U.S. patent application number 13/135138 was filed with the patent office on 2012-03-15 for system for extracting relevant data from an intellectual property database.
Invention is credited to Jesse David Sukman.
Application Number | 20120066580 13/135138 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 37087678 |
Filed Date | 2012-03-15 |
United States Patent
Application |
20120066580 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Sukman; Jesse David |
March 15, 2012 |
System for extracting relevant data from an intellectual property
database
Abstract
A method of extracting publications relevant to a reference
entity, comprising the steps of generating an initial set of
publications; associating the initial set with a database to
generate a user-engageable display of at least one element relating
to the at least one publication such that the at least one element
is a required characteristic of the at least one publication in
accordance with a predetermined standard of analysis; selecting at
least a first element from the at least one element that represents
a characteristic not present in the reference entity; yielding a
result including publications in the initial set and excluding
publications relating to the selected at least a first element in
accordance with the predetermined standard of analysis.
Inventors: |
Sukman; Jesse David;
(Arlington, VA) |
Family ID: |
37087678 |
Appl. No.: |
13/135138 |
Filed: |
June 27, 2011 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
11401903 |
Apr 12, 2006 |
7984047 |
|
|
13135138 |
|
|
|
|
60670735 |
Apr 12, 2005 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
715/230 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06F 16/33 20190101;
G06F 2216/11 20130101; G06F 16/28 20190101; G06F 16/93 20190101;
Y10S 707/99933 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
715/230 |
International
Class: |
G06F 17/24 20060101
G06F017/24 |
Claims
1-15. (canceled)
16. A computer program product comprising a computer-usable medium
having a computer-readable program code embodied therein, the
computer-readable program code adapted to be executed to implement
a method for identifying patent documents of interest in view of a
specific reference entity, the method comprising: displaying a
user-engageable arrangement of a plurality of annotations that are
associated with a first plurality of document identifiers, each of
the first plurality of document identifiers uniquely representing
one of a first plurality of patent documents; receiving a selection
from a user of at least one of the plurality of annotations;
excluding, from the first plurality of document identifiers, all
document identifiers associated with the at least one annotation
selected by the user; and outputting a resultant set of document
identifiers that does not include any of the excluded document
identifiers, wherein each particular patent document of the first
plurality of patent documents has at least one required
characteristic satisfying conditions of a standard of analysis such
that each required characteristic is necessary for any reference
entity to embody in order to infringe the particular patent
document based on a claims portion of the particular patent
document, and wherein the plurality of annotations include
annotations that correspond to required characteristics of the
first plurality of patent documents, and wherein each particular
document identifier is associated only with annotations
corresponding to required characteristics of the patent document
represented by the particular document identifier.
17. The program of claim 16, wherein the step of displaying a
user-engageable arrangement of annotations further comprises
displaying a genus annotation and a species annotation such that
the species annotation is hierarchically embedded within the genus
annotation.
18. The program of claim 17, wherein the method further comprises:
receiving a user request to remove an annotation from the displayed
user-engageable arrangement from a first location in the
user-engageable arrangement and replace the annotation in a second
location in the user-engageable arrangement, wherein the second
location is different from the first location; removing the
annotation from the first location; and replacing the annotation in
the second location.
19. The program of claim 16, wherein the method further comprises
displaying a definition associated with at least one annotation of
the displayed plurality of annotations.
20. The program of claim 16, wherein: the plurality of annotations
are further associated with a second plurality of document
identifiers that are each different from the first plurality of
document identifiers and that each uniquely represent one of a
second plurality of patent documents; for each of the second
plurality of document identifiers, a first annotation and a second
annotation of the plurality of annotations represent, in
conjunction, but not individually, a required characteristic of the
particular patent document represented by the document identifier,
wherein, the required characteristic is evaluated, under a standard
of analysis, to be necessary for any reference entity to embody in
order to infringe the particular patent document based on a claims
portion of the patent document; the method further comprises, for
each of the second plurality of document identifiers, excluding the
document identifier if, and only if, both the first annotation and
the second annotation constitute user-selected annotations; and the
resultant set of identifiers does not include any of the excluded
document identifiers from the second plurality of document
identifiers.
21. The program of claim 16, wherein the method further comprises:
receiving a primary selection of one or more primary annotations
from the displayed arrangement of annotations, resulting in primary
selected annotations and primary non-selected annotations, wherein
the primary annotations correspond to one or more document
identifiers from the first plurality of document identifiers;
removing, from the display, all non-selected annotations that only
correspond to the one or more document identifiers; and receiving a
secondary selection of one or more secondary annotations from the
displayed arrangement of annotations.
22. The program of claim 16, wherein the method further comprises:
generating a record of each annotation of the plurality of
annotations correlated with a value indicating whether or not the
annotation constitutes a user-selected annotation; and storing the
record as a search criterion.
