US 8,375,069 B2Grant
User interface methods and systems for selecting and presenting content based on user navigation and selection actions associated with the content
Issue Date:2013-02-12
•18 Claims
•12 Drawing Sheets
Abstract
A user-interface method of selecting and presenting a collection of content items based on user navigation and selection actions associated with the content is provided. The method includes associating a relevance weight on a per user basis with content items to indicate a relative measure of likelihood that the user desires the content item. The method includes receiving a user's navigation and selections actions for identifying desired content items, and in response, adjusting the associated relevance weight of the selected content item and group of content items containing the selected item. The method includes, in response to subsequent user input, selecting and presenting a subset of content items and content groups to the user ordered by the adjusted associated relevance weights assigned to the content items and content groups.
Metadata
Assignee
- Veveo Inc.
Inventors
- Murali Aravamudan
- Kajamalai G. Ramakrishnan
- Rakesh Barve
- Sashikumar Venkataraman
- Ajit Rajasekharan
Application Information
Application Number:US 13/336,660
Filing Date:2011-12-23
Priority Date:2006-04-20
Art Unit:2156
Classifications
IPC:
G06F17/00
Patent Drawings (12 sheets)
Description
Cross-Reference to Related Applications
[0001] This application is a continuation of prior U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/034,034, filed on Feb. 24, 2011, entitled User Interface Methods and Systems For Selecting and Presenting Content Based On User Navigation and Selection Actions Associated With The Content, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,086,602, which is a continuation of prior U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/326,485 filed on Dec. 2, 2008, entitled User Interface Methods and Systems For Selecting and Presenting Content Based On User Navigation and Selection Actions Associated With The Content, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,899,806, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/738,101 filed on Apr. 20, 2007, entitled User Interface Methods and Systems For Selecting and Presenting Content Based On User Navigation and Selection Actions Associated With The Content, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,461,061, which claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/793,537, entitled A System and Method for Personalized Navigation and Discovery of Information on Input and Display Constrained Devices, filed Apr. 20, 2006, and U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/793,540, entitled A System and Method for Personalized Navigation and Discovery of Information Utilizing Users Relationship to the Information Hierarchy on Input and Display Constrained Devices, filed Apr. 20, 2006, the contents of all of which are incorporated by reference herein.
[0002] This application is related to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/738,138, entitled User Interface Methods and Systems For Selecting and Presenting Content Based On Relationships Between the User and Other Members of An Organization, filed Apr. 20, 2007, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,539,676.
Background
[0003] 1. Field of Invention
[0004] This invention generally relates to learning the behavior of a user navigating and selecting content on input and display constrained devices. More specifically, the invention relates to using the learned navigation and selection behavior data to personalize the user's interactions with various service providers and content query systems, e.g., to better find results to queries provided by the user and to order the results for presentation to the user.
[0005] 2. Description of Related Art
[0006] The acid test for the usability of an information finding system on input constrained and display constrained devices is the effort expended by the user in the discovery of desired information (the discovery of information could be text based search, browsing a content space, or some combination of both). The effort expended by the user is the number of steps involved in interacting with an information finding system to discover the desired information. Each click of a button, or a scroll motion, or the entry of a character, would be perceived by the user as expended effort. The success of any user interface may be determined by this metric.
[0007] Minimizing the effort expended to find information (be it search or browse) is a challenging problem on input and display constrained devices such as mobile phones and televisions. The method of discovery the user chooses may vary upon the application context and the user intent—for example, a user may, from past habit, browse through the phonebook to a contact to make a call (especially when the contact list is small), or perform text input when searching for a web site. Browse based navigation is typically used (and is effective) when the user's intent is broad. Furthermore it is a viable form of navigation only when the content space is not very large at any level of navigation of the content space hierarchy—only text-based search is effective for content spaces that are large. Any solution however, needs to solve the “minimal effort” problem for both these forms of discovery.
Brief Summary
[0008] The invention provides methods and systems for selecting and presenting content based on learned user navigation and selection actions associated with the content.
[0009] Under another aspect of the invention, a user-interface method of selecting and presenting a collection of content items in which the presentation s ordered at least in part based on navigation and selection behavior of a user learned over time includes providing a set of content items where each content item has an associated relevance weight on a per user basis. The method also includes organizing the content items into groups based on the informational content of the content items, each group of content items having an associated relevance weight on a per user basis. The method further includes receiving from the user navigation and selection actions, adjusting the associated relevance weight of the selected content item. The method also includes, in response to subsequent input entered by the user, selecting and presenting a subset of content items and content groups to the user where the content items and content groups are ordered at least in part by the adjusted associated relevance weights assigned to the content items and content groups such that content items with greater associated relevance weights are presented as more relevant content items within a content group and groups of content items with greater associated relevance weights are presented as more relevant groups of content items.
