(12) United States Patent
`Odom
`
`(10) Patent N0.:
`45 Date of Patent:
`
`US 7,047,482 B1
`a
`Ma 16 2006
`
`US007047482B1
`
`6/2003 Gabriel
`6,584,468 B1
`2001/0039563 A1* 11/2001 Tian ......................... .. 709/202
`2003/0195877 A1* 10/2003 Ford et al.
`................... .. 707/3
`
`OTHER PUBLICATIONS
`
`Maglio, Paul et al., Communications of the ACM, vol. 43,
`No. 8; “Intermediaries Personalize Information Streams”
`(Aug. 2000).*
`1113’
`et al., Communications of the ACM, vol.
`Lieberman, He
`44, No. 8; “Exploring the Web with Reconnaissance Agents”
`(Aug, 2001),*
`Balabanovic, Marko et al., Communications of the ACM,
`vol. 30, No. 3; “Content-Based, Collaborative Recommen-
`dation” Mar. 1997).*
`Geisler, Gary et al., JCDL ’01 in Roanoke, Virginia; “Devel-
`oping Recommendation Services for a Digital Library with
`Uncertain and Changing Data” (Jun. 24-28, 2001).*
`Grasso, Antonietta et al., GROUP 99 in Phoenix, Arizona;
`“Augmenting Recgmmender Systems
`Inter-
`faces into Practices” (1999).*
`Voss, Angi et al., GROUP 99 in Phoenix, Arizona; “Concept
`Indexing” (1999).*
`
`* cited by examiner
`
`Primary Examiner—Doug Hutton
`
`57
`
`(
`
`)
`
`ABSTRACT
`
`The present invention is computer software that automati-
`cally finds, saves, and displays links to documents topically
`related to document links residing in a directory without a
`~
`user havmg to Search‘
`
`20 Claims, 5 Drawing Sheets
`
`(54) AUTOMATIC DIRECTORY
`SUPPLEMENTATION
`
`(76)
`
`Inventor: Gary Odom, 15505 SW. Bulrush La.,
`Tigard, OR (US) 97223
`
`( * ) Notice:
`
`Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this
`patent is extended or adjusted under 35
`Y
`Y
`U.S.C. 154 b b
`623 da s.
`
`(21) Appl. No.: 09/796,235
`.
`Flledi
`
`Feb- 23: 2001
`
`(22)
`
`(51)
`
`Int‘ Cl‘
`
`:31
`2715/500 707/5 707/3
`'
`(
`(52) U S Cl
`-
`;
`S
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~
`-
`-
`Of Classification Search ........... ..
`715/500; 707/3, 5; 709/202
`See application file for complete search history.
`
`(56)
`
`References Cited
`U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`7/1996 Ogawa
`5,535,382 A
`1/1997 Doner
`5 598 557 A
`’
`’
`10/1997 Baker
`5,680,511 A
`....................... .. 707/5
`4/1999 Driscoll
`5,893,092 A *
`8/2000 Bates et a1.
`715/826
`5,100,890 A *
`9/2000 Horowitz ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
`~ ~ ~ ~~ 707/513
`0122547 A
`10/2000 Welter - - - - - -
`- - - -- 709/224
`651385157 A
`1/2001 Horvitz
`709/223
`6,182,133 B1
`2/2001 Bates . . . . . . .
`. . . .. 345/357
`6,184,886 B1
`
`6,480,853 B1* 11/2002 Jain . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . .. 707/5
`6,493,702 B1* 12/2002 Adar et al.
