Introduction to patent map analysis2011

Introduction to
Patent Map Analysis

Japan Patent Office
Asia-Pacific Industrial Property Center, JIII

©2011

Collaborator: Shin-Ichiro Suzuki,
Patent Attorney,
Visiting Professor,
Tokyo University of
Agriculture & Technology (TUAT)

Introduction to Patent Map Analysis

Contents

1. Introduction 1
2. What Is a Patent Map? 2
2.1. Fundamental Principles of a Patent Map 2
2.2. Features of Patent Maps 2
2.3. Using a Patent Map in Business 3
2.4. Method of Patent-Map-Based Analysis 5
3. Representative Examples of Patent Map 8
3.1. Element-Based Map 8
3.2. Diagram of Technological Development 9
3.3. Interpatent Relations Map 11
3.4. Matrix Map 14
3.5. Systematized Art Diagram 20
3.6. Time Series Map 22
3.7. Twin Peaks Analysis Map 23
3.8. Maturation Map 25
3.9. Ranking Map 27
3.10. Share Map 29
3.11. Skeleton Map 30
3.12. Radar Map 31
4. Creating a Patent Map 33
4.1. Procedure for Creating a Patent Map 33
4.2. Overall Design 34
4.3. Gathering Patent Document Information 35
4.4. Additional Indexing and Hierarchization 39
4.5. Database Compilation 40
4.6. Mapping 42
4.7. Evaluation and Combination 47

＊＊＊＊＊

i

1. Introduction

Patent information is one of the valuable benefits that the patent system provides to society in
return for granting to the inventor “a monopoly of the relevant technology for a certain period of
time.” Active utilization of patent information is an inherent function of the patent system.
Patent information, such as the publication of unexamined patent applications, has various
unique advantages as technical information: it covers a wide variety of technology including
state-of-the-art technology, as well as information on overseas inventions in the reader’s native
language. Patent information also includes the contents of an exclusive right or an intellectual
property right, which are inevitably a part of current economic activity. Furthermore, patent
information is a useful indication for the technological development strategies or global strategies of
individual enterprises in response to intensifying competition.
Consequently, multinational corporations, universities and research institutions use patent
information at an early stage of their research and development in order to identify targets of
research and development, to evaluate inventions, and actively use patent information in their
management of intellectual property.
However, it is not always easy to use patent information.
This is partly because patent information intentionally uses abstract expressions due to its nature
as information related to rights, and partly because the terminology involved is often not
well-established because the technology is ground-breaking. In addition, a huge amount of patent
information is published each year, and to use it, it is necessary to look back on past published
information, making it very difficult to precisely access the information required.
On the other hand, some people see the huge amount of patent information as an advantage, not
as a disadvantage. By using modern information-processing techniques, this patent information in a
unified form is helpful for identifying new directions of technology or industry that otherwise could
not be identified.
In this context, a particularly useful tool to analyze patent information is the so called “Patent
Map” or “Patent Mapping.” The dissemination of Patent Maps has not only created a new category
of information use, but also made it easy for anyone to use patent information that previously only
experts could afford to use.

-1-

2. What Is a Patent Map?

2.1. Fundamental Principles of a Patent Map

For a long time, patent information has been used mainly for patent document searches and
patent clearance searches, including prior art searches and infringement searches. Patent search is
aimed at finding patent documents that cover an invention which is deemed to be closest to the target
technology, and so the fundamental policy has been to design the search process to sort the shortest
possible list of patent documents. In this procedure, searchers have to examine these sorted patent
documents to check whether they can be used as proof denying the novelty or inventiveness of an
invention or can be used to determine whether an invention infringes the ones covered by the patent
documents.
Although a patent document naturally includes a lot of information, by using multiple patent
documents at the same time, it is possible to take new approaches which could reveal new
information that would otherwise not be available.
One example of such an approach is a time-based approach to patent documents. In this
approach, you withhold from the search relevant patent documents at some stage and read a certain
number of patent documents as a cluster in the order in which the patent applications were filed. This
can show the progress of technological development as if one had been personally engaged in the
development projects.
Another example is an approach focused on the personal aspects of patent documents, including
right-holders and inventors. In this approach, you sort collected patent documents by company and
compare the sorted patent documents. This reveals the different technological development activities
and strategies of companies.
This way of grasping patent information as a group (or cluster) is the principle of Patent Maping
and creates new information.

2.2. Features of Patent Maps

In general, the term “Patent Map” is often defined as “Patent information collected for a specific
purpose of use, and assembled, analyzed and depicted in a visual form of presentation such as a chart,
graph or table.” Specifically, “Patent Map” can be defined as information that has all of the
following features:
a) A Patent Map is based on patent information.
Patent information has various unique advantages such as early publication, a wide range of
technical fields, and use of a unified format. By using patent information as the basis of Patent Maps,
these advantages are available in Patent Maps without further development.
b) A Patent Map has a clear purpose of use.
One of the most important elements of a Patent Map is that it has a clear purpose use. Any
patent map that has no clear purpose of use has no applicability.
c) A Patent Map consists of appropriate patent information for the purpose of use.

-2-

Collecting less “noisy” patent documents without omission would require a broad knowledge
and experience of patent information, including the types and reading of patent information, how to
access the patent information database, and search keys or patent classification. It is also
time-consuming. “Patent information that is collected according to the purpose of use” means that
the information is ready for immediate use.
d) A Patent Map contains organized patent information.
Generally, organizing patent information requires expertise in the relevant technical field. The
fact that a Patent Map contains organized patent information means that the information has already
been analyzed, divided into technical fields, indexed where necessary, and assembled in a suitable
manner for the intended purpose of use.
e) A Patent Map presents information visually.
The most easily understandable feature of a Patent Map is that it is visual. This does not
necessarily mean that it is presented as a graph or drawing. There are no particular limitations on the
format for presenting a Patent Map. For example, a copy of an abstract page pasted into a Patent
Map is a visual form of presentation. Patent Maps enable people who are not familiar with the
intellectual property system and patent information to learn about technology trends, the spread of
patent networks and strategic development areas of competitors.
In recent years, various software companies provide patent information analysis software called
“Patent Map Software,” which has made it even easier to create Patent Maps.
However, as mentioned above, a Patent Map also has other features in addition to its ability to
visualize patent information. The most important feature is that the patent information contained in
the map has been collected for a particular purpose and analyzed suitably for that purpose.
Consequently, an analyst who carries out a Patent-Map analysis not only requires knowledge in
the art but also fundamental knowledge of and experience in handling patent information, including
the way patent documents are read and how to access patent information, and an ability to analyze
and present patent information.

2.3. Using a Patent Map in Business

A survey conducted by the Institute of Intellectual Property (IIP)(Tokyo) shows that 85% or
more of major Japanese companies use Patent Maps in one way or another. The maps are used by all
divisions of companies, including the corporate control department, technology development
department, and intellectual property management department.

a) R&D section
The R&D section at companies uses a Patent Map to select themes for research and
development, pick out new ideas, and gain an understanding of competitors’ technology
development. A Patent Map is also an important tool for grasping the market needs and analyzing
patent information in order to avoid wasted investment in development.

b) Intellectual property management section
The intellectual property management section at companies, research institutes and universities

-3-

uses a Patent Map to acquire an “extensive and strong exclusive right.” For example, drafting of a
claim usually involves comparing and the relevant invention with relevant prior arts (patents), and a
Patent Map is used to reveal the relationships between them.
When pursuing a patent with respect to a patent application, a Patent Map is used to review and
respond to a notice of reasons for rejection from an examiner of the Patent Office. A Patent Map can
be used instead of an unsophisticated patent information search to preclude other companies’ rights
that may obstruct your company.

c) Licensing section
In offering or introducing a patent to/from other companies, the licensing section at a company
may use a Patent Map as an evaluation tool. This evaluation by Patent Maps reveals the position of
the relevant patent overall, and the existence of other patents that could have a significant influence.
When offering a patent, a Patent Map may be used to identify a company that is most likely to
accept the offer. A Patent Map can also be used to guarantee the patentability of the patent to be
offered.

d) Section in charge of countermeasures against infringements

Counterfeit goods and infringing goods not only adversely affect the sale of genuine goods by
the company that is the legitimate right-holder but also damage the business reputation of the
company.
To prevent this, it is necessary to constantly look out for potential infringers, and a Patent Map
is useful for this purpose. Patent Maps are effective for identifying competitors which develop, even
if unintentionally, products that are likely to infringe the company’s patent.

e) Corporate strategy section
Many companies face difficulties in pursuing a management strategy of targeting both overseas
markets as well as local or domestic markets. When implementing such a strategy, a Patent Map is
important for identifying the status of global networks of intellectual property, the status of new
entrants, and key needs in local markets.

f) Human resources section
In the human resources department, a Patent Map is useful for staff training and performance
evaluation of researchers.
In staff training, trainees are periodically instructed to draw a Patent Map for the art in their
respective field. This ensures an accurate understanding of the art and competitiveness of one’s
company in the art. In evaluating the performance of researchers, a Patent Map can be used to
compare the performance of researchers with their colleagues within the company as well as
counterparts at other companies, which helps to ensure an objective appraisal.

g) Others
A Patent Map can also provide valuable information when designing policy and research studies
at government organizations, think-tanks, research institutions and universities.
For example, the Japanese government often uses an analytical method based on Patent Maps
when preparing the Annual Report on Japan’s Economy (Economic White Paper) and Annual
Report on the Promotion of Science and Technology (White Paper on Science and Technology).

-4-

The Japan Patent Office also uses Patent Maps for analyzing the direction of technological
development and the spread of applications in Japan to ensure efficient, high-quality examinations.

2.4. Method of Patent-Map-Based Analysis

2.4.1. Analytical Method

Various methods of Patent-Map analysis have been developed, but their actual situation is not
fully known. This is because companies have made their own important Patent Maps under strict
security. If a company were to reveal why it makes a Patent Map and for what technology, it would
be revealing its business strategy. If a competitor got hold of the Patent Map, it could use the map to
carry out its own analysis.
Therefore, most of the common analytical methods for creating a Patent Map are developed by
government organizations and government-affiliated agencies.
Almost 50 years ago, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) had a study group, mainly consisting of
patent examiners, which had been studying analytical methods of building Patent Maps. Figure 2-1
shows part of the method for analyzing patent information developed by the group of examiners at
the Japan Patent Office some time ago.

Fig. 2-1 An Earlier Method of Patent Information Analysis
Changes in the Changes in the Changes in the
total number of number of Ratio of applications filed
applications filed applications and percentage change
examined by foreign nationals and
for patent and publications by of applications filed
utility model changes thereof
technical field by technical field
Quantitative analysis

Ratio of patents
New technical
to utility models
coefficient
by technical field

Distribution and changes
Technology-related
of supplementary
indices
classification

Changes in the number of
applications filed for design Cycle of technological
and trademark by technical development
field

Diagram of development and Changes in the number of
Qualitative analysis

changes under multidimensional examined publications under
classification multidimensional classification

Extraction of Tree-structured
important diagram of Overall diagram of the
patents development association of technological
development
Diagram of effects of
technologies
introduced or spread
from other technical
fields

Source : RAPIT, ―Patent and Information and Practical Use‖ Patent News (Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry,1974)

This analytical method was developed under the patent system and utility model systems of that
time. The analysis was based on the Japan Patent Classification System (JPC) which was an
industry-oriented classification system and had the concept of primary classification and
subclassification. JPC was suspended 30 years ago. So it would not be suitable for a present-day

-5-

analysis without further development. However, the approach in which patent information is
subjected to two types of analysis, qualitative analysis and quantitative analysis, could still be valid
today when advanced text-mining techniques have become available.
This approach was used for the analysis in “Patent Map by Technical Field” published by the
JPO and “Patent Distribution Support Chart” published by the National Center for Industrial
Property Information and Training (INPIT).

2.4.2. Qualitative Analysis

A qualitative analysis is used to analyze the contents, such as the technical content, of individual
patent documents and the results often contain relevant individual patent document numbers.
Although such an analysis involves detailed reading of individual patent documents and is
time-consuming, a Patent Map made by an expert analyst could provide highly valuable information.
Typically, a Patent Map is presented as an illustration, graph, tree structure, table or matrix. The
results of a qualitative analysis are rarely presented as a graph.
A Patent Map in the form of an illustration is used as an explanation for laypeople for the
technology or others who are not familiar with intellectual property information.

A matrix is a basic form of presenting a Patent Map, and is vital for Patent Maps intended for
experts.

A Patent Map in the form of a tree structure is used to indicate the development of technology,
the spread of technology and the status of joint applications.

