進步性是專利要件之一。若專利申請案為所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者依申請前之技術所能輕易完成，該申請案即無法取得專利。惟何謂「輕易完成」，實涉及法律適用時之價值判斷，因此，進步性乃屬不確定法律概念。本文認為，行政機關對於專利進步性之判斷，行政法院得全面審查，不應承認行政機關有判斷餘地。但為避免法院專業性不夠，造成依賴鑑定或過度尊重行政機關判斷之疑慮，也為了加速法院對專利案件之審理，可考慮於法院內設置增設技術法官或技術助理，或考慮、設置專利專責法院或智慧財產法院。

The Inventive step (or “non-obviousness”)is a condition of patentability. The requirement of the inventive step means that an invention shall not be granted if it can be easily accomplished by persons who have ordinary skills in the pertinent art and if it utilizes technology or knowledge known prior to applying for patent. However, whether an invention is“easily accomplished” or not, is a question of evaluation. Therefore, the inventive step is an ambiguous legal term. In my opinion, the evaluation of the request of the inventive step can not be left to the agency's discretion. The decision of the patent office about the requirement of the inventive step shall be fully reviewed by the administrative courts. Because the judges of administrative courts often lack sufficient training in science or engineering to be able to understand the prior art and the claimed invention, their legal conclusion of the inventive step often relies on the professional opinions of independent specialists or specialists of the patent office. Therefore, this paper suggests that the administrative courts should have some scientific judges or assistants to participate the trail or procedure. In addition, the feasibility of establishing a new patent or intellectual property court is discussed.