23. The program of claim 22, wherein the method further comprises:
displaying a second user-engageable arrangement of a second
plurality of annotations; based on a user request, accessing the
search criterion; comparing each annotation of the search criterion
to each annotation of the second plurality of annotations; and for
each annotation of the second user-engageable arrangement, if the
particular annotation corresponds to a user-selected annotation,
modifying the second arrangement by displaying the particular
annotation as selected.
24. A computer program product comprising a computer-usable medium
having a computer-readable program code embodied therein, the
computer-readable program code adapted to be executed to implement
a method for identifying patent documents of interest in view of a
specific reference entity, the method comprising: receiving, from a
user, an initial set of document identifiers that each uniquely
represent one of a first plurality of patent documents; accessing a
stored collection of document identifiers that each uniquely
represent one of a second plurality of patent documents, wherein
the stored collection of document identifiers are associated with a
first plurality of annotations, such that, for each document
identifier of the stored collection of document identifiers, only
annotations of the first plurality of annotations that correspond
to a required characteristic of the patent document represented by
the patent document identification are associated with the patent
document identification, wherein the required characteristic is
evaluated, under a standard of analysis, to be necessary for any
reference entity to embody in order to infringe the patent document
based on a claims portion of the patent document; comparing the
initial set of document identifiers with the stored collection of
document identifiers; displaying a user-engageable arrangement of
annotations including, from the first plurality of annotations,
only annotations that are each associated with at least one
document identifier of the first plurality of document identifiers;
receiving a selection from a user of at least one of the second
plurality of annotations; and outputting a resultant set of patent
document identifications that, from the first plurality of patent
document identifications, excludes all patent document
identifications associated with the user-selected annotations.
Description
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION
[0001] The present application claims priority from U.S.
Provisional Patent Application No. 60/670,735, filed Apr. 12, 2005,
the entirety of the disclosure of which is hereby incorporated by
reference into the present application.
BACKGROUND
[0002] This invention pertains to the field of database searching,
and more particularly, searching an intellectual property
database.
[0003] It is commonly desired by those within the legal practice,
including law firms, practitioners, patent attorneys and agents,
search firms, technology transfer managers, corporations, corporate
Intellectual Property (IP) departments and the like, to extract
relevant publications from an intellectual property database (e.g.
information stored locally on CD-ROM, stored on network storage
devices through a local area network, or stored on remote database
systems through one or more disparate network paths, e.g. the
Internet) with a predetermined expectation of accuracy. Relevant
publications as used herein refer to publications that fall within
the scope of having pertinence to a searcher, in accordance with a
predetermined standard of analysis.
[0004] Accuracy, herein, is defined as the ratio of relevant
publications actually retrieved (by a search system) to the total
number of relevant publications within an initial set of
publications. A search may be performed to determine one's right to
use a product or right to produce a product, where the product may
include an apparatus, composition, method, system, or a service
(referred to as a reference entity, herein). As used herein, the
term "infringement search" is meant to include any or all of a
variety of terms used in the art to refer to database searching,
including but not limited to "right to use search," "right to
produce search," "clearance search," "infringement search,"
"freedom to operate," etc. Efficiency and accuracy may be of
essence.
[0005] Methods of extracting IP data from databases are known that
utilize keywords, annotations and publication summaries in
retrieving publications. Algorithms that evaluate term frequency or
assign specific weight to specific terms for effectually returning
publications of greater relevance are also known. Also, methods are
known that comprise the step of rephrasing portions of patent
publications, such as the "Title," "Abstract" or "Claims," to
conform to standard industry lexicography. Finally, search methods
are known that match a set of "synonyms" to a specific search query
to ensure that publications are not ignored solely due to
differences in semantics.
[0006] While such methods are useful, improved results may be
realized by search methods that take into account the inherent
nature of infringement searches, as contemplated by the present
invention. In conducting an infringement search for a reference
entity, it is difficult for the searcher to conceptualize the range
of relevant publications, due to the depth and complexity of the
legal bounds of patent publications. Further, since an infringement
search is generally conducted in consideration of a
physically-existing object, the scope and variation of
characteristics susceptible to infringement may be large. Although
known methods may be helpful in preventing the searcher from
missing relevant publications in certain instances, such methods
only marginally increase the speed and efficiency of an
infringement search. Efficiency, as used herein, is defined as the
ratio of relevant publications retrieved to the total number of
publications retrieved by a search system.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0007] The present invention overcomes the foregoing disadvantages
by providing an improved system of extracting relevant intellectual
property data. In an exemplary embodiment, a system is described in
which annotations, keywords, phrases, and/or symbols (collectively
referred to as annotations, herein) represent elements or
conditions taught, recited or implied in patent publications; each
represented element or condition is deemed a necessary or essential
characteristic, in accordance with a predetermined standard of
analysis, for an object to infringe or to have relevance. A primary
user stores the annotations in an annotation database and the
annotations are arranged in hierarchal form with respect to scope
and variation.
