隨著科技的日新月異，智慧財產的概念更加受到重視，人們在研發創新技術時，也會注意如何透過申請專利保障自己的技術、產品與設計，而各國也針對專利的申請訂定法規以保障專利權人。本研究結合機械中的機構領域及法律中的專利領域，建立一套專利有效性創新鑑定方法，經由結合專利的基本概念和機械領域中的機構原理，討論如何讓專利審查人員與智財法官能套用機構原理至判決的角度上，以清楚地分析與解釋機構專利中的獨立項要件。此針對機構相關專利建立的專利有效性創新鑑定方法，以圖表與機構構造矩陣來表示機構的技術手段，結合專利三性的概念，判斷系爭專利是否滿足進步性、新穎性與產業利用性，即是否滿足專利有效性。專利有效性創新鑑定方法可用於兩種情形，分別為：(一)針對一件與機構相關之專利申請案，能決定可否進行專利的申請；(二)針對一件與機構相關之專利侵權訴訟案，被告提出之專利無效反訴是否成立之判斷。
期望透過此方法，能客觀分析評估機構專利是否具備專利要件且滿足專利有效性，具備法律效力的申請專利範圍又該如何解析等種種議題。

With the rapid development of innovative technologies, the concept of intellectual property has become a major concern. While researching and developing new technologies, the protection of new products and designs by applying for patents has been considered by inventors and companies. Countries have also formulated laws and regulations for patent applications to protect patentees.
The purpose of the work is to bridge the different domains between the mechanisms and the patents. By combining the basic concept of mechanisms and patents to establish a patent validity innovation identification method based on the structure of mechanisms. It discusses how to put the perspective of mechanism principles in mechanical engineering on patent examiners and patent trial judges, and it provides a clear analysis and interpretation of the independent claims of the mechanism patents. Such a method for mechanism-related patents uses the charts and the matrices of mechanism structure to represent the mechanism technical means. Through this method, we can objectively analyze and evaluate whether the application of mechanism patents corresponds with the patentability, such as industry, novelty, and non-obviousness, then be able to apply for patents. Such a patent validity innovative verification can be used in two situations, namely: (1) for a mechanism-related patent application, it can decide the feasibility to apply for a patent; (2) For a mechanism-related patent infringement litigation, it can judge whether the defendant’s cross-complaint of plaintiff’s patent invalidity can be established.

[1] 周延鵬，一堂課2000億：智慧財產的戰略及戰術，工商財經數位，臺北市，2006。
[2] G.N. Mandel, Patently non-obvious: Empirical demonstration that the hindsight bias renders patent decisions irrational. Ohio St. LJ, 67, 1391, 1393-1445, 2006.
[3] 陳瑞田，創新性之專利迴避設計，經濟部智慧財產局，臺北市，2015。
[4] 惲軼群，專利說明書撰寫及研讀，經濟部智慧財產局，臺北市，2015。
[5] 蔡承勳，一種機構專利迴避設計方法之改良，碩士論文，國立成功大學機械工程學系，臺南市，2014。
[6] 蔡承勳，顏鴻森，一種機構專利迴避設計方法之改良，中國機械工程學會第35屆學術研討會，國立中正大學，嘉義市，論文編號：0191，2018。
[7] 吳慶隆，機構專利創新性迴避設計方法之建構，博士論文，國立中央大學機械工程學系，中壢市，2007。
[8] 林彥芬，從美國法院判決探討專利審查基準之進步性要件，碩士論文，國立臺灣科技大學專利所，臺北市，2018。
[9] 郭柏辰，從美國CAFC法院之專利判決解析專利撰寫品質之重要性，碩士論文，國立臺灣科技大學專利所，臺北市，2015。
[10] 廖和信，專利就是科技競爭力，遠見天下文化出版有限公司，臺北市，2014。
[11] 劉國讚，專利法之理論與實用，元照出版有限公司，臺北市，2014。
[12] 顏吉承，專利說明書撰寫實務，五南圖書出版股份有限公司，臺北市，2014。
[13] 朱新瑞，專利導論、知識經濟與智慧財產權管理講義，臺北市，2018。
[14] 朱新瑞，專利分析與研發布局、專利地圖概論講義，臺北市，2018。
[15] 楊傳鏈，衍生發明與迴避設計講義，臺北市，2018。
[16] 陳省三，可專利檢索(中國大陸、美國、歐洲、日本)講義，臺北市，2018。
[17] 劉尚志、陳在方，臺灣科技產業美國專利訴訟30年之回顧，元照出版公司，臺北市，2019。
[18] 蔡茜堉，專利進階檢索策略技巧講義，臺北市，2018。
[19] 顏吉承，新型專利形式審查基準及技術報告，經濟部智慧財產局，臺北市，2015。
[20] 張仁平，發明專利實體審查基準，經濟部智慧財產局，臺北市，2015。
[21] 陳啟桐，發明專利申請及說明書撰寫實務，經濟部智慧財產局，臺北市，2015。
[22] 耿筠，專利加值運用與策略，經濟部智慧財產局，臺北市，2015。
[23] H.S. Yan, Creative Design of Mechanical Devices, Springer-Verlag, Singapore, 1998.
