參考文獻、書目及網站
一、中文部分
1.專利審查基準,經濟部智慧財產局編印,民國89年1月。
2.蔡文城,微生物學,第三版,藝軒圖書出版社,民國85年2月。
3.謝銘洋,智慧財產權之基礎理論,自行出版,民國84年7月。
4.謝銘洋,智慧財產權之制度與實務,自行出版,民國84年5月。
5.謝銘洋等,專利法解讀,月旦出版社,民國83年2月。
6.黃文儀,申請專利範圍的解釋與專利侵害判斷,自行出版,民國83年2月。
7.陳逸南,化學品、醫藥品及生物技術之保護,自行出版,79年12月。
8.孫克勤譯, F. H. Portugal & J. S. Cohen 原著, DNA 世紀之回顧─遺傳物質構造及機能的研究發展史,再版,民國78年12月。
9.如何閱讀英文專利文件,文橋出版社,民國77年10月。
10.曾陳明汝,專利商標法選論,增訂三版,台大法學叢書,民國77年9月。
11.王凱玲,生物技術發明之專利保護,臺灣大學碩士論文,民國88年。12.許瑞青,生物技術專利與侵害分析,東吳大學碩士論文,民國87年。13.林倩如,重組 DNA 技術及其產物可專利性之研究,東吳大學碩士論文,民國84年。14.黃文甫,專利技術與權利範圍分析,交通大學碩士論文,民國83年。15.翁金緞,發明專利權保護範圍之研究,臺灣大學碩士論文,民國80年。16.高富月,發明專利之首要要件-新穎性之研究,東吳大學碩士論文,民國78年。17.蔡婉裕,中美發明專利要件之研究,臺灣大學碩士論文,民國76年。18.朱莉亞,專利權之侵害與救濟之研究,文化大學碩士論文,民國75年。19.邵良正,專利權之保護,臺灣大學碩士論文,民國72年。20.曾陳明汝,「美國專利制度十餘年來之變革」,法令月刊,第43卷第7期,民國81年7月。21.朱興華,「微生物技術專利之介紹」,工業財產權與標準,第47期,民國86年2月。22.傅顯達,「生物技術與專利制度」,科學發展月刊,第19卷第7期,民國80年7月。23.宿文堂,「生物科技與專利法制:從 DNA 序列發明看專利權的實用性要件」,東吳法律學報,第11卷第1期,民國87年1月。24.袁國芳,「基因專利之探討」,食品工業月刊,第30卷第11期,民國87年11月。25.袁國芳,「生物科技專利」,食品工業月刊,第28卷第1期,民國85年1月。26.周玉山,「淺談人類基因體計畫 (Human Genome Project) 」 ,國家衛生研究院簡訊,第2卷第1期,民國86年1月。27.李幸懋,「生物技術相關專利實務 (1) , DNA 片段 (ESTs) 專利實務與範例分析」,智慧財產權,第14期,民國89年2月。28.董安丹,「美國專利法上之非顯著性:法律上之判斷標準(下)」,智慧財產權,第12期,民國88年12月。29.董安丹,「美國專利法上之非顯著性:法律上之判斷標準(中)」,智慧財產權,第11期,民國88年11月。30.董安丹,「美國專利法上之非顯著性:法律上之判斷標準(上)」,智慧財產權,第10期,民國88年10月。31.董安丹,「美國專利法上之非顯著性:歷史發展及 GRAHAM 原則(下)」,智慧財產權,第9期,民國88年9月。32.董安丹,「美國專利法上之非顯著性:歷史發展及 GRAHAM 原則(中)」,智慧財產權,第8期,民國88年8月。33.董安丹,「美國專利法上之非顯著性:歷史發展及 GRAHAM 原則(上)」,智慧財產權,第7期,民國88年7月。34.陳文吟,「從美國 NIH 申請人體基因組序列專利探討我國專利制度對生物科技發展的因應之道」,國立中正大學法學集刊,第1期,民國87年7月。35.羅麗珠,「生物技術之專利保護」,智慧財產權管理,第17期,民國87年4月。36.羅麗珠,「生技發展對智慧財產權的挑戰」,中央研究院計算中心通訊,第14卷第3期,民國87年2月。37.羅麗珠,「生物技術相關專利要件之探討」,工業財產權與標準,第26期,民國84年5月。38.羅麗珠,「專利法對新科技之保護:生物與醫藥領域」,生物產業,第5卷第1/2期,民國83年6月。39.羅炳榮,「均等論與禁反言」,智慧財產,第37期,民國90年4月。40.羅炳榮,「非顯著性認定程序-歐洲實務」,智慧財產權,第24期,民國89年12月。
41.羅炳榮,「歐洲專利局」,智慧財產權,第1期,民國88年1月。42.羅炳榮,「申請專利範圍之解讀-美國案例」,工業財產權與標準,第68期,民國87年11月。43.羅炳榮,「非顯著性之認定-美國案例」,工業財產權與標準,第67期,民國87年10月。44.羅炳榮,「美國專利法之『實用性』」,工業財產權與標準,第36期,民國85年3月。45.閻啟泰,「生物發明專利」,生物醫學報導,第6期,民國90年3月。46.洪瑞章,「由美國 Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Ltd. 案來觀察『均等論』之最新演變」,智慧財產權,第36期,民國90年1月。47.劉銀良、李樺佩,「由美國及國際法之觀點談生物技術發明的可專利性及其道德限制」,東吳法律學報,第12卷第2期,民國89年12月。48.劉江彬、孫遠釗、耿筠,「美國法院對生物科技發展之專利醫療用產品之非顯著性的見解」,智慧財產權,第23期,民國89年11月。49.鍾順昌、廖啟成、陳玉芬,「美國專利早期公開制度對生物科技專利的影響」,智慧財產權,第24期,民國89年12月。50.林維新,「近來生物科技對美國智慧財產權之衝擊」,工業財產權與標準,第55期,民國86年10月。51.林維新,「對專利特許實施之探討」,工業財產權與標準,第23期,民國84年2月。52.王奕潔,「創造無限可能的生命驚奇-生物技術產業」,台灣經濟研究月刊,第22卷第11期,民國86年11月。
二、英文部分
1.Cooper, I. P. Biotechnology and the Law, 2000 Revision, West Group.
2.Chisum, D. S. Patents, 1999 Revision, Matthew Bender & Company Inc., NY.
3.Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), 7th edition (1998).