[0010] Under further aspect of the invention, the context such as geographic location of the user, day, date, and time, in which the user performed the selection action is associated with the adjusted relevance weighting of content items and groups of content items. The adjusted relevance weighting of content items and groups of content items is only used in subsequent searches by the user when the search is performed in the same or similar context.
[0011] Under yet another aspect of the invention, the adjusted associated relevance weights are decayed as time passes from the act of adjusting the associated relevance weights.
[0012] Under yet another aspect of the invention, the adjusted associated relevance weights are decayed based upon the number of user selections occurring after the act of adjusting the associated relevance weights.
[0013] These and other features will become readily apparent from the following detailed description where embodiments of the invention are shown and described by way of illustration.
Brief Description of the Several Views of the Drawings
[0014] For a more complete understanding of various embodiments of the present invention, reference is now made to the following descriptions taken in connection with the accompanying drawings in which:
[0015] FIG. 1 illustrates a network based information navigation system in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention.
[0016] FIG. 2 illustrates device configuration options to perform navigation of locally or remotely resident information.
[0017] FIG. 3A illustrates instances of mobile device interface used to perform navigation of locally or remotely resident information.
[0018] FIG. 3B illustrates the various states the user can transition through to arrive at the desired result through navigation of resident information.
[0019] FIG. 3C illustrates a 12-key keypad with overloaded keys.
[0020] FIG. 4 illustrates a content hierarchy that automatically adjusts its structure (from the user's perspective) over time to match the user's preferences.
[0021] FIG. 5 illustrates the user's discovery of information using text search before and after system learns the user's action behavior.
[0022] FIG. 6 illustrates the user's discovery of information using browse before and after system learns the user's action behavior
[0023] FIG. 7 illustrates the user performing a repetitive banking task before and after system learns the user's action behavior.
[0024] FIG. 8 summarizes the basic concept of personalized navigation.
[0025] FIG. 9 illustrates a corporate hierarchy that is being navigated by the user.
[0026] FIG. 10 illustrates the initial conditions and the personalized navigation as the system continues to learn the user's action behavior.
Detailed Description
[0027] The invention addresses the shortcomings of existing information navigation systems by taking a unified approach to the information finding process, be it search (incremental or full word search) or browse, and helps the user find information of interest by personalizing the information space to match the user's actions and exploiting the relationship of the user to the information space being navigated. A multi-pronged holistic approach of taking into account (1) what the user does with the device (user's intent) (2) when do these interactions happen (3) and where do these interactions happen, provides significant insights into achieving the goal of reducing device interactions, and thereby improving the user experience.
[0028] For text-input based discovery content, the key factors to reduce the effort involved in discovering information is to reduce the number of characters the user has to type in to discover the desired information and the number of browse navigations to reach the desired result once it appears on the screen. Incremental text search, combined with the right relevance ordering of results, is key to reducing the effort involved in discovering content through text-input based search. For browse based discovery of content, minimizing the number of navigations (navigating through folders and linear scroll) through the browse hierarchy is key.
[0029] Preferred embodiments of the invention capture user preferences, user information navigation behavior, and a user's relationship to an information hierarchy. The learned data is used to personalize the user's interaction with various service providers and the user's interaction with content query systems, e.g., to personalize the navigation and discovery of information by the user. In an illustrative embodiment, the user is searching a phonebook for an individual phone number. In another illustrative embodiment, the user is an employee searching a corporate hierarchy for superiors, peers, and subordinates.