[24] C.A. Nard, The Law of Patents, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, New York, 2013.
[25] 中華民國專利法，2013。
[26] 中華民國經濟部，專利法施行細則，2010年11月16日經濟部經智字第0990460762號令修正發布。
[27] 趙鴻儒，專利相關法規、專利說明取文獻研讀與解析講義，臺北市，2018。
[28] U.S Patent Law, http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consoledat-ed_rules, 2015.
[29] 專利審查基準，中華民國經濟部智慧財產局，臺北市，2013。
[30] 專利侵害鑑定要點，中華民國司法院，司法院秘書長2004年11月02日秘臺廳民一字第0930024793號函。
[31] European Patent Convention, http://www.epo.org/patents/law/legal-texts/html/epc/1973/e/ma1.html.
[32] E.W. Kitch, Graham v. John Deere Co.: New Standards for Patents. The Supreme Court Review, 293-346, 1966.
[33] D.O. Taylor, Formalism and Antiformalism in Patent Law Adjudication: Rules and Standards. Conn. L. Rev., 46, 415, 2013.
[34] G.S. Lunney Jr, C.T. Johnson, Not so obvious after all: Patent law's nonobviousness requirement, KSR, and the fear of hindsight bias. Ga. L. Rev., 47, 41, 2012.
[35] Malta v. Schlumerich Carillons Inc., 21 USPQ2d 1161(Federal Circuit 1991).
[36] Graver Tank and Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 US605, 85 USPQ 328, 1950.
[37] 吳友績，新型八連桿越野摩托車後懸吊機構之設計，碩士論文，國立成功大學機械工程學系，臺南市，2010。
[38] H.T. Ngo, H.S. Yan,“A systematic design approach for motorcross rear suspension with 8-bar linkage mechanisms,”the 27th National Conference on Mechanical Engineering, the Chinese Society of Mechanical Engineers, Taipei, Taiwan, Paper No. CC09-008, 2010.
[39] O. Kreuz, Mechanism for the Spring-Cushioning of A Vehicle Wheel, Patent US 4,529,056, publication date: June 16, 1985.
[40] G.M. Parigian, Rear Suspension System for Two-Wheeled Vehicles, Patent US 6,598,893 B2, publication date: July 29, 2003.
[41] G.M. Parigian, Rear Suspension System for Two-Wheeled Vehicles, Patent US 6,527,289 B2, publication date: March 4, 2003.
[42] G.M. Parigian, Multi-linking, Rear Suspension System for Two-wheeled Motor Vehicles, Patent US 7,086,658 B2, publication date: August 8, 2006.
[43] W.T. Graham, Vibrating Plow and Mounting Therefor, Patent US 2,493,811, publication date: January 10, 1953.
[44] W.T. Graham, Clamp for vibrating shank plows, Patent US 2,627,798, publication date: February 10, 1953.
[45] Y. Asano, Y. Kataumi, Position adjustable pedal assembly, Patent US 5,010,782, publication date: April 30, 1991.
[46] R.A. Smith, J.M. Pace, Accelerator pedal assembly, Patent US 5,063,811, publication date: November 12, 1991.
[47] H.L. Redding, C. Bortolon, Adjustable control pedal apparatus, Patent US 5,460,061, publication date: October 24, 1995.
[48] C.J. Rixon, C. Bortolon, Electronic adjustable pedal assembly, Patent US 5,819,593, publication date: October 13, 1998.
[49] S.J. Engelgau, Adjustable pedal assembly with electronic throttle control, Patent US 6,237,565 B1, publication date: May 29 2001.