decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Prior Art Alert - Apple Publ. Appl. 20120166477 ~mw - UPDATE
Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 01:55 PM EDT

This is a request to search for prior art.

If you do not want to be exposed to the patent application, do not click on the links below.

One of our readers suggests that Apple patent application (publication number) 20120166477, "Universal Interface for Retrieval of Information in a Computer System," may benefit from a public prior art search. The application is being discussed here on AskPatents.

The US Patent and Trademark Office has already identified two U.S. patents which appear to be relevant prior art: 6,185,567 and 6,070,158.

If you are willing to search for prior art, please feel to either post it as a comment here or post it on AskPatents. I will see that the best references are submitted to the USPTO.

UPDATE

The prior are should date to before January 5, 2000.


  


Prior Art Alert - Apple Publ. Appl. 20120166477 ~mw - UPDATE | 279 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Obfuscation
Authored by: BJ on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 02:29 PM EDT
... is something Apple seems to have a patent on.
They're really inventive in that regard.

bjd



[ Reply to This | # ]

Prior Art Alert - Apple Publ. Appl. 20120166477 ~mw
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 02:38 PM EDT
What is the date it should be before?
This sounds very much like:
quicksilver http://qsapp.com/

or google desktop.

or gnome-do

There is probably older prior art. Quicksilver appears to date back to 2003. I
don't know which version introduced search plugin behavior.

If I understand this the patent is sounds exactly like quicksilver.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Basically it is a retroencabulator
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 03:13 PM EDT
Lots of technical buzzwords but absolutely no rational content. It is so
depressing to think that Rader and his clowns think *this* is innovation.
*sigh*

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Internet - In Your Pocket
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 03:21 PM EDT
That's what the Abstract said to me. The claims are brief enough,
and when I untangle the circumlocution they seem to be claiming
what IMHO and under Bilski is non-patentable.

1. Go to your local library;
2. Look up a search term in their card index;
3. Retrieve the book, and place a marker in the relevant page;
4. walk/bus/internet across town to another libarary;
5. Rinse and repeat.

I confess I am at the disadvantage of not being able to view
the drawings on any of my current browsers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prior Art Alert - Apple Publ. Appl. 20120166477 ~mw - UPDATE
Authored by: SeismoGuy on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 03:38 PM EDT
Not sure if I understand this patent, but it almost sounds
like something you can do with a meta-search engine such as
AskJeeves.com which was around in the mid 90's.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prior Art...
Authored by: BJ on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 03:58 PM EDT
Isn't there some new law upcoming in the US that essentially cripples the
meaning of prior art and instead proclaims the winner to be the first filer?

(If so -- expect a bonanza on the obviousest of obvious and the silliest of
silly).

I mean -- the prior art might never have been applied for ...


bjd


[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Prior Art... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:35 PM EDT
    • Prior Art... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 05:14 PM EDT
  • Prior Art... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 10:05 PM EDT
  • Prior Art... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 11:52 AM EDT
Why bother with prior art? This patent is obvious.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:06 PM EDT
Like most software patents, this application is obvious to
someone "skilled in the art" and should be rejected to that
basis. It is also too vague.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is it me...
Authored by: BJ on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:16 PM EDT
...or does anyone else who has tried to parse this patent application
see some relation of it to the Ubuntu 12 Amazon suck feature?

bjd


[ Reply to This | # ]

As I read it, it sounds like a browser...
Authored by: jesse on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:21 PM EDT
Specifically, that part that provides your search history.

For the earliest form, look at the "locate" UNIX utility - it creates
a database of files, and allows for searching the database for partial matches.

Now think about adding AFS (a distributed network filesystem with thousands of
hosts contributing public access) and having the locate database include entries
from all over the internet (don't do it... it will take weeks to fill the
database). It does contain the database with both system local files, and
internet servers (AFS servers at least). This was first created around 1985 (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locate_%28Unix%29 for a history)

What it doesn't have is a search history containing the users last search
query.

And browsers have been doing that ever since the first search option was entered
(wasn't that in Netscape 3?)

