專利制度是知識經濟時代最為重要的一種智慧財產權形式，不但對於技術創新居功厥偉，在國際商業活動中也占有極具份量的地位。而在取得專利的三大要件中，以非顯而易知性（即我國進步性）最為棘手，蓋其本身屬於不確定之法律概念，而容有裁量空間。 非顯而易知性發軔於美國判例法，其後由實務主導其發展。在指標性案例KSR判決中，最高法院揭示了非顯而易知性的審查架構，以Graham四要件法則為根柢，並輔以顯可嘗試原則及彈性運用的TSM檢測法，整體而言KSR判決提高了非顯而易知性的適格門檻。在後KSR時代，CAFC在機械工業、醫藥品與生物科技等領域分別依不同程度適用KSR見解。2009年In re Kubin案確認KSR見解可適用於不可預測性較高之基因生技領域，近幾年來顯可嘗試原則也獲得高度重視。 相較而言，我國進步性審查主要依據智慧財產局所制定的專利審查基準，但行政審查常有過於直觀簡略之嫌；法院判決則在「發明所屬領域中具通常技術者之技術水準」與「該領域具通常技術者參酌先前技術所揭露之內容及申請時的通常知識，是否能所能輕易完成系爭申請發明之整體」此兩步驟的論證上較為欠缺，整體而言達成進步性結論之心證揭露程度不足，對於當事人有突襲性裁判之虞。 本研究基於上述觀察所得，對美國與我國關於非顯而易知性概念之認知與實踐進行比對，並分別就審查實務面與產業因應面提出微薄建議，以期借鏡美國法經驗使我國未來實務操作更趨完善。 / Patent system is one of the most important forms of intellectual property rights in the era of knowledge economy, not only indispensable for technological innovation, also of great influnce in the international business activities. Among the three requirements of patentability, “Non-obviousness” (ie, “Inventive Step” in Taiwan) is the most difficult to fulfill, due to the uncertainty of its legal concept and the room for discretion. Non-obviousness was carved out in the U.S. case law and continuously developed by the court rulings. In the benchmark case KSR v. Teleflex, the Supreme Court articulated that the examination framework of non-obviousness is based on Graham four factors, along with other principles like “Obvious to Try” and the TSM test in a more flexible way. In general, KSR lifted the eligibility threshold for non-obviousness. It has been applied in different degrees by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to various fields such as machinery industry, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology in the post-KSR era. Then it was recognized in 2009 In re Kubin case that the KSR opinion is applicable to the unpredictable field, gene biotechnology, for instance. Besides, the “Obvious to Try” principle has been gaining much attention in recent years. In comparison, both administrative and juducial examinations of inventive step in Taiwan are mainly based on the “Substantive examination guidelines for invention patent” issued by the Intellectual Property Office. However, the administrative review is often reckoned to be too intuitive and rough, and the court decisions are considered to be made with less expression on “the level of the PHOSITA” and “whether a PHOSITA with the reference to prior arts and common knowledge can complete the whole invention without difficulty.” In all, the lack of revealing the reasoning on the inventive step conclusion might expose the parties in danger of surprise judgements. Based on the above observations, this study compared the cognition and practice of non-obviousness both in the United States and in Taiwan, and as a result, presented some primary suggestions in light of the United States’ experience toward both the practice and industries, so that our inventive step examination practice in the future could be improved.