[0008] A client, or end user, then conducts an infringement search
of a reference entity by inputting an initial set of publications,
then creating a search criterion by selecting annotations relating
to elements not present in the reference entity. A search
criterion, as used herein, refers to a set a parameters for
retrieving search results. Final search results are then retrieved.
The final search results comprise publications of the initial set
that do not correlate to annotations selected by the client. Thus,
relevant intellectual property data may be obtained through the
elimination, or filtering, of at least a set of annotated
publications from a larger set of publications.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0009] FIG. 1 is a functional block diagram of an embodiment of the
current invention.
[0010] FIG. 1(a) is a functional block diagram illustrating a
process of an embodiment of the current invention.
[0011] FIG. 1(b) is a functional block diagram illustrating a
process of an embodiment of the current invention.
[0012] FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of an embodiment of the
current invention.
[0013] FIG. 3 is a schematic flow diagram of an embodiment of the
current invention.
[0014] FIG. 4 is a screen view illustrating an embodiment of the
current invention.
[0015] FIG. 5 is a screen view illustrating an embodiment of the
current invention.
[0016] FIG. 6 is a screen view illustrating an embodiment of the
current invention.
[0017] FIG. 6(a) is a screen view illustrating an embodiment of the
current invention.
[0018] FIG. 6(b) is a block diagram illustrating an embodiment of
the current embodiment
[0019] FIG. 7 is a screen view illustrating an embodiment of the
current invention.
[0020] FIG. 8 is a schematic diagram illustrating an embodiment of
the current invention.
[0021] FIG. 8(a) is a schematic diagram illustrating an embodiment
of the current invention.
[0022] FIG. 8(b) is a schematic diagram illustrating an embodiment
of the current invention.
[0023] FIG. 9 is a schematic diagram of an embodiment of the
current invention.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0024] Preferred embodiments and applications of the invention will
now be described. Other embodiments may be realized and structural
or logical changes may be made to the disclosed embodiments without
departing from the spirit or scope of the invention. Although the
preferred embodiments disclosed herein have been particularly
described as a system for extracting relevant intellectual property
data in the form of patents and patent publications, it should be
readily apparent that the invention may be embodied to implement
any system in which similar problems may occur. For illustrative
purposes, the discussion herein may refer to U.S. patent
publications. Those skilled in the art will appreciate the
application of the invention to other jurisdictions (e.g. Europe,
Canada or Japan), either alone or in combination, and to other
forms of information (e.g. trademarks, company structure,
prosecution and litigation history, technical publications or
general publications). It may also be appreciated that the current
invention may be combined with other systems and methods known in
the art of electronic searching and IP management.
I. Overview
[0025] As in FIG. 1, a first non-limiting embodiment of the current
invention 100 is illustratively depicted as a system comprising a
first process 102 and second process 104. The first process 102
comprises a process of creating an annotation database. The second
process 104 comprises a process of conducting an infringement
search. The first process 102 is described as being performed by a
primary user. The second process 104 is described as being
performed by an end user or client. While the invention is herein
described as two processes, one skilled in the art will appreciate
that it is within the scope of the invention, and it may be
preferred in certain instances, for both the first and second
process to be performed simultaneously, and/or by a single user
and/or at a single location.
[0026] A. Creating an Annotation Database
[0027] The process of annotating a set of publications 102 will now
be discussed in accordance with the first embodiment of the current
invention, as in FIG. 1(a). The annotation process comprises the
steps of establishing a standard of analysis 106; realizing the
existence of common elements 108; choosing annotations to represent
common elements 110; and organizing annotations with respect to
relationship 112.
[0028] 1. Establishing a Standard of Analysis
[0029] The first step of the annotation process 102 is the
establishment of a standard of analysis 106 for determining
infringement or, alternatively, relevance. In the case of patent
publications, the standard of analysis may relate to a
determination of which supporting information to consider and to
what extent. For example, in developing a standard of analysis
specifically tailored to a highly visual patent art, it may be
deemed sufficient to detect infringement or relevance solely in
view of the "Drawings" portion. For more complex patent arts,
infringement may rely substantially on the "Claims" portion or a
combination of portions. At a level of criticality, the standard of
analysis may warrant consideration of any information potentially
pertinent to the interpretation of the patent publications, both
intrinsic and extrinsic, including prosecution history, related art
and technical publications. The standard of analysis may further
include legal considerations, level of expertise, degree of
conservativeness, nature of the art, level of regard for
intellectual property within the industry and additional business
factors including risk analysis. Finally, the standard of analysis
may take into account the transient nature of any particular
consideration.
[0030] In an exemplary embodiment, the standard of analysis relates
specifically to patent infringement. In the case of patent
infringement, it is desirable that detection of elements be based
on at least the "Claims" portion of patent publications. In
accordance with current practice, patent publications may comprise
at least one claim and each claim may be considered "independent"
or "dependent" (including "multiple dependent claims"). Each
"claim" of a patent may be considered to consist of a set of
limitations, each limitation contributing to the formation of a
boundary as to the scope of the claimed invention. "Design" patent
publications may be considered, in essence, to consist of a single
claim comprising limitations depicted visually through
"Drawings."