2.4.3. Quantitative Analysis

A quantitative analysis involves forming a cluster of patents as a parent population for a specific
category of patents from the beginning, and then further segmenting or stratifying the patents for
quantitatively analyzing them.
A quantitative analysis uses bibliographical information contained in patent documents,
including the distinction of documents, document number, patent classification, nationality of
applicant, name of applicant, address of applicant, name of inventor, number of inventions, etc.
Other information such as retrieval information, prosecution information, and cited document
information provided by the Patent Office is also used for quantitative analysis.
A detailed analysis would involve a separate complementary indexing in addition to analyzing
the above information.
Similar to qualitative analyses, a variety of forms are used to present the results of a quantitative
analysis, including illustrations, graphs, tree structures, matrixes, etc. Of these forms, a graph is the
basic form of presenting the results of a quantitative analysis. Therefore, a newly developed graph
form of presentation can be immediately applicable to a Patent Map.

-6-

2.4.4. Index Analysis

As computers have become widely used for analyzing patent information and as limitations on
using information such as citation analysis have been removed, it has become possible to analyze by
index the positioning of technology or companies. The results of an index analysis are presented in
list form, and sometimes in graphical form.
Table 2-2 shows representative analytical methods and forms of presentation for Patent Maps.

Table 2-2 Analytical Methods and Forms of Presentation Used in the Main Types of Patent Maps

Patent Map Major analytical method Commonly used form of presentation

Element-based Map Qualitative analysis Illustration

Map of Technological Development Qualitative analysis Tree-structured form

Interpatent Relations Map Qualitative analysis Tree-structured form

Qualitative analysis/
Matrix Map Matrix/graph
Systematized Art Diagram Quantitative analysis Illustration

Time-Series Map Quantitative analysis Graph

Twin Peaks Analysis Map Quantitative analysis Graph

Maturation Map Quantitative analysis Graph

Ranking Map Quantitative analysis List/graph

Share Map Quantitative analysis List/graph

Quantitative analysis/
Skeleton Map Tree-structured form
Radar Map Quantitative analysis Graph

-7-

3. Representative Examples of Patent Map

3.1. Element-Based Map

 Overview
An “Element-Based Map” shows the distribution of patents organized by technical or functional
elements and as corresponding to an illustration of a particular product. For a product intended for
future development, this map shows what patents cover the product and who owns the patents.
 How to Read the Map
Figure 3-1 is an example of an Element-based Map for key patents for an electrically-assisted
bicycle.

Fig. 3-1 Example of Element-Based Map (Electrically-Assisted Bicycle)

Configuration of a motor (which drives the axle) Drive ratio control (by means of detection of vehicle
- Y1949-4842 (Kanichi Kimura et al.) ,filed in speed)
Apri.1947 - B1973-20376 (Sanyo Electric) as filed in
- B1973-20376 (Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.),filed in December 1968
Dec.1968 - Y1977-37087 (Yasuharu Ito) as filed in June 1972
- Y1977-37087 (Yasuharu Ito) filed in June 1972 - B1981-15356 (Lucas) as filed in November 1976
- B 2582224 (Kanderle) filed in Aug.1999 Drive ratio control (by means of detection of torque)
- B 2711489 (Sanston) filed in November 1991 - Y1975-37616 (Eichi Ota) as filed in October 1972
Arrangement of a motor (which drives the wheels) - B2614720 (Riken) as filed in April 1987
- B1951-5412 (Tohei Yoshida) as filed in - B2696731 (Yamaha Motor) as filed in September
December 1950 1991
- B 2670245 (Systematic) as filed in July 1995 Drive ratio control (by means of detection of vehicle
Arrangement of a motor (that works on the speed and torque)
transmission system) - B2655878 (Japan EM) as filed in June 1988
- B1979-4376 (Lucas) as filed in June 1975 - B2634121 (Yamaha Motor) as filed in March 1992
- B26471112 (Mitsuba) as filed in January 1988 - B2623419 (Yamaha Motor) as filed in September
- B2696731 (Yamaha Motor) as filed in 1992
September 1991 - B2670243 (Systematic) as filed in March 1995
- B 2715291 (Yamaha Motor) as filed in - B2670244 (Systematic) as filed in March 1995
September 1991

A; Patent Kokai /Kohyo Publication
B; Patent Kokoku Publication

USP5,826,675

Self-charging regenerative braking Arrangement of batteries, etc.
- U1977-37087 (Yasuharu Ito) as filed in June 1972 - B2623050 (Yamaha Motor) as filed in May 1992
- B2884029 (Yamaha Motor) as filed in May 1992
- A1928-23395 (Ilya et al.) as filed in March 1984 - B2506047 (Yamaha Motor) as filed in May 1992

Adapted from data in the ―Patent Map by Technical Field: Machinery 9—Bicycle Technology‖ (Japan Patent Office (JPO),1999)

This bicycle is equipped with an electric motor which complements human power. The principle
involves the following inventions that are not found in an ordinary bicycle: (i) An invention
concerning the configuration of a motor (a driving system); (ii) an invention concerning the
configuration of batteries, etc.; (iii) An invention concerning “driving ratio control” of driving power
from the motor and that from the pedals; and (iv) an invention concerning self-charging regenerative
braking. Various companies offer various driving systems. Regarding the configuration of batteries,
Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. owns a large number of key patents.

-8-

■ Example of Use
An Element-based Map is very useful for making a presentation to the top managers of your
company or court judges who are not familiar with the patent system on a summary of the status of
patents or relevant technologies. It enables people who are unfamiliar with patents or patent
information to easily grasp the existence of relevant patents and the distribution of right-holders.
When launching a new project, top managers request R&D section and IP management section
to provide a summary of relevant patents owned by other companies and the position of their own
patents. Under the circumstance, an Element-based Map is used as important material for
executives .
In a suit against appeal/trial decision or in an action for infringement, it is important that the
court judge understands the right-holder’s claims. An Element-based Map is used to show an
overview of relevant technology, the positioning of one’s own patent and its differences from
existing patents. In some cases, an Element-based Map is used to provide an explanation to an
appeal examiner (or appeal examiners in a collegial body) who takes charge of a wider technical
scope than an examiner of examination division.
Alternatively, the human resources departments at companies use Element-based Maps for
employee training.
 Key Points When Using the Map
With many products, a vast number of patents cover the relevant technologies. Therefore, when
making an Element-based Map, it is effective to cover only the key patents or important patents, not
all relevant patents.
Although it is not easy to automatically pick out only the key or important patents, it is essential
not to omit patents considered important by persons skilled in the art or patents of global importance.
As an Element-based Map is too small to include all bibliographical information, you can only
include patent numbers or names of right-holders in accordance with the purpose of use.
If more detailed information is needed, a bibliographical list can be attached that includes the
patent document number, name of right-holder, title of invention, abstract, representative drawings,
etc. The patent number is the key to immediately accessing such information.

3.2. Diagram of Technological Development

 Overview
Often, an invention is not made unexpectedly, but is based on technical improvements or
problem analysis in previous years, or is made by developing a field of application for an existing
invention.
A Diagram of Technological Development shows, for a certain patent, organized relations
between prior patents and subsequent patents based on an analysis thereof. These relations are
created by examining the relationship between these patents based on the analyst’s expertise and
experience and drawing connecting lines between them.

-9-

This map shows the history of technological development in a particular technical field and the
existence of underlying patents, derived technical fields and/or specific influential right-holders in
the technical field.
The retroactive nature of a Diagram of Technological Development makes it possible to access
important patents which have expired.
Figure 3-2 shows a Diagram of Technological Development for photocatalyst technology.

Fig. 3-2 Example of Diagram of Technological Development (Photocatalyst)
1970 1975 1980 1985

Pioneer patent relating to titanium dioxide semiconductor photocatalyst
B1973-13825
September 1968 (Photoelectric cell)
Akira Fujishima, Kenichi Honda and
Shinichi Kikuchi B1981-38033
The invention is characterized by March 1974 B1984-13831
arranging an n-type semiconductor Kenichi Honda, Akira Fujishima March 1975
electrode and a nonmetal electrode in and Koichi Kobayakawa Kenichi Honda, Akira Fujishima
nonelectrolytic solution facing each other The invention is characterized
and subjecting these electrodes to light by arranging two electrodes and Koichi Kobayakawa;
having a corresponding bandgap to facing each other in a chamber The invention is characterized
cause electrolytic oxidation. separated into two parts by a by oxidizing the titanium metal
permeable partition wall to to form an oxide layer on the
B1971-20182 change the pH value of the surface.
September 1968 electrolyte aqueous solution.
Akira Fujishima, Kenichi Honda and
Shinichi Kikuchi (Water decomposition)
B1991-39737
Tthe invention is characterized by June 1980
placing a TiO2 or ZnO electrode and a B1981-38033 Dioxide (Italy)
counter electrode in nonelectrolytic March 1974 The invention relates to a
Kenichi Honda, Akira catalyst intended to
solution and subjecting these electrodes Fujishima and Koichi photodegrade water.
to light to obtain electrical output Kobayakawa;
between them. The invention is A1982-67002 B1986-2601
characterized by arranging October 1980 Toshiba January 1982 Toshiba
an n-type semiconductor The invention relates to a The invention relates to a
electrode and an opposing water decomposition system. method of water decomposition.
electrode in nonelectrolytic
solution facing each other
and energizing and B1989-34921
subjecting these June 1981 Unitika
electrodes to light to cause The invention relates to a method of
producing hydrogen by
water decomposition. photodecomposition of water.
B1988-10082
June 1981 Nihon Mining
The invention relates to a method of
producing hydrogen
photochemically.
B1991-29722
July 1982 Riken Japan
The invention relates to a method of
producing hydrogen and oxygen by
photodecomposition of water.

B1988-10084
May 1983 the General Director of the
Agency of Industrial Science and
Technology
The invention relates to a photocatalytic
method of producing hydrogen.

Adapted from data in the ―Patent Map by Technical Field: Chemical 23—Photocatalyst and its Application‖ (JPO, 2001)

This map shows that a pioneer patent concerning titanium dioxide semiconductor photocatalyst
was developed by Prof. Kenichi Honda, Prof. Akira Fujishima and Prof. Shinichi Kikuchi, all at the
University of Tokyo in September 1968 and was granted to them. It also shows that the invention of
the pioneer patent developed into two different fields, photoelectric cells and water decomposition,
with the latter leading to research carried out by Japan’s leading research institutes, RIKEN, Japan
and Agency of Industrial Science and Technology (National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science
and Technology, AIST).
 Example of Use
A Diagram of Technological Development is useful for checking the existence of pioneer
patents that may stand in the way in exploiting development results and grasping the potential
spillover effects of development results.

- 10 -

The diagram also provides researchers and the intellectual property management section with an
essential overview from patent information of the technology for which they are responsible. Note
that this advantage does not come from a detailed reading of a Patent Map made by experts, but, like
a learning effect, from the process by which a researcher or manager personally makes a Diagram of
Technological Development.
It is thought that the first Patent Map created by Japanese industry was a Diagram of
Technological Development.
Creating a Diagram of Technological Development involves reviewing and putting in sequence
all patent documents. Including huge amounts of patent documents in the map would make it much
harder to use.
Consequently, when creating a Diagram of Technological Development, people tend to extract
important patents and then consider whether to include them, rather than including all relevant patent
documents.
Important patents will include inventions that became blockbusters in markets, inventions that
attracted acclaim in the academic community, and breakthrough inventions that have changed prior
general technical knowledge. This extraction depends largely on the analyst’s knowledge and
experience.
In addition to this content-based evaluation, patents are often extracted automatically based on
whether an international application has been filed for the relevant patent/application or whether the
application was filed from abroad, whether an opposition (or a motion for trial for invalidation) has
been filed for the patent/application, and whether the patent is often cited in subsequent applications.
Regarding relevance among technologies, a patent/application should preferably be analyzed not
only in terms of identity of patent classification but also prior inventions that had some impact on it.

3.3. Interpatent Relation Map (Citation Map)

 Overview
In the process of granting a right, several kinds of citation information (hereafter “Citation
Information”) are added to the patent document information.
Citation Information includes information that the applicant listed as prior art in the
specification, information on related technology that included in a search report of patent offices,
information on prior art that the examiner cited in the substantive examination, and information that
a third party cited as prior art denying patentability in pursuing an opposition or a trial for
invalidation.
Available Citation Information differs from one country to another due to differences in patent
systems. In the U.S., where cited documents have long been included in the specification, Citation
Information has made it possible to analyze patent documents not only in terms of how a patent or
application cites other patent documents, but also how a patent or application is cited by other patent
documents. Regarding EP patent applications and PCT patent applications to which a search report

- 11 -

is attached, information on prior art is available but may not be identical to the information that was
actually cited.
In Japan, some of patent documents were indicated as reference information in the Patent
Gazette from a relatively early stage. In the 1980s, all information cited by the examiner in the
notification of reasons for refusal has been accumulated into a database and became generally
available. Moreover, a legal amendment in 2002 stipulated that “a person requesting the granting of
a patent” shall state “any invention(s) known to the public through publication at the time of filing of
the patent application” in “the detailed description of the invention,” thus greatly increasing the
amount of information on prior art included in the Patent Gazette. However, information stated in
the detailed description of the invention cannot be used without extracting it visually or through text
retrieval, and so in practice it is not useful for data analysis.
An Interpatent Relations Map shows the relationships in which an invention cites or is cited in
other inventions based on a systematic analysis of Citation Information.
Recently, various computer-based forms of presentation such as graphs have become available.
Figure 3-3 shows part of a Patent Association Map for Patent No. 3291871 concerning hybrid
vehicle control technology developed by Equos Research Co., Ltd., under the umbrella of the Toyota
Group (hereafter “Patent 871”).

