界定專利權的發明人（本研究中特指美國生技專利）有許多因素需要考量，除了發明人對於發明是否有實質貢獻外，是否為出資聘關係也是考量因素； 2012 年美國專利制度由先發明轉換到先申請，這樣轉變也造成判斷上有所更動，特別是專利權有所重疊時，判斷專利所屬權人的方式也從原先 的抵觸審查程序（ Interference proceeding 轉變成派生程序（ Derivation procedding ）。在抵觸審查程序 中需要考量專利三要件；而在派生程序中，除了考量專利三要件，仍須 考量發明概念是否源自於他人構想。雖說美國現已是先申請制度，但仍有許多正在上訴的案件發生時間為先發明時期，其判斷專利三要件的標準仍適用於先申請時期，同時派生案件的判斷標準同樣在先申請不變。
Westlaw是本研究主要的判決搜尋資料庫，藉由引證與相關性將前述的相關判決縮減至最具代表性的九項判決。本研究旨在找出過去判決中與「生物學中非顯而易見性」、「派生發明」有關的法律見解，並嘗試藉由整理其法官意見分析其判決上的差異及統整並提出建議。
經整理相關判決與法規，本研究得到三個主要的結果：
(1)在生物學上非顯而易見性的判斷標準；
(2)派生發明的判斷標準。
(3)未來在生物學中的非顯而易見判斷標準是否會有所轉變。
而這三個主要結果則會是決定 專利所屬權人的判斷要素。

Defining the inventor of the patent (a U.S. bio patent to be specific in the thesis) has to consider many factors, in addition to considering the contribution of the inventor for the invent, the employment relationship is also an important factor. In 2012, the America patent system switched the first-to-invent system to the first-to-file system, this change has also caused a change in judgment, especially in the patent owner of determination, Derivation proceedings are replacing Interference proceedings in the patent statutes.
In Interference proceedings, it is necessary to consider the three factors(industrial applicable/novelty/non-obvious); in Derivation proceedings, in addition to considering the three factors, it is still necessary to consider whether the concept of invention originates from the concept of others. Although the United States is now the first-to-file system, there are still many cases being appealed. The occurrence time is the first invention period, and the criteria for judging the three requirements of the patent still apply to the first application period, and the judgment standard of the derivative case is also the same as the previous application.
We use Westlaw as the main research database, and narrow down the pool with citations and relevancy to nine of the most representative cases. We analyzed the cases and organized the opinions and discussion of the judges. The purpose of this study is to find out the legal opinions related to "non-obviousness in biology" and "derived inventions" in past judgments and try to analyze the differences and consolidate the judgments and make recommendations by arranging their judges' opinions.
We have organized the cases as well as the references and concluded as follow:
1.The criteria about non-obvious for biological patent ;
2.The criteria for deriving inventions; and
3. whether the non-obvious criteria in biology will change in future.
And, the three main outcomes will be the elements of judgment that determine the ownership of the patent.

參考文獻
中文
期刊文章
董安丹(2002)，美國專利法上非顯著性之判斷（上）化學發明非顯著性之研究，智慧財產月刊，第39期，頁36-72。
董安丹(2002)，美國專利法上非顯著性之判斷（下） 化學發明非顯著性之研究，智慧財產月刊，第40期，頁33-54。

網路資料
吳育弘，不要輕忽皮膚上的腫塊 - 認識皮膚癌，馬偕紀念醫院皮膚科網站:
http://www.mmh.org.tw/taitam/derma/academic/article/untitled-2.html (最後瀏覽日期：2019/02/18 )。
血友病防治及研究中心:
http://www5.ndmctsgh.edu.tw/hemophilia_center/columninfo.asp?tid=2(最後瀏覽日期：2019/02/18 )。
國家教育研究院，螯合劑:
http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1320708/(最後瀏覽日期：2019/07/11 )。

英文
期刊文章
Jacob S. Sherkow, Inventive Steps: The CRISPR Patent Dispute and Scientific Progress, EMBO Reports, Vol. 18, pp. 1047-1050 (2017).

Josh Lerner, Andrew Speen, and Ann Leamon, The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act: A Preliminary Examination of Its Impact on Small Businesses, Small Business Research Summary, No. 429 (June 2015).

John C. Chapin , Katherine A. Hajjar,Fibrinolysis and the control of blood coagulation,Blood Rev.,29(1): 17–24, (Jan 2015).

Dana Carroll, A CRISPR Approach to Gene Targeting, Mol Ther. 1658-60, (Sep 2012).

Aghababian, Richard V. , Essentials of emergency medicine. Jones & Bartlett Publishers. 22 October 2010: 814. ISBN 978-1-4496-1846-9.(Oct 2010).

Mangus, Brent C.; Miller, Michael G., Pharmacology application in athletic training. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: F.A. Davis. (2005).

Sunita Tripathy, Interference proceedings and innovation goals of the CRISPR-Cas9 patent,  Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Volume 14, Issue 1,, Pages 25–32,( Jan 2019)

專書
Robert A. Matthews, Jr., Derivation proven by two-part test, in ANNOTATED PATENT DIGEST

Burk, Dan L. and Lemley, Mark A., Biotechnology's Uncertainty Principle (2004). Case Western Reserve Law Review, Vol. 54, p. 691, 2004 .

網路資料
Dennis Crouch, Patent Board Codifies Two-Way Test for Interference, Streamlines Process, PATENTLYO:
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2005/01/in_september_20.html (last visited July 11, 2019)

Legal Information Institute, Cornell law school :
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/part-41/subpart-E(last visited July 11, 2019)

SMITH&HOPEN- U.S.REGISTERED PATENT ATTORNEYS, Reduction to practice:
https://www.smithhopen.com/glossary_term/38/Reduction-to-practice(last visited July 11, 2019)

USPTO:
https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/leahy-smith-america-invents-act-implementation(last visited Sep 24, 2018).

Emily Mullin, CRISPR 2.0 Is Here, and It’s Way More Precise, MIT Technology Review:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609203/crispr-20-is-here-and-its-way-more-
precise/ (last visited March 20, 2019)