`.................. .. 707/3
`
`
`
`10 ENABLE DIREcToRY SUPPLEMENTATION
`
`101 SET BREADTH LEVEL
`
`
`
`1 1 COLLATE KEYWORDS
`
`110 DERIVE
`TITLE
`KEYWORDS
`
`9 DERIVE KEYwoRI:>(s)
`
`1 1 1 COMPARE DOCUMENT
`KI-:YwoRDs
`
`l 12 RANK KEYWORDS
`
`
`1 2 SEARCH
`120 FM) NEW PAGES
`
`86 CULL DISCARDED
`LINKS
`
`Iron Dome, Exh. 1001
`
`B8 DIRECTORY
`KEYWORDS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9 DERIVE KEYwoRD(s)
`Y
`121 COMPARE KEYWORDS
`
`122 RANK NEW PAGES
`
`
`
`6 SUPPLEMENT DIRECTORY
`66 SIGNIFY LINK
`
`Iron Dome, Exh. 1001
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`May 16,2006
`
`Sheet 1 of 5
`
`US 7,047,482 B1
`
`51 CPU
`
`52 STORAGE
`
`54 RETENTION
`
`DEVICEs(s)
`
`55 DISPLAY DEVICE
`
`60 NETWORK COMPUTER
`
`61 CPU
`
`
`62 STORAGE
`56 INPUT DEVICE(s)
`
`
`(E-G- MOUSE)
`
`68 NETWORK
`
`(CONNECTION)
`
` 50 COMPUTER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 64 RETENTION
`DEVICEs(s)
`
`
`
`59 NETWORK
`
`CONNECTION DEVICE
`
`69 NETWORK
`CONNECTION DEVICE
`
`FIGURE 1
`
`Exh. p. 2
`
`Exh. p. 2
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`May 16,2006
`
`Sheet 2 of 5
`
`US 7,047,482 B1
`
`
`
`5 DIRECTORY
`TITLE
`3 DIRECTORY
`
`——_——————...__........—_.._.....
`
`-.—:-I
`
`Exh. p. 3
`
`
`
`'I--—
`
`—*—————-.-.--'
`
`4—-'
`
`——a-""—_
`
`.u-'‘-'
`
`Exh. p. 3
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`May 16, 2006
`
`Sheet 3 of 5
`
`US 7,047,482 B1
`
`
`
`
`2 DOCUMENT
`20D DOCUMENT TITLE
`
`2OI> PAGE PROPERTIES
`20 TITLE
`
`21 HEADING
`
`Tm*E
`
`22 BODY TEXT
`
`MEDIA TEXT
`
`
`
`21A HEADING
`
`23T MEDIA TITLE
`23c MEDIA CAPTION
`
`22A BODY TEXT
`
`
`
`
`
`FIGURE 3
`
`9 DERIVE KEYWORD(S)
`
`9D DISCERN
`
`KEYWORD(S)
`
`8 KEYWORD(S)
`
`FIGURE 4
`
`Exh. p. 4
`
`Exh. p. 4
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`May 16,2006
`
`Sheet 4 of 5
`
`US 7,047,482 B1
`
`
`101 SET BREADTH LEVEL
`
`
`
`KEYWORDS
`
`
`
`
`
`Exh. p. 5
`
`88 DIRECTORY
`
`KEYWORDS
`
`FIGURE 5
`
`121 COMPARE KEYWORDS
`
`
`
`122 RANK NEW PAGES
`
`
`
`66 SIGNIFY LINK
`
`
`
`6 SUPPLEMENT DIRECTORY
`
`10 ENABLE DIRECTORY SUPPLEMENTATION
`
`
`11 COLLATE KEYWORDS
`
`9 DERIVE KEYWORD(S)
`
`110 DERIVE
`
`TITLE
`
`111 COMPARE DOCUMENT
`
`KEYWORDS
`
`112 RANK KEYWORDS
`
`
`12 SEARCH
`
`120 FIND NEW PAGES
`
` 86 CULL DISCARDED
`
`LINKS
`
`9 DERIVE KEYWoRD(s)
`
`Exh. p. 5
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`May 16,2006
`
`Sheet 5 of 5
`
`US 7,047,482 B1
`
`
`
`KING CRIMSON
`
`3K DIRECTORY
`
` O MUSIC GUIDE — KING CRIMSON
` O DISCIPLINE GLOBAL MOBILE
`® *K“Iv1"'m3"S‘I“I“K1'Nx"3'G'R'iI‘v1S(‘)T~i“
`
`1K KNOWN LINKS
`
`13 OBSOLETE LINK
`
`66 SIGNIFY LINK BY
`33 RELEVANCE
`
`KING CRIMSON DISCOGRAPHY
`
`ELEPHANT TALK
`
`6K DIRECTORY
`SUPPLEMENTATION
`
`KING CRIMSON LIVE!