[0031] 2. Realizing the Existence of Common Elements
[0032] As in FIG. 1(b), the primary user, in consideration of the
predetermined standard of analysis, analyzes patent publications
for the purpose of detecting common elements 108. A common element,
in some embodiments, refers to an element or concept that is
implicitly or explicitly recited in a patent publication that is
deemed a necessary condition for infringement of that patent
publication in accordance with a predetermined standard of
analysis.
[0033] Where, for example, the predetermined standard of analysis
is patent infringement under U.S. law, a common element is an
element or concept that must be present in an accused infringing
object (e.g. a product, method, apparatus, etc., that is being
analyzed for infringement) in order for that object to infringe the
patent publication.
[0034] In other words, a common element of a patent publication is
a sine qua non for infringement of the patent publication, in
accordance with a predetermined standard of analysis. Likewise, an
object that comprises a common element (of a patent publication)
may, but does not necessarily, infringe the patent publication.
[0035] In some embodiments, where the predetermined standard of
analysis is related to "relevance," then a common element of a
publication is an element or concept necessary for a reference
entity to comprise for the reference entity to have relevance to
the publication. Thus, a primary user would analyze a patent
publication and detect those elements or concepts that are deemed
essential or necessary conditions.
[0036] In an exemplary embodiment, the detection of common elements
may involve, first, finding implicit or explicit limitations that
are common to each "claim" (or at least each "independent claim")
of a patent publication 114, such a limitation herein referred to
as a common limitation. The predetermined standard of analysis is
then implemented to reduce a common limitation of a patent
publication to a common element of the patent publication 116.
Thus, the predetermined standard of analysis operates to modify the
scope of a common limitation, defined by the language of the
inventor, to realize a common element.
[0037] For example, a patent publication may comprise a set of
claims, each claim reciting the limitation of "a composition
comprising the element argon." Thus, "comprising the element argon"
is a common limitation. However, in applying a predetermined
standard of analysis, in view of, for example, legal considerations
and conservativeness, the common limitation of "comprising argon"
may be too narrow to function as a common element. Thus, in
creating a common element, the common limitation, "comprising
argon" may be broadened to the concept of "comprising an inert
gas."
[0038] 3. Choosing Annotations to Represent Common Elements
[0039] The primary user then chooses annotations to represent
common elements 110. An annotation may be further supported by an
assigned definition. It is preferred that both the annotation and
the assigned definition comprise broadly-accepted terminology,
irrespective of the lexicography of any specific patent
publication. Due to the eliminatory nature of the preferred
embodiment of the current invention, there is no inherent
requirement to apply annotations where application would be futile,
difficult or impossible.
[0040] a. Discretionary Nature of Annotation Application
[0041] Any individual publication may be assigned no annotations,
one annotation, or several annotations. The degree to which a
publication is annotated may not necessarily affect the accuracy of
the system. In other words, the system may be considered
eliminatory. Thus, the absence of annotation of a publication
results in the retrieval of the publication in final search results
rather than the elimination of the publication from the final
search results. Thus, in a preferred embodiment, the extent to
which publications are annotated relates neither to the complexity
nor the extent of novelty of the publication, and is within the
discretion of the primary user. The discretion of the primary user
may rely heavily on'both the predetermined standard of analysis and
the availability of broadly-accepted terminology in a specific art
to represent a common element.
[0042] b. The Use of Logic Operators
[0043] In the course of the annotation process, it may be the case
that specific publications seem not to comprise common elements or
at least not to an extent to which annotations may easily be
assigned. For example, in simplified terms, a publication comprises
a set of twenty claims. The first ten claims each recite at least a
first limitation, A. The remaining ten claims each recite at least
a second limitation, B, and do not recite limitation A. In
response, a primary user may attempt to realize a common element so
broad in scope as to encompass both A and B. However, such an
attempt may be ineffectual, since the resulting common element may
be substantially broader than the scope of any particular claim.
Alternatively, the primary user may employ the use of logic
operators. Assume an appropriate annotation representing A is A'
and an appropriate annotation for B is B'. In using logic
operators, a common element in this case may be represented by "A'
AND B'." In other words, while neither A', alone, nor B', alone,
represent a common element of the publication, a reference entity
(i.e., the object in question of infringement) cannot infringe the
publication if the reference entity comprises "both A' and B'."
Further, logic operators may be employed in more complex cases. For
example, a publication comprises a set of twenty claims. The first
ten claims recite at least limitations C and D. The final ten
claims recite at least limitation E, but recite neither C nor D. In
this case, it may be most effective to represent the common element
as "(C' OR D') AND E'," where C', D' and E' represent annotations
of limitations C, D and E, respectively.