4.Eisenberg, R. Patents: help or hindrance to technology transfer, in Biotechnology: science, engineering, and ethical challenges for the twenty-first century, Rudolph F. B. & McIntire L. V. eds. (1996).
5.Black, H. C. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, West Publishing Co. (1994).
6.Chisum, D. & Jacobs, M. A. World intellectual property guidebook-United States, Matthew Bender, NY (1992).
7.Watson, J. D., Gilman, M. & Witkowski, J. Recombinant DNA, 2nd edition, New York, W.H. Freeman Co. (1992).
8.Wegner, H. C. Patent law in biotechnology, chemicals & pharmaceuticals (1992).
9.Bochnovic, J. The inventive step: its evolution in Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States, Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Patent, Copyright, and Competition Law, Munich (1982).
10.Chisum, D. S. Intellectual Property: Copyright, Patent and Trademark, Matthew Bender, New York (1980).
11.Rosenberg, P. D. Patent law fundamentals, 2nd edition, Clark Boardman Company, Ltd. New York, New York (1980).
12.Kapp, C. New UN agency examines patent protection for traditional knowledge. Lancet 357: 1510 (2001).
13.Bonetta, L. Raising the bar for gene patents. Current Biology 11(4): R115 (2001).
14.Steele, F. R. Specific, substantial, and credible. Molecular Therapy: the Journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy 3(2): 127 (2001).
15.Gogoris, A. C. Patent due diligence in biotechnology transactions. Nature Biotechnology 19(3): 279 (2001).
16.Bobrow, M. & Thomas, S. Patents in a genetic age. Nature 409: 763 (2001).
17.Malakoff, D. Will a smaller genome complicate the patent chase? Science 291: 1194 (2001).
18.Dahl, R. Pending solution: the question of who owns DNA. Environmental Health Perspectives 109(1): A30 (2001).
19.Spier, R. Genes in court. Science & Engineering Ethics 7(1): 3 (2001).
20.Nicholls, T. Changing patent laws could be a healthy move to combat resistance. Nature 409: 558 (2001).
21.Lui, J. Patenting biotechnology in China. Nature Biotechnology 19(1): 83 (2001).
22.Falciola, L. Rewarding true innovation. Experimental use exemption and the trends in gene patenting. EMBO Reports 1(3): 200 (2000).
23.Grisham J. New rules for gene patents. Nature Biotechnology 18(9): 921 (2000).
24.Bassett, R. Should I patent my inventions in Europe? Tissue Engineering 6(5): 577 (2000).
25.Becker, K. B. Are natural gene sequences patentable? International Archives of Occupational & Environmental Health 73 Suppl: S19 (2000).
26.Sampson, M. J. Are human genes patentable? Hastings Center Report 30(4): 4 (2000).
27.Beyleveld, D. Regulating morality through patent law. Critique of the EC Directive. Law & the Human Genome Review 12: 141 (2000).
28.Cornish, K. V. European patent oppositions and biotechnology. Nature Biotechnology 18(8): 899 (2000).
