參考文獻
一、中文部分
(一)書籍
1. 王世仁，讀美國判決學專利，翰蘆圖書出版有限公司，民國九十六年。
2. 何孝元，工業所有權之研究，三民書局，民國七十年。
3. 林洲富，專利法-案例式，五南圖書，民國九十九年二版。
4. 陳文吟，美國法導論，三民書局，民國九十六年。
5. 陳文吟，我國專利制度之研究，五南圖書，民國一百零三年六版。
6. 陳智超，專利法理論與實務，五南圖書，民國九十三年二版。
7. 楊崇森，專利法理論與應用，三民書局，民國九十六年二版。
8. 楊慶隆，發明專利實體申復答辯，經濟部智慧財產局，民國九十六年。
9. 蔡明誠，發明專利法研究，作者自印，民國八十七年二版。
10.蔡明誠，專利法，經濟部智慧財產局，民國九十六年。
11 賴榮哲，專利爭議之比較分析，新學林出版股份有限公司，民國九十六年。
（二）期刊
1.尹守信，由Agfav.Creo案談美國專利法上之揭露義務，智慧財產權月刊，第96期，第66-91頁，民國九十五年十二月。2. 朱浩筠，論專利說明書中引用文獻與揭露要件之關連性－－兼述智慧財產法院97行專訴字第63號判決，智慧財產權月刊，第145 期，第61-78頁，民國一百年一月。3. 林育輝，由聯邦巡迴上訴法院Avid案談美國專利申請之資訊揭露的義務人，專利師，第4期，第94-100頁，民國一百年。4. 孫寶成，美國專利說明書中揭露最佳模式之要求，智慧財產權月刊，第91期，第132-143頁，民國九十五年七月。5. 葉雪美，美國設計專利類型的揭露要件與權利保護範圍，智慧財產權月刊，第101期，第30-63頁，民國九十六年五月。6. 鄭中人，發明與充份揭露及可實施性之混淆──評最高行政法院94年度判字第01632號，全國律師，第12期，第27-39頁，民國九十五年十二月。7. 蔡岳勳，聯合技術標準制定、專利權揭露與競爭法－－對2008年Rambus, Inc. v. FTC案之初步評析，科技法學評論，第6卷第1期，第241-275頁，民國九十八年四月。8.謝銘洋，專利法「充分揭露達可據以實施」要件之探討，法令月刊，第62卷第4期，第19-31頁，民國一百年四月。
9.廖健祥、王偉霖，美國專利法書面說明要件之研究，雲林科技大學法學論叢，第9期，第167-208頁，民國一百零三年。
（三）論文
1. 尹重君，美國專利法揭露充分性要件之研究，國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，民國九十二年。2. 蘇仁濬，專利法揭露要求之研究，國立台灣大學科際整合法律學研究所，民國一百年一月。
（四）網路資料
1. 孫寶成，談美國專利法改革法案，available at :http://stlc.iii.org.tw/docfile/ddac4145-5af3-483d-9fcb-80685a06b05f30146175c2xqqbncnmzqz45ek1jo3nn.pdf（最近上網日期：民國一百年十一月十一日）。
二、外文部分
（一）Books
1.ADELMAN , MARTIN J., RANDOLLR. RADER, JOHN R. THOMAS & HARLOD C. WEGNER, PATENT LAW, WEST GROUP(2009).
2.ADELMAN, MARTIN J., RANDOLLR. RADER & GORDON KLANCNIK, PATENT LAW IN A NUTSHELL,THOMSON WEST(2007).
3.KIEFF , F. SCOTT , PAULINE NEWMAN , HERBERT F. SCHWARTZ & HENRY E. SMITH , PRINCIPLE OF PANTENT LAW, THOMSON WEST(2008).
4. MUELLER , JANICE M. , PATENT LAW , ASPEN PUBLISHERS(2009).
（二）Periodicals
1.Chao, Bernard , Rethinking enablement in the predictable arts: fully scoping the new rule,2009 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 3(2009).
2.Crouch, Dennis, An empirical study of the role of the written description requirement in patent examination, 104 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1665(2010).
3.Karshtedt, Dmitry, Limits on hard-to-reproduce inventions: process elements and biotechnology's compliance with the enablement requirement, 3 HASTINGS SCI. & TECH. L.J. 109(2011).
4.Lefstin, Jeffrey A. , The formal structure of patent law and the limits of enablement, 23 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1141(2008).
5. Lincicum, Matt, A knot in the eternal golden braid: searching for coherence in the relationship betweenenablement, anticipation, and obviousness, 23 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 589(2010).
6.MacDougall, Christina , The split over enablement and written description: losing sight of the purpose of the patent system, 14 INTELL. PROP. L. BULL. 123(2010).
