http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 鄭泰浩 (검색결과 650 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
-
-
-
-
鄭泰浩,金乘來,金政澈,李仁善,李鍾律 慶北大學校 醫科大學 1986 慶北醫大誌 Vol.27 No.3
1984년 4월부터 1985년 2월 사이에 경북의대 의학과와 간호학과 학생 100명을 대상으로 HLA-A, B, C 및 HLA-DR 항원분포를 조사하였다. HLA-A, B, C 항원은 T-임파구를 사용하고 HLA-DR항원은 B-임파구를 사용하여 검색하였다. HLA-A, B, C검사에는 미국 UCLA와, 서울의 가톨릭의대 미생물학 교실의 공동개발인 한국인용 HLA-tray를 사용하였으며 HLA-DR검사에는 경북의대 기초의학연구소에서 제작한 tray를 사용하였다. 검사수기는 Park과 Terasaki의 방법에 준하였으며 항원출현 빈도를 조사하고 각항원의 유전자 출현빈도를 계산하여 아래와 같이 요약할 수 있다. HLA항원의 검출율은 6개 전부가 검출된 경우는 2%이었으며 5개가개 12%, 4가개 51%, 3계가 30%로서 비교적 좋은 성적이었다. 본 연구에서의 HLA-A계 항원의 출현빈도는 A_2가 52%로 가장 높았으며 A_24, A_11, A_31, A_33, A_30, A_1, A_26, A_3, A_12, A_23, A_32의 순서로 나타났다. HLA-B계 항원에서는 B_51이 24%로 가장 높았으며 B_62, B_60, B_57, B_35, B_27, B_7, B_54, B_45, B_13, B_37, B_63의 순서였으며 B_8, B_26, B_8, B_26, B_39, B_40, B_55, B_61로 각 한예식 검출되었다. HLA-C계 항원에서는 C_3가 49%로 제1순위였으며 C_4 15%, C_1 8%, C_2 5%를 각각 나타내었다. HLA-DR계에서는 DR_4가 44%로서 가장 높은 빈도를 보였으며 다음으로 DR_2 26%, DR_5 21%였으며 이하 DR_6y, DR_7, DR_1, DR_8, DR_9의 순위를 보였다. HLA-MT항원의 빈도는 MT_4, MT_1, MT_2 그리고 MT_3의 순위였다. 본 연구에서 검출된 HLA-A, B, C 항원군과 한국에서 행하여진 타 연구기관의 보고와 비교하고ㅓ 1982년 일본인 것을 종합한 자료를 비교 검토한 결과 앞으로 인종학적 연구에서나 특정질병 호발자와 비호발자를 비교할 경우에는 비교적 많은 수의 예를 조사해사하며 항혈청을 비롯하여 검사에 사용되는 시약도 통일되어야 하며 여러번의 workshop 공동훈련등을 통하여 수기에서도 공동보조가 되어야 유의한 자료가 되겠다는 결론을 얻었다. The distribution of HLA-A, B, C and HLA-DR antigens was studied in 100 Korean students from April 1984 to February 1985. T-lymphocyte was used for the test of HLA-A, B, C antigens and B-lymphocyte for the test of HLA-DR antigen. HLA-A, B, C antigens were tested by using Korean-HLA-tray which was codeveloped by Department of Catholic Medical College, Seoul Korea and UCLA, U.S.A., and HLA-DR antigen by using a tray developed by Biomedical Research Laboratory of Kyungpook National University. The technique was standardized by the method of Park and Terasaki. The results of antigen frequencies and calculated gene frequencies were summarized by the followings: The most frequent type of HLA-A antigen was A_2 valued of 52% and then followed by A_24, A_11, A_31, A_33, A_30, A_1, A_26, A_3, A_12, A_23, A_32 in order of frequency. In the case of HLA-B antigens, B_51 was the most frequent type comporising 24% and then B_62, B_60, B_57, B_35, B_27, B_7, B_54, B_45, B_13, B_37, B_63 in order of frequency, but only one case was also reported in B_26, B_39, B_49, B_55, B_61. The highest value of frequency among HLA-C types was 49% in C_3 and then followed by 15% in C_4, 8% in C_1 and 5% in C_2. In the case of HLA-DR types, DR_4 was 44%, DR_2, 26%, DR_5, 21% and then DR_6Y, DR_7, DR_1, DR_8, DR_9 in order of frequency, whereas among HLA-MT types MT_4 was the most frequenty type and then MT_1, MT_2, MT_3 in order of frequency. This study suggested that there should be a more intimate relationship among laboratories in Korea and also among various countries, such as Korea and Japan for the reliable comparison of studies about the ethnic and HLA-associated disease.
-
-
-
-
정태호,윤여강 충북대학교 법학연구소 2019 과학기술과 법 Vol.10 No.1
Most of research on the patent litigation system is concentrated to China and Japan and there is lack to the research of Taiwan 's system. Taiwan started Intellectual Property Court from 2008, late than Korean Patent Court which was established in 1998. However, in the scope of the jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of Taiwan’s intellectual property court include first instance and second instance of civil action for the protection of intellectual property rights and interest under the Patent Act, Trademark Act, Copyright Act, Optical Disk Act, Trade Secrets Act, Regulations Governing the Protection of Integrated Circuits Configuration, Species of Plants and Seeding Act, and Fair Trade Act, showing more advanced aspect than Korea. Therefore, we have studied Taiwanese patent litigation system to find some useful suggestions for the patent litigation system of our country. The Taiwan Intellectual Property Court has preferential jurisdiction for civil and administrative lawsuits of patent and can treat in a way of “a combination of three trials in one” to civil, criminal and administrative lawsuits of intellectual property rights cases except for patent infringement cases so that it is could maintain consistency in the rulings. Also, technical examination officers who assist judges to technical problem participates from the first instance to enhance the technical understanding of the judge, so that speedy resolution of trial can be made. However, the Intellectual Property Court is not final court of intellectual property cases. In civil and criminal action, the Supreme Court is the final court, and administrative action is finally decided by Supreme Administrative Court. Thus, there is still a problem that the rulings of between Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court are not coincide on the same case of litigation. In Taiwan, for appealing a refusal to grant a patent by patent office or invalidation case, one should bring to the case to Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (“TIPO”) first. If one wants appeal to the decision of TIPO, this is then appealed to the Petitions and Appeals Committee (“PAC”) of the Ministry of Economic Affairs (“MOEA”). If one wants to appeal further to the decision of PAC, then can appeal as an administrative litigation to the Intellectual Property Court. Thus, there are two review stages (TIPO, PAC) in administrative stage. In a procedure of Intellectual Property Court, defendant is MOEA who has PAC which decided the petition, and Plaintiff is a patent applicant, or a petitioner of invalidation or a patentee. In Taiwan, invalidation litigation is regarded as an administrative litigation, only administrative office is a defendant, which is different from Korea where the parties in administrative litigation is the same parties who filed invalidation procedure for ensuring their right of pleading. However, this problem is supplemented by allowing the party of invalidation procedure to participate to the administrative litigation as an intervener in Taiwan Taiwan does not have a criminal penalty for infringement of patent right, and there is only civil remedy procedure for patent rights. Criminal cases related to intellectual property rights, such as trademarks and copyrights etc. (except patent rights) are subject to a first instance by each district court. The first court ruling of the criminal case of the district court is appealed to Intellectual Property Court as a second instance except for the juvenile criminal case. In Korea, there is difficulty to consistent judgements on civil, criminal and administrative case of patent infringement because criminal case is not exclusive jurisdiction for the Patent Court. In order to solve these problems, Taiwanese patent litigation system can be good reference to consider.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
