臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

奈米科技可說是21世紀最具前瞻性的科技，在各個科學領域幾乎都有奈米的運用存在，包含了材料、電子、生醫等等。因此，奈米科技被視為一項增加國家競爭力和經濟的關鍵技術。一般來說，合作是兩個或兩個以上的合作夥伴(人或組織)互相交流以解決任務，不管是知識的交流或是資源的互補性等等。現今R&;D合作發生的次數越來越多，包含了組織的合作、產學合作，甚至是國際間的合作，以獲得最大的價值。基於上述，本研究主要的研究目的有三個: 1.利用專利分析，了解奈米科技專利的發展趨勢；2.運用專利引證網絡分析探討奈米技術的應用範圍；3.探討R&;D合作關係對於專利品質的影響。
本研究搜尋美國專利商標局(USPTO)資料庫，樣本觀測值為2477筆奈米技術的關鍵專利，然後建構專利引證矩陣，並以UCINET進行奈米技術專利引證網絡分析；最後針對各種專利合作的型態，透過Poisson迴歸分析進行實證研究。
研究結果發現，奈米科技從2001年開始有大量的產出，而到近幾年都有穩定的輸出；同時也發現奈米材料和奈米電子屬於現在發展較好的領域；最後在R&;D合作的種類中，包含明星所有權人、國際合作、重複合作關係，以及專利中央性對於專利品質都有顯著的正相關，整體來說合作的關係是提高專利品質的重要因素；但關係種類中的產學合作並沒有顯著的相關性，這主要可能的原因是因為奈米科技在產業界並沒有太普及和商業性，以至於產業界不敢冒太大的風險去研發；也或者是專利所有權歸屬的問題，但整體而言，R&;D合作的關係是促進奈米科技發展的重要因素之一。

Nanotechnology is one of the emerging and breakthrough technologies in the 21st century. Nanotechnologies are general purpose technologies and could be applied into several technological fields, like nanomaterials, nanoelectronic, bionanotechnology, and so on. In a general sense, the concept of R&;D collaboration describes various situations when two or more partners (people or organizations) interact with each other to solve tasks, no matter knowledge flow or resource complementarity. Based on the above, the purposes of the study are: (1) Using patent analysis to realize the orientation and the state of arts in terms of nanotechnology technological development. (2) To visualize the citation network of nanotechnology and to explore crucial network structure in nanotechnology R&;D collaboration. (3) To investigate the impact of collaboration and network characteristics on patent quality.
This paper mainly collected patent information in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) database. This study data consisted of 2477key patents in the nanotechnology and further constructed a patent citation matrix; secondly, UCINET software was used for nanotechnology network analysis. Finally, Poisson regression analysis are used to analyze what impact that the types of R&;D collaboration on patent quality.
The primary findings indicate that the number of issued patents grew sharply from 2002 and the patent distribution is at the stage of growth. Secondly, the major nanotechnology are nanoelectronic and nanomaterials. Finally, all indicators have positively impact on patent quality, include star assigner, global collaboration, repeated worker, and patent centrality. Expect university-industry collaboration, parts of reason is that industry does not understand the opportunities of nanotechnology or not want to take a risk due to the market uncertainties. Overall, The relationship of R&;D collaboration is an important factor to promote the development of nanotechnology.

Table of Contents
摘要 I
Abstract III
謝誌 V
Table of Contents VII
List of Figures IX
List of Tables XI
Chapter1 Introduction 1
1.1Research Background and Motivation 1
1.2 Research Objectives 5
1.3 Research Questions 6
1.4 Research Procedures 7
Chapter2 Literature Review 9
2.1 The Technological Change of nanotechnology 9
2.2 Conceptual framework for global R&;D collaboration 20
Chapter3 Methodology 33
3.1 Research Design 33
3.2 Research Model and Hypothesis Development 36
3.3 Definition of Variable 40
3.4 Patent Data Collection and Selection Procedure 43
Chapter4 Research Findings and Discussions 45
4.1 General Trend of Nanotechnology Patent 45
4.2 The Network Characteristics of Nanotechnology Patent 48
4.3 Hypothesis Test 52
Chapter5 Conclusions 55
5.1 Review of Research Findings 55
5.2 Limitation and Further Research 59
Reference 63


