應用美術作品兼具美術鑑賞之藝術性及實用性雙重特質，是以應用美術作品得否成為著作權之保護客體，一直以來都受有不少質疑之聲浪。我國著作權法對於美術著作保護客體之解釋，自僅限於純美術作品直至今日擴張至應用美術作品，惟具備量產之工業性格之應用美術作品，是否亦屬我國著作權法之保護範疇，始終爭執不休。近期我國實務已有拋棄量產之判斷，回歸審視原創性之趨勢。美國立法、行政及司法三大體系針對應用美術作品可著作性之議題已累積相當多的經驗，特別是司法實務上建構的可分性原則，透過物理上與概念上的區別標準辨識應用美術作品當中可為美術著作之範圍，深具參考價值。而應用美術著作是否可同時受到著作權及設計專利之雙重保護?在我國專利法修正前，應屬否定見解，然在經過西元2011年底專利法之修正後，將美術工藝品刪除於不予設計專利之範圍，形成同時可受著作權及設計專利雙重保護之情形。應用美術作品同時可受著作權及設計專利之保護，究竟是否合理?是否應該給予區別之分界線?本文欲透過美國可分性原則之操作，將著作權與設計專利間賦予一個可供操作之分界標準。 In addition to the artistic feature, the utilitarian feature also plays a significant role for works of applied art. Because of utility,however, the copyrightability of applied artwork has become debatable. In the long past, copyright protection on artistic work has been limited to works of fine art. Even though legal precedents in Taiwn have later granted copyright to authors of applied artworks in the 1990s, the copyrightability has still been limited by the productiveness and the industrialization of a work. In recent years, courts and the Intellectual Property Office in Taiwan has the tendency to determine the copyrightability of applied artworks only with originality, yet some issues still stay unsettled. The legislative, the administrative, and the juridical systems of the U.S. have accumulated considerable experience on the copyrightability of applied art which is worth learning for Taiwan.Whether the applied artworks could be protected by both areas of copyright and design patent? The answer to the question above would be a negative before the patent law of Taiwan was amended. Nevertheless, a work of artistic craftsmanship has become covered by both areas after Taiwan enacting the new amendment to patent laws which removed it from the scope of design patent at the end of 2011.Is it reasonable for the applied artworks to be protected by both area of copyright and design patent? And is it necessary to draw a boundary line to differentiate these two domains? This following thesis is attempted to provide an operative demarcation of standard for distinguishing the copyright and the design patent by drawing a dividing line within the separability doctrine.