[ Reply to This | # ]

email search with IMAP?
Authored by: awildenberg on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:33 PM EDT
Since people are trying to throw out alternative situations that might apply,
I'll throw out the idea that this is equivalent to doing a search through
email on an IMAP server, say the way that Eudora did things in the mid
to late 90s. In that case, some of your email would have been stored
remotely and some of the email would have been stored locally, so
the search would have taken place at both locations.

Basically it would seem that any program that is doing a partial cache of data
stored on a server and searching that cache to obtain accelerated results
would qualify.

Not convinced it's a great fit, but maybe if somebody wants to pick apart the
analogy it'll be easier to articulate what would fit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prior Art Alert - Apple Publ. Appl. 20120166477 ~mw - UPDATE
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:35 PM EDT
Isn't this effectively what WebFerret does?

www.webferret.com

This was developed in 1995-1996 by Vironix Software Laboratories, and copied by
Symantec with their FastFind product.

At very least Webferret should illustrate the obviousness of the patent.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Not quite - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 06:02 PM EDT
    • Not quite - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 06:34 PM EDT
    • Not quite - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 04:28 AM EDT
Corrections
Authored by: jsoulejr on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:40 PM EDT
"prior are should", art

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks
Authored by: jsoulejr on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:41 PM EDT
Just that ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: jsoulejr on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:42 PM EDT
ok

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes come here
Authored by: jsoulejr on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:43 PM EDT
as usual

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prior Art Alert - Apple Publ. Appl. 20120166477 ~mw - UPDATE
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:45 PM EDT
I haven't read the patent, but from what the other comments are saying, would
gopher, archie, jughead, or veronica be examples that would apply?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Archie: 1987
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:49 PM EDT
Searching for stuff on a network?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_search_engine

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prior Art Alert - Apple Publ. Appl. 20120166477 ~mw - UPDATE
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 05:30 PM EDT
Alright, these are the claims:

1. A computerized method, comprising: receiving at least a partial search query; storing the at least partial search query on a non-transitory computer readable medium; searching a first plurality of files for matches with the at least partial search query, wherein the first plurality of files is located across an internet connection coupled to the non-transitory computer readable medium; searching a second plurality of files for matches with the at least partial search query, wherein the second plurality of files is only available via local access from a computer that includes the non-transitory computer readable medium; and receiving a notification of at least one search result; 2. A computerized method, comprising: receiving at least a partial search query from an account; storing the at least partial search query on a non-transitory computer readable medium; searching an internet resources that match for the at least partial search query; searching a datastore of at least one of references to files the account has recently accessed, or files the account has recently accessed, that match the at least partial search query; and receiving a notification of at least one search result.

Summary: In claim 1, we're doing a search on a computer connected to the internet. This "invention" searches local disks and the internet for results to that search. In claim 2, we're searching for file access history, again, local and internet. Not sure what "account" refers to (email?), but this is so damn broad and ambiguous that it could probably apply to Dropbox.

Reading this garbage reminds me of picking-your- nose-with-a-fake-fi nger patent

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is there a reason you link the the PTO text instead of the actual published version w/ figures?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 05:38 PM EDT
http://www.google.com/patents/US20120166477?pg=PA1&dq=2012/0166477&hl=en
&sa=X&ei=h3aAUOytNLSr0AHFooCAAw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=2012
%2F0166477&f=false

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • the reason ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 09:49 AM EDT
    • the reason ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 09:54 AM EDT
Prior Art Alert - Apple Publ. Appl. 20120166477 ~mw - UPDATE
Authored by: soronlin on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 06:13 PM EDT
I don't know if this is close enough, but it seems it may be of interest. I see local and remote searches being aggregated, and I see searches based on different types of index and therefore different algorithms.
When indexing information is introduced into a server's local database, the server now knows not only answers based on the local dataset, but also answers based on external indices. These indices come from peer servers, via an indexing protocol. ...

Replies based on index information may not be the complete answer. After all, an index is not a replicated version of the remote dataset, but a possibly reduced version of it. Thus, in addition to giving complete replies from the local dataset, the server may give referrals to other datasets. ...

As useful as indices seem, the fact remains that not all queries can benefit from the same type of index. For example, say the index consists of a simple list of keywords. With such an index, it is impossible to answer queries about whether two keywords were near one another, or if a keyword was present in a certain context (for instance, in the title).