 
List of Figures
Figure 1.1.1 the global distribution of patents in nanotechnology 2
Figure 1.4.1 Overview of this Dissertation 8
Figure 2.1.1. General framework of nanoscience and technology evolution 12
Figure 2.1.2 Regional publication share in the domains 17
Figure 2.1.3 Organizational output share by domains 18
Figure 3.1.1 The Research Design of this Dissertation 33
Figure 3.2.1 Research framework 36
Figure 3.4.1 Nanotech roadmap 44
Figure 4.1.1 The general trend of nanotechnology patents 46
Figure 4.1.2 The collaborative activities of patent assigner 47
Figure 4.2.1 Patents network of nanotechnology 51
Figure 4.2.2 Major patents network of nanotechnology 51

List of Tables
Table 2.1.1 Some nanotechnology definitions 9
Table 2.1.2. Classification of nanotechnology research domains 14
Table 2.1.3. Classification of nanotechnology research domains 14
Table 2.1.4 EPO nanotechnology tagging codes in subclass Y01N 15
Table2.2.1 Research related to international collaboration 26
Table 3.3.1 Defintion of dependent, independent, and control variable 41
Table4.2.1 U.S patent coding 48
Table 4.3.1 Poisson regression on patent quality of nanotechnology 53
Table 5.1.1 Summaries of hypotheses 57

Reference
Adams, S. B. (2005). Stanford and Silicon Valley : lesson son becoming a high-tech region. California Management Review, 48, 29–51.
Agrawal, A. (2001). University-to-industry knowledge transfer: literature review and unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3, 285-302.
Allen, R. C. (1983). Collective invention. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 4, 1-24.
Anderson, P., &; Tushman, M. L. (1990). Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(4), 604-633.
Anderson, T. R., Daim, T. U., &; Lavoie, F. F. (2007). Measuring the efficiency of university technology transfer. Technovation, 27, 306–318.
APEC. (2002). Nanotechnology; the technology for the 21 St century, 2,194, NSTDA Bangkok.
Armstrong, J. Scott. (2012). Illusions in Regression Analysis. International Journal of Forecasting (forthcoming).
Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., &; Warning, S. (2005). University spill overs and new firms location. Research Policy, 34, 1113–1122.

Barre´, R. (1995). Relationship Between Multinational Firms’ Technology. Strategies and National Innovation Systems in OECD. Innovations, Patents and Technological Strategies. OECD Press, Paris.
Bercovitz, J., &; Feldman, M. P. (2006). Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: a conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-basedeco- nomic development. Jounal of Technology Transfer, 31, 175–188.
Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Feller. I., &; Burton, R. (2001). Organizational structure as a determinant of academic patent and licensing behavior: an exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania state Universities. Jounal of Technology Transfer, 26, 21–35.
Bjerregaard, T. (2010). Industry and academia in convergence: micro-institutional dimensions of R&;D collaboration. Technovation, 30, 100–108.
Boardman, P.C., &; Ponomariov, B.L. (2009). University researchers working with private compagnie. Technovation, 29, 142–153.
Bonaccorsi, A., &; Thoma, G. (2007). Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in nano science and technology. Research Policy, 36, 813–831.
Carlsson, B., Jacobsson, S., Holmen, M., &; Rickne, A. (2002). Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues. Research Policy, 31, 233–245.

Carlsson, Bo., &; Richard Stankiewicz. (1991). On the nature, function and composition of technological systems. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 1, 93-118.
Catherine Beaudrya., &; Andrea Schiffauerovac. (2011). Impacts of collaboration and network indicators on patent quality: The case of Canadian nanotechnology innovation. European Management Journal, 362–376.
Chang, Y. C. (2011). The study on the determination of nanofibers' technological evolution in Nano-convergence (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). National Changhua University of Education, Changhua.
Chesnais, F. (1992). National systems of innovation, foreign direct investment and the operation of multinational enterprises. In: Lundvall, B.A. (Ed.), National Systems of Innovation. Pinter, London, UK.
Chun-Chien Kuo., &; Chih-Hai Yang. (2008). Knowledge capital and spillover on regional economic growth: Evidence from China. China Economic Review, 594-604.
Cohen, W. M., &; Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.
Cowan, R., Jonard, N. &; Zimmermann, J. B. (2005). Bilateral collaboration and emergent networks. SSRN Working Papers.
D’Este, P., &; Patel, P. (2007). University–industry linkages in the UK : what are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36, 1295–1313.
Dunning, J. H. (1992). Multinational Enterprises and Global Economy. Addison Wesley, Workingham, MA.
Dunning, J. H. (1995). Reappraising the eclectic paradigm in an age of alliance capitalism. Journal of International Business Studies 26(3), 461–492.
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., &; Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future : evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29, 313–330.
Etzkowitza, H., &; Leydesdorff, L. (2000).The dynamics of innovation : from National Systems and‘‘Mode2’’toaTripleHelixofuniversity–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123.
Feneque, J. (2003). The future of nanopharmaceuticals in veterinary medicine, from http://www.nanotech-now.com/Jose-Feneque/Nanopharmaceuticals-and-Veterinary-Medicine.htm.
Fleming, L., King, C., III, &; Juda, A. (2007). Small worlds and regional innovation. Organization Science, 18, 938–954.\


