Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Comparison between a patent and an article
Patent specifications are generally made of three main components:
(i) The subject and object of the invention or discovery, and a discussion of earlier works
(ii) A solution, including specific examples
(iii) The unique advantages and applications of the invention.
The structure of patent specification generally includes:
· The field of the invention which corresponds to the subject
· The background of the invention that indicates the problems to be solved, and the prior art
· The object of the invention that lists the benefits to be accrued
· The summary of the invention that defines the invention and the solution to the problem it provides
· A detailed description of the invention that includes the drawings, experimental data, method and apparatus or instruments used. This section is similar to that of an article, although it may be given with more detail in patents to permit the replication by the skilled artisan. This section might also describe the structure, the usefulness and the operation of the invention.
From this perspective, to any component of a patent specification there exists a parallel component in the journal article (Meyer 2000:97).
One of the most significant differences between the two documents is the source of the cited references. Whereas in articles, the authors mostly cite other authors who have contributed to the subject of the article, in patents, it is rather the examiner who recommends what is to be cited. Furthermore, professionals review a patent, while papers are peer-reviewed. On one hand, the author assumes a very substantial familiarity with the subject matter of the article. On the other hand, the inventor only assumes the ability to understand the specific application for which patent protection is sought. In either case, the range of erudition may be great, but it is usually different.
A patent application, and a granted patent, further describe and include a solution to a problem as well as opportunities for applications. A patent puts much emphasis on the deficiencies in prior arts, something that does not appear in articles, in neither frequency nor intensity.
The novelty hunt is a common characteristic of both patent and article. This feature is detectable in the citations of both documents. Examiners check and assess prior documents to find out if they have the same or almost similar features as the patent application and only accept the application as novel when no other relevant documents question the claimed novelty. The following types of citations are commonly encountered in most patent applications:
(i) Documents of particular relevance and
(ii) References concerning the general background.
The documents of particular relevance restrict the claims of an invention. One example of those documents is individual documents that when alone may question the novelty or inventive step of a patent claim (marked with the letter X in most European countries’ search reports). Another example is documents considered to question the inventive step of a patent claim, if taken in combination with another document usually marked with the letter Y. The second type of reference, documenting the technical background of the invention, is marked A.
Different interpretations of the patent document can mirror the social context of the patent.
Patents could mean, for example, a strategic component of the economic exploitation of and development of technology and indeed as an important feature of social dynamics of technical invention. A patent document addressing different readers with different interests could also reflect a compromise of various strategies. The readership structure can influence the writing style of patents and the selection of citations. On the one hand, one has to fence off, while on the other hand, however, one must point out an interesting area (Meyer 2000:105).
The difference in citation frequencies in the same fields between countries shows how the legal and social contexts can influence a patent. If compared to those filed at EPO or those originating from Europe, patents at the USPTO or US patents cite more patents than articles, probably due to the emphasis on applicability that carries a higher weight at USPTO than at EPO.
Overview of the innovation process and science-technology linkages
Innovation was first described as a linear process that starts with basic research and then goes through applied research and development, and ends with production and diffusion (Schumpeter, 1939, Schumpeter, 1934; Bush, 1945). The subsequent chain models, which emphasised the non-linear character and the forces outside the firms that shape innovation, were a major progress in describing the process.
The Kline and Rosenberg model depicted in Figure 6 (Kline and Rosenberg (Landau, Rosenberg, 1996)), for example, showed that two major distinct but interrelated forces control innovation. The first are the market forces that include factors such as changes in income, relative prices, and underlying demographics that combine to produce continual changes in commercial opportunities for specific categories of innovation. The second are factors such as technological and scientific frontiers that often suggest possibilities for fashioning new products, or improving the performance of old ones, or producing those products at lower cost.
A successful outcome in innovation thus requires the running of two cohorts: the commercial and the technological aspects. It requires a design that balances the requirements of the new product and its manufacturing processes, the market need and the need to maintain an organisation that can continue to support all those activities effectively.
Symbols on arrow C = central chain of innovation; f = feedback loops. K-R = links through knowledge to research and return paths. If problems are solved at node K, the links 3 to R are not activated. Return from research (link 4) is problematic – therefore, dashed lines. D = direct link to and from problems in invention and design. I = support of scientific research by instruments, machines, tools, and procedures of technology. S = support of research in sciences underlying product area to gain information directly and by monitoring outside work.
The information obtained may apply anywhere along the chain.
Briefly, the first path of the innovation process labeled C constitutes the central chain of innovation. The path begins with a design and continues through the development and production to marketing. The second path, a series of feedback links marked f, starts immediately. The foregoing feedback path iterates the steps and connects back directly from perceived market needs and users, to potentials for improvement of product and service performance in the next round of design. A feedback is thus part of the cooperation between the product specification, product development, product processes, marketing, and service components of a product line.
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General background of the study
1.2 Motivation for the study
1.3 Research questions
1.4 Aim of the study
1.5 Contribution and implications of the study
CHAPTER 2 CONTEXT OF THE STUDY
2.1 The South African IPRS and state of innovation in publicly-funded research organisations
2.2 Overview of patent application process at CIPRO
2.3 Patent decision-making model within the South African universities
CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
3.1 Structural capital
3.2 Human capital
3.3 Social capital
CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 45
4.1 Hypotheses
4.2 Rationale for using patent data
4.3 Rationale for using ISI bibliometric data
4.4 Rationale for using NRF-evaluation and rating data
4.5 Data collection process
4.6 Patent data from EPO, USPTO and WIPO
4.7 Construction of patent-paper pair dataset
4.8 NRF-rating data
4.9 Construction of control groups for hypotheses testing
4.10 Evaluation of publication performance of inventive and non-inventive professors
CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 CIPRO patent data set
5.2 USPTO, WIPO and EPO based patent-paper pair data set
5.3 Extended case studies: polymer membrane, signal processing, genetics/biotechnology, and mineral processing/separation pairs
5.4 Overview of patents ownership history and transfer to industry
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