Because of the need for application domain specific indices, CIP index objects are abstract; they must be defined by a separate specification.

-- RFC 2651 August 1999, which references RFC 1914 (WHOIS++) February 1996 in which a single query has a single answer, so it may not match the required art.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prior Art Alert - Apple Publ. Appl. 20120166477 ~mw - UPDATE
Authored by: BitOBear on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 06:13 PM EDT
Gopher. Since your own host could be using a search node as well as remote
search nodes and the Veronica search hubs this should meet all the
requirements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_%28protocol%29

"The master Gopherspace search engine is Veronica. Veronica offers a
keyword search of all the public Internet Gopher server menu titles. A Veronica
search produces a menu of Gopher items, each of which is a direct pointer to a
Gopher data source. Individual Gopher servers may also use localized search
engines specific to their content such as Jughead and Jugtail."

More particular:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_search_engine

Which could index a list of ftp servers including "localhost" and a
mix of servers within one's own firewall (the only meaningful definition of a
"local server")and publically accessible servers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

find
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 06:19 PM EDT

1. A computerized method, comprising:

receiving at least a partial search query;

storing the at least partial search query on a non-transitory computer readable medium;

searching a first plurality of files for matches with the at least partial search query, wherein the first plurality of files is located across an internet connection coupled to the non-transitory computer readable medium;

searching a second plurality of files for matches with the at least partial search query, wherein the second plurality of files is only available via local access from a computer that includes the non-transitory computer readable medium; and

receiving a notification of at least one search result;

1994 “find” manual

receiving at least a partial search query;

Page 1 “This manual shows how to find files that meet criteria you specify . . .”

storing the at least partial search query on a non-transitory computer readable medium;

Using find from a bash command line would cause the command, including the search query, to be stored in the .history file

searching a first plurality of files for matches with the at least partial search query, wherein the first plurality of files is located across an internet connection coupled to the non-transitory computer readable medium;

Page 25 “—netpaths=’path. . .’ Network (NFS, AFS, RFS, etc.) directories to put in the database. Default is none.”

searching a second plurality of files for matches with the at least partial search query, wherein the second plurality of files is only available via local access from a computer that includes the non-transitory computer readable medium; and

Page 25 “—localpaths=’path. . .’ Non-network directories to put in the database. Default is ‘/’”

receiving a notification of at least one search result;

Page 2 “find searches for files in a directory hierarchy and prints information about the files it found.”

I doubt that Apple really expected to get this claim as it is insanely broad. It is merely a place holder while Apple decides what it wants to do next. I would expect to see claims similar to those that were at issue in the PI decision from the Federal Circuit, except Apple will like fix the issue that the Federal Circuit discussed. The application is currently rejected by the PTO. I suspect that Apple will significantly change the claims when it responds to the PTO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • find(1) - Authored by: BJ on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 06:25 PM EDT
  • find - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 06:39 PM EDT
    • find - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 06:45 PM EDT
    • There is also AFS... - Authored by: jesse on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 08:11 AM EDT
    • find - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 12:43 PM EDT
    • find - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 12:56 PM EDT
  • find - Authored by: Chromatix on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 02:35 AM EDT
    • fixed link - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 02:48 AM EDT
Another oldie but goodie.
Authored by: BitOBear on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 06:34 PM EDT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Area_Information_Server

It should be understood that _anything_ that can contact a remote resources can
contact a "local" one running the same protocol and server elements.

That is something that can attach and access (and thereby "Search", or
apply any other verb) to a system via IP address can _always_ use the
"localhost" [e.g. 127.0.0.1 in IPv4] address to talk to the same host
on which it is running. It is the presence of the program or agency on a given
machine that makes it a "server".

Therefore, by definition, there is no distinction between machines in a discrete
or menaningful continua from "local" to "remote".

Local has no particular meaning (though it does have a rule-of-thumb domain sort
of) since local could be "the same machine", "on the same network
segment", "behind the same firewall", "owned by the same
person or corporate entity", "geographically promimal" [such as
my and my neighbor's cable modems are "local" to each other even
though we cannot talk directly], or topographically proximal [I am in Renton,
WA, but I usually leave the comcast backbone for the net via a gateway 15 miles
away in Seattle, so the internet sees me as "local" with everyone in a
circle wiht an aproximately 25 mile radius], and so forth.