[0044] 4. Organizing Annotations With Respect to Relationship
[0045] Next, a hierarchy (or network or listing of annotations) may
be created for organizing annotations with respect to scope or
likeness or a combination thereof 112. It is preferable that
annotations are arranged at least with respect to scope. A first
annotation may be embedded within a second annotation, where the
first annotation relates to a common element that is a species of
the common element of the second annotation. It is also preferred
that redundancy is minimized. In some embodiments, the primary user
may utilize placeholder annotations. Placeholder annotations,
herein, refer to annotations that do not correlate to common
elements of any publication, but merely aid in forming the
structure of the hierarchy, thereby increasing functionality.
[0046] The assigned annotations and related publication
identifications (e.g. serial numbers, publication numbers, patent
numbers or the like) are stored as the annotation record. The
annotation record may be stored as data, preferably in a user-side
database or storage module, herein referred to as the
annotation/publication database 113.
[0047] B. Conducting the Infringement Search
[0048] FIG. 2 illustrates the second process 104 of the first
non-limiting embodiment of the current invention. The second
process 104 may be considered to be the actual performance of the
infringement search. The search is performed by an end user in view
of a reference entity 202 or known characteristic of a reference
entity 202. The process of conducting a clearance or infringement
search generally comprises the steps of compiling an initial set of
publications 204 and creating a search criterion 210.
[0049] 1. Compiling an Initial Set
[0050] An initial set of publications 206 may be realized as input
data and stored. In some embodiments, input data may be stored in a
user-side database 208. The initial set of publications 206 may
comprise a prior compilation of publications from a known source.
For example, the initial set may comprise patent publications of
designated classes or sub-classes in accordance with the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) classification system, data
field searches, natural language searches, Boolean searches,
searches conducted with known patent searching software, prior
final search results of the current invention or any combination
thereof. In some embodiments, the initial set includes a set of
publications encompassing the entire scope of publications that may
conceivably lead to issues of infringement or relevance in regards
to a reference entity, limited by the discretion of the client or
end user and reasonability. The initial set may comprise
publications not correlated with annotation of the annotation
database described herein.
[0051] 2. Creating a Search Criterion
[0052] An end user then refers to the annotation record 115
represented in hierarchy form. The end user creates a search
criterion 210 by selecting annotations (relating to common
elements) of the annotation record 115 that are not present in
relation to the reference entity 202 undergoing clearance. The
search criterion 210 may be saved or stored in the user-side
database 208. At the completion of the creation of the search
criterion, an automated function eliminates publications, from the
initial set 214, that relate to selected annotations of the search
criterion. The remaining publications of the initial set 214 are
returned as final search results 216.
[0053] In some embodiments, final search results includes
information such as additional characteristics of publications of
the initial set either explicit or implicit. Such information
includes any information known for assisting the end user 301 in
accordance with a predetermined standard of analysis. In some
embodiment, such information includes excluded publications or
excluded annotations distinguished from the retrieved publications
or unselected annotations. In some embodiments, final search
results comprises an opinion or report, derived from the set of
returned publications of the initial set.
II. Exemplary Implementation
[0054] The following illustrates an exemplary implementation of a
preferred embodiment of the current invention. As shown in FIG. 3,
a system 300 may be carried out via central processing units
(CPUs), such computing being performed on a single CPU, split up
over several CPUs (e.g. networked) or performed remotely via the
Internet. It is within the scope of the current invention to
incorporate any known manner of interfacing information such as
browser-type technology and windows-based formatting. "Pop-up"
windows, referred to herein, includes any known form of windows,
separate from a main window. The following embodiment illustrates a
subscription-type software service in which a primary user 301 and
an end user 304 are distinct entities.
[0055] The primary user 301 may access interface A 306 and access a
remote server 308 via electronic network, internet, intranet or the
like. Through the remote server, a patent publication database 310
may be accessed. The database may comprise electronic publications
of the USPTO, European Patent Office, Japanese Patent Office or the
like or any combination thereof. Additionally, the patent
publication database may comprise any electronic collection of
patent publications on magnetic disc, CD-ROM or the like or any
combination thereof. Interface A 306 may comprise a CPU, display
module, user interfaces such as a keyboard and mouse, and a server.
Through interface A, the primary user may access an
annotation/publication database 312 for saving and storing data of
the annotation record. The annotation/publication database may be
accessible remotely through electronic network, internet, intranet,
CD-ROM, magnetic disc or the like for access by a remote user,
namely an end user or client.
[0056] The data of the annotation/publication database may be
accessed by the end user 304 through interface B 316. Interface B
316 may also have remote access to the patent publication database
310 via the remote server 308. Both the search criterion 318 and
the final search results 320, developed by the end user 304, may be
stored or saved in a search storage database 322.
[0057] A. The Annotation Process
[0058] As shown in FIGS. 4-5, a first display module 350 of
interface A 306 may comprise a publication-viewing application,
e.g. an application for displaying .pdf, .tiff, .rtf or the like.
