帳號:guest(184.73.14.222)          離開系統
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  

詳目顯示

以作者查詢圖書館館藏以作者查詢臺灣博碩士論文系統以作者查詢全國書目勘誤回報
作者姓名(中文):林展逸
作者姓名(英文):Chan-Yi Lin
論文名稱(中文):專利公開案與其對應公告案之專利分類號差異研究
論文名稱(外文):The study of the difference between the classification codes assigned to pre-grant publications and their corresponding issued patents
指導教授姓名(中文):管中徽
指導教授姓名(英文):Chung-Huei Kuan
口試委員姓名(中文):王俊傑
劉顯仲
口試委員姓名(英文):Chun-Chieh Wang
John S. Liu
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣科技大學
系所名稱:專利研究所
學號:M10124005
出版年(民國):103
畢業學年度:102
學期:2
語文別:中文
論文頁數:87
中文關鍵詞:分類號分析專利公開案USPC分類號相似度
外文關鍵詞:patent classification analysispre-grant publicationsUSPC codessimilarity
相關次數:
  • 推薦推薦:0
  • 點閱點閱:168
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:25
  • 收藏收藏:0
專利公告案從提出申請到核准公告需要冗長的時間,因此使用專利公告案進行的專利分類號分析所反映的是有相當長的時間差距前的研發活動,然而若使用專利公開案來進行專利分類號分析,則時間差距將縮短到早期公開的18個月。但是專利公開案的專利分類號與其對應公告案的分類號不一定相同,所以使用專利公開案來進行專利分類號分析,時間差距雖然縮短,但其結果未必可以信賴。本研究因此比對2012年所有美國發明公告案與其對應公開案的Current USPC分類號,並以三種專利分類號分析的方式檢驗二者之間的差異程度為何:(1)只考慮主分類號中的主類號、(2)只考慮主分類號、(3)考慮所有分類號而且不區別權重。本研究獲得結論如下:只有採用主分類號中的主類號來作的分類號分析比較適合專利公開案,因為專利公開案與其對應的公告案主分類號中的主類號相同件數的比例最高(77.89%)。另外二者都並不適合,因為專利公開案與其對應的公告案的主分類號相同者只有36.42%,而所有分類號一起比對的話,則專利公開案與其對應的公告案的分類號集合相同者更低到只有6.37%。對於第三種分類號分析方式,本研究進一步發現專利公開案與其對應的公告案的分類號集合完全不同者有38.30%、公開案分類號集合包含於公告案分類集合者有26.84%、公告案分類號集合包含於公開案分類號集合者有4.55%、專利公開案與其對應的公告案的分類號集合有交集者有23.95%。
Most analyses are conducted using issued patents as subjects. However, these patents are granted after lengthy examination processes. Therefore, analytic results from the granted patents actually reflect the research activities exercised a long time ago. To reduce the above-described time delay, the only possible way is to use the so-called pre-grant publications that are open to public 18 months after the applications are filed. The pre-grant publications and their granted patents are both assigned classification symbols representing the technical fields to which the applications belong. Pre-grant publications therefore can be the subjects for the so-called patent classification analysis, which is a quite common and also important analytic method. The classification symbols assigned to pre-grant publications and their granted patent may very possibly be different. If the two are very different, using patent classification analysis on pre-grant publications to observe the research activities may be dubious. Yet if the differences are ignorable, the analytic result from using patent classification analysis on pre-grant publications may accurately reflect the research activities happening 18 months ago.
This study compares the Current United States Patent Classification codes assigned to United States utility patents issued in 2012 and their pre-grant publications in three ways: (1) considering only the class code of primary classification; (2) considering only the primary classification code; and (3) considering all classification codes without discrimination. The study finds that only (1) considering only the class code of primary classification is more appropriate for patent classification analysis using pre-grant publications as there are 77.89% of the issued patents have the same class codes as their corresponding pre-grant publications. As to (2) considering only the primary classification code, the ratio drops significantly to 36.42%. As to (3) considering all classification codes, the study further classified the comparison results into five categories: (a) there are only 6.37% of the issued patents whose sets of classification codes are identical to those of the corresponding pre-grant publications, (b) there are 38.30% of the issued patents whose sets of classification codes are entirely different from those of the corresponding pre-grant publications, (c) there are 26.84% of the issued patents whose sets of classification codes contains those of the corresponding pre-grant publications, (d) there are 4.55%% of the issued patents whose sets of classification codes are contained in those of the corresponding pre-grant publications, and (e) there are 23.95% of the issued patents whose sets of classification codes have non-empty intersection with those of the corresponding pre-grant publications.
指導教授推薦書I
學位考試委員審定書II
中文摘要III
ABSTRACTIV
誌謝VI
目錄VII
圖表索引IX
第一章 緒論1
第一節 研究背景1
第二節 研究方法6
第三節 論文架構11
第二章 文獻探討13
第一節 介紹美國專利分類號13
第二節 運用專利分類號的分析方式16
第三節 比對專利分類號的方式24
第一項 比較二個專利分類號的相似程度24
第二項 比較二件專利的相似程度28
第三項 比較二個專利組合的相似程度30
第三章 分析方法32
第一節 數據來源與處理過程32
第二節 數據概況36
第三節 比對CURRENT USPC分類號的方式40
第四章 研究結果47
第一節 比較主分類號中的主類號47
第二節 比較主分類號52
第三節 比較所有分類號53
第五章 結論57
第一節 研究總結57
第二節 研究成果的應用方向58
第三節 未來研究方向59
參考文獻61
中文部份61
英文部份62
附錄 439個主類號於234,966件專利公開案的相關件數與錯誤率66
授權書77
中文部份
中華人民共和國國家知識產權局(2012)。《專利審查指南》。北京市:知識產權出版社。(簡體字版)。
左晶 (2007)。<IPC和USC分類體系下專利檢索的對比分析>,《現代情報》,27卷1期,頁130-132。(簡體字版)。
宇佐見弘文(著),高德智財科技有限公司、劉光德國際專利商標事務所(譯)(2013)。《企業發展必要之專利戰略》。臺北市:書泉。
朱新超、霍翠婷、劉會景(2013)。<合作專利分類系統(CPC)與傳統專利分類系統的比較分析>,《數字圖書館論壇》,9期,頁38-44。(簡體字版)。
李昆益、簡達益、許海音、林晏瑞、李偉裕(2010)。《觸控技術與產業:專利概述與分析》。臺北市:五南。
洪長春、黃郁棻、簡國明(民93)。《微奈米碳酸鈣專利地圖及分析》。臺北市:行政院國家科學委員會科學技術資料中心。
周永銘(2006)。《應用專利分類號於專利技術叢集化之研究》,國立臺灣大學機械工程學研究所碩士論文(未出版),臺北。
高柳隆(著),高德智財科技有限公司、劉光德國際專利商標事務所(譯)(2013)。《「專利檢索」之基礎與應用:前進日本專利電子圖書館中網羅資訊》。臺北市:書泉。
張瑞芬、張力元、吳俊逸、樊晉源(2013)。《專利分析與智慧財產管理:以資訊技術與知識管理方法為手段》。臺北市:華泰。
張憲國、趙亞斌(2013)。<以C22C為例淺析《國際專利分類表》歷史修訂>,甘紹寧(等編),《專利文獻研究 (2013)》,頁31-38。北京市:知識產權出版社。(簡體字版)。
陳達仁、黃慕萱(2008)。<以美國專利衡量亞洲四小龍及中國的創新能力>,收於:財團法人磬安智慧財產教育基金會(編),《智慧財產的機會與挑戰:智慧財產的創造、保護與管理:劉江彬教授榮退論文集》,頁139-175。臺北縣新店市:磬安智慧財產教育基金會。
陳達仁、黃慕萱(2009)。《專利資訊檢索、分析與策略》。臺北市:華泰。
陳達仁(2013)。《專利檢索與專利分析》,4版。臺北市:經濟部智慧局。
陳省三、蔡若鵬、魯明德、劉宗燁、王乾又(2011)。《專利基礎與實例解說》。臺北市:元照。
經濟部智慧財產局(2013)。《美國專利訴訟教戰手冊進階版》。臺北市:經濟部智慧財產局。
楊鐵軍(等編)(2011)。《專利信息利用導引》。北京市:知識產權出版社。(簡體字版)。
楊家興、陳省三(2012)。<InterDigital專利授權公司專利分析之研究>,發表於:《2012第一屆服務與科技管理研討會》。國立臺北科技大學服務與科技管理研究所(主辦),臺北市。
鄭凱安、馬仁宏、林殿琪、黃郁棻、劉瑄儀(民92)。《量子點光電應用專利地圖及分析》。臺北市:行政院國家科學委員會科學技術資料中心。
鄭凱安、馬仁宏、賴志遠、林殿琪(民93)。《磁性記憶體專利地圖及分析》。臺北市:行政院國家科學委員會科學技術資料中心。
劉國讚、劉思芸(2013)。<Apple公司觸控面板手勢專利權布局之剖析>,《專利師季刊》,12期,頁67-95。
謝曉光(2010)。《專利分類》,2版。臺北市:經濟部智慧局。
韓聖文(2003)。<美國專利申請案撤回不公開請求的規定與注意事項>,《智慧財產權月刊》,57期,頁111-113。
簡國明、洪長春、吳典熹、王永銘、藍怡平(民92)。《奈米二氧化鈦專利地圖及分析》。臺北市:行政院國家科學委員會科學技術資料中心。
嚴勻希(2013)。《鉅量資料與雲端儲存之專利佈局與研發方向分析》,頁166,國立臺灣科技大學專利研究所碩士論文(未出版),臺北。
英文部份
Benner, M., & Waldfogel, J. (2008). Close to you? Bias and precision in patent-based measures of technological proximity. Research Policy, 37(9), 1556-1567.
Blackman, M. (2013). News on classification. World Patent Information, 35(4), 328-329.
Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Malerba, F. (2003). Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification. Research Policy, 32(1), 69-87.
Chen, D. Z., Chang, H. W., Huang, M. H., & Fu, F. C. (2005). Core technologies and key industries in Taiwan from 1978 to 2002: A perspective from patent analysis. Scientometrics, 64(1), 31-53.
CPC (2012). CPC News Latest developments about the Cooperative Patent Classification, Retrieved June 8, 2014 from http://www.cooperativepatentclassification.org/publications/CpcNewsOct2012.pdf
European Patent Office (2012). Patent Information News issue 3, Retrieved June 8 ,2014 from http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/AE0D8972A8253AFDC1257A7F0031339E/$File/Patentinfo_News_0312_en.pdf
Fabry, B., Ernst, H., Langholz, J., & Koster, M. (2006). Patent portfolio analysis as a useful tool for identifying R&D and business opportunities—an empirical application in the nutrition and health industry. World Patent Information, 28(3), 215-225.
Ganesan, V., Swaminathan, R., & Thenmozhi, M. Similarity Measure Based On Edge Counting Using Ontology. International Journal of Research and Development,3(3),40-44.
Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2001). The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools (No. w8498). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Jaccard, P. (1901). Bulletin de la Societe Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles Retrieved July 22 from http://dx.doi.org/10.5169/seals-266440
Jaffe, A. B. (1986). Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: evidence from firms' patents, profits and market value, The American Economic Review 76,(5), 984-1001.
Jaffe, A. B. (1989). Characterizing the “technological position” of firms, with application to quantifying technological opportunity and research spillovers. Research Policy, 18(2), 87-97.
Liu, H. Z., Bao, H., & Xu, D. (2012). Concept Vector for Similarity Measurement Based on Hierarchical Domain Structure. Computing and Informatics, 30(5), 881-900.
McNamee, R. C. (2013). Can’t see the forest for the leaves: Similarity and distance measures for hierarchical taxonomies with a patent classification example. Research Policy, 42(4), 855-873.
Small, H. (1973). Co‐citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for information Science, 24(4), 265-269.
Slimani, T., Yagahlane, B. B., & Mellouli, K. (2008). A new similarity measure based on edge counting. Proceedings of the World Academy of Science, engineering and Technology, 23, 773-777.
Shenoy, K. M., Shet, K. C., & Acharya, U. D. (2012). A NEW SIMILARITY MEASURE FOR TAXONOMY BASED ON EDGE COUNTING. International Journal of Web & Semantic Technology, 3(4),23-30.
USPTO (2000). Pre-Grant Publication (PGPub) Global Concept of Operations. Retrieved from http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/aipa/PGPubConOps.pdf
USPTO (2012). Overview of the U.S. Patent Classification System (pp. 3-5, 8-11, 15). Retrieved from http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/classification/overview.pdf
USPTO (2012). Organization of Information. Examiner Handbook to the U.S. Patent Classification System Retrieved June 21, 2014 from http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/classification/handbook/one.jsp
USPTO (2012). Patent Analysis for Placement into System (Claimed Disclosure). Examiner Handbook to the U.S. Patent Classification System Retrieved June 9, 2014 from http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/classification/handbook/three.jsp
USPTO (2012). Determination of a Class for Original Classification or Assignment for Examination. Examiner Handbook to the U.S. Patent Classification System Retrieved June 9, 2014 from http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/classification/handbook/four.jsp
USPTO (2013). Management's Discussion and Analysis. Performance and Accountability Report fiscal year 2012 (pp. 15-20). Retrieved from http://www.uspto.gov/about/stratplan/ar/USPTOFY2012PAR.pdf
USPTO (2014). Patenting In Technology Classes Breakout By Geographic Origin (State and Country). Retrieved May 29, 2014 from http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/tecstc/explan_clstc_gd.htm
USPTO (2014). 35 U.S.C.181 Secrecy of certain inventions and withholding of patent, United States Code Title 35 – Patents (pp. L40). Retrieved from http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/aipa/PatLaws1214.pdf
USPTO (2014). 35 U.S.C.122 Confidential status of applications; publication of patent applications., United States Code Title 35 – Patents (pp. L26). Retrieved from http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_laws.pdf
USPTO (2014). 35 U.S.C. 132 Notice of rejection; reexamination, United States Code Title 35 – Patents (pp. L27). Retrieved from http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_laws.pdf
Verspagen, B. (1997). Measuring intersectoral technology spillovers: estimates from the European and US patent office databases. Economic Systems Research, 9(1), 47-65.
WIPO (2012). Section A patents, utility models and microorganisms. 2012 World Intellectual Property Indicators (pp. 47-49). Retrieved from http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/freepublications/en/intproperty/941/wipo_pub_941_2012.pdf
WIPO (2013). REFORM OF THE IPC. INTERNATIONAL PATENT CLASSIFICATION (pp. 2-3) Retrieved from http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/classifications/ipc/en/guide/guide_ipc.pdf
WIPS Co.,Ltd. (2013). Vol.1. The Patent Portfolio Analysis of Samsung and Apple. Retrieved June 9, 2014 from http://global.wipscorp.com/selectNewsList.do?brdCd=guide
WIPS Co.,Ltd. (2013). Vol.2. Samsung and LG's OLED Patent Portfolio Analysis. Retrieved June 9, 2014 from http://global.wipscorp.com/selectNewsList.do?brdCd=guide
WIPS Co.,Ltd. (2014). Vol. 5 Google's Patent Portfolio Analysis. Retrieved July 23, 2014 from http://global.wipscorp.com/selectNewsList.do?brdCd=guide
Wolter, B. (2012). It takes all kinds to make a world–Some thoughts on the use of classification in patent searching. World Patent Information, 34(1), 8-18.
Wu, Z., & Palmer, M. (1994, June). Verbs semantics and lexical selection. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 133-138). Association for Computational Linguistics.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
* *