U.S. patent application number 13/220479 was filed with the patent office on 2015-07-09 for efficiently displaying information about the interrelationships between documents.
This patent application is currently assigned to GOOGLE INC.. The applicant listed for this patent is Mark A. Wolfe. Invention is credited to Mark A. Wolfe.
Application Number | 20150193893 13/220479 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 38722080 |
Filed Date | 2015-07-09 |
United States Patent
Application |
20150193893 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Wolfe; Mark A. |
July 9, 2015 |
EFFICIENTLY DISPLAYING INFORMATION ABOUT THE INTERRELATIONSHIPS
BETWEEN DOCUMENTS
Abstract
A system for displaying, on a computer screen, information
concerning the interrelationships of documents. A system employing
the present invention also allows for the efficient research of
documents that cite a document shown on the computer screen. In one
embodiment, the present invention involves displaying at least a
portion of a first document and simultaneously displaying a
representation of one or more citing documents. The citing
documents cite some portion of the displayed document. In another
embodiment, the invention involves displaying at least a portion of
a first document, and displaying a representation of one or more
citing documents, wherein the displayed citing documents cite the
displayed portion of the first document.
Inventors: |
Wolfe; Mark A.; (Woodbury,
MN) |
|
Applicant: |
Name |
City |
State |
Country |
Type |
Wolfe; Mark A. |
Woodbury |
MN |
US |
|
|
Assignee: |
GOOGLE INC.
Mountain View
CA
|
Family ID: |
38722080 |
Appl. No.: |
13/220479 |
Filed: |
August 29, 2011 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
11734784 |
Apr 12, 2007 |
8032820 |
|
|
13220479 |
|
|
|
|
10652670 |
Aug 29, 2003 |
7302638 |
|
|
11734784 |
|
|
|
|
09784469 |
Feb 16, 2001 |
|
|
|
10652670 |
|
|
|
|
09245183 |
Feb 5, 1999 |
6263351 |
|
|
09784469 |
|
|
|
|
09014669 |
Jan 28, 1998 |
5870770 |
|
|
09245183 |
|
|
|
|
08487925 |
Jun 7, 1995 |
|
|
|
09014669 |
|
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
705/311 ;
709/203 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06F 16/93 20190101;
G06F 40/103 20200101; G06F 40/166 20200101; G06F 40/295 20200101;
Y10S 707/99933 20130101; G06Q 50/18 20130101; G06F 16/245
20190101 |
International
Class: |
G06Q 50/18 20060101
G06Q050/18; G06F 17/30 20060101 G06F017/30 |
Claims
1. (canceled)
2. A method performed by one or more computers, the method
comprising: receiving a first request for a first document from a
client computer over a network, wherein the first document is a
judicial opinion; responding to the first request by transmitting
the first document over the network to the client computer to be
displayed in a first user interface element of a user interface on
the client computer; identifying a plurality of second documents
that are different from the first document and that include
references to the first document, wherein the second documents are
different judicial opinions citing the judicial opinion; and
transmitting to the client computer over the network information
about each of the second documents for display in the user
interface, including transmitting to the client computer
instructions that, when executed on the client computer, cause the
client computer to: display the first document in the first user
interface element; display, in the first user interface element
with the first document, a reference request user interface element
for requesting information about the second documents; and in
response to a user selecting the reference request user interface
element and without further user interaction, display a second user
interface element different from the first user interface element,
and display in the second user interface element a citation to one
of the different judicial opinions citing the judicial opinion.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed
by the client computer, cause the client computer to display the
second user interface element so that it completely displaces the
first user interface element.
4. The method of claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed
by the client computer, cause the client computer display the
second user interface element so that it partially obstructs the
first user interface element.
5. The method of claim 2, wherein the first user interface element
is a window, and wherein the second user interface element is a
different window.
6. (canceled)
7. The method of claim 2, wherein the first document includes first
content created by a first author, and wherein the first content
includes the first author's commentary about a particular topic,
and wherein the first author's commentary is published in the first
document so that it is widely available to those having access to
the network, and wherein the second document includes second
content created by a second author, and wherein the second content
is published in the second document so that it is widely available
to those having access to the network.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the second author is different
from the first author, and wherein the second content is created by
the second author after the first content is created by the first
author.
9. The method of claim 7, wherein one of the references to the
first document is used to support an opinion expressed by the
second author in the second document.
10. The method of claim 2, wherein the second document is not part
of the first document.
11. The method of claim 2, wherein the representation of the second
document is a link to the second document.
12. A system comprising one or more computers configured to perform
operations comprising: receiving a first request for a first
document from a client computer over a network, wherein the first
document is a judicial opinion; responding to the first request by
transmitting the first document over the network to the client
computer to be displayed in a first user interface element of a
user interface on the client computer; identifying a plurality of
second documents that are different from the first document and
that include references to the first document, wherein the second
documents are different judicial opinions citing the judicial
opinion; and transmitting to the client computer over the network
information about each of the second documents for display in the
user interface, including transmitting to the client computer
instructions that, when executed on the client computer, cause the
client computer to: display the first document in the first user
interface element; display, in the first user interface element
with the first document, a reference request user interface element
for requesting information about the second documents; and in
response to a user selecting the reference request user interface
element and without further user interaction, display a second user
interface element different from the first user interface element,
and display in the second user interface element a citation to one
of the different judicial opinions citing the judicial opinion.
13. The system of claim 12, wherein the instructions, when executed
by the client computer, cause the client computer to display the
second user interface element so that it completely displaces the
first user interface element.
14. The system of claim 12, wherein the instructions, when executed
by the client computer, cause the client computer display the
second user interface element so that it partially obstructs the
first user interface element.
15. The system of claim 12, wherein the first user interface
element is a window, and wherein the second user interface element
is a different window.
16. (canceled)
17. The system of claim 12, wherein the first document includes
first content created by a first author, and wherein the first
content includes the first author's commentary about a particular
topic, and wherein the first author's commentary is published in
the first document so that it is widely available to those having
access to the network, and wherein the second document includes
second content created by a second author, and wherein the second
content is published in the second document so that it is widely
available to those having access to the network.