Fig. 3-3 Example of Interpatent Relations Map (Control Technology of Hybrid Electrical Vehicle)
DE2309680 US1515322
DE2501386 US1780150
De2717256 US1671033
A1981-132102 US4099589
A1984-63901 US1870076
US4533011
Y1990-7702 DAIHATSU B1975-18136 A1987-104403
TOSHIBA Volkswagen TRW ISUZU

B3291871
EQUOS RESEARCH

B3249401 B3050141 B3097572 A1998-238381 B3052844 B3173319 B3173319
B3055028 TOYOTA B3211699 DENSO TOYOTA EQUOS EQUOS
DENSO B3050125
B3050138
B3052344
A1998-191507
B3191705 A1998-951 A2000-92613
B3097572
TOYOTA A1998-196427 A2001-95106 B3055028
B3050141 A2000-69605
B3257488 B3249401
A2001-103609 B3050125 HITACHI
B3257480 A2001-86603 DENSO
A2000-199420
TOYOTA A2001-112110 A1999-332018A
A2001-171369 A2001-232703
A2001-82205 TOYOTA
B3097734 A2001-177904
A2000-93613 B3055027 A2001-73806
B31711143 A2001-197607
B3214437
A2001-20786
A2000-232703 B3104632 TOYOTA
A2001-69605 A2001-309507 B3294532 DAIHATSU
HITACHI Aisin AW A1999-6449
A1999-41707 B3191705 B2000-23310
A1999-113104 TOYOTA EQUOS
DENSO

Adapted from data in the ―Patent Distribution Support Chart: Machinery 5—Control Technology of Hybrid Electrical Vehicle‖ (National Center for
Industrial Property Information and Training (INPIT) , 2003)

- 12 -

Usually, an Interpatent Relations Map covers prior art that existed before the patent was granted
(patents indicated in the upper part of the Map) and related inventions made subsequently (patent as
indicated below the name of the company). Patent 871 cites patents indicated in the blue boxes
which are owned by Toshiba, Daihatsu, Isuzu, Volkswagen (US patents) and TRW. If the patent
document cited relates to an art that is not patented or if it is an old or foreign patent document, the
invention is deemed to be novel.
After being laid open, Patent 871 was cited by examiners and others in many related
applications filed subsequently. Patent 871 is directly cited in the patent documents in the orange
boxes, which include subsequent applications filed by Equos Research itself, as well as Toyota
Motor and Denso in the same industry.
Moreover, citations may be in the form of second-generation citations. The patent documents in
the pink boxes are second-generation citations of Patent 871, and those in the purple boxes are
third-generation citations. Specifically, second-generation and third-generation citations are also
found in patent documents filed by companies such as Hitachi, Ltd. outside the industry.
The fact that Patent 871 has been repeatedly cited by Equos Research itself and other companies
within the same industry shows that the patent is an important art for Equos Research and the Toyota
Group. In addition, the fact that companies outside the industry often cited the patent strongly
suggests that the patent is an important one for the entire industry.
 Example of Use
In introducing a patent, it is important when evaluating the patent to identify prior related
patents and the status of citation of the patent in subsequent applications. In particular, the existence
of a pioneer patent which would prevent the patent from standing on its own is likely to pose a
serious problem. An Interpatent Relations Map is useful for understanding the relations between
patents when carrying out such an evaluation.
Some companies use an Interpatent Relations Map to identify companies that are likely to
infringe their patents. Some consulting firms in the U.S. even advise their clients to automatically
offer a licensing agreement with large royalty terms or to issue warnings to potential infringers about
the risk of infringement. In general, this advice is not reasonable and can cause major trouble.
Note that a patent is registered on the premise that it has novelty and inventive step, regardless
of the existence of cited patent documents.
 Key Points When Using an Interpatent Relations Map
The following should be noted when using Citation Information.
The first point is who cited the Citation Information. As stated earlier, citation in an application
filed by the same right-holder (or applicant) has different implications from citation in an application
filed by persons other than the right-holder. Drawing conclusions by analyzing high citation
frequency solely based on the number of patent documents cited might lead to an incorrect
evaluation of the patent. Citation of a patent by its applicant in patent documents relating to the
applicant’s subsequent inventions yield different results from citation of the patent by an examiner or

- 13 -

a third party. Also, inventors tend to cite their own patents in patent documents for their subsequent
inventions.
The second point is the category of prior art cited. The prior art stated in a PCT or EPC search
report is broken into categories according to its relevance to the invention. These categories include:
prior art that is directly related to the invention (so-called document X), prior art that involves a
combination of more than one patent (document Y); and general technical information (document A).
The positioning of citation of a patent under the category of document A as a highly relevant patent
could mislead users.
Thirdly, it is important to consider how the information on prior art was actually used. Some
documents are not used at all by the examiner in the notification of reasons for refusal. Other
documents may provide grounds for rejection of an application or for elimination of corresponding
claims. To understand the relevance to the invention, it is necessary to consider the prior art’s
effective relevance to the patents or patent applications, as mentioned above.

3.4. Matrix Map

 Overview
A patent document includes various information and aspects such as use, functions, raw
materials, etc. In addition, patent documents also provide bibliographical information such as the
name of the applicant and name of the inventor as well as information on technical content.
In the current patent information retrieval system, a combination of these information items
provides pinpoint access to required information, such as with a hybrid system. In building a Patent
Map which treats patents in a cluster, by considering patent information from multiple aspects, you
can refine your search and analyze patent trends based on a more detailed understanding of patent
networks.
A Matrix Map clearly shows the spread of patent networks by a combination of multiple
aspects.
Aspects used for Matrix-Map analysis include the field of industrial application, use, technical
element, functional element, problem to be solved by the invention, means for solving the problem,
etc. In addition, bibliographical information such as the name of the applicant and filing date of the
application may be used.
Most Matrix Maps deal with two aspects because Patent Maps are typically built for
two-dimensional display, such as on paper or screen. A Matrix Map is built by arranging these
elements in a matrix and shows the positioning of a specific patent or the status of concentration or
dispersion of patent rights. Attempts have been made to create three-dimensional Matrix Maps that
deal with three elements.
Figure 3-4 shows part of a Matrix Map for LED lighting technology.

- 14 -

This Map uses “problem to be solved by the invention” and “means for solving the problem” as
aspects. Specifically, the Matrix Map shows the positioning of relevant key patents, together with
their right-holder (or applicant) and the corresponding patent number, for a set of problems to be
solved by the invention, in combination with a set of means for solving the problems. The former set
of problems includes: improvement of optical property; performance improvement of illuminated
ray; improvement of manufacturability; and other performance improvements. The latter set of
means for solving the problem includes: development of LED materials and structures; development
of methods for packaging; development of methods for manufacturing LED lamps; and development
of driving circuits.

Fig. 3-4 Example of Matrix Map by Use of Patent Number (Lighting LED)
Means for solving the Improvement of
problem and problem to Improvement of optical Improvement of Improvement of other
performance of
be solved by the property manufacturability performance
invention illumination light

■Koninklijke Philips
Electronics (NL)
A2000-509912
Development of LED ■Nichia
materials and structure B2927279
■Nichia
B2998696

■Kyocera ■Rohm
Development of A2002-232017 A2002-344029
method of packaging ■Matsushita Electrics
Industry
and manufacturing
B3309440

Improvement of ■Mitsubishi Chemical ■Stanley Electric
B3102144 A2002-344029
installation of LED lamp

Development of drive ■Toko
A2001-215913
circuit
■Omron ■CSS ■Seiko Epson
B 3151830 B 2975893 B3585097
■Seiko Epson ■Stanley Electric ■Director General of Agency
A 1998-260404 B3352989 of Industrial Science and
■Sony ■Mannesmann VDO AG (DE) Technology
A 2002-75038 A1999-271100 B3048353
■Director General of Agency
Development of of Industrial Science and
applied product Technology
B3159968
■Mitsubishi Rayon
A1995-27137
■Nitto Chemical/Ciberk
A 2001-42431
■Fuji Xerox
A1999-32278

Adapted from data in the ―Patent Distribution Support Chart: Electric 19—Lighting LED Technology‖ (INPIT, 2006)

Generally, inventors are prompted to make an invention by problems to be solved by the
invention and means for solving the problem. By using these two aspects for analysis in a Matrix
Map, it is possible to carry out a meaningful analysis of information on patent rights as well as
technical information.

A Matrix Map highlights the right-holder who owns a patent and holds a dominant position with
respect to relevant art. This Matrix Map shows that improvement of the optical property, which is
the most fundamental aspect of LED lighting, came from the successful development of LED
materials and structures by Philips and Nichia Corporation, both of which hold patents relating to the
art. On the other hand, regarding improving manufacturability, Rohm, Matsushita Electric Industrial

- 15 -

Co., Ltd. and Komatsu Electronics hold patents in the art, suggesting highly-advanced development.
On the other hand, with respect to art where no patent exists, one may consider the possibility of
one’s own entry including technical feasibility studies.
A patent summary list is attached to this Matrix Map that contains the filing date as the initial
date of reckoning for the expiry date of the term of right, abstract, representative drawing, etc.
Figure 3-5 shows part of a patent summary list cited in this Patent Map.

Fig. 3-5 Example of Summary List (Lighting LED)
Document No. Filing Date Inventor/Title of Invention Brief Summary

A light emitting diode that emits high-quality white light, comprised of a combination of a UV
Koninklijke Philips Electronics
diode having a 300 nm ≤ λ ≤ 370 nm emission band, a blue light emitting phosphor having a
Ａ2000- Mar. 3, N.V., (NL)
430 nm ≤ λ ≤ 490 nm emission band, a green light emitting phosphor having a 520 nm ≤ λ ≤
509912 1997
570 nm emission band and a red light emitting phosphor having a 590 nm ≤ λ ≤ 630 nm
White light emitting diode emission band.

A light emitting diode comprised of nitride compound
Nichia Corp.
semiconductor, having an yttrium aluminum garnet phosphor with
July 29,
Ｂ 2927279 photoluminescence phosphor activated by cerium, characterized
1996 Light emitting diode and
by the fact that the light emitting diode is less likely to be subject
display unit using the same to decrease in light emitting efficiency or color drift.

A light emitting diode comprised of a first resin and a second
resin which, in combination, fill the inside of the LED cup,
characterized by the fact that the first resin contains wavelength
Nichia Corp.
Sept. 28, conversion materials such as fluorescent material which is
Ｂ 2998696
1993 capable of converting wavelength or filter material which absorbs
Light emitting diode part of the light emitting wavelength, thereby improving the
brightness and light-condensing efficiency and preventing color
mixing.

Package for housing a light-emitting element and method for
Kyocera manufacturing the package, the package having a through hole
made in a ceramic window frame with its inner wall extending
Ａ 2002- Jan. 30, outward at an angle of 55-70 degrees with the top surface of the
Package for housing light-
232017 2001 package and having the ceramic window laminated on the
emitting element and method surface, characterized by the fact that the ceramic window frame
for manufacturing the same is coated with a metal layer having an average center line
roughness of 1–3 μm and a reflection coefficient of 80% or more.

Mitsubishi Chemical A high-power-driven light emitting diode system characterized by
June 16, the fact that light emitting diode elements are housed in a cooling
Ｂ3102144
1992 Forced cooled light emitting case situated inside an insulated casing and that the LED system
diode system is cooled by introducing therein a coolant such as liquid nitrogen.

Adapted from data in the ―Patent Distribution Support Chart: Electric 19—Lighting LED Technology‖ (INPIT, 2006)

Neither the “problems to be solved by the invention” nor “means for solving the problem” are
included in bibliographical information contained. This information is only included in the
specification on a conceptual basis. A person wishing to build a Map must read all relevant patent
documents in order to organize properly the “problems to be solved by the invention” and “means
for solving the problem.”
In general, “problems to be solved by the invention” can be categorized into those of principle
that involve earlier stages of product development and those such as miniaturization, weight saving,
improvement of manufacturability that involve the stage of commercialization of a product. An
analysis approach driven solely by leading concepts would make the resulting Patent Map less useful,
and so the analysis is designed to be driven by more specific problems that could be identified
through hierarchically organizing these issues. Analysis of these problems provides an overview of
the art and its present stage.