Remote and Local get even more obscure wiht Virtual Private Networks and IPv6
which includes mobility extensions most subtle.

So the patent should, by definitions of the art itself, be stripped of the words
"remote" and "local" as meaningful designators in favor of
"providers" and "consumers" of information. (Not that that
is going to happen.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Grep with NFS
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 06:45 PM EDT

it occured to me that using find and grep with NFS would count, especially if you logged in remotely. Searching for that on google before 2000/01/05 does find lots of things. However this is particularly bingo: The Gecko NFS Web proxy.

Note for example

  • The result is a seamless integration of the Web into the operating system. Applications name and access pages on the Web just as they would files, eliminating the need to write custom application code to access the Web.
  • Searching Web pages using grep. A simple spider and search engine are easily constructed from grep and find.

Note that a web spider is a program, thus will be stored on disk. A web spider constructed from "grep and find" by definition must contain a query and so matches the "storing the at least partial search query on a non-transitory computer readable medium" clause.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prior Art Alert - Apple Publ. Appl. 20120166477 ~mw - UPDATE
Authored by: johndrinkwater on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 07:57 PM EDT
Copernic Desktop Search.

It would index your system and allow you to query for files and contents. pre
2000.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prior Art Alert - Apple Publ. Appl. 20120166477 ~mw - UPDATE
Authored by: jimrandomh on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 09:17 PM EDT

Actually, I'd rather you just forgot about prior art, and attacked this patent on other grounds. Pretending that it's all about prior art is a big part of the problem with the patent system today. Somewhere, I'm not sure where, we started acting as if "obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art" meant the same thing as "has closely matching prior art". It's not the same thing; allowing "obviousness" to become legal jargon for "not done before" is what's allowed patents to get all the way to trial, without any person of ordinary skill in the art ever making a judgment of obviousness, as per the lay usage of the term.

There are three main reasons why equating obviousness to lack of prior art is a terrible idea. First, the patent office isn't requiring that software patents describe their inventions in sufficient detail to prove that they've actually been invented at all; patents don't ask for source code, so it's much easier to write a patent than it is to create the invention for real. This means that patenters have a big head start on creators. Second, there are a lot of obvious things that are impossible or are bad ideas now, but will become essential once supporting technologies have developed. Under the current rules, you can patent these (there can't be prior art while the invention's still impossible), then profit when someone else creates the supporting technologies. And third, digging through the past is unduly expensive for everyone involved; if the USPTO were willing to accept the subjectivity that the lay definition of "obvious" carries, they could hire a few people of ordinary skill in the art and reject the stupider patents quickly, rather than having to spend tons of time on each and then forcing others to spend spectacularly large sums fighting in court.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 04:23 AM EDT
A quick scan of the patent seems to show the use of the dictionary meaning of heuristic.

heuristic

adj 1: of or relating to or using a general formulation that serves to guide investigation [ant: algorithmic]

n 1: a commonsense rule (or set of rules) intended to increase the probability of solving some problem [syn: heuristic, heuristic rule, heuristic program]

The language from the claims is:
universal interface in which user inputs are received and provided to a plurality of separate heuristic algorithms to locate at least one item of information
The Groklaw Search function is a universal search interface which has a plurality of separate heuristic algorithms because it provides different algorithms for Keywords plus Author, Type, Topic and Date Range.

The patent does not narrow the claim to completely independent algorithms and nor could it if the multiplicity of different algorithms is to locate at least one item of information using search criteria provided by the searcher.

Other prior art is every search service that provides an 'Advanced' search with a multiplicity of algorithms such as Google, Yahoo, Lycos and the rest.

Unfortunately, Bing is not prior art because the heuristics do not meet the dictionary definition of 'guiding the investigation' or 'a commonsense rule (or set of rules) intended to increase the probability of solving some problem'.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | # ]

To sum up the technical opinions here
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 11:58 AM EDT
There are only two claims in the patent.