18. The system of claim 17, wherein the second author is different
from the first author, and wherein the second content is created by
the second author after the first content is created by the first
author.
19. The system of claim 17, wherein one of the references to the
first document is used to support an opinion expressed by the
second author in the second document.
20. The system of claim 12, wherein the second document is not part
of the first document.
21. The system of claim 12, wherein the representation of the
second document is a link to the second document.
Description
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
[0001] This application is a continuation of copending application
Ser. No. 10/652,670, filed Aug. 29, 2003, which is a continuation
of Ser. No. 09/784,469, filed Feb. 16, 2001, which is a
continuation of Ser. No. 09/245,183, filed Feb. 5, 1999, now U.S.
Pat. No. 6,263,351, which is a continuation of Ser. No. 09/014,669,
filed Jan. 28, 1998, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,870,770, which is a
continuation of Ser. No. 08/487,925, filed Jun. 7, 1995, now
abandoned. All of these applications are hereby incorporated by
reference.
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
[0002] The present invention relates to a system and method of
displaying information on a computer screen. A system employing the
present invention provides an efficient procedure for researching
documents and the interrelationships between documents. The present
invention is particularly applicable to research involving
documents that extensively cite or refer to other documents.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0003] The nature of many academic and professional writings is
such that authors rely upon and cite previously published works,
studies, or test results to support arguments or opinions. For
example, in the common law system in America, lawyers and judges
cite and rely upon previously decided cases (i.e., written judicial
opinions) to support their arguments and opinions. The American
common law system is particularly reliant upon the precedent
established by previous case decision because a judicial court (or
judge) will usually consider as very persuasive a
previously-decided case in which the same legal issue has been
resolved or decided.
[0004] However, courts will not always agree with, or be bound by,
previously-decided cases. Instead of agreeing with a conclusion
reached in a previous case, or "following" it, courts may
occasionally, disagree with, criticize, question, reverse, or
overrule the previous case. Therefore, beginning with the first
time a case is cited in a subsequent case, the earlier case's
authoritative value can change. For example, if a persuasive judge
is critical of the earlier case, that earlier case will be less
authoritative than it was before the judge's critical treatment of
the case. On the other hand, if the judge strongly supports the
reasoning of the earlier case, the authoritative value of the
earlier case will be enhanced. Virtually every time a case is
discussed or cited, its authoritativeness or precedential status is
affected. The importance or precential status of a case can
continue to evolve over many years as a result of interpretations
given to it by judges in subsequent cases.
[0005] Therefore, when considering a legal issue decided in a
court's written opinion or decision, it is critical to consider
what subsequent cases have said about it. Lawyers performing legal
research consequently have a need to determine which later cases
have discussed (and therefore, cited) any given earlier case. For
many years, lawyers have been able to find out which later cases
have cited any given case by using a tool known as Shepherd's
Citations published by McGraw-Hill, Inc. Shepard's Citations is
basically an organized index that lists all the cases that have
cited a particular case. When a later case is cites an earlier
case, there is usually some discussion of the earlier, cited case.
Shepard's Citations also sometimes gives a brief indication of how
the later case treated the earlier case of interest (e.g., the
later case may have "followed," "criticized," or "questioned" the
earlier case).
[0006] In recent years, legal research has been increasingly
performed by lawyers using computerized legal research systems. The
most popular of these may be the on-line legal research systems,
such as Westlaw and LEXIS/NEXIS. However, legal research systems
employing local CD-ROM or other databases have become quite
popular.
[0007] FIG. 1a is a representation of a screen taken from the
Westlaw legal research system operated by the West Publishing
Company. The screen shows a portion of the text of the Wilson
Sporting Goods case shown at 101 in FIG. 1a. The title bar 102
includes the citations 103 for the Wilson case, which are 904 F.2d
677, and 14 U.S.P.Q.2d 1942. These two citations mean that the
Wilson case can be found starting at page 677 of volume 904 of the
F.2d reporter series, or alternatively, starting at page 1942 of
volume 14 of the U.S.P.Q.2d reporter series.
[0008] Also shown in the title bar 102 is the "rank" 104 of the
displayed document, which is simply the position or order of the
Wilson case with respect to all of the other documents found in the
search conducted by the user. In this particular example, the
Wilson case is ranked second out of three search documents. Each of
the search documents is a document that satisfies a particular
query entered by the user, and in the example shown in FIG. 1a,
three documents in the database CTA satisfy the user's query.
[0009] The current page number and the number of pages in the
document are shown in FIG. 1a at 105. The number of pages
essentially corresponds to the number of screens the Wilson case
fills. For example, FIG. 1a shows the first Westlaw page of the
Wilson case, and FIG. 1b shows Westlaw page 25. FIG. 1b is the
screen that is twenty-fifth of the thirty-nine screens that make up
the Wilson case. FIGS. 1a and 1b thus simply show different
portions of the text of the Wilson case.
[0010] As described above, when researching issues that are
discussed in the Wilson case, it is very useful to see what
subsequently decided cases have said about the analysis in the
Wilson case. The Westlaw system provides access to this type of
information through a number of services, one of which is the
on-line version of Shepard's Citations. In the Westlaw system, the
user can access this information by selecting a menu item from a
pull-down menu or by selecting (i.e., "clicking on") an on-screen
button. When the user selects the Shepard's Citation service in
Westlaw while viewing the Wilson case, a screen similar to that
shown in FIG. 1c is displayed.
[0011] The top of FIG. 1c shows at 110 a citation to the cited
document, 904 F.2d 677, which is the citation to the Wilson case.
Thus, the Wilson case is considered, in this screen, to be the
"cited" document. A parallel citation to the Wilson case is shown
at 114. FIG. 1c also contains a list 112 of citations to a number
of cases. The citations in the list 112 are references to cases
which cite the Wilson case. These cases listed at 112 are called
"citing cases" because they are later cases that cite the Wilson
case (i.e., the cited case). In other words, the text of each of
the cases shown in the list 112 contains a specific reference to
the Wilson case.
[0012] The citation 116 at the bottom of FIG. 1c ("140 F.R.D. 121,
127"), indicates that a case having a citation to the Wilson case
can be found starting at page 121 of volume 140 of the F.R.D.
(Federal Rules Decisions) reporter series. The specific citation or
reference to the Wilson case can be found on page 127 of that
volume. FIG. 1c also shows at 118 that this citation references
headnote 9 of the Wilson case. This means that the case at 140
F.R.D. 121 cites the Wilson case for the issue discussed at
headnote 9 of the Wilson case. The headnotes are prepared and
categorized by the West Publishing Company.
[0013] As suggested at 120 of FIG. 1c, the Shepard's listing for
the Wilson case spans eight Westlaw screens. Page 2 of the
Shepard's listing is shown in FIG. 1d. This page lists additional
citing cases (i.e., cases that cite the Wilson case). As can be
seen from FIGS. 1c and 1d, the Shepard's citations are listed in a
somewhat organized manner. For example, in FIG. 1d, the cases
decided in the First Circuit that cite the Wilson case are listed
under the heading "Cir. 1," and the cases in the Second Circuit
that cite the Wilson case are listed under heading "Cir. 2."
[0014] FIG. 1d also shows an instance in which the Shepard's
listing analyzes one of the listed citations. At 122, the Shepard's
listing suggests that the case published at 796 F.Supp. 640 (the
"citing" case) "followed" the analysis or reasoning of the Wilson
case. This means that the citing case (found at 796 F.Supp. 640)
applied the same analysis as the court in the Wilson case. The
Shepard's Citations listing also will occasionally provide other
analysis of citing cases, and may, for example, point out those
cases which "explain," "criticize," or "reverse" the Wilson
case.
[0015] As described above, the Westlaw system allows the researcher
to see a list of citing cases, such as that provided by Shepard's
Citations. However, the Westlaw system requires the user to move to
another screen to see these citations, thereby covering the
displayed text of the case of interest. This is distracting to the
researcher, because once the text of the case is no longer
displayed, the researcher cannot refer back to the displayed text
without removing the citations from the screen. In addition,
because the citations list in Westlaw can often be many screens in
length, the user must perform the tedious task of paging through
the entire citations list and uncovering those citations that are
relevant to the particular portion of the displayed document that
the researcher is studying. The Westlaw system and others in the
art are therefore relatively unsophisticated in the manner in which
they display lists of citing cases. None of the computer-based
research systems in the art provide a listing of which citing cases
based on the context of the displayed document. Thus, none provide
any indication of which citing cases specifically refer to the text
displayed on the screen or selected by the user.
SUMMARY OF INVENTION
[0016] The present invention relates to a method of displaying
documents in a research system. In one embodiment, the method
involves displaying at least a portion of a first document and
simultaneously displaying a representation of one or more citing
documents. The citing documents cite some portion of the displayed
document.
[0017] In another embodiment, the method involves displaying at
least a portion of a first document, and displaying a
representation of one or more citing documents, wherein the citing
documents cite the displayed portion of the first document. The
citing documents could alternatively cite a highlighted part of the
displayed portion of the first document.
[0018] Other embodiments are described in the Detailed
Description.
[0019] It is an object of the present invention to provide a method
and system for efficiently researching interrelated documents.
[0020] It is a further object of the present invention to provide a
method and system for analyzing the precedential value of a
judicial opinion.
[0021] It is a still further object of the present invention to
provide a method and system for effectively conveying to the
researcher information concerning the interrelationships of
documents.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0022] FIGS. 1a to 1d are displays illustrating the operation of
the Westlaw research system.
[0023] FIG. 2 is a block diagram of a system in accordance with an
embodiment of the present invention.
[0024] FIG. 3a is a view of a screen on which the text of a
document is displayed, and representations of citing documents are
also displayed.
[0025] FIG. 3b is a view of the screen of FIG. 3a after the user
has scrolled the text of the document.
[0026] FIG. 3c is a view of the screen after selection of one of
the representations of the citing documents.
[0027] FIG. 4 is a flow diagram of the process steps in one
embodiment of the present invention.
[0028] FIG. 5a is a view of a screen in another embodiment of the
present invention.
[0029] FIG. 5b illustrates the updating of the citing cases box
upon scrolling the text of the displayed document.
[0030] FIGS. 5c and 5d illustrate further updating of the citing
cases box.
[0031] FIG. 5e illustrates the change to the display after
selection of one of the representations.
[0032] FIG. 5f illustrates the selection of another
representation.
[0033] FIG. 5g illustrates the selection of the previous case
representation.
[0034] FIGS. 5h and 5I illustrate the further selection of
representations of citing cases.
[0035] FIG. 6 is a flow diagram of process steps similar to that
carried out in connection with FIGS. 5a to 5i.
[0036] FIG. 7a is a view of a screen on which the text of a
document is displayed, and representations of citing documents are
also displayed.
[0037] FIG. 7b illustrates the retention of representations of
previous citing cases in the citing cases box.
[0038] FIG. 7c further illustrates the retention of representations
of previous citing cases in the citing cases box.
[0039] FIG. 7d illustrates and points out markers or highlighting
that is used to indicate which representations have already been
displayed.
[0040] FIG. 8 is a flow diagram of process steps similar to that
carried out in connection with FIGS. 7a to 7d.
[0041] FIG. 9a is a view of a screen on which the text of a
document is displayed, as well as a citing cases box and a citing
cases bin.
[0042] FIG. 9b is a view of the screen of FIG. 9a after the user
has scrolled the text of the document.
[0043] FIG. 9c illustrates the updating of the citing cases box and
the citing cases bin when the text of the displayed document is
scrolled.
[0044] FIG. 9d illustrates the updating of the display upon
selection by the user of a representation of a citing case.
[0045] FIG. 10a is a view of a screen in another embodiment of the
present invention, in which the text of a document is
displayed.
[0046] FIG. 10b is a window displayed upon selection of button 1008
in FIG. 10a.
[0047] FIG. 10c illustrates the scrolling of the text of the
document displayed in FIG. 10a FIG. 10d illustrates how the window
of FIG. 10b would be updated upon the scrolling of the text as
shown in FIG. 10c.
[0048] FIG. 10e illustrates the selection of one of the
representations of citing cases in FIG. 10d.
[0049] FIG. 10f illustrates a window that could be employed in
alternative embodiment of the present invention.
[0050] FIG. 11 is a flow diagram of process steps similar to that
carried out in connection with FIGS. 10a to 10e.
[0051] FIG. 12a is a view of a web page in an internet-based
implementation of the present invention.
[0052] FIG. 12b illustrates a different portion of the web page of
FIG. 12a.
[0053] FIG. 12c illustrates the bottom of the web page of FIG. 12a,
where a representation of a citing case is displayed at the bottom
of the web page.
[0054] FIG. 12d is a view of the web page retrieved upon selection
of the representation in FIG. 12c.
[0055] FIG. 12e is a view of a different portion of the web page of
FIG. 12d.
[0056] FIG. 12f illustrates the bottom of the web page of FIG. 12d,
where representations of citing cases are displayed at the bottom
of the web page.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0057] The present invention relates to a method of displaying
interrelationships of documents on a computer screen. Specifically,
the present invention relates to a computerized research system
that provides the researcher with information about documents that
cite a document that the user is studying.
[0058] FIG. 2 shows a block diagram of a system in one embodiment
of the present invention. The system 200 has a central processing
unit (CPU) 201, a memory unit 202, and i/o circuitry 203. The CPU
201 is connected to I/O circuitry 203 to permit data transfers with
input devices 205 and display 204. The input device 205 can be a
keyboard, pen, mouse, voice-recognition circuitry, or any other
input device known to those in the art. Some type of secondary or
mass storage 206 is generally considered desirable. In a typical
implementation, the secondary storage is a hard or floppy disk.
Generally, any data storage medium as is known in the art can be
used as the secondary storage 206. The secondary storage 206 can
also be eliminated by providing a sufficient amount of memory in
the memory unit 202. The memory 202 or, alternatively, the
secondary storage 206 are considered data storage mediums. It is
also possible to have an input device act as a data storage
medium.
[0059] The physical structure of the database 207 may involve one
or more hard disks, CD-ROMs, or any other mass storage devices and
may or may not be distributed. The database 207 may also be
integrated into the secondary storage device 206. As is well known
in the art, the database 207 can be near or local to the CPU 201,
or it can be remotely located relative to the CPU 201. Any type of
database 207 that is capable of operating according to the present
invention is appropriate.
[0060] FIG. 3a is a display illustrating one embodiment of the
present invention in which the text window 302 shows the text of
the first portion of the Graver Tank case that was decided by the
U.S. Supreme Court in 1950. The title window 304 contains the brief
title of the Graver Tank case, and the box 310 shows a citation to
the Graver Tank case. The scroll bar 306 allows the user to scroll
through the text of the Graver Tank case by selecting the down
arrow button 308 or by moving the scroll button 316 in a manner
well known in the art. FIG. 3b shows the text window 302 after the
user has moved the scroll button 316 down slightly.
[0061] FIGS. 3a and 3b also show a citing cases box 311 in which
representations 312 of a number of cases that cite the Graver Tank
case are listed. The citing cases box 311 is simply an area on the
screen in which the representations of citing cases can be placed.
Scroll bar 314 allows the user to scroll through additional
representations of citing cases when there are more representations
of citing cases in the box 311 than there is room for on the
screen. Preferably, the citing cases box would include a
representation of all existing cases that cite the Graver Tank
case. However, normally only those cases in the database 207 that
cite the Graver Tank case are shown. The database 207 may or may
not be up-to-date.
[0062] The representations of the cases in the box 311 can be
listed in a particular order, such as by date decided, or by
jurisdiction, or by some other characteristic. It is also possible
to include only a subset of the cases in the database. For example,
the user may only be interested in seeing representations of cases
that come from a particular court or group of courts, or from a
particular period of time.
[0063] A representation is herein defined to be any indication,
marker, button, menu item, link, or reference associated with
another document. A representation could also be labeled with the
title, citation, or some other portion of the document. However,
the representation need not be labeled as shown in the Figures.
Representations may have any other labelling or alternatively, no
labelling at all. A representation may correspond to a single
document, or it may correspond to more than one document, or a
group of documents. For example, instead of having a representation
for each document, a representation may be simply a button that
corresponds to a plurality of documents, where the representation
is labeled to indicate the number of citations the representation
corresponds to.
[0064] In FIGS. 3a and 3b, the citing cases box 311 has a
representation 312 for each of the cases that cite the Graver Tank
case. In the embodiment shown, the citing cases box 311 contains
eight representations of cases that cite the Graver Tank case. The
representations 312 shown in this embodiment are labeled so as to
indicate the name 315 of the citing case, the citation 316 to the
citing case, the paragraph 317 in the citing case that cites the
Graver Tank case, and also the Graver Tank paragraph 318 that is
cited by the citing case. Thus, from this first representation, it
can be seen that paragraph 43 of the Pennwalt case cites the sixth
paragraph of the Graver Tank case. Similarly, the representation at
the top of the box indicates that paragraph 13 of the Pennwalt
case, which is reported at 833 F.2d 931, cites paragraph four of
the Graver Tank case. There is more than one representation for the
Pennwalt case because the Pennwalt case cites the Graver Tank case
more than once. Similarly, the citing cases box 311 shows the
Perkin-Elmer case cites the sixth paragraph of the Graver Tank case
three times.
[0065] The user can display one of these citing cases by selecting
a representation shown in the citing cases box 311. FIG. 3c shows
how the display is updated when the user selects the first
representation shown in the citing cases box 311. Selection can be
done by any means known in the art, such as by keyboard, mouse,
pen, touch-screen, voice command, or otherwise. The text box 302 of
FIG. 3c has been updated to show the beginning of the Pennwalt
case, which corresponds to the representation at the top of the
citing cases box 311 in FIG. 3b. The user can scroll through the
text of the Pennwalt case in FIG. 3c by manipulating the scroll bar
306.
[0066] Also as shown in FIG. 3c, the citing cases box 311 is
updated to contain representations of the cases that cite the
Pennwalt decision. The representations of the cases citing the
Graver Tank case are removed from the citing cases box 311. Thus,
when the text box contains a new case, the citing cases box 311 is
updated to reflect the cases that cite the new decision.
[0067] FIG. 4 is a flow chart illustrating an embodiment similar to
that described in connection with FIGS. 3a, 3b, and 3c. As shown,
the first step 401 in the flow chart involves simultaneously
displaying a portion of a document (such as the portion displayed
in the text box 302 in FIGS. 3a to 3c), and also simultaneously
displaying representations of documents that cite the displayed
document. This simultaneous display allows the user to see, at the
same time, both the text of the document, and also the
representations of the citing cases.
[0068] In the next step 402, the system checks to see if the user
has selected one of the representations. Once the user does select
one of the representations, step 403 updates the display to show
the citing case corresponding to the selected representation and
also to show representations of cases that cite the new displayed
case.
[0069] FIGS. 5a to 5i illustrate an alternate embodiment of the
present invention in which the citing cases box only lists
representations of cases that cite the displayed text. For example,
in the text box 302 of FIG. 5a, the first few lines of the Graver
Tank case are shown. As illustrated in FIG. 3a, there are a number
of cases that cite some portion of the Graver Tank case. However,
in FIG. 5a, none of those cases specifically cite any of the text
shown in the text box 302. Instead, the citing cases listed in the
citing cases box 311 of FIG. 3a all cite some other portion of the
Graver Tank case.
[0070] FIG. 5b shows the display after the user has scrolled down
by using the scroll bar 306 so that the first line 501 of the 4th
paragraph of the Graver Tank case is displayed in the text box 302.
(For convenience, the beginning of each paragraph in the text of
cases is marked with the characters "[Pn]," where n is the
paragraph number.) In FIG. 5b, the citing cases box 311 is no
longer empty. The box 311 contains a representation of the Pennwalt
case, which cites paragraph 4 of the Graver Tank case. Thus, the
citing cases box in FIG. 5b is periodically (or continually)
updated so that it contains only representations of those citing
cases that cite the text displayed in the text box 302. In the
example shown in FIGS. 5a to 5i, the citing cases box 311 contains
representations of cases that cite any paragraph that has at least
one line displayed in the text box 302.
[0071] As the user further scrolls through the text of the Graver
case, the citing cases box 311 is updated as paragraphs are
displayed in the text box 302 and removed from the text box 302.
For example, in FIG. 5c, paragraphs four and five of the Graver
Tank case are displayed in their entirety, and a portion of
paragraph six is displayed in the text box 302. The citing cases
box 311 in FIG. 5c therefore contains representations of those
citing cases that cite paragraphs four, five, and six of the Graver
Tank case. When the user continues to scroll through the text of
the Graver Tank case so that, as shown in FIG. 5d, only paragraph
six of the Graver Tank case is displayed, and the citing cases box
311 is updated so that only the cases that cite paragraph six of
the Graver Tank case are represented in the box 311. Thus,
representation 509 (which corresponds to a case citing paragraph
four of the Graver Tank case) is in the citing cases box 311 in
FIG. 5c, but is removed from the box 311 when paragraph four is no
longer in the text box 302 as shown in FIG. 5d.
[0072] Representation 504 in the citing cases box 311 corresponds
to the Pennwalt case, which cites the sixth paragraph of the Graver
Tank case. This citation to Graver Tank occurs at the nineteenth
paragraph of the Pennwalt case, which is reported beginning at page
931 of volume 833 of the F.2d Reporter series. If the user were to
select representation 504 in the citing cases box 311, the display
would be updated in the embodiment of FIGS. 5a to 5i so that the
citing paragraph in the Pennwalt case (paragraph 19) is displayed
in the text box 302 as shown in FIG. 5e. The nineteenth paragraph
has been displayed because that is the paragraph that cites the
previously displayed 6th paragraph of the Graver Tank case (see
FIG. 5d). The citing cases box 311 is updated to contain
representations of only those cases that cite the nineteenth
paragraph of the Pennwalt case.
[0073] At 508 in FIG. 5d, the "function-way-result" doctrine is set
forth in paragraph six of the Graver Tank case. The
"function-way-result" doctrine is a legal doctrine relating to
whether devices perform "substantially the same function in
substantially the same way to obtain the same result." See 508 in
FIG. 5d. In FIG. 5e, the Graver Tank case has been cited at 506 by
the Pennwalt case to support the "function-way-result" doctrine set
forth at 510 in paragraph 19 of the Pennwalt case. Thus, paragraph
19 includes a citation to paragraph 6 of the Graver Tank case.
[0074] As has been described in connection with FIGS. 5a to 5e, it
is possible in the present invention to move directly from the
cited case to the position in the citing case where the discussion
of the cited case occurs. This ability to move directly from the
cited document (Graver Tank) in the example shown to the citing
document (Pennwalt) allows the researcher to easily, quickly, and
efficiently evaluate the effect of the Pennwalt decision on the
legal doctrine set forth in the Graver Tank. This is significant
and quite useful because the validity of the law set forth in any
case or legal writing can be greatly affected by cases that later
evaluate the earlier case. Thus, legal researchers have a need for
convenient and efficient access to those cases that discuss
specific legal issues decided in any given case. The foregoing
procedure satisfies this need, and greatly simplifies legal
research.
[0075] FIG. 5e shows an updated citing cases box, this one showing
only two representations of citing cases. These cases are the
London case and the Wilson case, both of which cite paragraph 19 of
the Pennwalt case. When representation 515 is selected, the display
is updated to that shown in FIG. 5f which shows paragraph 12 of the
London case beginning at the top of the text box 302. Paragraph 12
contains a citation to the previous case, Pennwalt. In FIG. 5f, the
citation to the Pennwalt case is shown at 514, and the recitation
of the "function-way-result" doctrine is set forth at 516. Thus,
the London case cites paragraph 19 of the Pennwalt decision as
authority for the "function-way-result" doctrine. No cases within
the database cite paragraphs 12, 13, or 14 of the London case, so
the citing cases box 311 is empty.
[0076] The user can backtrack back to the Pennwalt decision by
selecting the representation or button 518 shown in FIG. 5f, which
updates the text box 302 and the citing cases box 311 to appear
just as that shown in FIG. 5e. The previous case representation 518
is updated to correspond to the London case. Thus, the display is
as shown in FIG. 5g, which differs from that in FIG. 5e only with
respect to representation 518.
[0077] From FIG. 5g, the user again has the opportunity to select
the representation for the Wilson case which also cites the
paragraph 19 of the Pennwalt decision. By selecting the
representation 520 in FIG. 5g, the display is updated as shown in
FIG. 5h. Paragraph 36 of the Wilson decision is shown starting at
the top of the text box 302 in FIG. 5h. The citation to the
Pennwalt decision in paragraph 36 of the Wilson case is indicated
at 522. The "function-way-result" doctrine, for which the Pennwalt
case is cited, is set forth at 524 of FIG. 5h.
[0078] Unlike the London case, there are cases that cite the
paragraph of the Wilson case which cites the Pennwalt case.
Therefore, the citing cases box 311 in FIG. 5h is not empty. When
representation 526 in the citing cases box 311 is selected, the
display is updated to that shown in FIG. 5i.
[0079] FIG. 5i shows the updated display with the text box showing
paragraph 13 of the Conroy decision, and the citation to the Wilson
case at 528. However, the doctrine for which the Wilson case is
being relied upon is different than the "function-way-result"
doctrine that has been traced from the Graver Tank decision. At 532
of FIG. 5h, the Wilson case sets forth the proposition that "there
can be no infringement if the asserted scope of equivalency of what
is literally claimed would encompass the prior art." This is the
proposition for which the Conroy case is citing paragraph 36 of the
Wilson decision. The law cited in paragraph 36 of the Wilson case
is applied at paragraph 530 of FIG. 5i.
[0080] FIG. 6 is a flow chart of steps carried out by an embodiment
of the present invention that is similar to that described in
connection with FIGS. 5a to 5i, where step 601 displays a portion
of a document, and step 602 displays in the citing cases box only
those representations of citing documents that cite the displayed
portion from step 601. The user is continually monitored to
determine at 603 whether the displayed text has changed (e.g., by
virtue of the user scrolling the display text). If the text has
changed, the representations of the citing cases are updated at
604. The user is also monitored at 605 to determine whether a
citing document has been selected. When a citing document is
selected, the display is updated to show a portion of the selected
document. At step 602, restarting the procedure, the citing cases
box is also updated to contain representations of citing cases that
cite the newly displayed text.
[0081] FIGS. 7a to 7d show an alternate embodiment of the present
invention that is similar to the embodiments shown in connection
with FIGS. 5a to 5i and the flow chart of FIG. 6. The embodiment of
FIGS. 7a to 7d differs from other embodiments in that
representations of citing cases remain in the citing cases box
after the display has been updated. In the previously-described
embodiments, the citing cases that no longer correspond to the text
shown on the display are removed from the citing cases box.
[0082] In FIG. 7a, the Pennwalt decision is shown with paragraph 19
of that decision shown in the text box 302. Representations of two
citing cases (London and Wilson), are shown in the citing cases box
311. Both London and Wilson cite paragraph 19 of the Pennwalt
decision. When the user selects representation 702 in the citing
cases box, the display is updated as shown in FIG. 7b. The text box
302 in FIG. 7b shows paragraph 12 (and 13 and 14) of the London
decision. Unlike previous embodiments, however, the representations
of the London and the Wilson cases remain in the citing cases box
311.
[0083] Retaining representations of citing cases in the citing
cases box 311 allows the user to collect an list of relevant cases
by traversing a number of linked cases. This is important because
the user may otherwise have to remember or come back to the cases
that he or she initially decides not to examine. This situation is
illustrated in FIGS. 5e to 5h, where it was necessary to backtrack
from the London case (FIG. 5f) back to the Pennwalt case (FIG. 5g),
and then to the Wilson case (FIG. 5h) to display all of the cases
that cite paragraph 19 of the Pennwalt case (see FIG. 5e, and
previous discussion). By retaining representations of citing cases,
such a procedure is unnecessary. In FIG. 7b, the Wilson case can be
displayed at any time upon selection by the user of representation
703, even when Wilson does not cite the displayed document.
[0084] FIG. 7c shows the updated display after representation 703
is selected in FIG. 7b. The citing cases box 311 of FIG. 7c shows
an additional representation in the citing cases box 311
corresponding to the Conroy case, which cites the displayed
paragraph 36 of the Wilson decision. When the representation 704 is
selected, the display is updated as shown in FIG. 7d. As shown in
FIG. 7d, representations of the Conroy, Wilson and London cases are
still shown in the cited cases box.
[0085] The displays of FIGS. 7a through 7d have a clear button 715
that is used to clear the citing cases box 311 of all
representations of citing cases. This permits the user to start
collecting citing cases from scratch at any given point during
research. FIGS. 7b to 7d also show a highlight or marker 711 that
indicates which representations have already been displayed.
Highlighting in this manner allows the user to determine, by
looking at each representation, those which he or she has already
studied or already displayed. Such highlighting therefore provides
a means by which the user will know when he or she has looked at
all of the citing cases. Highlighting can be done as shown in FIG.
7d by placing a marker on or next to each representation, or
highlighting can also be done by changing the color of the
representation, by changing the font, or by any other manner that
makes it clear which cases have been viewed and which cases have
not. Similarly, in another embodiment, it may be desirable to
remove from the citing cases bin the cases that have already been
viewed by the user.
[0086] FIG. 8 shows a flow chart that is very similar to that of
the flow chart in FIG. 6 and also is similar to the embodiment
shown in connection with FIGS. 7a to 7d. The flow chart in FIG. 8
differs from that of FIG. 6 only in that step 802 involves
retaining the representations of the previous citing documents,
whereas the corresponding step 602 in FIG. 6 does not retain the
previous representations.
[0087] Another embodiment of the present invention is shown in
connection with FIGS. 9a to 9d. This embodiment demonstrates that
it is possible to keep a separate bin of citing cases in which to
retain all of the cases that have previously been cited. For
example, in FIG. 9a, the first portion of the text of the Graver
Tank case is shown. In FIG. 9b, the user has scrolled through the
text of the Graver Tank case for a few lines. There do not happen
to be any cases that cite the displayed text of the FIG. 9a or 9b,
so the citing cases box 311 is empty in both situations.
[0088] In FIG. 9c, the user has scrolled down somewhat so that
portions of paragraphs two through five of the Graver Tank case are
displayed. The Pennwalt decision cites paragraph 4 of the Graver
Tank case, so a representation of the Pennwalt case is displayed in
the citing cases box 311, and also in the citing cases bin 911.
When the user selects the representation 902 (or alternatively,
904), the Pennwalt decision is displayed as shown in FIG. 9d and
the citing cases box 311 is emptied because no cases (in the
database) cite paragraph 13 of the Pennwalt decision. The citing
cases bin 911, however, retains the representation of the
previously cited case.
[0089] The embodiment of FIGS. 9a to 9c operates very similar to
that of FIGS. 7a to 7d, the difference being that all cases are
retained in the citing cases bin 911, and the citing cases box 311
only contains those cases that cite the currently displayed
text.
[0090] In another embodiment, a citing cases bin similar to that
described in connection with FIGS. 9a to 9c could contain all of
the representations of cases that cite the displayed case, rather
than previous representations. In other words, representations for
all of the cases that cite the displayed case could be listed in
the citing cases bin 911, but the citing cases box 311 could be
used for only those representations of cases that cite the text
displayed in the text box 302. This division or arrangement could
effectively convey to the user which citing cases cite the
displayed text, and which citing cases cite some other portion of
the displayed case.
[0091] FIGS. 10a to 10f illustrate yet another embodiment of the
present invention in which the citing cases box 311 is not
displayed on the same screen or simultaneously with the text box
302 that contains the text of the displayed case. In FIG. 10a, for
example, the text box 302 shows the Graver Tank opinion, and the
title box 304 shows the title of the Graver Tank opinion. The
scroll bar 306 allows the user to scroll through the Graver Tank
opinion in the manner known in the art.
[0092] The citation button 1008 allows the user to bring up a
window 1001 such as that shown in FIG. 10b. This window contains a
citing cases box 311, which lists the representations of the cases
citing the text displayed in the text box of FIG. 10a. There are no
cases that cite the text displayed in FIG. 10a, so citing cases box
311 in FIG. 10b is empty. However, this changes as the user scrolls
down through the text in the manner shown in FIG. 10c. The window
1001 that is brought up upon selection of the button 1008 in FIG.
10c is shown in FIG. 10d. The citing cases box 311 in FIG. 10d
shows includes a representation of the Pennwalt case. As in the
embodiments described above, the user can select a representation
in the citing cases box 311. When the representation 1010 is
selected in FIG. 10d, the Pennwalt decision is displayed as shown
in FIG. 10e.
[0093] FIG. 10f shows a window 1002 which can be used as an
alternative to that shown in FIG. 10b. The window 1002 has a citing
cases box 311 and a citing cases bin 911, which operate in a manner
similar to that described in connection with FIGS. 9a to 9d.
[0094] FIGS. 10a to 10f describe embodiments in which the text of a
case and the representations of citing documents are not displayed
simultaneously. Rather when button 1008 is selected, window 1001
(or in an alternative embodiment, window 1002) is shown on the
display. The window 1001 may completely displace showing the text
of the cited case, or it may only partially obstruct the displayed
text of the cited case.
[0095] FIG. 11 is a flow chart that is similar to the embodiment
described in connection with FIGS. 10a to 10f. Step 1101 simply
involves displaying a portion of a document. In step 1102, the user
is monitored to determine whether he or she has requested a list of
cites (e.g., by selecting the button 1008 in FIG. 10a). If so,
representations of cases citing the displayed text are displayed in
step 1103. The user then may select one of the representations in
step 1104, and if this is done, a portion of the document
corresponding to the selected document is displayed at step 1105.
Alternatively, the user may choose to go back to the cited case, or
in other words, display the text of the cited case that was
displayed at step 1101. See step 1106.
[0096] FIGS. 12a to 12f illustrate an embodiment of the present
invention that has been implemented on the Internet's World Wide
Web. FIG. 12a shows a web page displayed in the Netscape browser
available from Netscape Communications Corp. The web page 1201
shown in FIG. 12a corresponds to page 42 of volume 280 of the U.S.
Reports series. This page is part of the 1929 U.S. Supreme Court
decision of Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters. The Sanitary
Refrigerator case starts on page 30 of volume 280 of the U.S.
Reports. In the World Wide Web implementation of FIGS. 12a to 12f,
one or more web servers of the type known well in the art are
connected to the Internet. For simplicity, each web page
corresponds to the paper pages in the actual bound U.S. Reports.
Thus, the web server has a web page for each page within each
volume of the U.S. Reports.
[0097] Depending on the user's web browser and hardware, some or
all of the web page 1201 will be displayed in the browser display
1202. The scroll bar 1203 allows the user to scroll through the web
page. FIG. 12b shows the middle portion of the web page, which is
displayed when the scroll box 1207 is moved as shown.
[0098] When the scroll box 1207 is moved to the bottom of the
scroll bar, as shown in FIG. 12c, the bottom of the web page is
shown. The last line of page 42 of U.S. Reports volume 280 is shown
at 1210 in FIG. 12c. Below this last line is a representation 1212
of the Graver Tank case. This representation 1212 indicates that
the Graver Tank case cites the displayed page (i.e., page 42 of
U.S. Reports volume 280). The representation 1212 also indicates
that the citation to page 42 of the Sanitary Refrigerator case is
located at page 608 of U.S. Reports volume 339.
[0099] The representation 1212 in FIG. 12c is a link to another web
page on the web server database. On the World Wide Web, these links
are implemented with a hypertext protocol, such as HTML (HyperText
Markup Language). As is well known in the art, selecting the
representation 1212 will retrieve another web page from the
appropriate web server. This new web page 1213 is shown in FIG.
12d, and as can be seen, the web page 1213 corresponds to page 608
of the Graver Tank case from volume 339 of the U.S. Reports.
[0100] FIG. 12e is the web page of FIG. 12d after the user has
scrolled down the page a few lines. The citation to the Sanitary
Refrigerator case is shown at 1215 in FIG. 12e. And as can be seen
at 1216 of FIG. 12e (see also 1216 at FIG. 12d), the proposition
for which the Sanitary Refrigerator case is cited is the
function-way-result doctrine. This doctrine is set forth in the
Sanitary Refrigerator case at 1218 in FIG. 12b, which is page 42 of
U.S. Reports volume 280.
[0101] FIG. 12f shows the bottom of the Graver Tank web page, which
has at 1221 representations of citing cases. The Graver Tank text
displayed in the web page of FIGS. 12d, 12e, and 12f corresponds to
the first part of paragraph six in FIG. 5d. Thus, the citing cases
shown represented in FIG. 5d are the same as the eight citing cases
represented at 1221 of the web page in FIG. 12f. Selection of one
of the eight representations 1221 will retrieve the corresponding
web page.
[0102] In another embodiment, additional representations may be
present at the bottom of the web page of FIG. 12f. Such additional
representations may correspond to cases that cite the displayed
case generally or at other pages, and not specifically the
displayed page. In other words, it is not necessary to limit the
representations in the embodiment of FIGS. 12a to 12f to only those
cases that cite the displayed page of the document.
[0103] The World Wide Web implementation illustrated in connection
with FIGS. 12a to 12f is particularly attractive because setting up
the database of documents and configuring the cross-references to
citing cases can be relatively straight-forward. Determining which
of the cases cite a particular page is done, for the most part, by
simply searching the text of the cases for a specific citation to
each U.S. Reports page. A representation for each case that cites a
given page in the U.S. Reports is generated and incorporated in to
the corresponding U.S. Reports web page. Thus, the citation system
used by the court itself is used to determine the specific
cross-references to and from the various cases, so no translation
into other pages or paragraphs or line numbers or other units is
necessary.
[0104] In other embodiments, where a citation system is used that
is different from the system employed by the court, the court's
citations must be translated into the citations used by the
computerized research system. In other words, if a court cites
cases by referencing a page number in a particular volume, and the
research system uses a paragraph-based citation system (e.g., as in
FIGS. 5a to 5i), the court's page number citations will be
translated into corresponding paragraph number citations.
[0105] Although more tedious translation may be required, it is
preferred that smaller units be used for the citation system. For
example, a citation to a given page does not unequivocally identify
which of the statements of law is being cited on that page.
Therefore, not all of the citing cases for a particular page will
be helpful to the researcher when he or she is interested in only
one of the many statements of law occurring on the page. This
problem is illustrated in FIGS. 5h and 5i, where the Conroy
decision cited the Wilson case for a proposition that was different
than the function-way-result issue that was being reviewed in FIGS.
5a to 5g. This occurred because paragraph 36 of the Wilson case
contained more than one citable statement of law. A paragraph-based
citation system is often better than a page-based citation system
because paragraphs are usually smaller than pages and therefore
contain fewer statements of law than do pages. But as shown in
FIGS. 5h and 5i, a paragraph-based citation system is not immune to
the problem.
[0106] A citation system employing an even smaller unit, such as a
sentence-based citation system, would virtually eliminate the
foregoing problem. However, such a citation system requires a
significant amount of tedious translation if citations are not
already in a sentence-based form.
[0107] In another embodiment of the present invention, the
representations in the citing cases box would not necessarily
correspond to the displayed text, but would rather correspond to
displayed text that is specifically selected (i.e., highlighted) by
the user. Such an embodiment would be particularly appropriate for
a sentence-based citation system, because the selection of one or
more sentences would indicate which citing cases are of interest to
the user. In other words, when the user has selected a specific
section of the displayed portion of a document, this can be an
indication that the user wishes to see only those citing cases that
correspond to the selected portion. Thus, in an embodiment of the
present invention, the citing cases box could contain
representations of only those citing cases that cite the selected
portion of the displayed text.
[0108] It is contemplated that the present invention will be
implemented, in at least some embodiments, on a computer that
employs software to carry out the functions described above. The
software is stored on a data storage medium that is accessible by
the computer in a manner known in the art. The effective
implementation of the present invention is obviously not
necessarily dependent on the type of storage medium employed, and
the data storage medium could therefore be of any type (including,
without limitation, optical, magnetic, or hardware-based storage
media).
[0109] Although the present invention has been shown and described
with respect to preferred embodiments, various changes and
modifications that are obvious to a person skilled in the art to
which the invention pertains, even if not shown or specifically
described herein, are deemed to lie within the spirit and scope of
the invention and the following claims. The present invention is
not to be limited to any specific database implementation or to any
specific network implementation. What is contemplated is any system
appropriate for practicing the invention as set forth in the
claims. The cases and corresponding citing documents described
herein are merely for illustration purposes, and no
invention-related significance is to be given to them other than
that specifically mentioned herein. In the claims, any
means-plus-function clauses are intended to encompass not only
structural equivalents but also equivalent structures. Any specific
features or aspects of the embodiments or implementations described
or illustrated herein, however, are not intended to limit the scope
of any claimed invention in a manner not specifically required by
the claim directed to that invention.
* * * * *