On August 2, 2011, the US Patent office issued 7,991,780, Performing multiple related searches:
The Abstract reads:
A first search is performed in response to a received search query. The first search is based at least in part on a first portion of the search query. In the first search, a first set of content items are searched over to identify a first set of search results. Each result in the first set of search results identifies at least one content item of the first set of content items. A second set of content items for performing a second search is determined based at least in part on one or more of the results in the first set of search results. The second set of content items includes content items not included in the first set of search results. A second search is performed, searching over the second set of content items to identify a second set of search results. The second search is based at least in part on a second portion of the search query. Each result in the second set of search results identifies at least one content item of the second set of content items.
I have known about this for several days but had to give myself a “time out” so that my post would not be laced with obscenities and speculations on parentage and personal habits of which I have no personal knowledge.
I must also say that nothing in this post should be construed or taken as legal advice or opinion on the form, substance or history of this patent or any of the patents mentioned in this patent.
What I would like to say is that I remember subset searching in the days of Lexis/Nexis hard wired terminals in law offices (I had one) and that personal experience was twenty-five (25) years ago. The patent uses the magic words web pages and web addresses but I recognize the searches I did so long ago.
Perhaps I can describe integer arithmetic in a patent application using web page(s) and web address(es) terminology. If I can, the first person to front the fees and expenses, I will assign a one-half interest in the patent. Contact me privately and we will arrive at a figure for the application. Just don’t tell Intel. 😉
BTW, topic maps, with merging of information about a subject avoids the need for a secondary search on a sub-set of material in some cases.
Something that is long over-due and uniquely suited for topic maps would be a survey of the IP in the area of search and retrieval. Not in the sense of legal advice but simply putting together all the relevant patents. With a mapping of the various claims.
It’s just like searching in DIALOG, too. You build up sets and combine them with boolean terms, in much more diverse ways than described in your quote. I often wish more modern search engines would offer such functionality, but I am a search nerd. =)
Anyway, someone should submit this entire book as prior art to the USPTO:
http://www.amazon.com/Online-Retrieval-Dialogue-Theory-Practice/dp/1563086573/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313118783&sr=8-1
Comment by marijane — August 11, 2011 @ 10:15 pm
Ironically, Dialog® is one of the resources available to examiners to help discover prior art. Prior Art Electronic Resources Available to Patent Examiners
See also: United States Patent and Trademark Office Bulk Downloads, where Google has made large amounts of patent material available at no charge.
Comment by Patrick Durusau — August 12, 2011 @ 8:44 am