Claim 1 is total crap. It claims a patent on searching both
"locally" and using an "internet connection". If one
interprets the claim broadly, things like "ls" and "find"
are prior art (when used with a network-mounted drive and
the ip protocol, introduced in the 1980s). If one
interprets the claim very narrowly (FIRST search the remote
storage), it's unlikely that anybody infringes. Either way,
it's a good illustration of an "invention" that teaches
nothing at all. It's bloody obvious under any
interpretation.

Claim 2 is slightly more interesting. It's similar to claim
one, but it also requires searching an activity history.
This sounds like the sort of thing you'd use in a desktop-
based search (e.g. as part of a windows-type operating
system) to highlight the search results that are also part
of your Recent Documents list. (You could also use this
kind of search in an online environment like Google Docs, if
one interprets the term "local search" a certain way.)
I don't know when operating systems began offering search
tools that highlighted recent documents in the results, but
I suspect it was after 2000. Does that mean that in the
year 2000 this was an actual invention and not just a
steaming pile of manure?
Well, for starters, I'm not familiar with the prior art.
There may have been an OS or application for sale that
searched "recent documents" in 2000. But let's assume there
wasn't any. Why not?
For one thing, the claim is useless without something like
a "recent documents" list. At what date were such things
widely available as part of operating systems?
Note that the patent in question doesn't teach anything
about "recent documents" lists. It just assumes that
somebody else has built a good one - along with an interface
that makes it possible for this "invention" to access the
contents of the list. Now why would the inventor of a
"recent documents" list provide such an interface? Could it
be that somebody INTENDED uses like this?
The patent is even more useless unless good searching is
available. The patent doesn't teach ANYTHING about
searching. Search engines are at least as old as the Web,
and were quite famous by the time of Yahoo's IPO in 1996. By
2000, everybody in software was talking about Google.
Desktop searching had been around since at least the
Macintosh, but it was slow and clumsy. By 2000, the
combination of improved hardware and some algorithmic
insights (partly influenced by the likes of Google) made
desktop search actually usable. It was obvious to everyone
in the industry that a more search-centric (Google-like)
user interface was now possible and was a likely future
direction of operating systems (i.e., had great commercial
potential).
I think this explains the timing of the "invention" in claim
two.
Maybe, claim 2 represents incremental progress over the
prior art. Is it patent-worthy? In other words, was a 20-
year monopoly a necessary incentive to get this invention
published? ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Never mind that the "publication" is a joke. It's a two-
sentence description of a goal, not a teaching about how to
accomplish anything. It's a good example of why software
process patents in general are a bad idea.
But even if you believe that software process patents are
legitimate, this is not the kind of invention that should be
rewarded with a patent.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A thought on possible patent system fix
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 12:04 PM EDT
I just had a thought that might fix the patent system by blocking Patent Trolls:
require the company that owns the patent to produce a product that encompasses
the patent or else that patent becomes unenforceable. This would block Patent
Trolls, and provide the courts an example implementation to compare against when
determining any possible violations. Any thoughts?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The bad guys here are the USPTO and Congress
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 01:56 PM EDT
IF I were in charge of a large multinational corporation, I'd have told my
R&D people to 'Try to Patent everything in sight' several years ago.
Why?
I'd be saying to myself,
"If my company didn't have a patent on something important to us and our
competitor does then we are up **** creek without a paddle."

Microsoft, Google, Apple and a gazillion other companies are going flat out to
do just that. Sure there will be a whole load of seemingly obvious ideas given
patents but the old saying, 'if we don't patent it someone else will' will allow
the various CEO's to sleep at night.

Therefore is is logical that requests like the one here will become increasingly
common. Many of us will spend a good deal of time trying to proove that
<insert idea here> is so blindingly obvious as to warrant the patent being
rescinded.

I thought long and hard about this whole thing a few months ago and came to the
conclusion that trying to defeat individual patents was a waste of time.(It is
amazing what 5 days of watching sea and more sea on a voyage from NY to
Southampton can do for the mind)

If we (the collective Groklaw team) turned our attention to getting the USPTO to
stop granting frankly stupid patents the sooner that PJ can properly retire and
I think that everyone here would like that to happen sooner rather than later.

This particular patent might be overturned but how long before another and
another are presented here for 'prior art investigations'?


