Source: http://etheses.lib.ntust.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&s=id=%22G0M10024004%22.&searchmode=basic
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:58:02+00:00

Document:
The medical imaging technology is one of the core developing industries that is being promoted by the Taiwan government. The medical imaging is to acquire useful information about the physiological processes or organs of the body by using non invasive methodologies, such as ultrasound, X-ray, magnetic resonance imaging, and other high-level medical imaging devices. In addition, a survey conducted by the government-backed Industrial Technology Research Institute indicates that the market for high-level medical imaging devices is worth US$70.5 billion, accounting for 25.8% of total global sales of medical equipment; the United States is the biggest market research companies around the world.
Based on the trade statistics conducted by the Taiwan Customs Bureau, except ultrasonic apparatus, made in Taiwan and exported to the emerging countries steadily, however, most of high-level medical imaging devices are imported from the United States and European. Moreover, according to the number of issued patents stated by Taiwan Intellectual Property Office, most of assignee is school or research institutes. In Taiwan, neither international nor domestic medical device companies did file patent application that indicates the high hurdle or high entrance barrier technique of medical imaging and the gap among research results, domestic medical device companies and competitive market.
The primary purpose of this research is to investigate patentable subject matter of the medical imaging in the United States and Taiwan, by referring to the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure of the US Patent and Trademark Office, so as to suggest Taiwan Intellectual Property Courts and Taiwan Intellectual Property Office. The secondary objective of this research is to effectively extract domain-specific patents using an ontology, which contains specific domain concepts and helps researchers to understand the relationships between concepts, and create domain-specific ontologies of medical imaging, in order to gain a quick snapshot of their own patent portfolio and identify potential technology clusters. Finally, the methodologies in this research search the issued patents from the US Patent and Trademark Office to Taiwan Intellectual Property Office through the domain-specific ontology of medical imaging, and build up a patent map with the domain-specific ontology f medical imaging and the patent code for future trend in medical imaging technology.
Huang, CJ, Trappey, AJC & Wu, CY, Develop a Formal Ontology Engineering Methodology for Technical Knowledge Definition in R&D Knowledge Management, Advanced Concurrent Engineering, Vol.12, pp.495-502(2008).
GRUG NINGER, M. & FOX, M., Methodology for the design and evaluation of ontologies. Proceedings of the orkshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing held in Conjunction with IJCAI-95, Montreal, Canada (1995).
Feldman, R., Fresko, M., Hirsh, H., Aumann, Y., Liphstat, O., Schler, Y. and Rajman, M, Knowledge Management: A Text Mining Approach. Proceedings of the 2nd PAKM, Basel, Switzerland(1998).
Manning C. and Schutze H, Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing, MIT Press(1999).
Byungun Yoon, Robert Phaal, and David Probert, Structuring Technological Information for Technology Roadmapping: Data Mining Approach, 7th WSEAS Int. Conf. on ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING and DATA BASES(2008).
Noy NF and McGuinness DL, Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology, SMI technical report, Stanford University(2001).
A game defined as a set of rules, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, United States Patent and Trademark Office.
S.Rep.No.1979, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 5 (1952); H.R.Rep.No.1923, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 6 (1952), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1952, pp. 2394, 2399.
Act of Feb. 21, 1793, ch. 11, § 1, 1 Stat. 318.
Ex parte EDWARD K.Y. JUNG et al, Final Decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board(2013).
Ex parte IVAN SALGO et al, Final Decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (2013).
409 U.S., at 70, 93 S.Ct., at 256.
A company, Ferguson, 558 F.3d at 1366.
A computer program per se, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. at 72.
Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218(2010).
Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 787-788, 24 L.Ed. 139 (1877).
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 100 S.Ct. 2204, 65 L.Ed.2d 144 (1980).
Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130, 76 USPQ 280, 281 (1948).
In Corning v. Burden, 15 How. 252, 267-268, 14 L.Ed. 683 (1854).
Le Roy v. Tatham, 14 How. (55 U.S.) 156, 175, 14L.Ed. 367.
Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 156, 175 (1852).
Mackay Co. v. Radio Crop., 306 U.S. 86, 94, 59 S.Ct. 427, 431, 83L.ed. 506.
Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42, 100 S.Ct. 311, 314, 62 L.Ed.2d 199 (1979).
Rubbrt-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 20 Wall(87 U.S.) 498, 507, 22L.Ed. 410.
State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group Inc., 149 F.3d 1368.

References: § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.