29.Crespi, R. S. Patents on genes: clarifying the issues. Nature Biology 18(6): 683 (2000).
30.Pabst, P. L. Current issues in US Patent Law. Tissue Engineering 6(4): 461 (2000).
31.Garber, K. Homestead 2000: the Genome. SIGNALS (2000).
32.Steinberg D. PTO explains proposed guidelines. The Scientist 14[6]: 13 (2000).
33.Steinberg D. Biotech faces evolving patent system. The Scientist 14[5]:8 (2000).
34.Barton, J. H. Rational limits on genomic patents. Nature Biotechnology 18(8): 805 (2000).
35.Robertson D. First round to Amgen in EPO battle. Nature Biotechnology 18(5): 483 (2000).
36.Harris, R. F. Patenting genes: is it necessary and is it evil? Current Biology 10(5): R174 (2000).
37.Bunk, S. Researchers feel threatened by disease gene patents. The Scientist 13[20]:7 (1999).
38.Doll, J. J. The Patenting of DNA. Science 280: 689 (1998).
39.Hoffert, S. P. USPTO issues biotech patent guidelines. The Scientist 12[14]: 1 (1998).
40.Auth, D.R. Are ESTs patentable? Nature Biotechnology 15:911 (1997).
41.Barry, L. L. Teaching a way is not teaching away. J. Pat. Off. Soc’y 79:867 (1997).
42.Marshall, A. Genomics companies welcome USPTO initiative on DNA patents. Nature Biotechnology 15:121 (1997).
43.Oake, R. G. The calculus of comparison: obviousness and equivalency principles in patent law (1997).
44.Duft, B. J. & Mirabel E. P. Principles of inherency. J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y 77 :548 (1995).
45.Coolly, R. B. The status of obviousness and how to assert it as a defense. J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y 76:629 (1994).
46.Adamo, K. R. The power of suggestion (teaching, reason or motivation) and combined-reference obviousness. J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y 76:183 (1994).
47.Docherty, P. The human genome: a patenting dilemma. Akron Law Review 26:525 (1993).
48.Charles, D. First round lost in battle to patent genes; National Institute of Health’s application for gene patents. New Scientist 136:7 (1992).
49.Roberts, L. NIH gene patents, round two. Science 255:912 (1992).
50.Konkol C. P. A critique of the concept of relative significance in determination obviousness. IDEA: The Journal of Law and Technology 31:228 (1991).
51.Harris, R. W. Critique of the Federal Circuit’s suggestion test for obviousness. J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y 72:991 (1990).
52.Harris, R. W. The emerging primacy of secondary considerations as validity ammunition: has the Federal Circuit gone too far? JSOP 79 :185 (1989).
53.Harris, R. W. Apparent Federal Circuit standards for weighing nonobviousness argument that prior art reference teaches away from present invention. J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y 70:79 (1988).
54.Walker, E. P. Objective evidence of nonobviousness: the elusive nexus requirement (Part 1). J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y 69:175 (1987).
55.Tresansky, J. O. The role of the “subject matter as a whole” in obviousness determination. J. Pat. Off. Soc’y 66:348 (1984).
56.Lake, K. J. Synergism and nonobviousness: the rhetorical Rubik’s cube of patentability. Boston College Law Review 24:723 (1983).
57.Blodgett, G. A. Relative significance-a concept in chemical structure obviousness cases. J. Pat. Off. Soc’y 63:70 (1981).
58.Crossan, J. R. Patent law: synergism rejected. Chicago-Kent Law Review 56:346 (1980).
59.Note, Patentability of mechanical combinations: a definition of synergism. Texas Law Review 57:1043 (1979).
60.Notices. Federal Register 66:4 (2001).
61.United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent pools: a solution to the problem of access in biotechnology patents?, December 5, 2000.
62.Statement of Dickinson Q. T., Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property & Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office before the Subcommittee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, July 13, 2000.
63.NIH News, Feb. 11, 1994.
64.Waldholz, M. NIH gives up effort to patent piece of genes, Wall St. J., Feb. 11, 1994.
65.“Overview of legal precedent governing the utility requirement,” prepared by the PTO to support the proposed Guidelines II.B.3.
66.http://www.european-patent-office.org/tws/gen-1.htm, visited July 19, 2000.
67.http://www.uspto.gov/web/tws/sr-3-b3b-ad.htm, visited July 12, 2001.
68.http://www2.uspto.gov/web/tws/sr-3-b3b_bio_search.htm, visited May 16, 2001.
69.http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/archive/archives.html, visited May 10, 2001.
70.http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/project/feb_pr/summary_of_sequence.html, visited April 9, 2001.
71.http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/utility/utilityguide.pdf, visited April 7, 2001.
72.http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/elsi/patents.html, visited April 2, 2001.