[ Reply to This | # ]

Apt-get ,synaptic package manager ? N/T
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 04:20 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Biological uses - Phylogenetics
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 10:30 PM EDT
I don't know how it may apply, but it sounds very much like what people use in
bioinformatics and phylogenetics. To build a phylogeny we can use a
database of DNA, RNA, genes, physical characters, and can use multiple
heuristic methods of tree searching. I can do some searching, but any
computational phylogenetics that contain several species are NP-hard and
require heuristics. This is math that has been around a while.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prior Art - Search Engines Like SWISH-e
Authored by: pogson on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 01:56 AM EDT

I usually use SWISH-e to index and search the index of a directory or directory tree of text or HTML files but parsers can be used for almost any kind of text file. The files targeted can be in the file-system or out on the web or the LAN. It makes no difference. The file is read and entries made in the index for keywords.

When searching a rank is generated and the results displayed in descending order of rank. The resource is presented as a path or URI which may be /somepath/file.txt for local stuff and http://someserver.somewhere/whatever/somepath/file.txt for remote stuff.

SWISH was developed around 1994 and became SWISH-e around 1996. It's your very own search engine. So, it has key features of being a single point of access for searching your universe and it does some ranking.

The Query is "winter of our discontent" Of 66hits, showing 25.

Rank File Size Description
1000 shaks12.txt 5582655 This is the 100th Etext file presented by Project Gutenberg, and is presented in
941 00ws110.txt 4651867 Project Gutenberg's Etext of Shakespeare's First Folio/35 Plays This is our 3rd
...

That's pretty good ranking and it's fast.

---
http://mrpogson.com/, my blog, an eclectic survey of topics: berries, mushrooms, teaching in N. Canada, GNU/Linux, firearms and hunting...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prior Art Alert - Apple Publ. Appl. 20120166477 ~mw - UPDATE
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 03:00 AM EDT
Did I miss something, or did Apple decide to patent SQL
across database links?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Method, procedure or process - looking for prior art is futile.
Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 05:27 AM EDT
35 USC § 100(b) - Definitions:
The term “process” means process, art or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material.
35 USC § 101 - Inventions patentable:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Bilski v. Kappos:
The term “method,” which is within §100(b)’s definition of “process,” at least as a textual matter... See, e.g., Webster’s New International Dictionary (defining “method” as “[a]n orderly procedure or process … regular way or manner of doing anything; hence, a set form of procedure adopted in investigation or instruction”).
Claims:
1. A computerized method, comprising: receiving at least a partial search query; storing the at least partial search query on a non-transitory computer readable medium; searching a first plurality of files for matches with the at least partial search query, wherein the first plurality of files is located across an internet connection coupled to the non-transitory computer readable medium; searching a second plurality of files for matches with the at least partial search query, wherein the second plurality of files is only available via local access from a computer that includes the non-transitory computer readable medium; and receiving a notification of at least one search result;

2. A computerized method, comprising: receiving at least a partial search query from an account; storing the at least partial search query on a non-transitory computer readable medium; searching an internet resources that match for the at least partial search query; searching a datastore of at least one of references to files the account has recently accessed, or files the account has recently accessed, that match the at least partial search query; and receiving a notification of at least one search result.
What is the 'orderly procedure or process' in the claims? The claims, of themselves, are meaningless. Computerising a process or method means, in plain English, doing something by programming a computer to execute the process steps or the orderly procedure of the method. What does the phrase 'receiving at least a partial search query' mean to a person using a computer program? The only way to see any sense in the process or method claims is to read the detailed description:
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0021] The present invention will now be described with reference to the accompanying drawings describing a universal interface in which user inputs are received and provided to a plurality of separate heuristic algorithms to locate at least one item of information. It will be appreciated that the invention is not limited to only the embodiments set forth within this disclosure. Rather, the particular heuristic algorithms described herein are meant to be exemplary of many different heuristics that can be employed, for the purpose of retrieving information through a simplified user interface.

