臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

專利引文分析是以專利間引用關係做為分析的基礎，如：專利品質衡量、知識流及知識外溢、技術發展及產業趨勢分析等。發明人於研發專利期間做先前技藝搜尋，將相關的先前研究技術記載為引用資料，然而，專利引用延遲時間會造成高度相關的專利資訊無法被註記為引用資料。本篇論文旨在於利用書目耦合關係(BC, bibliographical coupling)及柏拉圖原則(Pareto principle)找出相關而未被引用專利，部分遺漏的專利引用關係可以透過加入相關而未被引用專利補足，在考慮這些相關而未被引用專利後，便能建構一個進階專利引用網路。本論文中，專利引用網路及進階專利引用網路以兩層面作為研究討論基礎，即專利層面以及專利權人層面。在建構進階專利引用網路後，利用費里曼點中間中心度(Freeman vertex betweenness centrality)及強森的層級叢集分析(Johnson’s hierarchical clustering)探討兩網路的變化及差異。本論文以有機發光二極體照明技術(lighting emitting diode illuminating technology)作為衡量研究方法可行性的研究個案，研究結果顯示，確實能夠經由加入相關而未被引用專利呈現一個更廣泛的專利關係。

The patent citation analyses rely on the citations between patents, including quality of patents, knowledge flow and spillover, technology development and industrial trend. The inventors record relevant information as prior art but not all the relevant prior studies would be cited as references. Some highly relevant patents may be unused for the citation time lag (CTL). This paper used the bibliographical coupling (BC) and Pareto principle to identify the unused relevant patents (URP). Some of the missing citation links can then be made up by adding the URP and an enhanced patent citation network (EPCN) can be constructed by taking the URP into account. The patent citation network (PCN) and EPCN were discussed at patent and assignee level in this paper. The differences between the two networks were studied through the Freeman vertex betweenness centrality and the Johnson’s hierarchical clustering. The light emitting diode (LED) illuminating technology was chosen for case study in this paper in order to demonstrate the feasibility of the research methodology. As shown in this work, the relationship between patents can be enhanced by adding the URP.

誌謝 i
中文摘要 ii
Abstract iii
List of Figures vi
List of Tables vii
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Research Background 1
1.2 Research Motivation and Objectives 3
Chapter 2 Patent Citation Network 6
2.1 Patent Citation Network at Patent Level 6
2.2 Patent Citation Network at Assignee Level 8
Chapter 3 Identifying Unused Relevant Patents 14
3.1 Citation Time Lag 14
3.2 Long Tail Distribution and Pareto Principle between BC Pairs 16
3.3 Threshold of BC Strength 19
3.4 BC Network of Unused Relevant Patents at Patent Level 21
3.5 BC Network of Unused Relevant Patents at Assignee Level 22
Chapter 4 Enhanced Patent Citation Network 25
4.1 Enhanced Patent Citation Network at Patent Level 25
4.2 Enhanced Patent Citation Network at Assignee Level 28
4.3 Freeman Vertex Betweenness Centrality and Johnson’s Hierarchical Clustering of Major Assignees 38
4.3.1 Freeman Vertex Betweenness Centrality of Major Assignees 38
4.3.2 Johnson’s Hierarchical Clustering of Major Assignees 41
Chapter 5 Conclusions and Future Work 45
5.1 Conclusions 45
5.2 Future Work 47
References 48
Appendix 50
A1. Authority Control of Assignee Name 50

Atallah G. and Rodriguez G., 2006, “Indirect patent citations,” Scientometrics, 67(3): 437-465.
Borgatti S.P., Everett M.G. and Freeman L.C., 2002, “UCINET 6 for Windows,” Harvard: Analytic Technologies.
Case D.O. and Higgins G.M., 2000, “How can we investigate citation behavior? A study of reasons for citing literature in communication,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(7): 635-645.
Cleverdon C.W., 1967, “The Cranfield tests on index language devices,” Aslib Proceedings, 19(6): 173-194.
Freeman L.C., 1977, “A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness,” Sociometry, 40(1): 35-41.
Harter S.P., 1971, “The Cranfield II relevance assessments: A critical evaluation,” The Library Quarterly, 41(3): 229-243.
Hu A. G. Z. and Jaffe A. B., 2003, “Patent citations and international knowledge flow: The cases of Korea and Taiwan,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(6): 849-880.
Jaffe A. B., Trajtenberg M. and Fogarty M. S., 2000, “Knowledge spillovers and patent citations: Evidence from a survey of inventors,” American Economic Review, 90(2): 215-218.
Johnson S.C., 1967, “Hierarchical clustering schemes,” Psychometrika, 32(3): 241-254.
Juran J. M., 1999, “Juran''s quality handbook,” New York McGraw Hill.
Kessler M.M., 1963, “Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers,” American Documentation, 14(1): 10-25.
Lanjouw J. O., Schankerman M. A. and Street H., 2004, “Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators,” Economic Journal, 114(495): 441-465.
Li X., Chen H., Huang Z. and Roco M. C., 2007, “Patent citation network in nanotechnology (1976–2004),” Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 9(3): 337-352.
Meyer M., 2000, “What is Special about Patent Citations? Differences between Scientific and Patent Citations,” Scientometrics, 49(1): 93-123.
Morris S.A., Yen G.G., Wu Z. and Asnake B., 2003, “Time line visualization of research fronts,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(5): 413-422.
Persky J., 1992, “Retrospectives: Pareto''s Law,” the Journal of Economic Perspectives, 6(2): 181-192.
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.
Swanson D.R., 1971, “Some unexplained aspects of the Cranfield tests of indexing performance factors,” The Library Quarterly, 41(3): 223-228.
Trajtenberg M., 1990, “A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations,” The Rand Journal of Economics, 21(1): 172-187.
Van den Besselaar P. and Heimeriks G., 2006, “Mapping research topics using word-reference co-occurrences: A method and an exploratory case study,” Scientometrics, 68(3): 377-393.
Verspagen B., 2007, “Mapping Technological Trajectories as Patent Citation Networks: A Study on the History of Fuel Cell Research,” Advances in Complex Systems, 10(1): 93-115.
Wartburg I.V., Teichert T. and Rost K., 2005, “Inventive progress measured by multi-stage patent citation analysis,” Research Policy, 34(10): 1591-1607.
Wilson P., 1995, “Unused relevant information in research and development,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(1): 45-51.