液)处于连续而不简(间)断地循环流动状态。@#
2.权利要求1中对冷却器、换热器钢管束内壁表面先形成磷化层再进行涂装的工艺流程步骤包括:(1)喷吵(砂);(2)酸洗:(3)中和;(4)磷化;(5)烘干:(6)涂料涂装。@#
3.权利要求1中对冷却器、换热器钢管束外壁表面先形成磷化层,再进行涂装的工艺流程步骤是采用化学除油代替喷砂这一步骤,其余与权利要求2所述的步骤相同。@#
4.权利要求2或3中所述的涂料涂装步骤中,涂料用量为管程容积或壳程容积的三分之二。@#
该发明专利说明书称这种对石油、化工等行业中冷却器、换热器设备金属钢管束内外壁进行防腐的方法属于金属防腐新工艺。亦称现在石油、化工行业的冷却器、换热器等管束只能对内壁进行喷砂(或化学处理),然后用有机涂料(环氧酚醛、7910、CH784等)涂装。靠涂料与金属管之间的粘附力结合,使金属表面形成钝化膜。这种防腐处理办法涂层与金属钢材基体结合力差,涂装以后能透过微量水分,与金属表面生成氧化物,涂膜起泡,开裂脱落,基体锈蚀;耐高温介质150℃以下,防腐处理工期长。本发明的构思是:在石油、化工行业的大型复杂结构设备管束内外壁经过喷砂,去掉氧化皮后,借助泵、阀、管路、溶液槽按着工艺流程联接操作使管束内外壁首先形成磷化层,然后根据不同的介质要求,不同的温度要求,选用不同的物理化学性质的特性涂料涂装。@#
该说明书公开了一个实施例,记载了以下技术方案:将冷却器管内壁按常规技术进行除锈、喷砂处理后,将辅助设备泵、阀、管路、溶液槽按着工艺流程示意图相联接。该实施例公开的对冷却器管内壁的防腐工艺步骤包括:(1)酸洗;(2)中和;(3)磷化;(4)清水冲洗管内壁,再用压缩空气吹;(5)烘干;(6)涂装。该实施例中还公开了管外壁防腐处理与内壁处理的区别在于四个方面:(1)将泵的出口与壳程入口相连,壳程出口分别与所需溶液槽相连;(2)通过碱洗化学除油,碱洗45分钟,碱洗温度70-90℃;(3)碱洗后热水洗,然后冷水洗;(4)烘干,由冷却器管程出口进蒸气进行。@#
1997年3月28日,邢鹏万向专利复审委员会提出“一种钢管束内外壁防腐方法”发明专利权无效的请求,其理由是“一种钢管束内外壁防腐方法”发明专利不符合专利法二十二条第二款、第三款的规定。1998年4月13日,邢鹏万在意见陈述书中又提出该发明专利不符合专利法二十六条第四款的规定。@#
1998年6月17日,专利复审委员会收到了大庆市红岗区金星防腐公司(以下简称金星公司)提交的宣告“一种钢管束内外壁防腐方法”发明专利权无效的请求书。金星公司认为“一种钢管束内外壁防腐方法”发明专利不符合专利法二十六条第四款,第二十二条第三款、第四款以及第二十六条第三款等的规定。@#
专利复审委员会将这两个无效宣告请求案合案审理,于1998年12月22日发出了1999年3月10日进行口头审理的通知书。口头审理涉及的主要问题是该专利是否符合专利法二十六条第四款和第二十二条第二款、第三款的规定。@#
在1999年3月10日口头审理过程中,各方当事人针对“一种钢管束内外壁防腐方法”发明专利是否符合专利法规定陈述了意见。@#
1999年6月4日,专利复审委员会作出第1372号无效宣告请求审查决定书,以权利要求得不到说明书支持为由,宣告许文庆的88103519.X号“一种钢管束内外壁防腐方法”发明专利权无效。@#
许文庆不服专利复审委员会第1372号决定书,向北京市第一中级人民法院起诉。北京市第一中级人民法院一审认为,许文庆提出的专利复审委员会违反听证原则、当事人处置和请求原则的主张,与事实不符,不予采信。“一种钢管束内外壁防腐方法”发明专利的权利要求没有以说明书为依据,不符合专利法二十六条第四款的规定。许文庆的起诉理由不能成立,其起诉请求不予支持。判决:驳回许文庆的诉讼请求,维持第1372号无效宣告请求审查决定。案件受理费800元,由许文庆负担。@#
许文庆不服北京市第一中级人民法院判决,向北京市高级人民法院上诉。北京市高级人民法院经审理认为,专利复审委员会在审理过程中,按照规定向无效宣告请求人和被请求人转送了证据材料和意见陈述,在口头审理通知中注明口头审理的范围包括“一种钢管束内外壁防腐方法”发明专利权是否符合专利法二十六条第四款的规定,许文庆在对专利复审委员会口头审理的书面答辩意见中,也对此进行了陈述。许文庆的上诉理由不能成立,该院依据《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第五十四条第一款第(一)项的规定,判决:驳回上诉,维持原判。一、二审案件受理费由许文庆负担。@#
