對於現代設計而言，如何融合美感與功能特質以呈現出最佳形式，可說是實踐之終極目標；相對地，立法規範歷來偏重設計之美感外觀保護，以致與產業觀點漸行漸遠，並由此衍生出美感／功能二分法之對立觀點。但從結果而論，法律並未真正實現保護美感之規範目的，反倒受制於美感之不確定性與證明困難而製造諸多爭議，不僅美感之要件地位曖昧不明，甚至混淆不同要件間之論證關係，其中又以可見性、功能性及創作性為最。為解決前揭混亂，關鍵在於如何正確詮釋美感在設計專利保護中之地位，這也是學術及實務鮮少深入談論之議題；是以，本文首從歷史脈絡與文義瞭解設計及法律領域所認知之美感內涵為何，復從立法思維截然不同之美國與歐盟經驗，探究適用謬誤之癥結及可能解套方法，進而在不違反美感概念涵義之前提下，建議我國立法及實務應如何看待美感並提出修正方案。

It is the ultimate goal for the modern design activities to combine aesthetic and functional features perfectly and to construct the ＂optimal form.＂ However, legislative norms historically have focused on the protection of aesthetic appearance of designs, so distinct from the viewpoint of designer, and it has resulted in ＂aesthetic/functional dichotomy.＂ In fact, subject to uncertainty of aesthetics and difficulty of proving, the law itself cannot fulfill the purpose of protecting the aesthetic appearance and causes a lot of controversy. Therefore, the legal status of aesthetic character is unclear and the relationship of various requirements is confused, especially between aesthetics, visibility, functionality and non-obviousness. In order to solve the issues aforementioned, the key point is how to interpret the legal status of aesthetics in design law properly, which is discussed by scholars and courts rarely. Therefore, the author suggests that firstly it is to discover the concept of ＂aesthetic＂ recognized by designers and legislators in the context of history and in the literal sense. Furthermore, based on the different experiences and thinking behind the laws of the United States and European Union, it also needs to identify the critical problems of applying laws and figure out the feasible solutions. Finally, under the premise of not conflicting with the meaning of ＂aesthetic＂, the author provides legislators and courts with several suggestions for interpreting and amending.