專利申請期間，特別是從早期公開至審定公告期間；或是審定公告後，甚至申請人或專利權人所請求的權利範圍，經常為了要與先前技術有所區別，必須進行修正，因而造成權利範圍有所變動。由於專利權是一獨佔的排他性權利，因此，專利申請人或是專利權人，有義務指出所主張權利的界線，俾使公眾能知悉其權利範圍，並有所依循。本論文目的即在探討上述期間，據以認定權利範圍有所變動之判斷標準。
詳言之，為了配合早期公開制度之設立，我國專利法第40條 設有一補償金請求權之規定，用以保護專利權人於其發明內容公開後至取得專利期間，若遭受侵害可於取得專利權後回溯性地主張所受侵害之損害賠償。另一方面，專利即使在審定公告後，權利人仍可基於專利法第64條 進行更正，同樣會導致權利範圍出現變動。因此，本研究將針對專利法第40條，以及專利法第64條，研究於權利範圍變動時，專利權範圍之判斷依據與其效力。將藉由比較法方式，參考美、日各國立法與實務，探討我國現行制度於早期公開與更正期間權利範圍變動認定標準之法規範缺失與不足，並進一步提出可能的解決方案。

In order to distinguish his/her claims from those of a prior reference, the applicant of a patent application or the patentee of an issued patent may need to amend his/her claims during prosecution and/or after issuance of the patent, and thereby results in the alteration of the original claimed scope. Since the applicant of a patent application or the patentee is obligated to point out his/her invention, so that the general public may reframe from infringing the patent; therefore a guidance on how the claimed scope should be interpreted during litigation or how much right is entitled to the patentee in view of the altered claim scope resulted from the amended claims may be useful in the practice and hence is the focus of the present study.
Article 40 of the Taiwan Patent Act set forth a monetary compensation mechanism by allowing the patentee to make damage claim retroactively to any claims that were infringed during the period the claims were laid-open up to the time the claims were issued Further, patentee may still amend claims even after issuance in accordance with the regulations set forth in Article 64 of the Patent Act, which may also result in an alteration in the claimed scope. Therefore, this study emphasizes on the effects of claim amendment made under Articles 40 and/or 64 of Taiwan Patent Act, by conducting a comparative study on relevant legislation and practice adopted by the patent offices in the United States and Japan; and herby proposed some possible resolution measures that might be useful in improving the practice in Taiwan.

A.中文書目
1. 鄭中人，專利法規釋義，考用出版社（2009）。
2. 經濟部智慧財產局，專利侵害鑑定要點（2004）。
3. 楊崇森，專利法理論與應用，三民書局（2008.03）。
4. 經濟部智慧財產局 編印，專利法逐條釋義 (2009.06)。
5. 經濟部智慧財產局 編印，我國專利審查基準 (2011)。
6. 陳文吟，我國專利制度之研究，五南出版社 (2010)。
7. 劉國讚，專利實務論，元照出版社 (2009)。
8. 趙晉枚、蔡坤財、周慧芳、謝銘洋、張凱娜，智慧財產權入門，元照出版社，2011。
B.中文期刊
1. 林明燁，「以Yokohama Rubber v. Yonex之「中空高爾夫球桿桿頭」案為例看日本補償金請求權之行使及補償金之計算方式」(2012.03)。http://www.saint-island.com.tw/report/data/IPR_201203.htm#a02 (最後瀏覽日2012年5月20日)
2. 黃文儀， 日本訂正審判(請求)不准訂正之事例， 智慧財產權月刊(2010.09)。
3. 周仕筠，「新型專利形式審查」，智慧財產權月刊 63 期 (2004.03)。
C.中文碩士論文
1. 周修平，「實質變更申請專利範圍之研究-以申請專利範圍減縮為中心」，碩士論文，國立政治大學 (2010)。
2. 林柏修，「美國專利再發證制度之研究-兼論我國更正規則」，碩士論文，世新大學 (2007)。
D.台灣專利
1. 台灣發明專利第I364274號，「輪椅之活動定位昇降機構」。
2. 台灣發明專利第I364274號，「輪椅之活動定位昇降機構」。
3. 台灣新型專利第M 269555號，「大儲能電感線圈結構改良」。
4. 台灣專利公開案第200846063號，「可自動步行式機器玩具」。
5. 台灣發明專利第I340661號，「可自動步行式機器玩具」。
6. 台灣專利公開案第201021957號，「無錫鬚晶的鍍層結構及其製造方法」。
7. 台灣發明專利第I364342號，「無錫鬚晶的鍍層結構及其製造方法」。
E.英文期刊
1. Charles R. Macedo, Effect of the publication of applications under the American inventors protection act of 1999, Federal Circuit Bar Journal (2003-2004).
2. Jonathan A. Platt, Protecting Reliance on The Patent System: The Economics and Equities of Intervening Rights, Case Western Reserve Law Review (Spring, 1997).
3. Chapter 3. Substantive Issues of a Patent Infringement Case By Junichi Kitahara and Hirokazu Honda，Japanese Patent Litigation § 3:53，Japanese Patent Litigation Database (updated March, 2010).
F.美國判決
1. Lans v. Digital Equip. Corp., 252 F.3d 1320 (June 04, 2001).
2. Arendi Holding Ltd. v. Microsoft Coporation, et al., Civ. No. 09-119-JJF-LPS (April 12, 2010).
3. Stephens v. Tech Int'l, Inc., 393 F.3d 1269 (December 29, 2004).
4. Sontag Chain Stores Co. v. National Nut Co., 310 U.S. 281 (1940)
5. BIC Leisure Prods. v. Windsurfing Int'l, 1 F.3d 1214 (August 04, 1993).
6. Seattle Box Company, Inc., v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc, 731 F.2d 818,221 U.S.P.Q. 568( March 26, 1984)
7. Slimfold Manufacturing Company, Inc., v. Kinkead Industries, Inc. and United States Gypsum Company, 810 F2.d 1113, 55 USLW 2423, 1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1563 (January21, 1987).
8. In re Willingham, 282 F.2d 353, 127 USPQ 211, 214 (July 20, 1960).
9. In re Altenpohl, 500 F.2d 1151, 183 USPQ 38 (August 15, 1974).
10. Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 163 F.3d 1342 (December 18, 1998).
11. Pandora Jewelry, LLC v. Chamilla, LLC 2008, Civil No. CCB-06-3041 (Sep. 30, 2008).
12. Bloom Eng’g Co., Inc v. North American Mfg. Co., Inc., 129 F.3d 1247 ( November 21, 1997).
13. Russell v. Dodge, 93 U.S. 460, 463 (1876).
14. Marine polymer technologies, Inc., v. Hemcon, Inc, 672 F.3d 1350, 102 U.S.P.Q.2d 1161 (March 15, 2012).
G.美國專利
1. U.S. 4,099,617, Shipping Bundle for Numerous Pipe Lengths.
2. Re. 30,373, Shipping Bundle for Numerous Pipe Lengths.
3. U.S. 3,810,274, Pivot and Guide Rod Assembly for Bi-Fold Door.
4. U.S. 3,952,311, Electro-optical printing system.
5. U.S. 7,007,507, Necklaces and bracelets with keepers.
6. US 6,864,245, Biocompatible poly-β-1→4-N-acetylglucosamine.