7.MacDougall, Christina , The split over enablement and written description: losing sight of the purpose of the patent system, 14 INTELL. PROP. L. BULL. 123(2010).
8.MacDougall, Christina , The split over enablement and written description: losing sight of the purpose of the patent system, 14 INTELL. PROP. L. BULL. 123(2010).
9.McDonough, Melissa N., To agree, or not to agree: that is the question when evaluating the best modepreferences of joint inventors after pannu v. iolab corp. , 80 S. CAL. L. REV. 151(2006).
10.Markham, Wesley D., Is best mode the worst? dueling arguments, empirical analysis, and recommendations for reform, 51 IDEA 129 (2011).
11.Rabinowitz, Aaron B., Finding the invalidity shell game: stabilizing the application of the writtendescription requirement in patent litigation, 12 MINN. J.L. SCI. & TECH. 127(2011).
12.Risch, Michael, A brief defense of the written description requirement, 119 YALE L.J. ONLINE 127(2010).
13.Root, Joseph E., Ducking the asteroid: practical steps toward best mode compliance, 36 AIPLA Q.J. 455 (2008).
14.Solomson, Matthew H. , Patently confusing: the federal circuit's inconsistent treatment of claim scope as a limit on the best mode disclosure requirement, 45 IDEA 383(2005).
15.Schroeder, Jacob Adam, Written description: protecting the quid pro quo since 1793, 21 fordham intell. prop. media & ent., L.J. 63(2010).
16.Walmsley, Steven B. , Best mode: a plea to repair or sacrifice this broken requirement of united states patent law, 9 MICH. TELECOMM. & TECH. L. REV. 125(2002).
（三）Cases
1.Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v. International Trade Com'n, 597 F.3d 1267(Fed. Cir. 2010).
2.All Voice Computing PLC v. Nuance Communications, Inc., 504 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
3. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336(Fed. Cir. 2010).
4. ALZA Corp. v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 603 F.3d 935(Fed. Cir. 2010).
5. CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333(Fed. Cir. 2003).
6. Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. v. Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp., 635 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
7. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319(Fed. Cir. 2009).
8. Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc., 339 F.3d 1352(Fed. Cir. 2003).
9. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955(Fed. Cir. 2001).
10. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 619 F.3d 1329(Fed. Cir. 2010).
11.Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 535 U.S. 722 (2002).
12.Green Edge Enterprises, LLC v. Rubber Mulch Etc., LLC, 620 F.3d 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
13. Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 645 F.3d 1336(Fed. Cir. 2011).
14. Hyatt v. Kappos, 625 F.3d 1320(Fed. Cir. 2011).
15. Honeywell Intern., Inc. v. U.S., 609 F.3d 1292(Fed. Cir. 2010).
16. Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365(Fed. Cir. 2007).
17. In re Sastry, 285 F.3d 1378(Fed. Cir. 2002).
18. In re 318 Patent Infringement Litigation, 583 F.3d 1317(Fed. Cir. 2009).
19. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268(Fed. Cir. 2011).
20.Monsanto Co. v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., 503 F.3d 1352(Fed. Cir. 2008).
21. Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306(Fed. Cir. 2003).
22.Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 1353, (Fed. Cir. 2008).
23. Regents of University of Cal. v. Dakocytomation Cal., Inc., 517 F.3d 1364(Fed. Cir. 2008).
24.Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
25.Thurlow v. Com. of Mass., 46 U.S. 504 (1847).
26.Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp., 299 F.3d 1313(Fed. Cir. 2002).
27. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA, Inc., 617 F.3d 1296 ( Fed. Cir. 2010).
28.Union Pacific Resources Co. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., 236 F.3d 684(Fed. Cir. 2001).
29.Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chemical Co., 642 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
30. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Formica Insulation Co., 266 U.S. 342(1924).
（四）Internet
1. Patent Reform's Reduced 'Best Mode' Requirement Creates Uncertainty,available at : http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202518225784(lasted visited Nov. 11, 2011).
2. Patent Basics: The Enablement Requirement vs. the Best Mode Requirement,available at : http://www.generalpatent.com/patent-basics-enablement-requirement-vs-best-mode-requirement(lasted visited Nov. 12, 2011).
3. Best Mode Requirements Apply To Each Inventor, available at : http://www.technologylawsource.com/2011/05/articles/intellectual-property-1/patents/best-mode-requirements-apply-to-each-inventor/#axzz1dx7WOB5I(lasted visited Nov. 12, 2011).
4. Enablement Issues Concerning Aggressively Broad Generic Claims, available at : http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/njtip/v7/n1/1/(lasted visited Nov. 15, 2011).
5.Enabling Written Description, available at : http://www.patenthawk.com/blog/2010/03/enabling_written_description.html(lasted visited Nov.17, 2011).