[0022] Referring to FIG. 1, a general computer system 2, in which the present invention can be implemented, is illustrated. Computer system 2 comprises a display device 4 and various input devices such as a keyboard 5, microphone 7 and mouse 3 in operable connection with a memory 6, data processor 9 and local storage media 12 which can include one or more magnetic and/or optical disk drives, for example. Additionally, the computer system 2 can be connected via an Input/Output device 10 (e.g., a modem or cable connection) to a Local Area Network (LAN) server 14. The LAN server 14 can also be connected to a LAN storage volume 8 which stores files for use on the network served by the LAN. The LAN server 14 can also include a Wide Area Network (WAN) router 13 and an Internet router 11. The WAN router and the Internet router can be connected to other servers (not shown) which access additional storage media containing files, application programs, web pages, etc. While other elements and components are normally attached to the computer system 2, only these elements are shown so as not to obscure the invention.

[0023] In general, the present invention provides a universal interface that enables the user to readily retrieve an item of desired information located on any of the various storage media that are accessible to the user's computer system, with minimal effort. The desired information could be an application that is stored on the local storage media 12, a file stored on the LAN storage volume 8, or a web page available through the Internet router 11. Rather than require a separate search mechanism to locate each of these different types of information, the present invention facilitates the user's ability to easily retrieve the information by means of a single universal interface which is capable of accessing files on all of these various storage resources.
So, the process or method is using a single computer user interface for the person executing the process, or using the method, for 'searching a first plurality of files for matches with the at least partial search query' where the files can be on the computer, on a server connected via a LAN to the computer or on a server connected via the internet to the computer.

What does 'In general, the present invention provides a universal interface' mean? How does the method or process rely on a universal interface and how does the universal interface differ from a specific interface? What, in this part of the claim, makes the method or process a novel and useful one as opposed to the same method or process using a specific interface? In what way is the interface 'universal'?

If the search of 'a first plurality of files for matches with the at least partial search query' is carried out via the command line using raw SQL, does this meet the claim for 'receiving at least a partial search query' from the user of the process or method? What attribute is being matched; a file name, a database record, text file strings? Is a search for something undefined using an undefined search method and merely claiming a 'multiplicity' of methods, an abstract idea?

I could go on at length (you wouldn't like it if I went on at length!) and decompose every part of the claim in the same way. The point I am trying to make is that we can all recognise the features described as a general purpose computer connected to a LAN and the Internet on which the computer user can access other computers and search for file content, file names and database records.

The patent is the equivalent of a system design outline for a networked computer system. The programmer would be incapable of programming the computer system because what the computer is supposed to achieve is impossibly vaguely defined.

In Bilski, the Supreme Court said:
As the Court later explained, Flook stands for the proposition that the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment” or adding “insignificant postsolution activity.”(Diehr).
This patent application does the converse. The abstract idea does not exist in isolation without the technological environment. There is no method or process to be computerised because, when you take away the computer system, there is no method or process.

As Groklaw has demonstrated with the comments so far, there is a never ending plurality of examples of how computer machines linked together via networks can run software that appears to create the effect of the descriptions and claims in the patent application. It is an artefact of system design. I don't believe that a novel process or method can be deduced from the claims that stands alone without the computer system and can be 'computerised'. On second thoughts, there is just no process or method.

If there is no useful and novel process or method, then the corollary to 35 USC § 101 applies
Whoever does not invent or discover any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may not obtain a patent therefor.

Claims:

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prior Art Alert - Apple Publ. Appl. 20120166477 ~mw - UPDATE
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 10:51 AM EDT

I've been looking though old papers and poking around.

I've been thinking data mining, AI, ontologies did exactly this sort of thing.
These sort of tools were used in research libraries all the time and built as
needed.

I am not an expert in this area, however.

http://gate.ac.uk/ ..
Seems to be a good example of a advanced searching tool.
Dates back to 1995 and it has a lot of papers and implementations.

In chemistry and pharma tools to search by structure similarity and things like
that were used.

I believe there were some data mining software based around Cyc. I imagine in
general they way many users would use these systems would be through a front end
portal that submitted a query to N systems and displayed the results
collated together. This is generally what people want. :P

[ Reply to This | # ]

Inter Library Loan book serarch system
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 12:46 PM EDT
How does that work? I know the searching was automated to be able to find books
that were available for immediate loan. That would take searching multiple
databases at multiple libraries.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )