申請人對於一專利含有的技術種類與價值可能存有既定印象，例如技術越多元（含有越多不同種類的技術）的專利便越具價值。本研究回顧先前文獻時，發現過往研究也未否定技術越多元的專利便越具價值的說法，然而，技術多元性與價值的關係，將隨觀察角度、以及分析方法而有所差別，故本研究對於技術越多元的專利便越具價值的說法仍持保留態度。
本研究從另一角度觀察技術多元性與價值的關係，即分類號與核准率的關係。本研究所謂技術多元性，係指一申請案所含的分類號種類多寡。一申請案含有越多種類不同的四階分類號，則稱其技術越多元，反之則稱其技術越單純。本研究透過分析分類號的數據，先觀察是否有些技術較容易核准，再進一步觀察技術多元性與核准率的關係，以期提供讀者審視技術多元性與價值的另一觀點。
核准率雖然不直接等於價值，但也可能透露若干訊息，例如核准率偏低的技術，可能代表此技術容易有新穎性或進步性的缺陷，似乎在價值評鑑上，可以採取較負面的態度。不過，也可稱此技術因核准率偏低，故若能取得專利，反而表示其有特殊的新穎之處，所以在價值評鑑上，可以採取較正面的態度。
首先，本研究為使分析結果具代表性，故選擇美國專利商標局（United States Patent and Trademark Office，簡稱USPTO）提供的美國專利相關數據集作為數據來源。再來，由於審查者審查申請案時，將根據對技術的理解，賦予申請案相應的分類號，相較其他判斷技術的方法，分類號顯然客觀、有效許多。此外，由於考量合作專利分類（Cooperative Patent Classification，簡稱CPC分類）應是未來主流、以及分類號階層所反映的技術細緻程度，故本研究選擇CPC四階分類號來探討技術多元性與核准率的關係。
本研究發現，多數申請案的技術趨於單純（例如僅含一類四階分類號），且技術單純時的核准率大多高於目標分析集的總核准率72.45％（=目標分析集的申請案公告件數539,001件/目標分析集的總申請案件數743,996件）。然而，於技術最多元的情況下（所含的四階分類號種類全部相異），核准率反而低於目標分析集的總核准率72.45％。因此，本研究認為，相較技術多元的申請案，技術單純的申請案擁有較高的核准率，至於技術多元的申請案，核准率反而較低。然而，對於核准率於價值取向上的應用，本研究採取比較中立的態度，僅探究技術多元性與核准率的關係，相關解讀則留給讀者自行運用。

Applicants may have an established impression of the type and value of the technology contained in a single patent. For example, the more diversified the technology (the more different kinds of technology contained) is, the more valuable the patent is. When reviewing the previous literature, this study found that previous studies have not rejected the claim that patents with more diversified technology are more valuable. However, the relationship between technological diversity and value will vary according to the perspective of observation and analysis method. Therefore, this study still has reservations about the claim that the more diversified patents for technology, the more valuable it is.
This study observes the relationship between technical diversity and value from another perspective, that is, the relationship between classification symbols and grant rates. The so-called technological diversity of this study refers to the variety of classification symbols contained in a single application. The more different types of classification symbol a single application contains, the more diversified its technology is, and vice versa, the more simple its technology is. By analyzing the data of classification symbols, this study first observes whether some technology is easier to grant, and then observes the relationship between technical diversity and grant rate, in order to provide readers with another perspective on the diversity and value of technology.
Although the grant rate is not directly equal to the value, it may also reveal some information, such as the technology with a low grant rate, which may indicate that the technology is prone to defects in novelty or obviousness, and it seems that a more negative attitude can be adopted in the value evaluation. However, it can also be said that grant rate of the technology is low, so if it can obtain a patent, it means that it has some special novelty. Therefore, a more positive attitude can be adopted in the value evaluation.
First, in order to make the results of the analysis representative, this study selected the U.S. patent-related dataset provided by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as a data source. Second, since the examiner will give the application a classification symbol according to the understanding of the technology of the application when reviewing the application, compared with other methods of judging the technology, the classification symbol is obviously much more objective and effective. In addition, this study considers that the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC Classification) should be the mainstream of the future, and the technical detail reflected in the classification symbol class, so this study selects the CPC main group symbols to explore the relationship between technological diversity and grant rate.
This study found that the technology of most applications tends to be simple (for example, only a single class of main group symbols), and the grant rate of simple technology is mostly higher than the total grant rate of the target analysis set of 72.45% (= 539,001 granted application of the target analysis set / 743,996 applications of the target analysis set). However, in the case of the most diverse technologies (all types of main group symbols contained are different), the grant rate is lower than the total grant rate of the target analysis set, which is 72.45%. Therefore, this study believes that, compared with applications with diverse technologies, applications with simple technology have a higher grant rate, while applications with diverse technologies have a lower grant rate. However, for the application of grant rate to value orientation, this study adopts a more neutral attitude, only exploring the relationship between technical diversity and grant rate, and the relevant interpretation is left to the reader to use.

中文部份
朱新超、霍翠婷、刘会景（2013）。合作专利分类系统（CPC）与传统专利分类
系统的比较分析。数字图书馆论坛，第9期，頁38-44。
柯怡正、劉國讚（2013）。隱藏在專利件數背後的專利強度指標。專利師，第
13期，頁1-2。
郭東郁（2011）。半導體元件訴訟專利之專利評價的實證研究（未出版之碩士論
文）。國立交通大學，新竹市。
陳茵（2021）。美國專利審查情況與核准率關係之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。
國立台灣科技大學，臺北市。
張晉源（2019），美國專利並行IPC與CPC下的分類號差異研究（未出版之碩
士論文）。國立台灣科技大學，臺北市。
許耀華（2004）。專利分類系統及其應用。智慧財產權月刊，第68期，頁6-
11。
葉士緯、黃振榮（2017）。合作專利分類（CPC）實施現況之探討與應用。智慧財產權刊，第217期，頁6。
月刊，217，5-14。
楊采璇（2016）。專利分類號數量與被引用數量關聯性研究（未出版之碩士論
文）。國立台灣科技大學，臺北市。
鄭祥瑞（2014）。忽略專利公開案的引用對專利引用分析之影響研究（未出版之
碩士論文）。國立台灣科技大學，臺北市。
英文部份
Carley, M., Hedge, D., & Marco, A. (2015). What is the probability of receiving a US
patent. Yale JL & Tech., 17, 203.
Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2001). The NBER patent citation data file:
Lessons, insights and methodological tools. NBER Working Paper, 8498.
Kim, G., & Bae, J. (2017). A novel approach to forecast promising technology through
patent analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 117, 228-237.
Kim, D. J., & Kogut, B. (1966). Technological platforms and diversification.
Organization Science, 7(3), 283-301.
Lerner, J. (1991). The impact of patent scope: an empirical examination of new
biotechnology firms (Vol. 91, No. 4). Center for Science and International Affairs,
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
Lerner, J (1994). The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis. The Rand
Journel of Economics, 25(2), 319-333.
Leydesdorff, L., Kushnir, D., & Rafols, I. (2014). Interactive overlay maps for US
patent (USPTO) data based on International Patent Classification (IPC).
Scientometrics, 98(3), 1583-1599.
Marco, A. C., Sarnoff, J. D., & Charles, A. W. (2019). Patent claims and patent
scope. Research Policy, 48(9), 103790.
Shafique, M., & Hagedoorn, J. (2022). Look at U: Technological scope of the
acquirer, technological complementarity with the target, and post-acquisition
R&D output. Technovation, 102533.