在專利文件中，請求項用於界定專利權範圍。當同一發明在不同國家申請專利時，請求項可能會依據每個國家的法規有些許不同。本研究以積層製造為技術主題，建立一個歐洲公開案的專利池；該池涵蓋了七間美國主要申請人：3D Systems、Xerox Corporation、Stratasys、Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation、Boeing Company、General Electric和United Technology Corporation。並根據Wittfoth（2019）提出的專利指標，發展一種用於計算專利權範圍的新指標，用於觀察專利權範圍變化。本研究利用上述兩個指標分析和比較七家公司的歐洲公開案和其對應之美國優先案的專利權範圍變化；觀察請求項的撰寫策略。最後，利用文獻中其他專利權範圍計算方法驗證本指標之有效性和可信度，並給予每間公司的多國專利申請請求項撰寫策略建議。

從本研究可得出以下結論：

1. 在積層製造產業，歐洲局及美國局的主要申請人大多是美國公司。其中，Hewlett-Packard、General Electric Company、Siemens、Boeing、Stratasys、XYZprinting和Kinpo Electronics依其申請量，在兩局排名前十。
2. 七間公司根據本指標所計算出的美國公開案平均專利權範圍：
Boeing Company (4.77) > General Electric (4.06) > 3D System (4.01) > United Technology Corporation (3.86) > Stratasys (3.79) > Xerox Corporation (3.73) > Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation (3.68)
3. 七間公司根據本指標所計算出的歐洲公開案平均專利權範圍：
Stratasys (5.07) > 3D System (4.82) > United Technology Corporation (4.48) > Boeing Company (4.3) > General Electric (3.96) > Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation (3.91) > Xerox Corporation (3.73)

In a patent document, the claim is to designate the scope of the protection. When an invention is patented in different countries, claims might be revised to comply with the regulations of each country. A patent pool that contains EP pre-grant publications of additive manufacturing technology is built; the pool encompasses seven US main applicants: 3D System, Xerox Corporation, Stratasys, Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation, Boeing Company, General Electric, and United Technology Corporation. Based on the indicator developed by Wittfoth (2019), a new indicator that is used to measure patent scope is developed and used to observe the scope variation. These two indicators are used to analyze and compare the scope variation of seven companies’ EP publications and their US priority publications; the claim drafting strategies are observed. Finally, the result is demonstrated with the scope calculation approach in the literature to verify the validity and credibility, and the claim drafting strategy of multi-country applications for each company is suggested.
The following conclusions can be drawn from the results of this study:
1. In the additive manufacturing industry, the main applicants of both offices are mostly U.S. companies. Among them, Hewlett-Packard, General Electric Company, Siemens, Boeing, Stratasys, XYZprinting, and Kinpo Electronics are included in the top 10 applicants in both offices according to the number of applications.
2. Seven companies’ average scope of US publications by the indicator of study:
Boeing Company (4.77) > General Electric (4.06) > 3D System (4.01) > United Technology Corporation (3.86) > Stratasys (3.79) > Xerox Corporation (3.73) > Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation (3.68)
3. Seven companies’ average scope of EP publications by the indicator of study:
Stratasys (5.07) > 3D System (4.82) > United Technology Corporation (4.48) > Boeing Company (4.3) > General Electric (3.96) > Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation (3.91) > Xerox Corporation (3.73)

I. Journal paper

[1] Campbell, I., Bourell, D., Gibson, I., (2012). Additive manufacturing: rapid prototyping comes of age. Rapid Prototyping Journal. Vol. 18 No. 4, 255-258. 10.1108/13552541211231563

[2] Dilberoglua, U.M., Gharehpapagha, B., Yamana, U., Dolen, M. (2017). The role of additive manufacturing in the era of Industry 4.0. Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 11, 545-554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.148

[3] Kalıp, N.G., Erzurumlu, Y.Ö., Gün, N.A. (2022). Qualitative and quantitative patent valuation methods: A systematic literature review. World Patent Information, Vol. 69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2022.102111

[4] Kuhn, J.M., Thompson, N.C. (2019). How to Measure and Draw Causal Inferences with Patent Scope. International Journal of the Economics of Business, Vol. 26(1), 5-38. 10.1080/13571516.2018.1553284

[5] Lanjouw, J.O., Schankerman, M. (1997). Stylized Facts of Patent Litigation: Value, Scope and Ownership. NBER Working Paper 6297. 10.3386/w6297

[6] Lefstin, J. (2008). The formal structure of patent law and the limits of enablement. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Vol. 23, No. 4, 1141-1225.

[7] Lerner, J. (1994). The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis. The RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 25, No. 2. https://doi.org/10.2307/2555833

[8] Lim, JS., Oh, WJ., Lee, CM., Kim, DH. (2021). Selection of effective manufacturing conditions for directed energy deposition process using machine learning methods. Scientific Reports, 11, 24169. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-03622-z

[9] Liu, KT., Lin, HT. (2014). A Study on the relationship between technical development and fundamental patents based on US granted patents. European International Journal of Science and Technology, Vol. 3 No. 7

[10] Rieder, H., Dillhöfer, A., Spies, Martin., Bamberg, J., Hess, T. (2015). Ultrasonic online monitoring of additive manufacturing processes based on selective laser melting. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1650 (1): 184–191. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4914609
[11] Marco, A.C., Sarnoff, J.D., deGrazia, C. (2016). Patent Claims and Patent Scope. Research Policy, Vol. 48, Issue 9. 10.1016/j.respol.2019.04.014.

[12] Shah, J., Snider, B., Clarke, T., Kozutsky, S. Lacki, M., Hosseini, A. (2019). Large-scale 3D printers for additive manufacturing: design considerations and challenges. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 104(2):1-15. 10.1007/s00170-019-04074-6

[13] Sireesha, M., Lee, J., Kiran, S.K., Babu, V.J., Bernard, B.T., Ramakrishna, S. (2018). A review on additive manufacturing and its way into the oil and gas industry. Royal society of chemistry, 8(40):22460-22468. 10.1039/c8ra03194k

[14] Wittfoth, S. (2019). Measuring technological patent scope by semantic analysis of patent claims – An indicator for valuating patents. World Patent Information, Volume 58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2019.101906

II. Magazine

[1] 張敏雄（2014年5月）。積層製造產品之機械強度及檢測標準簡介。機械工業雜誌，374，11-12。

III. Book

[1] Gibson, I., Rosen, D., Stucker, B. & Khorasani M. (2020). Binder Jetting. Additive Manufacturing Technologies (pp. 237-252). Springer New York.