许文庆不服二审判决,向本院申请再审,请求本院依法撤销专利复审委员会第1372号决定及一、二审法院判决,维持专利权有效,由专利复审委员会承担本案全部诉讼费用。其申请再审的主要理由是:@#
(一)专利复审委员会第1372号决定违反了《审查指南》规定的听证原则和当事人请求原则。@#
(二)第1372号决定对涉案专利权利要求得不到说明书的支持的认定,证据不足,适用法律、法规错误。@#
专利复审委员会答辩理由如下:@#
(一)答辩人在涉案专利的无效审查程序中,完全遵循了请求原则和听证原则。@#
(二)权利要求1请求保护一种冷却器、换热器设备钢管束的内外壁进行防腐的方法,其内容在说明书中没有文字记载。而根据说明书中明确记载的对于管束内壁的防腐处理和对于管束外壁的防腐处理是两种不同的技术方案,本领域普通技术人员在阅读了说明书之后难以得到如权利要求1所述的技术方案。基于同样的理由,从属于权利要求1的权利要求2和3,以及从属于权利要求2或3的权利要求4也当然得不到说明书的支持,不符合专利法二十六条第四款的规定。因此,第1372号决定对于涉案专利权利要求1-4得不到说明书支持的认定是正确的。@#
本院经审理查明,原审法院认定的事实基本属实,但遗漏了本案其他部分事实。本院另查明:@#
(一)关于第1372号决定是否违反听证原则和当事人请求原则方面的事实。@#
1.1997年3月28日,邢鹏万向专利复审委员会提出宣告本案专利权无效的请求,其理由是该专利不符合专利法二十二条第二款、第四款的规定,即缺乏新颖性和创造性,不涉及专利法二十六条第四款有关权利要求是否得到说明书支持的问题。@#
2.1998年4月13日,专利复审委员会收到邢鹏万的意见陈述书,邢鹏万在该意见陈述书中提出了涉案专利不符合专利法二十六条第四款规定的理由。具体为:权利要求1的区别特征(b)在说明书中找不到相同的描述,也没有能够清楚和准确地支持这一区别技术特征,因此,权利要求1得不到说明书的支持,而其余几项权利要求2-4均是权利要求1的从属权利要求,当然也得不到说明书的支持。@#
同年10月30日,专利复审委员会收到许文庆提交的意见陈述书。在该意见陈述书中,许文庆针对邢鹏万提出的涉案专利不符合专利法二十六条第四款规定的理由,称:本发明的权利要求1的区别特征(b)部分得到了说明书的支持。@#
3.1998年11月23日,邢鹏万再次向专利复审委员会提交《宣告专利权无效的事实和理由》,其中在有关涉案专利不符合专利法二十六条第四款规定的理由部分记载道:完成这一过程是采用把冷却器、换热器金属钢管束、泵、阀、溶液槽通过胶管和铁管按工艺流程联接形成闭路循环体系,没有得到说明书的支持;完成这一过程是采用整个工艺流程中处理冷却器、换热器金属钢管束内、外壁表面的各种处理液(碱液、酸液、磷化液)处于连续而不间断地循环流动状态,在说明书中没有充分公开。@#
4.1998年6月17日,专利复审委员会收到案外人金星公司向该委员会提交的《宣告专利权无效请求书》。其中,有关不符合专利法二十六条第四款规定的具体理由为:特征(a)中的“闭路”这一特征在说明书中没有描述,而且本领域普通技术人员看了说明书后,得不出是闭路循环体系的推论;特征(b)要求各种处理液处于连续不间断地循环流动,然而在其说明书中并没有这样的技术特征描述,本领域普通技术人员看了说明书后,不一定想到要使各种处理液处于连续而不间断地循环流动状态。@#
5.1998年12月22日,专利复审委员会向许文庆发出《口头审理通知书》,其中,在“口头审理拟涉及的主要问题”一栏中载明:“该专利是否符合专利法二十六条第四款、第二十二条第二款、第三款。”@#
6.1999年3月8日,邢鹏万在《请求人口头审理发言提纲》中,就本案专利权利要求书得不到说明书的支持问题称:权利要求1的区别特征(b)是“整个工艺流程中用于处理冷却器、换热器金属钢管束内、外壁表面的各种处理液(碱液、酸液、磷化液)处于连续而不间断地循环流动状态。”但是,在说明书中找不到能够清楚地和准确地支持这一技术特征的内容。@#
7.1999年3月10日,专利复审委员会就涉案专利进行口头审理。口头审理的主要过程及内容,专利复审委员会未提供相应的笔录。@#
8.1999年3月10日,许文庆向专利复审委员会提交了一份《被请求人代理词(补充)》。称:专利权利要求1特征(b)中的“整个工艺流程中用于处理冷却器、换热器设备金属钢管束内外壁表面的各种处理液(碱液、酸液、磷化液)”,当然是指对冷却器、换热器设备金属钢管束内外壁表面进行处理的液体。虽然该专利方法中中和时也使用了碱,但用量很少,而且因为其浓度很低并含有酸根而无需循环使用,请求人以中和用碱没有循环流动,就认为权利要求中记载的处理液也没有闭路循环,是不正确的。@#
9.1999年3月15日,案外人汪月明以涉案专利得不到说明书支持为由,向专利复审委员会提出宣告涉案专利权无效的请求,并提交了《宣告专利权无效请求书》。该请求书第3项无效理由为:说明书中记载的酸洗(酸液)、中和(碱液)、磷化(磷化液)不支持权利要求1(b)中的各种处理液(碱液、酸液、磷化液)。@#
10.1999年3月19日,专利复审委员会收到邢鹏万提交的《代理词(口头审理后的陈述意见)》一份。提出:说明书中所记载的对管束内壁进行防腐处理的方法与权利要求1所述防腐方法不相同,因而权利要求1得不到说明书支持。@#
专利复审委员会未将该份代理词转送给许文庆。@#
(二)关于权利要求书是否以说明书为依据方面的事实@#
1.权利要求1、2、3、4所要求保护的技术方案是否能够从说明书概括得出的事实。@#
(1)说明书第6段记载了附图说明。@#
(2)说明书第7段记载了管内、外壁防腐处理方法的实施例。@#
(3)说明书附有冷却器管内外壁防腐处理工艺流程示意图,对钢管束、泵、阀组、溶液槽通过胶管、铁管按工艺流程联接进行了图示。@#
2.形成磷化层的工艺步骤即漆前表面处理技术是否为现有技术的事实。@#
(1)《涂装技术》第一册(王锡春、姜英涛主编,1986年6月化学工业出版社出版)第三章“漆前表面处理”中载明:在涂漆前对被涂物表面进行的一切准备工作,均称为漆前表面处理。漆前表面处理、涂布与干燥为涂漆工艺的三大主要工序。@#
在“金属的除油”一节中载明:最常用的漆前除油方法有碱液清洗,有机溶剂清洗,表面活性剂清洗,乳化液清洗等。除油方法的选择取决于油污的性质、污染程度、被清洗物的材质及生成方式等。@#
在“化学除锈”部分,介绍了无机酸洗工艺,其工艺过程为:除油碱槽-热水槽-酸洗槽-冷水槽-中和槽-冷水槽-磷化槽-热水槽-涂漆保养。@#
(2)《电镀手册》(上册)(《电镀手册》编写组编,1977年10月国防工业出版社出版)“零件表面准备”一章中,有关“喷砂处理”部分写道:“喷砂是为了除掉金属制品表面的毛刺、氧化皮以及铸件表面上的熔渣等杂质。……喷砂是用净化的压缩空气将干砂流强烈地喷到金属制品表面上,从而打掉其上的垢物。喷砂的砂子要干燥,金属制品的表面也应干燥无油,否则喷砂效果将不好。”@#
(3)《电镀工艺》(国营惠丰机械厂电镀车间电镀工艺编委会编著,1959年机械工业出版社出版)第114页还进一步列表介绍了磷化的工艺规程。即:化学去油-热水洗-冷水洗-酸洗-冷水洗-苏打肥皂处理-热水洗-磷化-热水洗-钝化处理-热水洗-蒸馏水洗-压缩空气吹干-烘干-外观检验-涂油漆。@#
......


Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.

1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.

2. Binding to the account with access to this database.

3. Apply for a trial account.

4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【¥2200.00】 for your single purchase.
 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese