(12)
`
`United States Patent
`Gr0ss et al.
`
`(10) Patent N0.:
`(45) Date 0f Patent:
`
`US 6,918,082 B1
`Jul. 12, 2005
`
`US006918082B1
`
`(54) ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT PROOFING
`SYSTEM
`
`(75) Inventors; Je?'rey M_ Gross, 212 Union St,
`Brooklyn, NY (US) 11231; Matthew H.
`Parker, Brooklyn, NY (Us)
`
`(73) Ass1gnee: Je?'rey M. Gross, Brooklyn, NY (US)
`
`( * ) Notice:
`
`Subject' to any disclaimer, the term of this
`patent is extended or adJusted under 35
`U'S'C' 154(k)) by 696 days‘
`
`(21) Appl. No.: 09/215,593
`(22) Filed:
`Dec. 17, 1998
`
`7
`(51) Int. Cl. .............................................. .. G06F 15/00
`(52) U-S- Cl- ------------- --
`715/511; 715/530
`(58) Field of Search ............................... .. 707/511, 530;
`715/511, 530
`
`(56)
`
`_
`References Clted
`
`US. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`5,008,853 A * 4/1991 Bly etal. ................. .. 345/751
`5,220,657 A * 6/1993 Bly etal. .
`711/152
`
`5,438,661 A * 8/1995 Ogawa . . . . . . . .
`
`. . . .. 345/804
`
`5,790,790 A * 8/1998 Smith et al.
`6,065,026 A * 5/2000 Cornelia et al.
`
`709/206
`707/511
`
`6,088,702 A * 7/2000 PlantZ et al. . . . . . . . .
`
`. . . .. 345/733
`
`707/511
`6,301,592 B1 * 10/2001 Aoyama et al.
`6,349,287 B1 * 2/2002 Hayashi .................... .. 707/511
`
`OTHER PUBLICATIONS
`
`Ivan Anthony Walsh, Adobe Acrobat 3.0, Adobe Acrobat
`Review,
`http://www.desktoppublishing.com/reviews/
`acrobaH-htmh 1993*
`Tubleweed Software (Web Page) POSTA by Tumbleweed
`Software, Aug. 17, 1998.
`* Cited by examiner
`
`Primary Examiner_JOSeph Feud
`Assistant Examiner_R Singh
`(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm—St. Onge Steward Johnston
`& Reens LLC
`
`(57)
`
`ABSTRACT
`
`A system is provided for proo?ng electronic documents
`delivered Over a network The System Comprises a plurality
`of electronic documents in portable document ?le format, a
`computer connectable to the network for receiving the
`plurality of portable format documents together with at least
`one associated proofer identi?er, a program executing on the
`computer for assigning a version number to each of the
`plurality of received portable format documents, and a
`database accessible by the computer for storing the docu
`ments and associated version numbers. The computer for
`receiving a request, from a proofer presenting the proofer
`identi?er, to review a portable format electronic document,
`and the program for retrieving and formatting the requested
`document for display.
`
`21 Claims, 4 Drawing Sheets
`
`67
`Proofer ID
`Comments
`
`Commands
`
`7°
`
`Proofer 1
`Corn uter
`P
`52
`
`Display Document
`As Current, in
`Multiple Versions
`And/or with
`Comment History
`
`5
`
`Creator
`Computer
`
`54 )
`
`2
`
`Portable Fon'nat
`Document Versions
`
`Proofer ID(s)
`
`C62
`
`9
`
`>
`
`66
`
`62’\ Proofer lD(s)
`54’\ n°cufnem
`Verslons
`
`76-\ Comments
`/\ Commands
`72
`_/\73
`
`71
`
`Service
`
`Bureau
`
`Formatted
`Document
`as proof
`As Current, in
`Multiple Versions,
`and/or with
`comment history
`I
`
`Central 6
`
`Computer
`
`60
`
`4
`
`Intralinks, Inc. Exhibit 1001 Page 1
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Jul. 12,2005
`
`Sheet 1 of4
`
`US 6,918,082 B1
`
`Proofer
`
`Computer 152
`
`56
`L Creator
`Computer
`
`Portable Format
`Document Versions
`
`5
`
`62?
`
`Proofer lD <-——
`Comments w
`
`Commands
`
`7O
`
`X59
`
`l
`
`Network
`
`‘
`
`C Proofer "3(8)
`
`2
`
`50/) l
`
`.
`
`Dlsplay Document
`AS Current. In
`Multiple Versions
`And/or with
`
`Comment History
`
`;
`
`66
`
`6é\ Proofer lD(s)
`Proofs
`\ 5? Document
`71
`Versions
`
`‘l
`
`’\ Comm t
`70
`en S
`/\ Commands
`72
`
`Service
`Bureau f73
`
`Formatted
`Document
`as proof
`As Current in
`1
`Multiple Versions,
`and/or with
`comment history
`
`A
`
`Central 6
`
`Computer
`
`60
`
`ll
`
`Database
`
`4
`
`FIGURE 1
`
`Intralinks, Inc. Exhibit 1001 Page 2
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Jul. 12,2005
`
`Sheet 2 0f 4
`
`US 6,918,082 B1
`
`New Comments
`Notice
`
`\
`
`\
`74
`
`‘~82
`
`New Account
`Notice
`
`A
`
`ll
`
`Creator
`Computer
`
`56
`
`2
`
`<5
`
`v
`
`Proofer
`Computer
`
`ll
`
`New Document/
`Version Notice
`
`ll
`
`4
`84
`
`Network
`
`157
`
`il
`
`7
`
`Web Sewer
`
`Z
`86
`
`l
`l
`
`Application Server =
`
`Database
`
`76
`
`Q
`Notices
`
`FIGURE 2
`
`l \
`Email
`
`Server
`
`.
`
`78
`
`64
`
`/\8O \ 60
`
`Central
`Computer
`
`Intralinks, Inc. Exhibit 1001 Page 3
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Jul. 12,2005
`
`Sheet 3 0f 4
`
`US 6,918,082 B1
`
`5/ 252
`
`NE/ F 2E2
`
`5/. N 2E2
`
`§/ 2E5
`
`5/ N 2E5
`
`m 239m
`
`A
`
`M
`
`A
`
`w,
`
`F M
`
`O
`
`N M
`
`m8 F 965
`
`. m 6291
`
`. A
`
`m
`
`A,
`
`A,
`
`.1 F 226
`
`A
`
`‘I
`
`60m
`
`Intralinks, Inc. Exhibit 1001 Page 4
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Jul. 12,2005
`
`Sheet 4 of 4
`
`US 6,918,082 B1
`
`emmaum
`
`m:
`
`0:
`
`v;
`
`N:
`
`O:
`
`8.
`
`323
`
`:o_m.m>
`
`:o_m.m>
`
`oE:.w28
`
`E250
`cozazowmo
`_m>oEq<
`
`cozmmzo
`
`.2mm:o
`
`8
`
`mo.
`
`0&5...98
`
`258800
`
`_m__n_>_>_—.oo._o.n_—Em__0
`
`lntralinks, Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1001
`
`Page 5
`
`Intralinks, Inc. Exhibit 1001 Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`US 6,918,082 B1
`
`1
`ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT PROOFING
`SYSTEM
`
`FIELD OF THE INVENTION
`
`The invention relates to software and systems that allow
`multiple users to collaboratively proof, annotate, and edit
`multiple versions of documents over a computer network.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
`The development of standardiZed and universally adopted
`computer networks such as the Internet or corporate intra
`nets based on Transport Control Protocol/Internet Protocol
`(“TCP/IP”) has provided a new compatibility previously
`unavailable for people using computers on isolated or
`incompatible computer networks. The widespread accep
`tance of TCP/IP networking and the use of software such as
`Web browsers now allows electronic ?les to be transmitted
`from one computer to another, regardless of computer
`platform or geographic location. Electronic mail (“email”)
`and the ability to attach computer ?les to email is an
`eXample of such use.
`Certain industries are now using computers as their pri
`mary tool for creating documents. Such industries include,
`but are not limited to, graphic design, illustration, product
`design, architecture, photography, and the legal industry, to
`name just a few. Software programs have been created to
`meet the particular needs of each industry, many of which
`create complicated electronic ?les based on compleX page
`description languages such as, but not limited to the Post
`Script® page description language. Exchanging electronic
`?les between document creator and the person or persons
`who must proof and approve the document often necessi
`tates that both parties use the eXact same software version,
`often running on the same computer operating system.
`For eXample, a layout artist may use Quark Xpress® or
`Adobe PageMaker® to layout pages using graphical images
`taken from piXel-based imaging programs such as Adobe
`Photoshop® or vector-based programs such as Adobe Illus
`trator® or Macromedia FreeHand®. An architect may use a
`Computer Aided Design (“CAD”) program appropriate to
`his or her work, and product designers may use their
`industry’s preferred CAD software programs to create work
`that needs to be distributed to and/or proofed by another
`party, such as a client, or for peer review with colleagues
`within their own organiZation. Other professionals may use
`a particular brand of word processing software in a particu
`lar release on a particular platform. Although these programs
`may provide limited versioning capabilities they generally
`utiliZe proprietary, not portable document formats, typically
`do not enable simultaneous display and/or control of mul
`tiple document versions, and often do not include comment
`history capabilities.
`Software solutions have been invented to allow document
`creators and document approvers (or proofreaders) to
`eXchange computer ?les without regard to the original
`authoring software or computer platform. These solutions
`are often termed “portable document formats” and include,
`but are not limited to, Adobe System’s Acrobat Portable
`Document Format, Envoy’s portable document format, and
`FlashPiX, a graphical ?le format created by the Digital
`Imaging Group, a consortium of nine leading imaging
`companies.
`Portable document formats can be de?ned as computer
`?le formats that describe a ?le created in any computer
`program, and allow a user to view the ?le, preserving its
`
`10
`
`15
`
`25
`
`35
`
`40
`
`45
`
`55
`
`65
`
`2
`eXact appearance, without need for the original authoring
`program. Converting a computer-generated ?le into a por
`table document format allows a document creator to send the
`computer ?le to another party to be viewed and, depending
`on the format, printed. Many portable document ?le formats
`preserve the original visual and print integrity of a compli
`cated PostScript®-based document. Most portable docu
`ment format reader programs or browser plug-ins are avail
`able for free download from the Internet and other computer
`networks. Others use widely supported programming
`languages, such as the Java programming language, and
`“virtual machines” to display ?les on a variety of operating
`systems. Although these products alleviate some of the
`platform, release dependence and proprietary format issues,
`problems of managing and tracking multiple versions of
`multiple documents being distributed to and proofed by
`multiple parties concurrently and asynchronously remain.
`The ability to compare current and past versions of a
`document onscreen or in print is a great help when distrib
`uting and proo?ng documents, yet is often difficult and
`confusing using conventional methods such as File Transfer
`Protocol (“FTP”) to post ?les to a server or emailing
`multiple ?les to multiple document recipients. The capabil
`ity of reviewers to change which is the current/preferred
`version of a document and/or to review a history of com
`ments about each document version is also not provided.
`Another signi?cant obstacle to proo?ng documents with
`clients or colleagues over computer networks is that despite
`common network protocols such as the Internet, delivering
`portable documents over networks can be dif?cult. Incom
`patible email gateways can corrupt ?le attachments, and
`some corporate ?rewall technology does not permit ?le
`attachments at all. In addition, email is not always speedily
`delivered, as it has low priority for use of Internet
`bandwidth, and, further, is often not secure.
`J. Smith, et. al. Electronic Document Delivery System in
`Which Noti?cation of Said Electronic Document is Sent to
`a Recipient Thereof, US. Pat. No. 5,790,790, (4 Aug. 1998)
`discloses a network-based electronic document delivery
`system, which has a network server that stores electronic
`?les to be accessed by email and ?le recipients. This
`disclosed prior art system may be characteriZed as a “push
`publishing” system of delivering documents using a server
`as a storage facility to hold documents. Adocument recipient
`receives a reference, in the form of electronic mail, which
`points directly to the ?le to be delivered on the server.
`Systems of this kind solve some problems with delivery of
`documents over a network, but do not provide features for
`collaborative production and review of documents.
`The disclosed prior art systems and methodologies pro
`vide methods for the delivery of portable format documents
`over computer networks, but fail to provide a way to
`automatically display or track multiple versions of the
`electronic documents, to review and add to a history of
`comments about the particular version of the document
`displayed, to alter the current/preferred version of the
`document, or to simultaneously-display a particular docu
`ment version and its current history. Nor do the disclosed
`prior art systems enable these capabilities for simultaneously
`managing multiple different projects and documents.
`SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
`Accordingly, it is an object of the invention to provide a
`system which simultaneously displays multiple versions of
`portable format document over a computer network.
`Another object of the invention is to provide a system
`enabling a collaborative reviewer to change a current ver
`sion of a portable format document.
`
`Intralinks, Inc. Exhibit 1001 Page 6
`
`

`
`US 6,918,082 B1
`
`3
`Still another object of the invention is to provide a system
`for simultaneously displaying a history of comments from
`collaborative revieWers together With each version of a
`portable format document.
`Yet another object of the invention is to provide a system
`of the kind described above Which is capable of providing
`this functionality to multiple revieWers of multiple versions
`of multiple documents.
`One or more of these objects and advantages is achieved
`by the invention Which provides a system for proo?ng
`electronic documents delivered over a netWork. The system
`comprises a plurality of electronic documents in portable
`document ?le format, a computer connectable to the net
`Work for receiving the plurality of portable format docu
`ments together With at least one associated proofer identi?er,
`a program executing on the computer for assigning a version
`number to each of the plurality of received portable format
`documents, and a database accessible by the computer for
`storing the documents and associated version numbers. The
`computer receives requests, from proofers presenting the
`proofer identi?er, to revieW a portable format electronic
`document, and the program retrieves and formats the
`requested document for display.
`In some cases the request received by the computer is for
`multiple document versions, in Which case the program
`formats multiple versions of a document for simultaneous
`display. The computer also receives comments submitted by
`proofers, in Which case the program stores the comments
`together With the corresponding document version. When a
`document is requested for display the history of comments
`received for the document is preferably also simultaneously
`displayed. The computer also receives and interprets com
`mands from authoriZed users. One such command is to
`change the current version of a document Which is displayed
`by default to another version.
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
`
`FIG. 1 is a block diagram depicting a system for proo?ng
`electronic documents in accordance With the invention.
`FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating the notice functions
`for a central computer in a proo?ng system of FIG. 1.
`FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating a directory tree for
`the storage of documents on a database in a proo?ng system
`of FIG. 1.
`FIG. 4 is a schematic diagram illustrating organiZation of
`database records for documents in a proo?ng system of FIG.
`1.
`
`DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE
`INVENTION
`
`FIG. 1 illustrates a system 50 in accordance With the
`invention for proo?ng, at proofer computer 52, portable
`format electronic document versions 54 created by creator
`computer 56. Documents 54 are received from creators 56
`and made available to proofers 52 over a netWork 58 by
`central computer 60.
`Creators 56 send document versions 54, along line 55, to
`central computer 60 together With proofer identi?ers 62
`Which indicate Who is authoriZed to vieW the document
`version for revieW and comment. Computer 60 assigns a
`version number to each received document version 54 and
`stores document versions together With their associated
`proofer identities 62 on a database 64.
`Proofers 52 can obtain document versions 54 for revieW
`by presenting to computer 60 a proofer identi?cation 62,
`
`15
`
`25
`
`35
`
`40
`
`45
`
`55
`
`65
`
`4
`along line 57, Which authoriZes them to access the document
`of interest. Upon receipt of an authoriZed request, computer
`60 retrieves document versions 54 from database 64 and
`formats an appropriate response at 66 for display by proofer
`52 as schematically indicated at 68.
`Upon revieW of displayed document versions, proofers 52
`may return comments 70 to central computer 60 for storage
`on database 64 together With the corresponding document
`version. Subsequent formatting and display of the same
`document version may thereby include a complete history of
`comments submitted by various other revieWers.
`Ordinarily, upon receipt of an authenticated proofer
`request to revieW a document version, computer 60 Will
`format the then current version of the document for display.
`As indicated at 66 and 68, hoWever, proofer 52 may request
`multiple versions of a document for simultaneous revieW. In
`this case, it is understood that proofer 52 must provide a
`command or instruction 72 to central computer 60 indicating
`Which of the multiple versions of a particular document are
`desired to be formatted for simultaneous display. In the
`preferred embodiment, this selection is accommodated by
`creators 52 supplying a description of each document ver
`sion Which is stored. Document descriptions may also be
`displayed With the document version.
`After revieWing multiple versions of a portable format
`electronic document 54, proofer 52 may issue another com
`mand 72 to computer 62 instructing that the current version
`of a document be replaced With another, e.g., prior version
`of a document. The current version of a document is the one
`formatted for display to a proofer in the absence of a
`contrary command. Ordinarily, the current version is the
`version most recently received or “latest” version received
`from creator 56. NeW versions of documents are generally
`prepared by creator 56 in response to comments 70 on prior
`versions. In this regard, it is understood, though not
`illustrated, that creators 56 may also include or add com
`ments on document versions, for eXample as replies to the
`comments of proofers 52. Creators 56 may also provide a
`document description Which explains a document version 54
`in terms of the comments 70 received on prior versions of
`the same document.
`Afurther command 72 Which may be issued by proofer 52
`is an approval command. An approval command indicates to
`computer 60 that a document version is ?nal and that a proof
`71 may be forWarded to a service bureau or other third party,
`for eXample to print the document. Although not shoWn in
`the Figures, it is understood that creator 56 may issue all the
`same document speci?c commands as proofers 52. In
`addition, creators 56 may also be given permissions on
`computer 60 to issue administrative commands such as
`editing proofer identi?ers and proofer permissions for a
`particular document, adding a neW document to the system,
`and so on.
`Referring noW to FIG. 2, additional features and capa
`bilities of system 50 are depicted including noti?cation 74 to
`creators 52 and proofers 56 When neW comments 70 are
`received by computer 60 on a document for Which they are
`authoriZed. In the preferred embodiment of the invention the
`computer is a server cluster and notices 76 are email
`messages generated by application server 78 and distributed
`by email server 80. In addition to notifying, at 74, users of
`system 50 that neW comments may be revieWed, notices
`inform proofers at 82 that a neW account has been set up for
`them on computer 60, and at 84 that a neW document or
`document version is available for revieW. In addition, or as
`an alternative, to these email notices, an inboX system may
`
`Intralinks, Inc. Exhibit 1001 Page 7
`
`

`
`US 6,918,082 B1
`
`1O
`
`15
`
`25
`
`35
`
`5
`be used to alert users upon logging in to any neW comments
`or documents awaiting revieW.
`Server cluster 60 preferably includes a Web server 86 and
`network 57 is preferably the internet or other TCP/IP pro
`tocol netWork such that documents are formatted by appli
`cation server 78 in HTML or another markup language
`commonly used in broWser softWare running on the proof
`er’s computer. Comments and commands are also received
`and interpreted by application server 78 through Web server
`86 and users’ broWsers in the preferred embodiment.
`Computer 60 utiliZes a unique methodology for storing
`?les on database 64 Which enables system 50 to keep track
`of numerous versions of numerous documents in numerous
`projects for numerous clients. A hierarchy of directories is
`used on database 64 and/or application server 78 to store the
`actual documents. The directory hierarchy is generated from
`information about a particular document and is also used to
`formulate the URL for display of the document versions to
`proofers through a Web broWser. The storage methodology
`relies on the dynamic interaction betWeen 3 types of entities:
`a relational database, a directory tree ?le storage system, and
`URL strings.
`As document versions are uploaded into the system by
`creators, groups of proofers (“clients”) are created, project
`names are input, version numbers are assigned, and so on.
`This information is used to uniquely represent or tag data
`base records about the document versions (see FIG. 4).
`Simultaneously, a hierarchical system of directories is cre
`ated in a tree structure using this information (see FIG. 3) to
`store the uploaded document versions.
`Referring ?rst to FIG. 3, tree structure 90 springs from a
`root directory 92 on database 64 and/or application server
`78. One or more client directories 94 are created in root 92.
`The dots“. .
`. ” indicate that there are multiple other possible
`directories. As alluded to above, a client is a unique group/
`collection of proofers. In this regard, it is understood that
`members of a client group may each have the same or
`different proofer identi?ers.
`Each client 94 may be assigned multiple proo?ng projects
`96 each of Which is created in a separate directory. When
`ever a document version is uploaded to computer 60 direc
`tories 94 and 96 are created if they do not already exist, a
`version number is assigned to the document and a version
`directory 98 is created if necessary to store the document
`version. In the illustrated eXample, Client 1’s Project 1
`includes three different documents: MyFile, MyFile 1 and
`MyFile 2. The document named MyFile eXists in tWo
`versions 100 and 101. The document named MyFile 1 eXists
`in a single version 102. And the document named MyFile 2
`eXists in tWo versions 103 and 104. Thus, these three
`documents comprise ?ve different document versions. It is
`understood that although not necessary to the invention, a
`project identi?er is also sent to computer 60 When creator 56
`uploads a document version.
`When a proofer requests a document version, the URL is
`assembled by combining the protocol and host
`“<protocol>://<host>” together With the directory tree struc
`ture assembled from the information about the document
`version “<client>/<version>/<name>”. The complete URL
`takes the form “<protocol>://<host>/<client>/<project>/
`<version>/<name>/”. Other speci?c forms are possible for
`the URL, but by setting up the directory tree With some
`information about the document and by formulating the
`URL from the directory tree, the URL also provides infor
`mation about the document. This makes the system easier to
`navigate and con?rms to the proofer or user that she has
`obtained the document version she requested.
`
`40
`
`45
`
`55
`
`65
`
`6
`Referring noW to FIG. 4, database records 88 include
`additional information about each document version. In a
`manner similar to the creation of the directory tree, unique
`records are created for each unique combination of <client>,
`<project>, <name> and <comment date & time> Which
`forms a tag 106 for the record. Other unique tags could be
`used While still achieving the advantage that the tags,
`directory tree and URL for a document version include
`related information.
`The types of information stored in records 88 for each
`unique tag 106 include creator identi?er 108, creation date
`and time 110, approval status 112, document description
`114, current version number 116 and latest version number
`118. Creator identi?cation 108 is used e.g., to send notices
`74 (see FIG. 2) to creators 56. Approval status 112 is a
`sWitch used to set the approval command for triggering a
`proof 71 (see FIG. 1). Latest version 118 is used to assign
`version numbers to neW document versions, and current
`version is set by a version command issued by an authoriZed
`user.
`Each of the ?elds in tag 106 are indeX keys to records 88.
`In this respect a user of system 50 can access the various
`client directories to Which he is assigned to vieW and
`comment on the various documents in various projects.
`Once a proofer/user selects Which document version(s) to
`revieW, system 50 pastes together as a string the <client>,
`<project>, <name>, and <version> from the tag and record
`to assemble on the ?y a URUpath to the requested document
`on database 64. Once located, the document version(s) are
`formatted for display together With the description(s) and
`any comments.
`In operation, an electronic document, preferably in a
`portable format, is uploaded to a private account on a remote
`server by the document sender. The document recipient may
`be informed that the portable document is being held on the
`server by generic noti?cation, or the recipient may not
`receive noti?cation. The document recipient logs into the
`private account on the computer netWork With a username
`and passWord, and is informed that the latest version of a
`document is ready for proo?ng. Previous versions of the
`electronic document are also available for reference and
`comparison, in the event a user Wishes to select them. The
`recipient vieWs the electronic documents, along With infor
`mation pertinent to that document version such as a docu
`ment description, the name of the document creator, When
`the document Was sent to the server, and comments from the
`document creator, for display on his or her computer.
`Upon vieWing and/or proo?ng the document, the system
`alloWs the recipient or recipients to relay their comments
`and decision on the document version back to the server
`Where the document creator may access it. In this Way, the
`document is displayed to the proofreader, Who then com
`ments on the document version, and submits comments back
`to the document sender. Additionally, the document sender
`and the document recipient may choose to simultaneously
`vieW multiple versions of the same document to proof on
`their computer screens, facilitating document version com
`parison.
`The primary purpose of the invention is to facilitate
`electronic document distribution, proo?ng and communica
`tion betWeen a document creator and a person or people
`responsible for approving the document or those Who
`require ?nal receipt of ?nished documents. In preferred
`embodiments, the invention is used for proo?ng multiple
`versions of documents With multiple proofreaders in a
`controlled management system over a computer netWork
`
`Intralinks, Inc. Exhibit 1001 Page 8
`
`

`
`US 6,918,082 B1
`
`7
`such as the Internet or a corporate intranet. A preferred
`embodiment of the invention uses a netWork of servers
`including a Web server, an application server, a database
`server, and an email server—together knoWn as a “server
`cluster.” Working in concert, the server cluster Will store,
`manage, route, distribute, and track documents and relevant
`information about those documents from a document creator
`to a document proofer or proofers, and then back to the
`document creator in a document proo?ng cycle Which
`culminates When a document is approved and deemed ready
`for output or for ?nal electronic distribution.
`The invention stores document versions as they are
`uploaded to the server cluster in chronological order. On
`demand, the document creator can make a prior version of
`an electronic document being stored on the server the
`“current” document available for access and comments by
`the document creator or others. The ability to make a prior
`version of a document stored on the server the “current”
`version prevents confusion as to Which version of a docu
`ment is currently considered the active Working version of
`the document in a proo?ng cycle. Designating a previous
`version, out of chronological order, as “current” maintains
`order for multiple document recipients in a document man
`agement system With multiple versions of the same elec
`tronic document.
`Once an electronic document has been proofread by one
`or more proofreaders charged With approving a document,
`the ?le is ready for distribution in either electronic or print
`form. Frequently, the creation of hard copy documents from
`electronic ?les involves a party other than the document
`designer or the document proofreaders. For instance, if a
`document has been proofed and approved and noW needs to
`be turned into a full color book, bound, and shrinkWrapped
`for ?nal distribution to its intended audience, a printing
`company may be hired to output the ?nal version of the
`electronic ?le on special printing machinery. The electronic
`proo?ng and distribution system permits an approved docu
`ment to be retrieved from the system by an authoriZed third
`party.
`An eXample of hoW the preferred embodiment of the
`invention could be used in a document proo?ng and distri
`bution Work?oW folloWs: Roger is a graphic designer at
`ABC Graphics & Design, Inc., located in NeW York City.
`Roger is hired by Gail of XYZ Music Corporation in Los
`Angeles, to design and produce a CD-ROM cover for a neW
`product her company is introducing. After their discussions,
`Roger Works on creating an initial version of the CD-ROM
`cover to shoW Gail and tWo of her colleagues.
`Like most graphic designers, Roger creates the artWork
`and printing mechanical for the CD-ROM cover on a
`computer, using a variety of softWare applications. Rather
`than print a hardcopy proof CD-ROM cover and send it by
`overnight courier to XYZ Music, Roger decides to use
`system 50 of the invention to electronically proof multiple
`versions of the CD-ROM cover With Gail and tWo other
`people at XYZ Music Who need to approve the ?nal design.
`Roger converts his electronic ?les into a portable ?le
`format and uploads his designs into ProofNetTM the com
`mercial embodiment of the invention. When Roger ?rst set
`up usernames, passWords, and permissions for Gail and her
`associates, they all received the Internet address (URL),
`username and passWords needed to log into ProofNetTM
`using their computers. Upon upload of the documents, the
`proofreaders at XYZ Music receives noti?cation by email
`that a proof is Waiting for them to eXamine on the Proof
`NetTM system.
`
`10
`
`15
`
`25
`
`35
`
`40
`
`45
`
`55
`
`65
`
`8
`Using the preferred embodiment of the invention Gail and
`her colleagues at XYZ Music log into their accounts at
`different times to eXamine on their screens and print on their
`oWn laser and color printers the ?rst version of the CD-ROM
`cover artWork that Roger has sent to them. As they vieW the
`artWork on their computer screens, they also see information
`about the document version they are vieWing, such as Who
`sent it to them, the date and time it Was posted to the server,
`the name and number of the version, and comments from
`Roger, the document creator.
`After proo?ng the screen image of the document, and,
`optionally, the printed versions that the XYZ Music staff
`received through the ProofNetTM system, each individual at
`XYZ Music is given the opportunity to send comments on
`the document version back to Roger. XYZ Music staff
`members type their comments into the WindoW Where they
`also see the document displayed. XYZ Music staff members
`click a submit button to send their comments on the docu
`ment version to Roger, Who receives notice that his docu
`ment has been vieWed and commented on, either by email or
`by examining his InboX, part of the ProofNetTM system.
`Roger can access the comments sent back to him by his
`XYZ clients and vieW these comments in the same WindoW
`as the proof commented on. Roger has the option to respond
`With neW comments, or to upload into the ProofNetTM
`system a neW version of the document Which takes into
`account the suggestions and instructions of his clients at
`XYZ Music. If Roger uploads a neW version of the docu
`ment into the server, his clients at XYZ Music are alerted
`either by email or by logging into the system and checking
`their inboXes.
`Because there are noW at least tWo versions of the same
`document on the server, the XYZ Music staff can have the
`ProofNetTM system display one or more of the document
`versions onscreen at the same time to facilitate version
`comparison. Roger can also ask the ProofNetTM system to
`display one or more versions of the document on his screen
`for comparison.
`Perhaps after the fourth version in the document proo?ng
`Work?oW, the XYZ Music clients ask Roger to go back and
`make the second version the “current” version, as this
`version best re?ects their idea of