Additionally, a pop-up window 352 may be applied for the primary
user 301 to input annotations. The pop-up window 352 may comprise a
reference identification box 354, automatically displaying the
currently-viewed publication identification, and a first annotation
input box 356 for manual input of annotations previously existent.
A second annotation input box 358 may be applied for manual input
of new annotations.
[0059] The first annotation input box may comprise a "Search
Hierarchy" button 360, in which a primary user 301 may enter a
query comprising a letter, portion of an annotation or annotation
and be automatically directed to a graphical hierarchy
representation 370 (as in FIG. 5) of the portion of the hierarchy
containing the inputted query. From the graphical hierarchy
representation 370, annotations may be selected and added to the
set of annotations correlated with the viewed publication. An
annotation may also be typed in and added through the first
annotation input box 356 alone using an "Add" button 362.
[0060] The second annotation box 358 may be implemented for manual
input of a new annotation. The primary user 301 may click on a
"Place in hierarchy" button 364 for automatically linking to the
graphical hierarchy representation. The primary user may than
select a genus annotation of which the new annotation may belong.
Topics may preferably be implemented to break down the entire
hierarchy into several broad classifications. Thus, if an
annotation is broader than any existing genus, the annotation may
be placed within a topic. The primary user may then be prompted to
input an annotation definition. An annotation definition may
optionally be inputted.
[0061] As in FIG. 5, the graphical hierarchy representation (GHR)
370 may comprise three windows or frames within a window. The first
GHR window 372 may automatically display the annotation definition
corresponding to a selected annotation 374. The second GHR window
376 may display a macro view of general topics or broad
annotations. The contents of the macro view may depend on at least
the broadness, depth, or stage of development of the hierarchy. The
third GHR window 378 comprises a detailed hierarchy portion of the
general topic selected by the primary user 301. Species annotations
380 may be embedded within respective genus annotations 382.
Species annotations 380 of a specific genus may be arranged in
order of the number of publications 384 that each species
annotation 380 yields. Alternatively (or in addition), annotations
may be listed in alphanumeric order.
[0062] The primary user 301 may select annotations from the third
GHR window 378. An "Options" button 386 may be implemented for
supplying a set of commands, each to operate on a selected
annotation. For example, an annotation may be "cut" from one
location in the hierarchy and optionally "pasted" in another. A
"cut and paste" operation serves to reclassify each individual
publication represented by the annotation to be "cut" and "pasted."
Similarly, a selected annotation may be "copied" and placed within
another genus or "dragged and dropped." An annotation may be
"renamed." An annotation may be redefined. An annotation may be
given a "quick key." A "quick key" refers to a combination of keys
that will automatically apply an annotation to a reference. "Quick
keys" may be most effective for annotations that are applied often
in annotation development. An example may be applying "CTRL+A"
(CTRL referring to the Control key of a standard QWERTY keyboard)
for the annotation of "comprising an acidic substance."
[0063] B. Conducting an Infringement Search
[0064] 1. Compiling an Initial Set
[0065] FIG. 6 illustrates an electronic display 500 in accordance
with Interface B 316. The end user 304 may access Interface B 316.
Interface B may comprise a CPU, server and a display 500. The
display 500 may comprise a menu bar 502, first window 504, second
window 506 and third window 508. The first window 504 may include
an organization of initial search parameters. The end user 304 may
use the first window 504 for compiling an initial set 303 of
publications. Specifically, the first window 504 may include a
first sub-window 510 for accessing saved sets of publications,
labeled "Saved Sets." The end user 304 may access final search
results of prior searches or a set of publications acquired by
other known means as discussed herein. The end user 301 may input
multiple sets.
[0066] The first window 504 may further comprise a second
sub-window 512. The second sub-window 512 may provide a means for
accessing a known electronic publication database, such as the
USPTO, European Patent Office, Japanese Patent Office or the like
or any combination thereof. The end user 304 may process and add
known publication database queries to the initial set 303.
Optionally, the known publication database query may be processed
by clicking a "Process" button 514.
[0067] Clicking the "Process" button 514 may call a first pop-up
window as in FIG. 6(a). The first pop-up window 550 may display the
query 552 and data information pertaining to the query, such as
"Total Number of Hits" 554. The first pop-up window 550 may also
provide a button 556 for the end user 304 to view results,
resulting in the appearance of a second pop-up window (not shown)
displaying resulting hits of the query and optionally data
information such as "Filing Date," "Title," "Inventor," "Assignee"
and the like. The end user 304 may delete individual publications
from the query, add all results 558 to the initial set 303 or
cancel the query 560 by clicking on respective buttons as
shown.
[0068] As in FIG. 6, the third sub-window 511 may display a log,
labeled "Search Log," listing all queries and sets of publications
inputted by the end user 304. The end user 304 may view compiled
publications of a query by optionally clicking on a "View" button
516. Clicking on the "View" button 516 may result in the appearance
of a third "pop-up" window (not shown) listing compiled resulting
publications. As in the second pop-up window 550, resulting hits
may be displayed in the third pop-up window along with publication
data information. The end user 304 may delete individual
publications from the compilation. The end user 304 may also delete
entire queries or sets of publications from the third sub-window
511. The initial set 303 may be saved for later reference.
[0069] 2. The Custom Hierarchy
[0070] As in FIG. 6, the second window 518 relates to the
annotation record. Displayed may be a portion 520 of the annotation
record arranged in hierarchy form. In some embodiments, an
automated function may be employed to eliminate from display
annotations within the annotation record that do not correlate to
publications of the specific initial set inputted by the end user
304. Such a function may operate by first reading in the initial
set 303 of publications as compiled by the end user 304, and
relating the initial set 303 to the annotation/publication
database. Annotations, and placeholders in some embodiments, that
relate to publications of the initial set are extracted from the
annotation record in creating a custom hierarchy. If a genus
annotation does not relate to a publication of the initial set, but
a species of the genus does relate, the genus annotation is listed,
but serves as a placeholder. Thus, annotations that do not relate
to publications of the initial set 303 are automatically eliminated
in forming the custom hierarchy. It is preferred that the
annotations comprise the same relative structure in the custom
hierarchy as in the hierarchy of the annotation record. The end
result is a custom hierarchy comprising only annotations that are
relevant to publications of the initial set. As such, the end user
or client is assured that time will not be wasted considering
annotations that bear no effect on reducing the amount of
publications of the initial set.
[0071] FIG. 6(b) illustrates an example of the creation of a custom
hierarchy. A portion of the hierarchy of the annotation record 570
is shown. An automated function compares annotations of
publications of an initial set 572 with the hierarchy of the
annotation record 570. The result is a custom hierarchy 574
including annotations of publications of an initial set 572. The
relative structure of annotations is maintained. Further,
annotation "A1" 576 becomes a placeholder annotation.
[0072] 3. Creating the Search Criterion
[0073] The custom hierarchy may be displayed in the second window
518 and may be listed in tree form, each species embedded within
the related genus. Each annotation listing may comprise a check box
522, hyperlink or tag. Each annotation may be followed by a
numerical indicator 524 displaying the total number of hits
retrieved per annotation. It is preferred that the selecting of a
genus annotation automatically results in selecting each species
annotation embedded within. The end user 301 may alternatively opt
to expand the genus annotation, revealing the next generation of
species embedded within it. The end user 301 may then select
species annotations individually. Selecting the text of the
annotation may result in the definition 526 of the annotation being
displayed. Definitions may be displayed in the third window 508. An
annotation definition 526 may include figures, boundaries,
limitations, notes, examples or the like or any combination
thereof, used to further define and explain the related
annotation.
[0074] a. Discretionary Nature of the Search Criterion
[0075] The end user 301 may select annotations on a discretionary
basis. For example, if the end user 301 is either unsure of whether
a specific element is present in conjunction with a reference
entity 302 or unsure of the limits of the annotation, the end user
301 may opt not to select the annotation. Since selection of
annotations relates to elimination of annotations, an end user 301
not selecting an annotation results in the retrieval of the
publications correlated to the unchecked annotations (unless the
publications are otherwise eliminated).
[0076] At the completion of the annotation selection, the end user
may click on a "Submit" button 528. The final search results 320
may then be displayed in a third display window 600 as shown in
FIG. 7. The third display window 600 may comprise an application
identification bar 602, a menu bar 604, a right window 606 and a
left window 608. The right window 606 may comprise a plurality of
columns 610, each column 610 pertaining to a specific field. The
fields may relate to publication data information such as reference
number 612, title 614, assignee 616, dates of publication 618 and
notes 620. The end user 301 may click on an individual publication
of the final search results and be able to view the images
associated with the publication through an application capable of
reading the format of the publication.
[0077] The left window 608 may comprise a second set of fields 622.
The second set of fields may pertain to publication-specific fields
relating to the publication that the end user clicks on in the
right window 606. The second set of fields 622 may include
reference number, query, fee payment status, filing date and a list
of applied annotations.
[0078] An option (not shown) may be provided allowing an end user
301 to view the specific set of publications that correlate to
specific annotations of the custom hierarchy. Viewing sets of
publications of annotations may be advantageous in novelty-type
searches or patentability-type searches.
[0079] If a publication of the initial set relates to more than one
annotation in the custom hierarchy, the end user may eliminate the
publication by selecting of any of several annotations of the
custom hierarchy. Thus, the process of creating a search criterion
may be quickened by an automated function for updating or
refreshing the custom hierarchy at specific intervals. The
automated refreshing process may eliminate annotations of the
custom hierarchy that correspond to publications relating to
annotations previously selected by the end user. In some
embodiments, the search criterion may be refreshed on the end
user's command. In other embodiments, the search criterion may be
refreshed at periodic intervals or upon each annotation selection
by the end user.
[0080] b. Accounting for Subsequent Design Variations of a
Reference Entity
[0081] The search criterion may be saved and retrievable for future
searches. For example, consider the case of conducting a clearance
search for a reference entity where it is conceivable that there
may be a variation of one or more of the characteristics of the
reference entity within the object's developmental life cycle. A
first search may be conducted for a first version of the reference
entity. The first search criterion may then be saved. A second
search may then be conducted with respect to a second version of
the reference entity, which may be a variation of the first version
of the reference entity. For the second search, the end user 301
may input the same initial set as in the first search or input a
new initial set. The end user 301 may then retrieve the search
criterion of the first search and indicate that a variation is to
take place. Such an indication may visually result in a change to
the font or appearance of the selected annotations of the first
search criterion and allow the end user 301 to override the
selections of the first search criterion in accordance with the
variation or variations in characteristics of the reference entity.
It is preferred that modifications of the search criterion are
visually distinguishable from the original annotation selections.
The end user 301 may then "submit" the modified criterion. The
result, in final search results, is a compilation of publications
that are relevant solely due to the variation of the reference
entity vis-a-vis the original reference entity.
III. Additional Embodiments
[0082] A. Global Structure
[0083] As illustrated in FIG. 8, in an alternative embodiment, both
the annotation process and the search process, as described herein,
takes place at a single location 702 by a single user. The single
user may be an individual, corporate entity, law firm, search firm
or the like. In such an embodiment, the annotation process may be
continuous and occur simultaneously with the search process.
Annotations are continuously added, deleted, applied to
publications or modified to further the efficiency and speed of the
overall system. In this case, annotations may be specifically
defined in accordance with the user's specific understanding.
Further, in this case, annotations may be specifically directed to
technical areas of concern to the user.
[0084] As illustrated in FIG. 8(a), in another embodiment, the
annotation process, as described herein, is shared between a
primary user 704 and at least one client 706, preferably through
means of a subscription service. The primary user 704 may develop
an annotation/publication database directed toward a broad
technical field, while providing computer-implemented tools for the
client to modify and further develop the annotation/publication
database in accordance with the client's specific technical field.
An advantage of this embodiment may be in overcoming diminishing
returns associated with annotating a broad technical field. While
benefits generally exist in developing annotations directed toward
a broad technical field, a critical point in the annotation process
may exist where further development may be ineffective as compared
to further development directed toward a specific technical
field.
[0085] As illustrated in FIG. 8(b), in yet another embodiment, at
least one of either the annotation process or the searching process
is shared between at least one client 708 and at least one
intermediate agent 710. In such a case, the primary user 712 may
develop an annotation database directed toward a broad technical
field. The agent 710 may further develop the annotation database
directed toward a narrower technical field. Finally, the client 708
may develop the database directed towards the client's specific
technical field. The agent 710 may also conduct infringement
searches on behalf of the client 708. Other structural
configurations sharing processes of any of the embodiments of the
current invention amongst discrete parties may be realized without
departing from the scope and spirit of the current invention.
[0086] In yet a further embodiment of the current invention, the
annotation/publication database is developed to include patent
publications from multiple jurisdictions. While the standard of
analysis may differ for various jurisdiction (e.g. EPO, JPO), it is
preferred that the annotation record is universal. Where the
current invention is to be implemented for a client of another
language, it is preferred that only the annotations be translated.
Thus, a client of another language, conducting an infringement
search, may eliminate a substantial portion of publications without
undue translation of each individual publication. Alternatively, a
multi-language system may comprise independent
annotation/publication databases, the annotations of each
translated in multiple languages.
[0087] B. Specific Intellectual Property Portfolio Management
[0088] In yet a further embodiment of the present invention, an
annotation/publication database 802, as described herein, may form
the basis of a management system 800 for a client's own portfolio
of IP publications. Assuming the annotation/publication database
802 to be sufficiently developed with regards to the technical
field of the client, a second database, a suspect product database
804, may be created where suspect products are annotated according
to the same annotation record as the annotation/publication
database 802. The client may designate a first set of publications
of interest. An automated function may then continuously,
periodically, or at command of the client, compare annotations of
products of the second database with annotations of the first set
and alert the client 806 if a product falls within the scope of
annotations of a patent publication of the first set. Additional
algorithms 808 may be applied to filter either products or patent
publications that are either scantily-annotated or otherwise likely
to create false alerts. Such a system may be beneficial for a
client who operates within a complex technical art or has a large
IP portfolio.
[0089] While specific embodiments have been described above, it
will be appreciated that the invention may be practiced otherwise
than as described. The descriptions above are intended to be
illustrative and not limiting. Thus it will be apparent to one
skilled in the art that modifications may be made to the invention
as described without departing from the scope of the claims set out
below.
* * * * *