Categorical coherence, classification volatility and examiner-added citations

Research Policy

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 89-102

  Tan, David ^a   Roberts, Peter W ^b  

^a GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Categorization; Classification; Innovation; Patenting

Indexed keywords

CATEGORIZATION; CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM;

TECHNICAL WRITING;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

EID: 74149091053     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2009.11.001     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Alcácer J., and Gittelman M. Patent citations as a measure of knowledge flows: the influence of examiner citations. Review of Economics and Statistics 88 (2006) 774-779
2. Alcácer J., Gittelman M., and Sampat B. Applicant and examiner citations in U.S. patents: an overview and analysis. Research Policy 38 (2009) 415-427
3. Bowker G.C., and Star S.L. Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences (1999), MIT Press
4. Burke P.F., and Reitzig M. Measuring patent assessment quality: analyzing the degree and kind of (in)consistency in patent offices' decision making. Research Policy 36 (2007) 1404-1430
5. Burt R.S., and Doreian P. Testing a structural model of perception: conformity and deviance with respect to Journal norms in elite sociological methodology. Quality and Quantity 16 (1982) 109-150
6. Burt R.S. Social contagion and innovation-cohesion versus structural equivalence. American Journal of Sociology 92 (1987) 1287-1335
7. Chi M.T.H., Feltovich P.J., and Glaser R. Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science 5 (1981) 121-152
8. Choi J.P. Patent litigation as an information-transmission mechanism. American Economic Review 88 (1998) 1249-1263
9. Clarkson, G., Toh, P.K., forthcoming. 'Keep out' signs: the role of deterrence in the competition for resources. Strategic Management Journal.
10. Cockburn I.M., Kortum S., and Stern S. Are all Patent Examiners Equal? Examiners, Patent Characteristics, and Litigation Outcomes. In: Cohen W., and Merrill W. (Eds). Patents in the Knowledge Based Economy (2003), National Academies Press, Washington
11. Conigliaro M.J., Greenberg A.C., and Lemley M.A. Foreseeability in Patent Law. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 16 (2001) 1045
12. Dosi G. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories-a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy 11 (1982) 147-162
13. Eisenberg R.S. Obvious to whom? Evaluating inventions from the perspective of PHOSITA. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 19 (2004) 885-906
14. Fleming L. Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science 47 (2001) 117-132
15. Fleming L. Finding the organizational sources of technological breakthroughs: the story of Hewlett-Packard's thermal ink-jet. Industrial and Corporate Change 11 (2002) 1059-1084
16. Fleming L., and Sorenson O. Science as a map in technology search. Strategic Management Journal 25 (2004) 909-928
17. Gould R.V. Collision of Wills: How Ambiguity about Social Rank Breeds Conflict (2003), University of Chicago Press, Chicago
18. Hagstrom W.O. The Scientific Community (1965), Basic Books, New York
19. Hsu G. Jacks of all trades and masters of none: audiences' reactions to spanning genres in feature film production. Administrative Science Quarterly 51 (2006) 420-450
20. Lemley M.A. Rational ignorance at the patent office. Northwestern University Law Review 95 (2001) 1495-1592
21. Merges R.P., and Nelson R.R. On the complex economics of patent scope. Columbia Law Review 90 (1990) 839-916
22. Moss J., Kotovsky K., and Cagan J. The role of functionality in the mental representations of engineering students: some differences in the early stages of expertise. Cognitive Science 30 (2006) 65-93
23. Noveck B.S. 'Peer to patent': collective intelligence, open review, and patent reform. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 20 (2006) 123-162
24. Podolny J.M., and Stuart T.E. A role-based ecology of technological change. American Journal of Sociology 100 (1995) 1224-1260
25. Podolny J.M., Stuart T.E., and Hannan M.T. Networks, knowledge, and niches: competition in the worldwide semiconductor industry, 1984-1991. American Journal of Sociology 102 (1996) 659-689
26. Porac J.F., Thomas H., Wilson F., Paton D., and Kanfer A. Rivalry and the industry model of Scottish knitwear producers. Administrative Science Quarterly 40 (1995) 203-227
27. Rosa J.A., Porac J.F., Runser-Spanjol J., and Saxon M.S. Sociocognitive dynamics in a product market. Journal of Marketing 63 Special Issue (1999) 64-77
28. Sampat, B.N., 2004. Examining patent examination: an analysis of examiner and applicant generated prior art. Working Paper.
29. Thomas J.R. Claim re-construction: the doctrine of equivalents in the post-Markman era. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society 87 (2005) 781-807
30. US Patent and Trademark Office. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (2001), P.a.T.O. U.S. Department of Commerce
31. Zuckerman E.W. The categorical imperative: securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology 104 (1999) 1398-1438
32. Zuckerman E.W. Focusing the corporate product: securities analysts and de-diversification. Administrative Science Quarterly 45 (2000) 591-619
33. Zuckerman E.W., and Kim T.Y. The critical trade-off: identity assignment and box office success in the feature film industry. Industrial and Corporate Change 12 (2003) 27-67
34. Zuckerman E.W. Structural incoherence and stock market activity. American Sociological Review 69 (2004) 405-432