`
`
`F'G”RE 5
`1F FOUND Lmxs
`
`Exh. p. 6
`
`Exh. p. 6
`
`

`
`US 7,047,482 B1
`
`2
`
`1
`AUTOMATIC DIRECTORY
`SUPPLEMENTATION
`
`TECHNICAL FIELD
`
`The present invention relates generally to information
`retrieval systems, and more particularly, to automatically
`finding and displaying related document links without user-
`initiated searching.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
`
`The Internet has become the world’ s information retrieval
`
`system. One of the distinguishing features of Internet (and
`intranet) documents is the use of embedded document links.
`Such a link is a portion of a source document that links to
`a target document: another document, or a different section
`of the same document. The other document may be on any
`computer system on a network supporting the appropriate
`communication protocols. Selecting a link navigates from
`the source document to the target document.
`A web site is a collection of linked documents accessible
`
`through the World Wide Web, a part of the Internet. Such
`documents are commonly called web pages. Typically a web
`site has a “home page” that is the entry document into the
`site. The World Wide Web is commonly referred to as “the
`web”.
`
`Web pages commonly use a description language such as
`HTML (hypertext markup language) or XML (extensible
`markup language) to embed links and provide document
`formatting.
`A link on a web page is by convention expressed as a
`uniform resource locator (URL). A link is often associated
`with a word or phrase in a source document, hence the
`common nomenclature: hypertext link. But a link may also
`be associated with images, or controls such as buttons,
`menus, and the like.
`A web browser is a program for displaying web pages.
`Examples of popular web browsers include Microsoft Inter-
`net Explorer and Netscape Navigator.
`Web browsers allow users to create and maintain direc-
`
`tories of web page links. Such directories are commonly
`represented as folders or, sometimes, tabs.
`New web pages or web sites are commonly found by links
`in known documents, or by keyword search. Users typically
`topically group links to related documents in self-titled
`directories, the directory title being the common topic of
`links within it.
`
`Web sites are often extensive enough (so many pages) that
`a site typically offers a search facility for the site; commer-
`cial web sites almost always offer site search. Search refers
`to inquiry based upon one or more keywords (search terms).
`Search engines that search a multitude of sites abound on the
`web. A good search engine provides a commercial advan-
`tage. Some search engines, and some commercial products,
`such as Copemic® from Copemic Technologies, tap into
`multiple search engines to conglomerate searches.
`Based upon keywords, quality search engines glean the
`most probably related pages using a confluence of linguistic
`analysis methods. Word location analysis is based upon the
`assumption that the topic of a document is specified in the
`title, headings, or the early paragraphs of text. Word fre-
`quency analysis counts the number of times search terms
`appear in a document. Syntactic analysis processes the
`grammatical structure of a document, serving to indicate
`nouns and verbs. Semantic analysis interprets the contextual
`meaning of words by examining word relationships. Mor-
`
`10
`
`15
`
`20
`
`25
`
`30
`
`35
`
`40
`
`45
`
`50
`
`55
`
`60
`
`65
`
`phological analysis reduces verbs and nouns to their base
`form, providing a basis for direct word matching. At least
`one commercial product, LinguistX® from Inxight Soft-
`ware, provides advanced natural language text analysis.
`In spite of software sophistication, as every experienced
`web user knows, user-initiated keyword search can be
`vexing: searches commonly return a plethora of pages, many
`unrelated to the desired topic. Search for
`‘watch’,
`for
`example, thinking time pieces, and you’ll likely end up with
`a bushel of pages about voyeurism. Careful application of
`search terms yields more relevant links, but the process and
`results are problematic: beyond searching for “this ‘and’
`that”, search Boolean logic is not exactly intuitive; different
`search engines have different syntaxes for search Boolean
`logic, and different ways to apply it, making that bit of
`business even less amenable; a bit of search pruning still
`leaves an abundance of junk, while a search result leaving
`out the chalf probably leaves out a good bit of wheat too.
`The technology of document linking, search, and soft-
`ware-based linguistic analysis are well established. Recent
`advances enhance utility in locating desired information. For
`example, the subject of U.S. Pat. No. 6,122,647 is dynami-
`cally linguistically analyzing the text of a user-selected
`portion of a target document and generating new links to
`related documents. The subject ofU.S. Pat. No. 6,184,886 is
`allowing a user to generate and maintain a list of prioritized
`bookmarks (links) that allow later access to selected sites
`(documents). The subject of U.S. Pat. No. 6,182,133 is
`pre-fetching pages for later viewing, thus saving a user time
`retrieving documents.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
`
`invention automatically finds, saves, and
`The present
`displays links to documents topically related to a set of
`documents without a user having to search or specify search
`terms. An incidental aspect of the invention is automatically
`signifying links by their status.
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
`
`FIG. 1 is a block diagram of computers suitable for
`practicing the invention.
`FIG. 2 depicts a directory of links.
`FIG. 3 depicts a document.
`FIG. 4 depicts the process to derive keywords from a
`document.
`
`FIG. 5 depicts the directory supplementation process.
`FIG. 6 depicts an example of directory supplementation.
`
`DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE
`INVENTION
`
`FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a computer 50 connected to
`a network computer 60 through a network 68. A computer 50
`comprises at least a CPU 51; storage 52, which comprises
`memory 53 and optionally one or more devices with reten-
`tion medium(s) 54 such as hard disks, diskettes, compact
`disks, or tape; an optional display device 55; and optionally
`one or more input devices 56, examples of which include but
`are not exclusive to, a keyboard 58, and/or one or more
`pointing devices 57, such as a mouse. A computer 50 also
`optionally includes a device for connection to a network 59.
`Anetwork computer 60 comprises at least a CPU 51; storage
`52, which comprises memory 53 and optionally one or more
`devices with retention medium(s) 64 such as hard disks,
`diskettes, compact disks, or tape; and a device for connec-
`
`Exh. p. 7
`
`Exh. p. 7
`
`

`
`US 7,047,482 B1
`
`3
`tion to a network 59. In one embodiment, a computer 50 is
`a client
`to a network computer 60 that
`is a server. A
`client-server environment is a setup whereupon one or more
`clients 50 are connected to one or more servers 60 through
`a network 68. A client 50 in a client-server environment
`
`primarily receives data. A server 60 primarily transmits data
`to be received by one or more clients 50. A peer-to-peer
`network is a setup whereupon one or more computers 50 are
`connected to one another 60 with or without a server on the
`
`network 68. A computer 50 in a peer-to-peer environment
`shares data with other computers 60. A network 68 may be
`any means by which one or more computers 50 are con-
`nected to one or more other computers 60 for data transfer.
`As depicted in FIG. 2, a directory 3,
`if not empty,
`comprises a set of documents 2, or a set of links 1 to
`documents 2, or a combination of documents 2 and links 1.
`A link 1 is a reference to a document 2. A user-determined
`
`directory title 5 may provide concise topic indication.
`FIG. 3 depicts a document 2 to which a link 1 may refer,
`and document 2 components. A document 2 comprises at
`least a passage of text 22, and may optionally include one or
`more titles 20, section headings 21, or adjunctive text such
`as media titles 23T or captions 23C. A document 2 may
`comprise other components besides text, such as media
`objects. A media object
`is a non-text software entity,
`examples of which include a picture, video, or sound. Text
`related to a media object is media text 23.
`FIG. 4 depicts keyword derivation 9. A keyword 8 is one
`or more words used as an indication of the contents of a
`
`document. A keyword 8 may be a combination of words: for
`example, the Grateful Dead are significantly different than
`being either grateful or dead.
`Various linguistic analysis methods may be applied to
`documents 2 for keyword 8 derivation: lexical, word fre-
`quency, word placement, syntactic, semantic, or morpho-
`logical. Such methods are known to those skilled in the art.
`Automatically displaying a link 1 refers to displaying a
`link 1 of a found document 2 without a user having to
`manually add a link 1 to a directory 3.
`Signifying a link 66 refers to visibly indicating the current
`status of a link 1. Examples of visible indication include
`color coding or other visible distinction of link 1 text, such
`a font style; or striking icon 4: either the usual icon 4 color
`coded, or icons 4 indicating status. Examples of status
`include a newly found link 1, a level of relevance for a newly
`discovered link 1, or an obsolete link 13.
`Attempting to retrieve a document 2 from a link 1
`sometimes reveals that the link 1 is no longer valid: the
`document 2 is gone, having been moved or removed. In this
`instance, the link 1 should be signified 66 as obsolete 13 if
`its document 2 has certainly been removed, or, if a link 1 to
`a moved document 2 can be ascertained, the stored link 1
`should be updated to reflect the new document’s 2 location.
`Pages 2 or sites that have moved often temporarily leave a
`notice behind telling where the site or page 2 has moved to.
`In such an instance, software linguistic analysis of the
`notification can glean the new link 1.
`Document 2 inaccessibility does not necessarily mean
`link obsolescence 13: other possible causes exist, such as,
`for example, temporary server problems at the document’s
`2 home site. A link 1 should be signified 66 obsolete 13 only
`if document 2 removal can be verified: inaccessibility over
`a prolonged period of time would be indicative. For
`example, by keeping track of attempted access times, link
`obsolescence 13 may be concluded given document 2 inac-
`cessibility at different times of the day for over a period of
`a week or so. Sometimes, document 2 removal is noted on
`
`10
`
`15
`
`20
`
`25
`
`30
`
`35
`
`40
`
`45
`
`50
`
`55
`
`60
`
`65
`
`4
`
`In such an instance, software linguistic
`a web page 2.
`analysis of the notification can determine document 2
`removal.
`
`Titles 20, including document title 20D, and associated
`page properties title for web pages 20P, media object titles
`23T, and headings (section titles) 21 are prime fodder for
`keywords. For a document 2 with a link 1, the link title 7
`should also be considered for keyword derivation 9. Titles
`may be considered highly indicative of document topics/
`keywords 8. Likewise document headings 21, which can be
`identified by location, possibly font formatting, and isolation
`from body text 22; headings 21 in HTML documents are
`most always distinguished by font formatting, hence, easily
`identified.
`
`Body text 22 may provide the bulk of information upon
`which keywords 8 are derived 9. A common technique is to
`highly regard the first paragraph of body text 22 (and the
`body text 22 immediately following headings 21) for key-
`word derivation 9, as the topic of a document 2 or section is
`typically revealed in the first paragraph (academically
`known as the “topic paragraph”).
`Once a document 2 has been analyzed and keywords
`discerned 9D, document 2 keywords 8 can be rated or rar1ked
`9P. Factors esteeming a keyword 8 include the following:
`prominence and frequency primarily in titles 20 and sec-
`ondarily in headings 21; prominence and frequency in topic
`paragraphs and media text 23. Otherwise, word frequency
`may be a primary keyword 8 indicator. A suggested method
`to rank keywords 9P is to use a point system to weigh relative
`prominence and frequency, where, for example, prominence
`may comprise two-thirds of a keyword’s 8 score and fre-
`quency one-third. Keyword 8 relevancy rating schemes 9P
`are known to those skilled in the art.
`
`FIG. 5 depicts the directory supplementation 6 process.
`Directory supplementation 6 must be enabled 10. Directory
`supplementation 6 may be enabled 10 by default, by soft-
`ware-determined protocol, or by user determination. Auto-
`matically supplementing a directory 6 refers to adding links
`1 or documents 2 to a directory 3 without a user having to
`search 12 or manually add links 1 to that directory 3.
`Optionally, a breadth threshold level may be set 101. A
`breadth threshold level is intended as user-determined set-
`
`ting that possibly adjusts the number and potential relevance
`of accepted documents 2. Greater breadth casts a wider net:
`more links 1 or documents 2 are retained, and vice versa. If
`a user desires closely related documents 2 as a product of
`directory supplementation 6, set a low breadth level 101.
`A relation threshold level would the mirror image equiva-
`lent to a breadth threshold level 101: a higher setting would
`be indication to limit directory supplementation 6 to closely
`related documents 2, and vice versa. Level indication 101
`may be ordinal or numeric, such as percentage.
`In an embodiment where breadth level setting 101 is
`employed, the setting 101 may be applied before and/or after
`search 12. A search 12 may use a broader setting 101 than
`the user specified. If then directory supplementation 6 pre-
`sents sparse results, a user may want to adjust to a broader
`setting 101:
`if broader documents 2 have already been
`retrieved, the outcome of a broadened search may appear to
`the user immediately (with presentation of additional links
`1).
`
`Documents 2 in a directory 3 are analyzed 9 for keywords
`8. Derived keywords 8 and attendant data may be stored to
`avoid repetition of the process 9. Attendant keyword data 8
`may include keyword 8 rating data, such as keyword fre-
`quency and prominence in a document 2.
`
`Exh. p. 8
`
`Exh. p. 8
`
`

`
`US 7,047,482 B1
`
`5
`Though titles are necessarily terse, that very terseness
`makes directory 5 and link titles 7 an esteemed source of
`keywords 8. If directories 3 are hierarchical, topical infor-
`mation regarding a nested (lower level) directory 3 may be
`gleaned 110 by looking up the directory title 5 hierarchy.
`Title-derived 110 keywords 8 may be given the highest
`regard.
`The final step in keyword collation 11 is ranking 112 the
`gleaned sets of keywords 8 from directory 3 documents 2 by
`cumulating and collating keywords 11. This is, in essence, a
`way of comparing documents via their derived keywords 8.
`If a document’s 2 keywords 8 vary markedly from other
`documents 2 in its directory 3, that document’s 2 keywords
`8 may be disregarded. The outcome is a set of directory
`keywords 88 which may retained, along with attendant data
`or intermediate results, to avoid unnecessary repetition of
`the directory keyword collation process 11.
`A Boolean logic search 12 for relevant documents 2
`throughout all or part of a computer’s or network storage
`(52, 62) proceeds based upon directory keywords 88. Can-
`didate documents 2 may be found using cursory search 120
`techniques, as winnowing may occur after documents 2 are
`found.
`Once candidate documents 2 are found 120, links 1 to
`pages 2 or sites previously eliminated from the target
`directory 3 may be culled 86. The obvious implication is that
`to perform this function, previously deleted links 1 from a
`directory 3 must be remembered (though no longer dis-
`played). Culling discarded links 86,
`though optional,
`is
`highly recommended, as not doing so degrades utility:
`making a user discard the same links 3 repeatedly would
`annoy the user.
`Candidate document 2 keywords 8 are derived 9, then
`compared 121 to directory keywords 88. Unlike keyword
`collation 11, where keywords 8 may be incorporated (albeit
`on a prioritized basis), candidate document keyword com-
`parison 121 to directory keywords 88 is a critical fitness
`evaluation which provides the basis for ranking candidate
`documents 122 for directory supplementation 6. A variety of
`methods for rating found documents 122 for relevance 33 to
`target keywords 88 are known to those skilled in the art.
`Links 1 to pages 2 on the same site may be collated into
`a single link 1. This may be done after analyzing the pages
`2 to determine the page 2 most closely related 33 to the
`desired information. As a result,
`the selected link 1 for
`supplementation 6 may be the site’s home page 2,
`the
`top-most page 2 for that topical aspect of the site, or the
`particular page 2 with the most relevant information. A
`standout page 2 should not be hidden: in the instance of a
`fairly relevant site with a spot-on page 2, the smart choice
`is to use both.
`
`Finally, in the preferred embodiment, the target directory
`3 is supplemented 6 with links 1, concomitant to breadth
`level setting 101 if employed. Optionally, visibly signify
`links 66 to indicate relevance 33. In an alternate embodi-
`
`ment, the target directory 3 is supplemented 6 with newly
`found documents 2 in a manner similar to the preferred
`embodiment.
`
`FIG. 6 depicts an example directory 3K of links relating to
`the musical group King Crimson. The top section of the
`directory 3K shows existing links 1K. During the process of
`checking known linked documents 2 to derive 9 keywords 8,
`the “Krusty King Crimson” link is found obsolete 13, and
`visibly signified as such. The bottom section of the directory
`3K illustrates directory supplementation 6K. In the depicted
`example,
`three newly discovered links 1F are displayed,
`along with indication 66 of their respective relevance 33. If
`
`10
`
`15
`
`20
`
`25
`
`30
`
`35
`
`40
`
`45
`
`50
`
`55
`
`60
`
`65
`
`6
`a user had specified via breadth level setting 101 only
`displaying links 1 level 2 or better,
`the “King Crimson
`Live!” link 1F would not be displayed.
`The invention claimed is:
`
`1. A computer-implemented method for augmenting a
`directory without contemporaneous user input comprising:
`accessing at least a first document via a first directory
`without contemporaneous user selection of said first
`document, said first document comprising at least in
`part topical textual content;
`deriving at least one keyword indicative of at least one
`topical content from said first document;
`searching as a background operation a plurality of docu-
`ments in storage in at
`least one computer without
`contemporaneous user input of a search location, such
`that said search comprises searching for documents
`related by said at
`least one keyword to said first
`document, thereby accessing a second document;
`determining relevance of said second document to said at
`least one keyword; and
`adding a reference to said second document in a results
`directory.
`2. The method according to claim 1, wherein at least part
`of said storage is on a different computer than the computer
`storing said first directory.
`3. The method according to claim 1, further comprising
`deriving a plurality of keywords.
`4. The method according to claim 3, further comprising
`ranking at least two of said plurality of keywords.
`5. The method according to claim 1, further comprising
`accessing a plurality of documents in said first directory.
`6. The method according to claim 1, with the additional
`step of signifying the relevance of said second document to
`documents in the first directory when displaying said results
`directory.
`7. The method according to claim 1, with the additional
`step of comparing the relevance of said second document to
`a preset threshold.
`8. The method according to claim 1, wherein said results
`directory is said first directory.
`9. The method according to claim 1, with the additional
`step of displaying said results directory.
`10. The method according to claim 1, further comprising
`recognizing a precondition for autonomously augmenting
`said results directory, prior to accessing said first document.
`11. A computer-implemented method for augmenting a
`directory comprising:
`autonomously initiating operation based upon a stored
`precondition;
`accessing at least a first document without contempora-
`neous user selection, wherein said first document com-
`prises at least in part topical textual content;
`deriving at least one keyword indicative of at least one
`topical content within said first document;
`as a background operation, searching in storage in at least
`one computer for documents related by said at least one
`keyword to said first document, wherein at least some
`of said searched documents are independent and not
`organized in relation to one another;
`determining relevance of a search-accessed second docu-
`ment to said at least one keyword; and
`adding a reference to said second document in a results
`directory.
`12. The method according to claim 11, wherein said
`storage is on a plurality of computers connected to at least
`one network.
`
`Exh. p. 9
`
`Exh. p. 9
`
`

`
`US 7,047,482 B1
`
`7
`13. The method according to claim 11, further compris-
`ing:
`deriving a plurality of keywords; and
`determining relevance of said second document to said
`plurality of keywords.
`14. The method according to claim 11, further comprising
`comparing the relevance of said second document to a preset
`threshold.
`
`5
`
`10
`
`15. The method according to claim 11, further comprising
`conditionally adding said reference to said second document
`depending upon whether said reference to said second
`document already exists in said results directory.
`16. A computer-implemented method for augmenting a
`directory comprising:
`accessing a plurality of grouped documents without con-
`temporaneous user selection initiating said access;
`deriving a plurality of keywords indicative of an aggre-
`gate content of said grouped documents;
`prioritizing a relative relevance of said keywords;
`storing said plurality of keywords with regard to said 20
`relevance;
`
`15
`
`8
`searching as a background operation storage in at least
`one computer for documents related to said plurality of
`stored keywords;
`determining relevance of a found second document to said
`plurality of stored keywords;
`conditionally adding a reference to said second document
`in a results directory.
`17. The method according to claim 16, with the additional
`step of comparing the relevance of said second document to
`a preset threshold.
`18. The method according to claim 16, wherein said
`storage is on a plurality of computers connected to at least
`one network.
`
`19. The method according to claim 16, wherein adding a
`duplicate reference in said results directory is avoided.
`20. The method according to claim 16, wherein adding a
`reference that was previously deleted from said results
`directory is avoided.
`
`Exh. p. 10
`
`Exh. p. 10