Frank J. van Rijnsoever., Laurens K. Hessels., &; R. Rens L.J. Vandeberg. (2008). A resource-based view on the interactions of university researchers. Research Policy, 37, 1255–1266.
Freitas Jr RA. (2010). The Future of Nanomedicine. Futurist 44(1): 21-22.
Gaughan, M., &; Corley, E. A. (2010). Science faculty at US research universities : the impacts of university research center-affiliation and gender on industrial activities. Technovation, 30, 215–222.
Giovanni, A., Ciriaco, A. D., Flavia, D. C., &; Marco, S. (2009). The role of information asymmetry in the market for university–industry research collaboration. Journal of Technology Transfer 36, 84–100.
Giuliani, E., Morrison, A., Pietrobelli, C., &; Rabellotti, R. (2010). Who are the researchers that are collaborating with industry? An analysis of the wine sectors in Chile, SouthAfricaandItaly. Research Policy, 39, 748–761.
Gomes-Casseres, B., &; Soete, L. (1993). Computers: alliances and industry evolution. Yoffie, D.B. (Ed.), Beyond Free Trade: Firms, Government and Global Competition. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 79–128.
Guan, J. C., R. C. M. Yam., C. K. Mok., &; N. Ma. (2006). A study of the relationship between competitiveness and technological innovation capability based on DEA models. European Journal of Operational Research, 170, 971-986.

Guan, J., &; Chen, Z. (2012). Patent collaboration and international knowledge flow. Journal of Information Processing and Management 48, 170–181.
H. Etemad, L. (1987) Seguin-Dulude, Patenting patterns in 25 large multinational enterprises, Technovation 7, 1–15.
H. Lim, Y. Park. (2009). Identification of technological knowledge intermediaries. Scientometrics from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0133-8
Islam, N., &; Miyazaki, K., (2010) An Empirical Analysis of Nanotechnology Research Domains. Technovation, 30(4), 229-237.
Kobrin, S. J. (1995). Translational integration, national markets, and nation-states. In: Toyne, B., Nigh, D. (Eds.), International Business Inquiry: An emerging Vision. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC.
Kogut, B. (1989). The stability of joint ventures: Reciprocity and competitive rivalry. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 38, 183–198.
Kogut, B. (1991). Country capabilities and the permeability of borders. Strategic Management Journal 12, 33–47.
Lanjouw, J. O., Pakes, A., &; Putnam, J. (1998). How to count patents and value intellectual property. The uses of patent renewal and application data. Journal of Industrial Economics, 46, 405–432.

Lee Fleming., Charles King., &; Adam I. Juda. (2007). Small worlds and regional innovation. Organization Science, 18, 938–954.
Lee, S., &; B. Bozeman .(2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science 35(5): 673-702.
Lee, Saxenian. Anna. (1994). Regional advantage. Silicon Valley: Competition and community. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (1994).
Link, A. N., &; Scott, J. T. (2005). Opening the Ivorytower’s door: ananalysis of the determinants of the formation of U.S.universityspin-offcompanies. Research Policy 34,1106–1112.
Luís M. A. Bettencourt., David I. Kaiser., &; Jasleen Kaur. (2009). Scientific discovery and topological transitions in collaboration networks. Journal of Informetrics, 3, 210–221.
Lundvall, B-Å. (1992): National systems of innovation - toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning, Pinter, London.
Lux Research. (2004). Revenue from nanotechnology-enabled products to equal IT and telecom by 2014, exceed biotech by 10 times, October 25.
M. Gilding. (2008). The tyranny of distance’: Biotechnology networks and clusters in the antipodes. Research Policy, 37, 1132–1144.
M. Mariani. (2004). What determines technological hits? Geography versus firm competencies. Research Policy, 33, 1565–1582.
M. Scheu., V. Veefkind., Y. Verbandt., E. Molina Galan., R. Absalom., &; W. Förster. (2006). Mapping nanotechnology patents: The EPO approach. World Patent Information, 28(3), 204–211
Ma, Z., &; Lee, Y. (2008). Patent application and technological collaboration in inventive activities: 1980–2005. Technovation, 28(6), 379–390
Ma, Zhenzhong., Lee, Yender., &; Chen, Chien-Fu. Patrick. (2009). Booming or emerging? China's technological capability and international collaboration in patent activities. Journal of Technological Forecasting &; Social Change 76, 787–796
Malerba, Franco. (2002). Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research Policy, 31, 247-264.
Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovations: sources, characteristics, andfinancing. Review of Economics and Statistics, 77, 55–65.
Motohashi, K., &; Muramatsu, S. (2012). Examining the university industry collaboration policy in Japan : Patent analysis. Technology in Society, 1–14
Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., &; Ziedonis, A. A. (2001).The growth of patenting and licensing by the U.S. universities : an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980. Research Policy, 30, 99–119.

Nam, Yoonjae., &; George, A. B. (2011). Globalization of technology: Network analysis of global patents and trademarks. Technological Forecasting &; Social Change, 78, 1471–1485
National Nanotechnology Initiative. (2006). What is Nanotechnology?Retrieved March11, 2011, from http://www.nano.gov/nanotech-101/what/definition
National Science and Technology Council (2000). National Nanotechnology Initiative: The Initiative and its Implementation Plan: Washington, DC: National Science and Technology Council
Newman, M. E. J. (2001). Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. Physical Review, 64, 025102.
Owen-Smith, J., Riccaboni, M., Pammolli, F., &; Powell, W. W. (2002). A comparison of U.S. and European university–industry relation sin the life sciences. Manage-ment Science, 48, 24–43.
Pardo-Guerra. (2011). Mapping emergence across the Atlantic: Some (tentative) lessons on nanotechnology in Latin America, 101.
Petruzzelli, A. M. (2011). The impact of technological relatedness, prior ties, and geographical distance on university–industry collaborations : A joint-patent analysis. Technovation, 31,309–319
Prodan, I., &; Drnovsek, M. (2010). Conceptualizing academic–entrepreneurial inten-tions: anempiricaltest.Technovation, 30, 332–347.

Roco, M. C., &; Bainbridge, W. (2001). Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. National Science Foundation Report, also Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 370.
Ronald N. Kostoff., Jesse A. Stump., Dustin, J., James, S. M., Clifford G. Y. Lau., &; William M. Tolles. (2006). The structure and infrastructure of the global nanotechnology infrastructure. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8, 301–321.
Rosenberg, N., &; Nelson, R. (1994).American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy, 23, 323–348.
Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., &; Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change16, 691–791.
Sanjay, J., &; Gerard, G. (2007). Technology transfer officesas institutional entrepre- neurs: the case of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation and human embryonic stem cells. Industrial and Corporate, Change16, 535–567.
Serapio, M. G., &; Dalton, D. H. (1993). Foreign R&;D facilities in the United States. Research and Technology Management 36(6), 33–39.
Shane, S. (2002). Executive forum: university technology transfer to entrepreneurial companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 537–552.
Tether, B. (2002). Who co-operates for innovation, and why? An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 31, 947–967.
Thursby, J. G., &; Thursby, M. C. (2005). Gender patterns of research and licensing activity of science and engineering faculty. Technology Transfer, 30, 343–353.
Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND Journal of Economics, 21, 172–187.
Wang, J. C., Chiang, C. H., &; Lin, S. W. (2010). Network structure of innovation: Can brokerage or closure predict patent quality? Scientometrics, 84, 735–748.
Wasserman, S., &; Faust. K. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wu, J. (2011). Technological collaboration in product innovation: The role of market competition and sectoral technological intensity. Journal of Research Policy 41, 489–496.
Yoshino, M. Y., &; Rangan, US. (1995). Strategic Alliances. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., &; Brewer, M. (1998b). Intellectual human capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review, 88, 290–306.