- 16 -

Similarly, “means for solving the problems” can be categorized into several categories,
including: development of a new principle; use of new materials or change of materials;
development of new structures; addition of auxiliary members; improvement of control and/or
process, etc. To build a useful Patent Map, it is necessary to consider the characteristics of the
individual art as well as generally available means for solving the problems. As is the case with
problems to be solved by the invention, means for solving the problems are, from time to time,
designed as a detailed system with multiple strata based on characteristics of the art.
A Matrix-Map analysis can be presented in graphical form as well as in matrix form.
Figure 3-6 shows a conceptual diagram of a Matrix-Map comprised of a bubble graph.

Fig. 3-6 Conceptual Diagram of Quantitative Matrix Map
9
8
h

g
Aspect Set II

7
Notable technology
Relatively easy to develop
6
f Likely to be subject to
intellectual property disputes

5
e

Notable aspect
4
d

3
c

2
b

a1 Less subject to disputes
Difficult to develop

0
A B C D E F G H
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Aspect Set I
Notable aspect

This Map segments the relevant art by combinations of Aspect Set (I) and Aspect Set (II). The
number of patents that fall into a combination is counted and expressed by the size of a bubble. This
sort of quantitative Matrix-Map enables you to recognize at a glance problems, means for solving the
problems and technical elements in which applications filed and technological development are
concentrated. For example, this schematic diagram shows that many patent applications are
concentrated in a combination of Aspect C and Aspect D.
This Map also provides information on the possibility of new entry. It shows that the largest
number of patent applications was filed in the art which involves Aspect C and Aspect D, with a

- 17 -

large volume of information disclosed, which makes R&D in the art relatively easy. There is also the
likelihood of a specific company having exhaustively acquired patent rights in the art, with a large
number of companies competing actively with each other. From this perspective, the map suggests
that although the art is generally easy to develop technically, care regarding intellectual property
issues is required.
In contrast, there are very few patent applications for art which involves Aspect C and Aspect B,
so there is less chance that a company has exhaustively acquired patent rights in this art, leaving
room for further development. In other words, the map shows that new entry is less likely to cause
unnecessary problems over intellectual property. However, a small number of patent applications
means that related areas are not well developed and patent information is limited, suggesting that the
art is difficult to develop.
Figure 3-7 shows an example of a Matrix Map for the art of autologous cell renewal therapy.

Fig. 3-7 Example of a Matrix Map in Bubble Graph Form
(Autologous Cell Renewal Therapy Technology)
13
Improvement of analytical
method
12 25 2 1 6 1 2 1

Improvement of methods
for collection, separation
11 34 1 1 4 2 4 1 2 2 87
and enrichment
Improvement of cellular10 15 31 1 7 5 1 4 5 8 9 11
Means for solving the problems

growth method

Application of biologically
active agent
9 2 9 86 5 11 3 6 1 8 18 16 1

Use of artificial materials 8 20 55 4 30 11 3 2 24 5 18 1

Use of gene transfer 7 1 19 1 1 2 11 85 3

Improvement of physical
method 6 11 1 3 2 141 11

storage/transportation 5
Improvement of 4 11 2 2 1 66 4 5
methods
Transplantation methods4 1 4 36 5 50 7 39 2 1 66 4 5

Improvement of method for
active factor dosing therapy
3 1 72 1 2 7 2 36 3 1

Improvement of parts and
equipment 2 11 12 19 9 8 15 3 1 18 3 4 29 5

Improvement of control
method, etc. 1 1 1 1 2 1

0
Exclusion of contagium
Improvement of capacity
Reduction of operation

Safety improvement of

differentiation, inductio
Avoidance of rejection

Therapy improvement
Improvement of ease

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Improvement of cell
Maintenance of cell

Avoidance of side-
Improvement of cell

Improvement of
for regeneration

reduction, etc.
the related art

n and control

Process cost
survival rate
of handling

collection
function

effect
time

Problems to be solved by the invention
Adapted from data in the ―Patent Distribution Support Chart: Chemical 31—Autologous Cell Renewal Therapy‖ (INPIT, 2006)

This Map also uses “problems to be solved by the invention” and “means for solving the
problems” as aspects for analysis.

- 18 -

The Patent Map shows that technological development is concentrated on the art which involves
“improvement of capacity for regeneration,” “improvement of therapy,” “improvement of
differentiation, induction and control” and “improvement of cell collection.”
On the other hand, the map includes “improvement of physical methods,” “improvement of
method of transplantation” and “use of gene transfer” as means for solving the problems. The art in
which “improvement of physical methods” is used as the means for “improvement of differentiation,
induction and control” and for which many patent applications were filed has attracted attention.
However, it may be very difficult to enter this field as it has been covered by many patents.
The fact that very few patent applications have been filed in the art does not necessarily mean
that the field of art is unpopular. Rather, it means that a company involved in development could
enter this field without causing undue trouble. It could also be an opportunity for success in business
if one can find a method for solving a particular problem which nobody has been able to find. A
quantitative Matrix Map is useful for identifying such a field of art.
The Patent Map shown in Figure. 3-7 makes it possible to distinguish the fields of art in which
many patent applications were filed in the past from that in which many patents were filed more
recently, by depicting bubbles in different colors.

This shows that more recent applications are concentrated on “improvement of physical
methods” for “improvement of differentiation, induction and control.” Also, “use of artificial
materials” and “improvement of parts and equipment” are becoming widely used as a means for
solving.
 Example of Use
A Matrix Map is one of the most typical Patent Maps; a bare Patent Map could even be made
from a Matrix Map. Matrix Maps are useful for all sections which need a Patent Map.
The Map allows an R&D Section to avoid wasting investment in developing an art for which
many patent rights have been created, and helps it to identify a promising field of art in which there
have been very few patent prosecutions. Even a field of art with a large number of patent
applications will allow new entrants if the applicant is a company in the same industry or a research
institution that has a good relationship with the right-holder.
A field of art with no or very few patent applications involved will bring new challenges.
The Map allows a Patent Management Section to assess the status of patent prosecution for the
relevant art and hence to draft strong patent claims covering a wide range of art. It also allows the
department to effectively carry out a search of prior art and related art in order to exclude
competitors’ patents that are likely to hinder economic activities of the relevant company.
The Map allows a Licensing Section to evaluate the potential effects of offering the relevant
company’s patents to the outside world or spillover effects of others’ patents proposed for
introduction.

- 19 -

The Map allows a Corporate Strategy Section to analyze the status of development of the art by
competitors and their patent strategies in the art, thus providing a powerful tool for formulating
business alliance strategies.
The usefulness of a Matrix Map depends on the appropriateness of selection and combination of
aspects for analysis. A Matrix Map with inappropriate aspects for analysis will be virtually useless.
In many cases, these aspects for analysis are not directly available from patent documents as
bibliographical information and would therefore require a complementary analysis by an expert and
creation of a database. The quality of the database would also affect the usefulness of a resulting
Matrix Map.
One of the most effective tools to minimize the need for additional analysis is patent
classification. To use the tool effectively, an accurate understanding of the underlying rules of patent
classification is needed.
People who are unfamiliar with patent information often incorrectly assume that a plurality of
patent classifications for a patent document means classifications based on multiple aspects. For
example, if a patent has a classification for “textile” and a classification for “tire,” interpreting this to
mean that the patent is related to the fibrous structure of tires would clearly be a misuse of patent
classifications. The international patent classification system is based on the principle of classifying
the relevant subject matters as a whole. Unless otherwise specified, the fact that a patent has a
plurality of classifications does not mean that the patent involves two or more aspects.
Likewise, an expert in patent information analysis should refrain from using key words; a key
word is intended to indicate an element involved in the patent, not to cover the whole of the relevant
art.

3.5. Systematized Art Diagram

 Overview
A Systematized Art Diagram shows the system of arts based on patent information as well as the
number of patents granted according to the technical elements included. The Diagram seldom
includes specific patent numbers, although it sometimes includes the document number for a key
patent to supplement the technical contents.
Figure 3-8 is an example of a Systematized Art Diagram for a wind-turbine generator system.
A wind-turbine generator involves: (i) blade technology that is used to convert wind power into
rotational kinetic energy; (ii) power transmission technology that is used to transmit the rotation of
turbines to a power generator; (iii) support/structure technology; (iv) operation control technology;
(v) system technology; (vi) energy storage technology; and (vii) applied technology.

- 20 -

Fig. 3-8 Example of Systematized Art Diagram (Wind-Turbine Generator)
Operation/
Turbine technology: control System technology:
447 technology: 133
422

Horizontal-axis type:

Control technology:

Safety system: 48
Vertical-axis type:

Formulation as a
technology: 29

system: 76
Others: 31

Operation

Others: 9
238

178

393
Support/structure technology: 310
Power transmission technology: 204
Substructure: 35
Wind guide: 100

Speed-up gear: 37

Brake mechanism:

Transmission: 8
Generator: 129

Compressor: 6
Nacelle: 28
Tower: 120

Others: 27

Others: 14
10
Applied
technology:
501 Energy storage technology: 71

Pressurized fluid: 13
application: 476

Hydrogen energy

Electric energy
Specialized

Others: 25

storage: 26

storage: 14

Others: 18
Total number of patent applications filed
from January 1993 to December 2003: 2,088
Adapted from data in the ―Patent Distribution Support Chart: Machinery 15—Wind- or Wave-power Engine‖ (INPIT, 2006)

With respect to the arts relating to the main unit of the wind turbine generator system, applied
technology, which involves application to railroad vehicles, has attracted the largest number of
patent applications, accounting for a quarter of the total. The greatest number of patent applications
involved blade technology, followed by operation/control technology. These two arts combined
account for 55% of all patents relating to the main unit. With respect to blade technology,
vertical-axis-type blade technology attracted many more patent applications than
horizontal-axis-type blade technology.

 Example of Use
Given that a Diagram of Technological Structure shows the total volume of patents relating to a
specific range of art, the diagram is usually used to summarize intellectual property-related activities
at governmental organizations and universities or to show the technological structure as viewed from
a patent perspective rather than for patent management at companies.
Governmental organizations and universities sometimes include a Diagram of Technological
Structure in their technical reports to compare their intellectual property-related activities with those
of competitors in the private sector.
A qualitative analysis, including a Systematized Art Diagram, must meet the requirement that
the underlying patent document (or patent documents as the parent population) is as free as possible
from omissions and that the document(s) does not include “noise” or irrelevant information.

- 21 -

Specifically, given the differences in the underlying classification concept between industrial
nomenclature or classification of goods and patent classification (particularly international patent
classification), in order to collect relevant patents without omission, it is important to visually check
the basic data. If an important patent is found to be omitted, it may be necessary to perform retrieval
again.

3.6. Time Series Map

 Overview
One of the most basic Patent Maps is to collect patent documents for a particular right-holder,
arrange them by year of filing of patent application, and plot the number of patents or patent
applicaitons. This is called a Time Series Map and is easily created by anyone.
A Time Series Map is used to analyze the trends of applicants or inventors as well as the number
of patent applications filed and patents issued.
Figure 3-9 shows changes in the number of applicants who newly filed applications for patent
relating to CPU technology in the year.

Fig. 3-9 Example of Time Series Map (New Applicants for Patent Relating to CPU Technology)

70
Applicants who only filed
an application in the year

60 Applicants who filed an
application in the
Number of new applicants

following years, too

50

40

30

20

10

0
1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

Filing Year
Source: ―Patent Map by Technical Field: Electrical Machinery 17—CPU Technology‖ (JPO,2000)

- 22 -

The Map reveals that the number of applicants who newly entered this field of art increased
between 1987 and 1994 and then remained unchanged at around 15 per year.
 Example of Use
A Time Series Map is often used for a background analysis before a detailed analysis of the
relevant patents. However, a conclusion drawn based solely on a Time Series Map without
individual analyses is likely to mislead the user.
A Time Series Map will have different meanings depending on the year selected as the reference
axis.
The reference axis most frequently used is “the filing date” which is generally a long time after
“the date on which the relevant invention was made.” For an application from abroad, or an
application claiming internal priority or priority based on conversion of application, the priority date
is extensively used.
On the other hand, people who are unfamiliar with the patent system are likely to misunderstand
that an analysis by filing date is an analysis based on old data. In this case, the year of publication of
unexamined applications may be used as the reference axis.
Some technical experts often use patent information analysis to verify his hypothesis If the
results of patent information analysis disagree with the prevailing perception of the industry, they
will highlight the problems of patent information analysis.
Patent information analysis is not used for supporting existing doctrine but for independent
analysis.

3.7. Twin Peaks Analysis Map

 Overview
A map built on twin peaks analysis is commonly used and compares favorably with a Time
Series Map in terms of capacity. Twin peaks analysis involves dividing up a cluster of patents as the
parent population according to some aspect and can reveal some new aspect that would otherwise
remain hidden. The simplest way is to divide up a cluster of patents by applicants, and to use
technical elements and patent classification as aspects for the analysis.
Figure 3-10 is a Twin Peaks Map for optical disk technology.
Patent applications relating to optical disk technology started to be filed in the 1970s, with the
number filed growing slowly until the early 1980s.
First, there was an increase in the number of patent applications relating to “optical disk
substrate” or technology related to the recording layer, substrate materials and substrate structure.
Then, in 1982, there was an increase in the number of patent applications relating to the
“principles of record reproduction” including data access and data processing involved in retrieving
data from an optical disk substrate.

- 23 -

Fig. 3-10 Example of Twin Peaks Map (Optical Disk Technology)

Technology of substrate production Principle of record reproduction
Optical disk substrate
1,600
Number of patent applications

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0
1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997

Filing Year

Adapted from data in the ―Patent Map by Technical Field: Electrical Machinery 13—Optical Disk‖ (JPO, 2000)

Thereafter, the number of patent applications relating to “optical disk substrate” and the
“principles of record reproduction” continued to increase, with the number of patent applications
relating to “technology of substrate production” including forming the layers of an optical disk
substrate, substrate molding, stamper, etc., rising, albeit slowly, and then accelerating in 1984 and
reaching its peak in 1988.
A Twin Peaks Map highlights the time lag between the period of a rapid increase and the peak
period with respect to technological development of the relevant art.
Although the causes of such a time lag can be found by analyzing the contents of applications
filed at the peak period, the pattern of development starting from the development of principles and
equipment in which the relevant invention is utilized and evolving into the development of substrate
and further, into the development of technology of substrate production, could represent a feature of
technological development. Specifically, the development of optical disk technology has led to
various global technology standards including the laser disk (LD), CD-ROM, CD-ReWritable, MO
or MD, and DVD. The development of these technology standards and substrate production
technologies has followed a single pattern of development.
 Example of Use
A Twin Peaks Map shows the preceding or lagging nature of technological development under
way at one’s company under the corporate strategy. It also shows a country’s delay in gaining an

- 24 -

international competitive edge in a specific art. Therefore, the map is commonly used by government
organizations, think-tanks and universities in their economic analysis reports and white papers rather
than by companies for their own analysis.
Although the map may have limited use in creating corporate strategies, it is an essential tool for
comparing your technological development with that of domestic and overseas competitors.
The key to a successful twin peaks analysis is depending on the selection of appropriate aspects
for analysis. If feasible, it is important to try various aspects so that a distinct time lag can be found.

3.8. Maturation Map

 Overview
A quantitative analysis usually counts the number of patents issued or applications filed, as well
as the number of applicants or right-holders. The number of applicants indicates the level of interest
in the relevant technology in industry or in the market. Some analyses focus only on the total number
of applicants or the number of new entrants.
A “Maturation Map” or “Technological Maturation Map” plots the number of applicants and the
number of applications filed by year of filing of patent applications.
Figure 3-11 shows a conceptual diagram of a Maturation Map.

Fig. 3-11 Conceptual Diagram of a Maturation Map

200
Number of applications filed

160
(ii) Maturation period
(v) Recovery period

120
出 (i) Developing period
願
人 (iii) Declining period
数 80
(iv) Stagnant
period

40

Number of applicants
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
出願件数

In this map, the x-axis and y-axis represent the number of applicants and the number of applications

- 25 -

filed, respectively, and plots the count for the relevant year of application filing for the
corresponding place.
Generally, there are few early applications involving a limited number of entrants. Thereafter,
the number of applications increases rapidly as new seed technology is developed and/or society’s
demand for the relevant art grows. This represents the developing period shown by (i), and is
indicated by a sharp increase in the number of applications filed or the number of applicants. This is
followed by a period in which the number of applications sharply increases, but this increase is
rarely long-lasting. After a while, the maturation period shown by (ii) comes, soon followed by a
decline period as shown by (iii). In the decline period, former entrants withdraw from the field, with
the number of applications decreasing. The transition from the declining period to the recovery
period may be triggered by various factors, and causes the number of applications filed and the
number of applicants to increase once again.
Figure 3-12 shows an example of a Maturity Map for spattering technology.

Fig. 3-12 Example of Maturation Map (Spattering Technology)

1987
800

1986

1990

600

400
1984

1981 1994
200
1997

1977
0
0 50 100 150 200

Number of applicants
Adapted from data in the ―Patent Map by Technical Field: Chemical 16—Physical Vapor Deposition‖ (JPO, 2000)

Up to around 1980, spattering technology attracted few applicants and few applications, with the
former at approximately 50 and the latter at 100. A sign of a change in the situation appeared when
the number of applicants fell in 1981, yet the number of applications filed increased. In that year, the

- 26 -

number of applicants was half that of the previous year, yet the number of applications almost
doubled.
In 1982, the number of applications filed did not substantially increase, but the number of
applicants was three times that of 1981 and twice that of the 1970s. This increase in the number of
applicants indicated industry’s rising interest in the art. Thereafter, a developing period (or a period
of growth) came, during which both the number of applicants and the number of applications filed
increased.
This increase in the number of applicants (companies) engaged in development in this field and
in the number of applications filed continued until 1987 and then stabilized. Then, the number of
applications filed dropped sharply. Thereafter, the number of applications stayed at around 600 for
some time, with some 170 companies involved as applicants. After that, a gradual period of decline
arrived, in which both the number of applications filed and the number of applicants decreased.
There was no sign of recovery up to 1997, the last year covered by the analysis based on this Map.

 Example of Use
A Maturation Map is used to grasp industry trends when planning to enter a field of technology.
Importantly, it allows a company to gain an advantage in economic activities by immediately
detecting signs of a developing period and entering the field ahead of competitors. During the later
stages of the growth period, it is important to continuously monitor for any decrease in the number
of applications filed or the number of new entrants. In addition to this, it is naturally important to
evaluate, as alternatives, a withdrawal plan and a response plan in the case of a recovery period by
using patents owned by companies that exited the relevant technical field.
As Maturation Maps reflect industry trends, government organizations and research institutes
sometimes use them to prepare reports or for industry/market analysis.
A Maturation Map is used to detect signs of change in the number of applicants or the number
of applications filed. In fact, such signs of change vary with the technical field, and hence, both
cases hold true.
A Maturation Map will increase your awareness of the handling of applications filed by foreign
applicants. In principle, a foreign applicant files an application with the Japan Patent Office through
due formalities under the Japanese Patent Act or through specified formalities under the Paris
Convention or PCT guidelines. Many applications filed under the PCT guidelines take a long time
before being published. Therefore, when conducting an analysis based on the Map, you must check
the date up to which applications covered by the map were filed.

3.9. Ranking Map

 Overview
A Ranking Map presents the ranking of the number of patents filed by technical element or by
right-holder or applicant.

- 27 -

An analysis based on the ranking of the number of applications filed by right-holder or applicant
reveals the degree of technological strength of the right-holder or applicant or the influence of the
relevant intellectual property in the relevant technical field. It is important to note the existence of
any company with no experience in the production or distribution of a product that ranks high in the
map.
A time-series Ranking Map that takes time factors into account may accurately indicate a
change in leading companies in the technical field. Although such a change bears no immediate
relationship with changes in market share, a leading technical edge of a company may indicate its
dominant position in an emerging market.
Figure 3-13 is a Ranking Map for continuously variable transmission technology. It shows
trends in technological development by automobile manufacturers and parts manufacturers in this
technical field.

Fig. 3-13 Example of Ranking Map (Continuously Variable Transmission Technology)
Applicant 1993-2003 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

1 Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. 603 80 53 48 54 50 38

2 NSK Ltd. 564 41 62 48 105 84 99

3 Toyota Motor Corp. 268 5 8 32 33 58 113

4 Honda Motor Co., Ltd. 213 20 22 48 22 23 50

5 JTEKT Corp. 93 1 9 19 20 10 25

6 JATCO Ltd. 77 3 0 5 8 39 15

Bando Chemical
7 75 13 13 8 9 8 5
Industries Ltd.
Fuji Heavy Industries
8 61 3 2 12 4 10 11
Ltd.
LuK GmbH & Co.
9 59 10 15 7 7 4 5
(Germany)
Daihatsu Motor
10 47 1 3 7 17 6 13
Co., Ltd.

11 VDT (Holland) 47 6 6 10 9 4 0

12 Isuzu Motor Limited 45 6 3 0 0 0 0

Source: ―Patent Distribution Support Chart: Machinery 16—Continuously Variable Transmission‖ (INPIT)

Over time, Nissan Motor Co., which had filed the largest number of applications, started to file
fewer applications after the peak in 1998. In contrast, the number of patent applications filed by
Toyota Motor Corp. grew rapidly. Such a change in the number of applications filed by a company
often mirrors its technological development strategy.
 Example of Use
A Ranking Map by applicant provides a company with valuable information about the moves of
its competitors.

- 28 -

As mentioned earlier, a corporate-based analysis would require you to take into account such
changes as mergers, acquisitions, divestitures and corporate name changes at the companies engaged
in the technical field.

3.10. Share Map

 Overview
A Share Map shows who filed an application for a patent relating to a specific technology. It is
also used to indicate the distribution of applications filed by technical element which the applications
relate to.
A Share Map is usually presented in the form of a pie chart distributed by percentage. However,
to indicate changes over time, a Share Map may also be shown as a bar graph or band graph.
Figure 3-14 shows changes in the share of applicants for patents relating to nano-particle
formation technology.

Fig. 3-14 Example of Share Map (Nanoparticle Formation Technology)
100%

37.1
40.7 43.8 44.8
75% 52.0
Domestic corporation

Domestic corporation
(unlisted)
Domestic individual

15.0 19.5
50% 15.5 Overseas applicant
18.2
10.7 University or public
4.7
11.5 research organization
1.3 7.9
9.2

25% 8.6
26.7 31.1 19.5
23.9

19.3
13.3
9.3 8.8 7.4
0%
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
Filing Year
Adapted from data in the ―Patent Distribution Support Chart: General 18—Nanoparticle Formation Technology‖ (INPIT )

Japanese listed companies used to account for a share of 50% or more, but their share has
remained substantially below 50% for some time. In contrast, universities and public research
organizations have increased their shares.

- 29 -

A Share Map by right-holder or applicant may be affected by the handling of joint applications.
If the total number of patents issued is assumed to represent the total number of applications filed,
the share of applications filed by a single applicant will be underrepresented. However, if
applications filed jointly are distributed proportionately, each share will not add up to the actual
number of applications filed.
This is also true when using a Share Map by technical element. If the relevant invention is
assumed to include other patent classifications than that included in the first invention information,
the total number of patent classifications will exceed the actual number of patent documents.

3.11. Skeleton Map

 Overview
A "Skeleton Map" is so named because of its fishbone shape in which a technology diversifies
and diverges over time. One feature of this map is that divergence of a technology is assumed to take
place at the time when a patent application for the technology was filed. This feature could provide
an accurate and objective measure of the time of divergence that otherwise would not be available
because, unlike the time of release of a product enabled by an invention, the time at which a patent
application was filed is likely to be closer to the actual date on which the invention was made and
can be easily identified regardless of the sale of such product.
A diagram showing the number of applications filed in the year of divergence and thereafter
shows the extent to which the technology spread after divergence occurred. In some cases, the map
may conceptually indicate the time of divergence without showing the specific year in which the
patent application was filed.
Figure 3-15 is an example of a Skeleton Map showing the development of technology relating
to online shopping.
The upper part of the map shows the time when patent applications related to the technology
started to be filed in Japan, with the lower part showing that in the U.S.
The map indicates that in the U.S., patent applications relating to online shopping started to be
filed in the late 1960s, whereas in Japan, patent applications relating to electronic malls, browsing,
ordering, online catalogs, etc. were filed in 1975 all at once. It follows that patent applications
relating to electronic malls and online catalogs were published in Japan earlier than in the U.S.
It also shows a slight difference in the extent to which the filing of patent applications relating to
the relevant technology spread in subsequent years in Japan and the U.S. For example, ordering
technology drew the largest number of patent applications in Japan, while browsing technology
attracted many patent applications in the U.S., with the first of them filed in 1967.

- 30 -

Fig. 3-15 Example of Skeleton Map (Online Shopping)
1975: 810 cases relating to creation of
electronic mall

1975: 72 cases relating to operation of
electronic mall

1975: 1,080 cases relating to browsing
1991: 47 cases relating to ordering
Japan patent clearance
1975: 2,321 cases relating to ordering

1975: 1,012 cases relating to online 1994: 1,197 cases relating to online
catalog catalog clearance

1975: 260 cases relating to data
transmission

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
1990: 16 cases relating to data
transmission
1982: 142 cases relating to operation
of electronic mall
1978: 312 cases relating to creation of
electronic mall
1972: 145 cases relating to online 1988: 19 cases relating to online
U.S. patent catalog catalog clearance
1988: 17 cases relating to ordering
1968: 247 cases relating to ordering clearance

1967: 425 cases relating to browsing

Note: The number of cases denotes the number of applications filed from 1977 to 1999, both inclusive, with respect to Japan patents
and the number of patents granted from 1969 to 1998, both inclusive, with respect to U.S. patents.

Adapted from data in the ―Patent Map by Technical Field: Electric 19—Electronic Commerce and Financial Business in the Internet Age‖ (JPO, 2000)

 Example of Use
A Skeleton Map is often used to gain a comprehensive understanding of the spread of
technological development. The map derived from patent information covers a wide variety of
technological development under way in various industries that could not easily be covered by
information from any other source, and shows at a glance how a particular technology has developed
and spread. For example, in the case where a basic seed technology is developed, examining how the
field of use has developed will help you to consider the potential of entering the field and possible
directions of your own future technological development.
Meanwhile, for academic research, it allows you to carry out a precise analysis based on
complete information on technological development.
A Skeleton Map shows the time when patent applications for a specific technology started to be
filed, not the time when the invention was completed. Given that many inventions are not
successfully commercialized and development ceases, it may be necessary to conduct a separate
analysis on the timing of commercialization.

3.12. Radar Map
 Overview
A “Radar Map” or “Radar Chart” is a Patent Map based on a radar-like graph that is used to
analyze differences in intellectual property strategy between individual companies, changes in
subjects of technological development over time and international differences in patents held.

- 31 -

Figure 3-16 is an actual example of a Radar Map for biometrics technology.

Fig. 3-16 Example of Radar Map (Biometrics Technology)
Fingerprint verification
technology
80
70
60
Complex verification technology 50 Iris verification technology

40
30
20
10
0

Other biometric technologies Face verification technology

Signature verification Voiceprint verification
technology technology

94-95 96-97 98-99
Adapted from data in the ―Patent Distribution Support Chart: Electrical 3—Biometrics‖ (INPIT)

This Map reveals changes in technological development relating to key fields of biometrics
technology including “fingerprint verification technology,” “iris verification technology,” “face
verification technology,” “voiceprint verification technology” and “signature verification technology”
for the period from 1994 to 1999.
In the 1994-95 period, the total number of patent applications filed was limited in the whole of
biometrics technology, with patent applications tending to focus on fingerprint verification
technology. In the following 1996-97 period, there was an increase in the number of patent
applications filed relating to iris verification and other biometrical technologies which had only
drawn a limited number of patent applications. And in the 1998-99 period, there was a rapid increase
in the number filed relating to face verification technology, with a decrease in the number relating to
voiceprint verification, signature verification and other biometric technologies, reflecting a
narrowing of the focus of technological development.
 Example of Use
Although Figure 3-16 compares the timing of filing a patent application for various biometrical
technologies, a Radar Map is most commonly used to analyze research and development strategies
and patent strategies pursued by companies. Building a Radar Map on an applicant basis reveals in
what technical field individual companies or research institutions have concentrated funding and
labor on a particular technology.
A Radar Map is also useful for comparing the international competitiveness of companies on the
basis patent information.

- 32 -

4. Creating a Patent Map

4.1. Procedure for Creating a Patent Map

Anyone can build a Patent Map after obtaining the required set of information and with a
minimum knowledge of Patent Maps.
Now that most patent offices around the world provide IPDL services, it is not difficult to obtain
the required patent information. In some countries, the patent office even provides free software that
can be used for building a Patent Map.
Nevertheless, it may not be easy to create an effective Patent Map, because systematic
procedures for building Patent Maps are not defined.
Figure 4-1 shows a common procedure for creating a Patent Map.

Fig. 4-1 Procedure for Building a Patent Map

Overall design

Gathering patent document Information

Additional Indexing and Hierarchization Compilation of a Database



Combination of multiple maps

Comprehensive evaluation

(1) Overall Design
Creating a Patent Map starts with defining its intended use, then studying the scope of patent
information, the organization and the period.
(2) Gathering Patent Information
Next, patent information must be gathered. Complete and less noisy patent information, together
with a well-defined purpose of use, are the minimum requirement for creating an effective Patent
Map.
(3) Additional Indexing
Patent information includes large amounts of bibliographical information, much of which is
available from the patent office as standardized data. However, this information is usually

- 33 -

insufficient to create a Patent Map, and additional indexing of patent documents is required to cover
the insufficiency.
(4) Constructing a Database
Bibliographical information in gathered patent documents and information obtained from
additional indexing s are then merged into a database. This database can be made by using
commercially available spreadsheet software, or simply listing the data on paper without using
full-scale database software or patent map software.
(5) Mapping
Mapping is carried out by extracting information from this database from various perspectives.
Mapping may follow any procedure; one effective way is to start with a quantitative analysis of all
the data covered, followed by definition of notable sign(s), technology or company, and then a
qualitative analysis based on a detailed reading.
(6) Combination of Individual Patent Maps
Generally, it is difficult to analyze trends or clarify the distribution of patent rights by using a
single Patent Map. Therefore, more than one Patent Maps is selected and combined to draw a
theoretical conclusion.
(7) Evaluation
Finally, the finished Patent Map is evaluated for suitability for its intended use, and the
procedure is completed if no logical inconsistency is found.

Followings are the key points when performing specific operations for creating a Patent Map.

4.2. Overall Design

The final evaluation of a Patent Map depends on whether or not the map is suitable for its
intended use. Often, a Patent Map is built by a different division from the one that will use it.
According to a survey by the Institute of Intellectual Property, half of the companies surveyed
replied that their Patent Maps were created by the intellectual property management department, and
some 20% replied that they were created by the research and development department.
In contrast, Patent Maps are mainly used by research and development departments (50%), but
rarely used by the intellectual property management departments that usually build them (6%). Thus,
Patent Maps are often used by departments such as operations and corporate planning which are
unfamiliar with the workings of the intellectual property system.
Consequently, when you create a Patent Map, you must first consider who will use it.
For example, building a Patent Map for analyzing the trend of competitors’ R&D activities
would involve a quite different approach from a map for understanding overseas patent networks for
expanding business overseas. Even if a Patent Map is created to meet a request for analyzing the
trend of competitors’ R&D, a different approach will be required depending on whether the request
comes from the research and development department or corporate planning department.

- 34 -

Other parameters, including the scope of patent information required, mode of building, the
period covered by the Patent Map, and image of the finished map can only be defined once the
intended use and user are known.

4.3. Gathering Patent Document information

Once the intended use and user are known, you should first gather patent documents or patent
information. Although the patent information gathered will directly affect the quality of the resulting
Patent Map, systematic and efficient gathering must also be considered.

4.3.1. Patent Information Gathering with Patent-Owners or Applicants Specified
Often, the name of a specific company is used as a key for gathering patent information. If
competitors have been identified and no new entries are foreseen, patent documents gathered in this
manner could be used for refining the technological search.
Although patent information gathered by using patent-owners and/or applicants as keys is
generally less noisy and has fewer omissions, such information may contain omissions in the case of
a change of corporate name, merger and/or change of the family name of inventors. For patent
applications filed by a foreign company, the applicant company name translated into Japanese may
be notated differently. Commercial database services can help reduce this risk.
In recent years, as the formation of industries and company split-ups have increased, a company
often transfers its patent rights to another company in the same industry, and so care is required to
avoid omissions of patent information.

4.3.2. Gathering Patent Information with a Technical Field(s) Specified
Patent information is gathered more often by specifying a technical field than a corporate name
as a key. However, it is extremely difficult to directly extract noiseless patent information relating to
a particular technical field without omission from vast amounts of patent documents.
Generally, the following search keys are available for utilizing patent information.
a) Patent classification
Patent classifications available as search keys include the International Patent Classification
(IPC), File Index (FI) of Japan Patent Office, US Patent Classification (USPC), European
Classification (ECLA), UK Patent Classification Key and others.
b) Indexing code
Indexing codes available as search keys include those for the IPC and the F-term of the Japan
Patent Office.
c) Controlled key words
In some cases, thesaurus-controlled key words can be used as search keys with commercial
database services.
d) Key words in natural language
Key words in natural language include terms used in patent specifications and uncontrolled key

- 35 -

words in natural language that are available for IPDL searches.

The fundamental search key most commonly used by experts is the patent classification system,
which has a history of more than 200 years.
The patent classification system is effective for analyzing patent information because a
classification symbol(s) is assigned to the relevant invention as a whole, not to the technical
elements of the invention. For this reason, the patent classification system assigns a single class to
one invention in principle.
However, the patent classification system has a couple of problems. One is that it requires an
accurate understanding of the rules for operation. A “Guide” has been established for using the
International Patent Classification system, which requires you to pay attention when referring to a
classification table. Under the U.S. Patent Classification, it is necessary to check the range of subject
matter covered by respective classes by enormous amounts of the Patent Class Definitions.
The second problem with the patent classification system is the difficulty of refining the search
due to the limited number of class headings.
To solve these problems, two highly reliable search tools, for the indexing code and the F-term,
were developed, both of which indexed concepts covered by the patent classification system.
These indexing codes will only work if used together with the patent classification; they should
not be used alone or outside the scope envisaged by the patent classification system.
Search by using technical terms contained in the text of patent documents, such as free words or
natural words, is an important means as a tool for picking out patent documents that cannot be
captured under the patent classification system. Unlike the patent classification, searching by
technical terms contained in the text will pick out patent information regardless of the subject
matters of inventions, and so the context in which technical terms are used must be considered.
Specifically, hits will be made even if the technical term was used in the description of prior art.
Conversely, hits will not be made if a technical term created recently was not used in a patent
application filed before the terminology had become established.
Given these features of patent information search tools, patent information should be gathered
step by step as follows. (See Figure 4-2.)
(1) Retrieval by using patent classification and indexing code
There are now 40 millions of patent documents available around the world. Information should
be retrieved by using the patent classification, after specifying a target area, a target period and target
kinds of documents.
As the patent classification system is not specifically designed for analyzing patent information,
a single round of search refinement would pick out an enormous amount of information, requiring
search refinement by using the indexing code and/or F-term.
Given that national (or regional) patent information has undergone primary by classification by
the patent offices, the search should be refined using a different classification system from your
choice. For example, when searching for Japanese patents, the FI or F-term is useful, whereas ECLA

- 36 -

is useful for European patents. The important point is that if a search produces an enormous number
of patent documents, the subsequent search refinement for these patent documents should not use
any key word. This is because using a key word is likely to eliminate a number of important patent
documents from the parent population of patent information analysis.
(2) Retrieval by using auxiliary patent classification symbols
To complement information retrieval by using the primary patent classification symbols, an
additional retrieval may be carried out by using an auxiliary patent classification symbols. Note that
more than one auxiliary patent classification symbols may become involved.
(3) Complementary retrieval by using technical terms contained in the text of patent documents
Since relevant information may be in a field that cannot be retrieved by using the patent
classification, retrieval should be carried out by using technical terms contained in the text of patent
documents.
(4) Denoising (Screening)
After completing the above three steps, a visual screening of all extracted patent documents
should be carried out.
In this work, all the patent documents extracted by using the patent classification should be
retained in the parent population and only obviously noisy information should be removed, as the
former provides the fundamental framework for patent information analysis. For patent documents
extracted by technical terms contained in the text of patent documents, since they merely
complement the purpose of patent information analysis, only obviously relevant patent documents
should be picked out.

Fig. 4-2 Conceptual Diagram of Procedure for Gathering Patent Documents

Gathering by use of
Primary patent classification symbols

Gathering by use of auxiliary patent
classification symbols

Complementary gathering by use of technical
terms contained in the text

Removal of noisy information (screening)

Completion of Parent Population for Analysis

Although this screening process essentially involves reviewing patent specifications, the name
of applicant, title of invention and drawings may serve as selection criteria. If this is applicable, the
following process of additional analysis should entail denoising.
For the purpose of a Patent Map or a quantitative analysis, any inclusion of irrelevant
information (or noisy information) or any omission of information in the underlying parent
population would have a fatal impact. If this is applicable, the following process of additional
analysis should entail denoising. Therefore, screening is crucial for the effectiveness and quality of a
resulting Patent Map.

- 37 -

4.3.3. Gathering of Overseas Patent Information
When building a Patent Map, whether to include overseas patent information depends on the
intended use, budget, and time available.
In a field dominated by domestic companies or in which the number of patent applications filed
from overseas accounts for more than half of the total, it may be reasonable to use domestic
applications only.

4.3.4. Access to Electronic Data
Although a Patent Map can be created t manually, machine-readable data (i.e., electronic data) is
more efficient if tens of thousands of patent documents are involved.
Patent offices in many countries have built systems that allow users to search for patent
information and access search results via their websites.
However, many offices restrict on batch downloading of search results. In this case, patent
information should be gathered through commercial database services. Some services offer
bibliographical information with new information added or with necessary maintenance including
unification of company names, and offer information that cannot be obtained from primary
documentary information.

Fig. 4-3 Bibliographical Data Available from Commercial Database Services (Partial)
KEY P346103861 P347018656 P347063269 P347113465
Class code (P or U) P P P P
Application number 346103861 347018656 347063269 347113465
Filing date 197112 197202 197206 197211
Unexamined publication number 348067934 348087536 349021545 349070351
Date of Examined publication 197309 197311 197402 197407
Examined publication number 352016189
Date of Examined publication 197705 197708
Registration number 0000000000 0000000000 0000896265 0000907179
Date of registration 197802 197805
Final decision code 7 9 1 1
Date of final disposition 197904 197802
Examiner’s decision code 2 1 1
Date of mailing of examiner’s decision 197611 197709 197801
Number of requests for examination 1 0 1 1
Date of request for examination 197201 197212 197212

Priority date for unexamined publication
197112 197202 197206 197211
Based date for unexamined publication
Examination code 01 01 01 01
Application code 0000 0000 0000 0000
Priority date
Number of oppositions 0 0 0 0
Number of inventions 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1
Number of applicants (Kanji characters)
1 1 1 1
Number of inventors (Kanji characters)
Number of priority 0 0 0 0
Number of pages 4 3 5 8
Number of IPCs 2 1 1 1
Number of FIs 2 1 3 1
Number of F-terms 5 1 21 1
Section of Publication 0501 0501 0401 0501
Representative 1 1
Representative code 6214 6002
Total number of representatives 1 0 0 1
Whether the invention has been disclosed
or not
Whether the fungus has been deposited
or not
invention relates to pollution control
0 0 0 0
technology
Title of the invention Electrical drive system for bicycle Bicycle Multi power-driven interlocking clutch Engine-loaded bicycle
PCT Release number
PCT Release date
IPC B62M 2302 B62M 2302 F16D 2106 B62M 2302
FI B62M 23/ 2 M B62M 23/ 2 K B62M 23/ 2 G B62M 23/ 2 B
F-term used
Name of applicants **** ***** ***** *****
Name of inventors **** ***** ***** *****

The rest is omitted.

- 38 -

When building a Patent Map, it is preferable if the underlying patent information, including the
primary documentary information, can be obtained in electronic format. However, obtaining
bibliographical information only in electronic format is no less effective for generating lists and
structuring. In contrast, in the subsequent process of complementary analysis, many analysts use
hard copy.

4.4. Additional Indexing and Hierarchization

Bibliographical information in patent documents includes a great number of information items.
As further advances are made at patent offices, additional valuable information such as patent family
information and citation information will become available.
Nevertheless, in terms of content, the original information is not sufficient to carry out an
analysis
To complement this, it is necessary to review gathered patent information and extract
complementary information to ensure the resulting map serves its intended use.
Information items that are frequently obtained from additional indexing include:
(i) Use of the invention and technical field to which the invention pertains;
(ii) Technical features (technical elements);
(iii) Problem to be solved by the invention;
(iv) Means for solving the problem;
(v) Advantageous effects of the invention;
(vi) Information on prior art cited in the patent specification; and
(vii) Other necessary matters for analysis
To carry out an indexing efficiently, indexers often make a preliminary classification of relevant
items (e.g., classification of use). This should be done not only by using the analyst’s knowledge and
experience, but also by organizing various cases covered by patent documents gathered through a
detailed reading of about 10% of the documents. This work is vital to prevent the indexing results
from centering on specific items.
Even if the indexing makes full preparations before starting the analysis, unforeseen cases may
arise. Therefore, classification item headings should include “Others” to accommodate such
unforeseen cases. The indexer should check the box under the “Others” heading, and make a quick
note of the details of the case, and then eventually sort through such cases again to minimize the
number of patent documents that come under the “Others” heading.
Once the indexing is completed, “hierarchization” takes place. Hierarchization involves
transferring patent documents that fall under similar categories into a broader category and/or
redistributing many patent documents in a single category into a number of narrower newly defined
categories.

- 39 -

Figure 4-4 shows an example of structuring patent information for “problems to be solved by
the invention” relating to IC-tag-based information transmission technology.

Fig. 4-4 Hierarchization of the Results from a Complementary Indexing
(Relating to IC-tag-based Information Transmission Technology)
Problem Problem Category
Original problem Problem Category III
Category I II
Improvement of bit error Detection of position Extension of
Extension of communication
rate posture and speed communication
range
Simplification of circuit and range
Improvement of C/I Improvement of
configuration Avoidance of receiving null point
covered
Improvement of S/N Reliable read/write range/area Reduction of blind Sense of discomfort caused by
spot the location of an IC tag
Active tag circuit Sensitivity improvement Sense of discomfort caused by
the posture of a tagged item
Between a tag and the
Security Prevention of malfunction reader/writer
Extension of Between adjacent tags
Sensor Prevention of
communication range Countermeasure
interference Between adjacent
The conditions between against
Increase in receiving readers/writers
the IC tag and the interference
energy
reader/writer Between adjacent systems
Avoidance of receiving null
Tag circuit Collision avoidance Collision avoidance
point
Sense of discomfort
Reduction in size and Stable supply of electric power
caused by the location of
weight
an IC tag Improvement and
Sense of discomfort Increase in receiving energy
stabilization of the
caused by the posture of a Collision avoidance energy transfer
tagged item Use of alternative energy
efficiency
Compatibility both with Improvement of Prevention of reactive energy
Improvement of user
contact and contactless efficiency radiation
interface
sensors Shortening of time required for
Noise- and disturbance- Improvement of the reading and writing
Reader/writer circuit
resistance energy
Improvement of read rates
Stable supply of electric Overvoltage- and transmission
power overcurrent-resistance efficiency Reduction of communication
time

Adapted from data in the ―Patent Distribution Support Chart: Electrical 33—IC Tag Information Transmission Technology‖ (INPIT, 2006)

“Problems to be solved by the invention” cited in patent specifications are too wide-ranging to
categorize, though they are concrete content. Indexers should transfer patent documents coming
under similar categories into a broader category. In this example, as part of the structuring, Problem
Category II is created under the heading of “reduction of sense of discomfort” as a broader category
than the one which included “avoidance of receiving zero points,” “occurrence of blind spot
depending of the location of the tag” and “occurrence of blind spot depending on the posture of the
tagged item.” Furthermore, Problem Category I is created under the heading of “improvement of
communication range/area” as a broader category than Problem Category II. This provides a
three-layered structure of problems to be solved by the invention.
Additional indexing may not be a single step; another round may be required as the indexing
progresses.

4.5.Database Compilation

In parallel with or even prior to additional indexing, a list of all patent documents gathered
should be compiled as a database. Although this list can be made on paper without using dedicated

- 40 -

software, it is more convenient to use commercially-available spreadsheet software or database
software. In addition to bibliographical information of patent documents obtained beforehand, data
resulting from additional indexing and other information is merged into the database. In some cases,
abstracts and/or key drawings may be added, and links may be provided to the primary patent
information.
Figure 4-5 shows a conceptual diagram of a working database relating to “shape memory
polymer.” Usually, such a database is structured with the patent document number immediately
following the reference number. Under the headings of “technical element,” “problems to be solved
by the invention” and “means for solving the problem,” comes information obtained from
complementary analysis, and further information is added as needed. A space for the analyst to make
notes is useful.

Fig. 4-5 Conceptual Diagram of a Working Database (Shape Memory Polymer) (Partial)
Problem to Means for
Document Filing Applicable Technical
Title of the invention classification
Applicant be solved by solving the
No. date element the invention problem
Material
A1995- Apr. 28, Yoshihito Osada, Enhancemen Improvement
1 Soft artificial anus A61F5/445 design
299089 1994 Hokkaido University t of comfort of polymer
technology
Improvement
Material
A1995- Thermosensitive shape Apr. 28, Yoshihito Osada, of other Improvement
2 C08F220/18 design
292040 memory gel 1994 Hokkaido University quality of polymer
technology
components
Shoji Ito, National Improvement
Method for manufacturing Material Improvement
July 16, C08J5/00 Institute of Advanced of other
3 B3066465 objects formed of shape design by use of
1997 Science and quality
memory resin technology additives
Technology components
Material
A1997- Mar. 1, Yoshihito Osada, Increase of Improvement
4 Shape memory materials C08F220/12 design
235329 1996 Hokkaido University durability of polymer
technology
Methods of shape memory Kazuo Nakayama,
Material Improvement
and shape restoration for Jan. 20, C08L67/04 National Institute of Improvement
5 B2972913 design of ecological
objects formed of biogradable 1998 Advanced Science and of polymer
technology safety
shape memory polymer Technology
Improvement
Heat-shrinkable tubing and Aug. Material Improvement
B29C61/06 Matsumoto Dental of safety for
6 A1995-60835 heat-shrinkable-tube-coated 25, design by use of
University the human
instrument 1993 technology additives
body
Provisional dental crown and Takeshi Tsukada, Post- Improvement
A2004- May 16, Improvement
7 method for temporarily fitting a A61C13/107 Kagoshima University; processing by use of
337419 2003 of workability
provisional dental crown and Mitsuo Torii technology additives

A2000- Fluorine-compound- Yoshihito Osada, Post- Improvement
Apr. 28, Improvement
8 313726 introduced shape memory C08F220/22 Hokkaido University processing of heat
1999 of polymer
hydrogel technology shrinkability
Biogradable heat-shrinkable Japan Atomic Energy
Post- Improvement Improvement
A2005- material and method for Oct. 24, B29C61/06 Agency
9 processing of ecological by use of
125674 manufacturing the biogradable 2003 Sumitomo Electric Fine
technology safety additives
heat-shrinkable material Polymer, Inc.

Adapted from data in the ―Patent Distribution Support Chart: Electrical 32—Shape Memory Polymer‖ (INPIT, 2006)

It is also useful to add information cited in subsequent patent applications (hereafter “cited patent
information”) to the database. Figure 4-5 shows the same conceptual diagram focusing on cited
patent information.
Any document judged by screening or additional analysis to be unnecessary should be deleted
from the database as the parent population case by case to keep the database up to date.

- 41 -

Fig. 4-6 Conceptual Diagram of a Working Database (Shape Memory Polymer) (Partial)
Frequency Frequency
with which with which
Document Filing Frequency the applicant the applicant Applicants of the cited
Title of the invention Applicant of citation cited its own cited patents
No. date owned by patents
patents others

Minami Yuzo Jimusho (1)
Foam and method for June 26, Sekisui Chemical
1 A1997-71675 22 21 1 Tsuchitani TISCO (1)
manufacturing thereof 1995 Co., Ltd.
Arude Engineering Co., Ltd. (1)

Sekisui Chemical Co., Ltd. (17)
Method and equipment for July 27,
2 B 2728266 Pipe Liners 20 0 20 C.I. Kasei Co., Ltd. (2)
manufacturing pipe liner 1987
Osaka Gas Co., Ltd. (1)

Tokai Rubber Industries, Ltd. (3)
Nitto Denko Corporation (3)
Yoshihito Osada (2)
Ichikawa Co., Ltd. (1)
Usage of norbornene polymer Sept. 20,
3 B1993-72405 Zeon Corporation 14 0 14 AIST (1)
formed products 1982 Daicel Chemical Industries, Ltd. (1)
Toray Industries, Inc. (1)
Chugoku Rubber Industries, Ltd. (1)
3M Innovative Properties Company (1)

Dainichi Color & Chemical Mfg. Co.,
Ltd. (3)
Mitsubishi Heavy JSR Corporation (2)
B 1994- Polymer elastomer formed June 21, Industries, Ltd. Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation (1)
4 10 0 10 Nitto Denko Corporation (1)
96629 products and usage thereof 1985 Mitsubishi Kasei
Dow AIST (1)
Soutme Yugengaisha (1)
Stinger Florence (1)

Reexpansive foamed plastic
July 12, Asahi Kasei
5 B 2972913 chip and method for 10 0 10 Sekisui Chemical Co., Ltd. (10)
1985 Corporation
manufacturing thereof

Mitsubishi Chemical
Mar. 7, Matsushita Electric Corporation (9) Columbia Music
6 A1987-13441 Optical recording medium 10 0 10
1990 Industrial Co., Ltd. Entertainment, Inc. (1)

Adapted from data in the ―Patent Distribution Support Chart: Chemical 32—Shape Memory Polymer‖ (INPIT , 2006)

4.6. Mapping

After completing a working database, you are ready to draft a Patent Map. If the required format
of the Patent Map is defined, you can draft it in the defined format from the beginning.
Usually, mapping is time-consuming and so should be done as efficiently as possible. It should
at least provide the necessary information to allow following analyses.
A few examples of approaches for building a Patent Map are given below.

4.6.1. Quantitative Mapping

In order to carry out mapping efficiently and exhaustively, usually the analysis covers the whole,
and then goes into detail. The first part of the analysis involves using quantitative analytical methods
described previously.

(1) Systematized Art Diagram
A quantitative analysis starts by defining the size of the parent population for the forthcoming
analysis (as represented by a cluster of patent information relating to a specific technology or a
cluster of patent information relating to a specific applicant or right-holder), and how it will be
structured. A Systematized Art Diagram Structure is used for this purpose. This diagram can be
relatively easily drawn by using the database described in the preceding paragraph. Information

- 42 -

items usually used as keys include “Patent Classification” and “Technical Element.” These two
aspects have different characteristics in terms of usability, and the choice between them depends on
the intended purpose of use.
A Systematized Art Diagram based on “patent classification” will enable you to grasp the
technological structure in the relevant technical field that otherwise could not be obtained.
Furthermore, every patent document invariably includes information relating to patent classification,
which means that no special analysis is required to obtain such information. However, a person who
is not familiar with handling patent information may find it difficult to handle patent classifications.
Terms used in patent classification are often ill-defined and could mislead users unless a detailed
description of the concept covered by the term is given. (For example, for a category under the
patent classification system, if any narrower category is available, the broader category does not
include any pertinent section.) Since the patent-classification-based approach is mainly used for
examining patent applications at the Patent Office, the approach is often quite different from the
more commonly used approaches such as technical-classification-based, product-classification-based
and industrial-classification-based approaches.
In contrast, analyzing the technological structure based on “technical element,” which is used to
explain the technological structure in the relevant technical field, will enable you to grasp the
distribution of patent applications by using common technical knowledge or general terms. On the
other hand, since this technical analysis inherently limits the scope to expected circumstances, it
cannot clearly reveal emerging trends in the relevant technical field. In addition, the analyst has to
index the technical elements.
Whichever approach is used, a Diagram of Technological Structure is drawn based on a count of
the number of applications by technical element.
When adding up the counts by technical element, if the count is too small in some categories,
you may need to establish a broader category to merge the narrower categories. Conversely, if the
count is too large in a category, you may need to either segment it into a number of narrower
categories after a detailed reading of the patent information falling there under, or establish a new
category under the name of “Others.”
This produces a Diagram of Technological Structure as shown in Figure 3-8.
(2) Time-Series Map
Once you have gained an understanding of the overall structure of patent applications filed, you
need to grasp the recent trends by using a time-series map.
As with the Diagram of Technological Structure, the working database described in the
preceding section is useful for building a time-series map.
An analysis for building a time-series map uses “Filing Date” as a key. This assumes that the
filing date occurs in the possible nearest terms of the date on which the relevant invention was made
or on which the term of right in the relevant invention expired. In addition to the actual filing date,
the filing date includes the priority date if an application claiming priority is involved. In practice,

- 43 -

“filing year” (or the year in which the relevant application was filed) is more frequently used than
“filing date” due to its integrity.
A time-series map is produced by sorting this working database by using the filing date (or
priority date) as a sort key and then counting the number of application filed on the basis of filing
year and plotting the counts in graph form. When building a time-series map for gaining an overview
of applications filed, applications for which refusal or invalidation has become final and conclusive
or for which the term of patent right has expired should not be excluded from the parent population.
This is because the map is only intended to grasp the trends of patent applications filed, and when
conducting a trend analysis covering unexamined applications, it is important to maintain the
consistency of data contained.
As shown in Figure. 4-7, significant milestones such as the development of new seed
technology or enactment of an important law should be marked on the time-series map for future
analysis.

Fig. 4-7 Example of Time-Series Map (Incinerator Dioxin Suppression Technology)
400
In 1977, occurrence of dioxin at a waste incineration

plant was reported in Holland.
350
In 1984, scientific research of dioxins was
started in Japan.
300
In 1989, the Water
Pollution Control Act was
amended.
250
In 1992, Basic
Environment
200 Act was
enacted.

150

100

50

0
1987

1993
1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1989

1991

1995

1997

Filing Year
Adapted from data in the ―Patent Map by Technical Field: General 14—Technology Relating to Countermeasures against Dioxin‖ (JPO, 2000)

(3) Maturation Map
A “Maturation Map” shows changes in the number of applicants who entered the relevant
technical field, together with changes in the number of applications filed relating to the technical
field, on an annual basis, representing the interest in the technical field at the time.
This Map is built by using “Filing Year” and “Applicant” data stored in the working database
described above as keys and by counting the number of applications filed and the number of

- 44 -

applicants on a filing year basis. As applicants often file multiple applications relating to the relevant
technical field in the same year, you should ensure there is no overlap in counting the number of
applicants. Even if a merger or split-up of an applicant company is involved, information available at
the time the application was filed or when the relevant patent documents were published is usually
used without modification. This is because a patent map is generally built to meet an urgent need and
inclusion of the original corporate name will pose no problems in practice.
When counting the applicants on a filing year basis, it is useful to keep a record of the number
of applications filed by each of the relevant applicants on a yearly basis.
After counting the number of applicants on a filing year basis, you are ready to build a
technology maturation map by counting the number of applications filed in the same year. There is
no established rule as to whether you should plot the number of applicants or the number of
applications filed on the horizontal axis; analysts follow their own preference when drawing a
maturity map.
Presentation of the analysis results in graph form does not require dedicated software and can be
done by using the graph function of common spreadsheet software.
The Maturation Map as shown in Figure. 3-12 was built using this procedure.
(4) Twin Peaks Analysis Map
Although a Time-series Map or Maturity Map built using the entire parent population shows the
trends of patent applications filed in the relevant technical field, it is not easy to grasp the details of
factors or changes involved. Users may be dissatisfied if a Patent Map does not meet their
expectations because it shows trends based on information other than patent information.
Any issue pointed out by analyzing patent information should preferably be accounted for by
using patent information with respect to its background and details. For this purpose, a Twin Peaks
Analysis is used in which the parent population is broken into subgroups, each of which is analyzed
for any trend to grasp changes of technology (or applicant).
Any of the information items stored in the working database such as patent classification,
applicant and technical element can be used as a tool for breaking the parent population into
subgroups. New aspects such as material, function, use and others may be added as needed.
A preliminary Patent Map can be produced by specifying the aspects to be analyzed out of these
information items, counting the number of applications filed on a filing year basis for each aspect,
and presenting the trends as a time series.
However, an effective twin-peaks analysis requires a map which clearly shows a time lag as in
Figure. 3-10 and clearly shows any shift involved. If the resulting map shows an ever-increasing
trend for every element involved and if there is no significant time lag among multiple elements, you
should try another analysis using a different aspect.
(5) Quantitative Matrix Map
To more clearly identify notable patents and/or applications filed, a Matrix Map is useful as it
presents the results of analysis quantitatively.

- 45 -

In many cases, “technical element,” “problem to be solved by the invention” and “means for
solving the problem” are used as aspects for this analysis. The working database described in the
preceding section is also useful when building this map.
First, two aspects should be picked out. Next, each of the patent applications in the parent
population should be allocated to a single requirement of each of the relevant aspects, thus forming a
matrix. An application should not be allocated to multiple requirements. If any application does not
fit in any matrix, you should review the choice of aspects.
When you have allocated all the applications in this way, you should count the applications in
the matrix. It is useful to distinguish between technical fields in which newer applications account
for a majority and those in which older applications account for a majority.
The Matrix Map shown in Figure. 3-7 was built in this way.
(6) Analysis of Interpatent Relation
Since a quantitative analysis is the basis of a qualitative analysis that comes next, it is effective
if the former can pick out important technology or patents. Otherwise, you must carefully read all the
patent documents involved when trying to understand the association between the patents, which is
inefficient.
An analysis of interpatent relation is used for this purpose. As shown in Figure. 4-6, information
on patent documents cited subsequently (“Cited Patent(s)”) as organized and stored in the working
databases is an important tool for picking out important patents or understanding the association
between the patents.
Although not shown in the example in Figure. 4-6, the document numbers of Cited Patents as
placed on record enable you to draw a Patent Association Drawing as shown in Figure. 3-3.

4.6.2. Qualitative Mapping

When you have identified the overall trend, notable technologies and notable right-holders by a
quantitative analysis, you should then perform a qualitative mapping. This involves not only using
the working database built under the preceding section but also obtaining and reading the full text
(specification and drawings) of the relevant patent documents.

As this would take thousands of hours, an analysis for qualitative mapping may focus on only
“Notable Technical Field” and “Notable Patent.” To extract data for “Notable Technical Field,” the
quantitative-analysis-based methods already described should be used. On the other hand, to extract
data for “Notable Patent,” an analysis of the association between patents should be used in
conjunction with the analyst’s knowledge and experience or professional help.
Depending on the purpose of use, an exhaustive analysis of all relevant patent documents may
be required.
(1) Diagram of Technological Development
In order to create a diagram of technical development, it is necessary to carefully read the
relevant patent documents and position the patents within the overall technological structure. In

- 46 -

doing this, analyzing the association between patents may be useful for suggesting the relations
among one another.
To perform the work operation efficiently, some people prepare cards with only a drawing on
them and attach them to a whiteboard. Some experts call this “karuta,” as the cards are like the
“karuta” cards used in an old Japanese game.
After positioning all the relevant patents and applications filed, confirming the positional
relations will produce a map as shown in Figure. 3-2.
(2) Matrix Map
A qualitative Matrix Map is one of the most fundamental Patent Maps and is essential for a
patent-map-based analysis.
The process of building a qualitative Matrix Map is similar to building a quantitative map.
Firstly, two aspects should be defined, and relevant patent documents allocated to each of them. For
this purpose, cards describing the contents of patent documents can be used.
As a qualitative matrix-map-based analysis requires more detailed positioning than a
quantitative analysis, aspects used in the former analysis should represent more specific or
fundamental concepts than abstract or broader concepts.
This will enable the map to clearly demonstrate how a particular patent or application is
interrelated with patents existing thereabout.
The Matrix Map shown in Figure 3-4 was built in this way.
(3) Summary List
As a qualitative Matrix Map only includes patent document numbers or applicant names, you
need more details of the invention such as the inventor and other information when using the map in
practice. A “Summary List” is drawn up for this purpose.
To draw up a Summary List, you can use the working database created under the preceding
section, or you can incorporate representative drawings and abstracts in the database in anticipation
of such use.
As a minimum, a Patent Map set consists of three matrix maps and one executive summary, so
the Executive Summary is one of the major Patent Maps.
(4) Element-Based Map
Finally, you may need to build an Element-Based Map to present the results of analysis to
corporate executives or engineers. The procedure for drafting this map is essentially the same as for
the Systematized Art Diagram except that it focuses on technical aspects and includes the specific
names of patent documents and names of right-owners.
An Element-Based Map is drafted by picking out necessary patent documents from the working
database and contrasting your company’s patents with those of competitors.

4.7. Evaluation and Combination
Upon completion of mapping, the analyst should confirm that the resulting map is suitable for

- 47 -

the intended use, and then proceed to draw up a scenario. If the client needs a Patent Map to help
identify targets of technological development to pursue, the analyst should confirm that the map will
meet such need. Analyses should be flexible rather than doctrinarian. The created Patent Map should also
show the direction to pursue.
It follows that a Patent-Map based analysis requires the combined use of more than onee Patent
Maps in order to take a multifaceted approach to your conclusion.
Figure 4-8 shows part of the executive summary of the Patent Distribution Support Chart
created by the National Center for Industrial Property Information and Training (INPI).
The Executive Summary, accompanied by some 300 pages of detailed analysis, shows that
technological trends can only be clarified by combined use of various patent maps.
The process of creating a Patent Map ends with confirming that it properly meets the objectives
and is suitably logically organized.

Fig. 4-8 Example of Combined Use of Patent Maps

■Drawing of Technological Structure ■Maturation Map

■Map of the Association between Patents ■Matrix Map ■Ranking Map

Source: ―Patent Distribution Support Chart: Machinery 6—Independent Ambulation Technology‖ (INPIT, 2004)

＊＊＊＊＊END＊＊＊＊＊

- 48 -

Introduction to patent map analysis2011

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Introduction to patent map analysis2011 (20)

Introduction to patent map analysis2011