[0030] Embodiments of the present invention build on techniques, systems and methods disclosed in earlier filed applications, including but not limited to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/136,261, entitled Method and System For Performing Searches For Television Programming Using Reduced Text Input, filed on May 24, 2005; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/246,432, entitled Method And System For Incremental Search With Reduced Text Entry Where The Relevance Of Results Is A Dynamically Computed Function of User Input Search String Character Count, filed on Oct. 7, 2005; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/235,928, entitled Method and System For Processing Ambiguous, Multiterm Search Queries, filed on Sep. 27, 2005; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/509,909, entitled User Interface For Visual Cooperation Between Text Input And Display Device, filed Aug. 25, 2006; and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/682,693, entitled Methods and Systems For Selecting and Presenting Content Based On Learned Periodicity Of User Content Selection, filed on Mar. 6, 2007; the contents of each of which are herein incorporated by reference. Those applications taught specific ways to perform incremental searches using ambiguous text input, methods of ordering the search results, and techniques for learning a user's behavior and preferences. The techniques disclosed in those applications can be used with the user's navigation behavior or the user's relationship to an information hierarchy described herein in the same or similar ways in which the techniques are applied to the collections of content items described in those applications. In such a case, the user's behavior or relationship described herein represents a particular type of content item. The present techniques, however, are not limited to systems and methods disclosed in the incorporated patent applications. Thus, while reference to such systems and applications may be helpful, it is not believed necessary to understand the present embodiments or inventions.
[0031] Referring to FIG. 1 , an overall system for navigation of local and/or network resident information using a wide range of devices in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention is illustrated. A server farm 101 serves as the source of navigation data and relevance updates with a network 102 functioning as the distribution framework. The distribution could be a combination of wired and wireless connections. The navigation devices could have a wide range of interface capabilities such as a hand-held device 103 (e.g. phone, PDA, or a music/video playback device) with limited display size and optionally an overloaded or small QWERTY keypad, a television 104a coupled with a remote 104b having an overloaded or small QWERTY keypad, or a desktop telephone 105 with limited display and input entry capabilities.
[0032] Referring to FIG. 2 , multiple device configurations for search are illustrated. In one configuration, a navigation device 103 has a display 201, a processor 202, a volatile memory 203, a text input interface 204 which is on-device, remote connectivity 205 to a server 101 through a network 102, and a local persistent storage 206. In another device configuration the device 103 may not have the local persistent storage 206. In such a scenario, the device 103 would have remote connectivity 205 to submit the query to the server 101 and retrieve results from it. In another configuration of the device 103, it may not have remote connectivity 205. In this scenario the navigation database may be locally resident on the local persistent storage 206. The persistent storage 206 may be a removable storage element, such as SD, SmartMedia, CompactFlash card etc. In a configuration of the device with remote connectivity 205 and the local persistent storage 206 for navigation, the device may use the remote connectivity for search/browse relevance data update or for the case where the navigation database is distributed on the local storage 206 and on the server 101.
[0033] FIG. 3A illustrates a mobile device 300A interface for navigating locally or remotely resident information. The user enters text using a keypad 302A and the entered text is displayed in a text field 303A. The navigation interface on the device is a navigation button 305A that facilitates movement minimally in horizontal and vertical directions. The results are displayed in a results area 301A corresponding to the input incremental text query or browse action. The user can scroll through the results using a scroll interface 304A using the navigation buttons 305A. An alternate scroll interface 307A is shown in a browse only device 306A (e.g. a music player like iPod where content is remotely resident and the user remotely navigates this content). The browse results are shown in the display 308A.
[0034] FIG. 3B illustrates the various states of navigation actions a user could transition in order to get to the desired result. The user has the freedom to choose, either exclusively or a combination of, text entry and browse forms of discovery of the result(s) of interest. The actual path taken however may be influenced by both the user's intent and the information that is displayed. For instance, the user may start by entering text 301B, and may scroll through the displayed results 302B, pick a non-terminal node 303B and traverse the children of the non-terminal 302B. When the user discovers a result, he selects it 303B and performs an appropriate action 304B. This is discussed in further detail in FIG. 5 and FIG. 6 .
[0035] FIG. 3C illustrates a 12-key keypad with overloaded keys. As explained in greater detail in the incorporated earlier filed applications a keypad with overloaded keys may be used to perform text input for incremental searches.
[0036] Personalized Navigation Based on the User's Navigation Behavior
[0037] FIG. 4 graphically illustrates one embodiment of personalized navigation with the data hierarchy changing over time as a node is repetitively acted upon. As described in more detail below, and based on techniques described in one or more of the incorporated applications, the relevance weight for a particular node is influenced by the context of each repetitive action taken upon the node, including the time and location of the action. Therefore, the first discoverable node in the phonebook list can be based on both a user's past navigation behavior along with the current search location and time. For example U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/682,693, entitled Methods and Systems For Selecting and Presenting Content Based On Learned Periodicity Of User Content Selection, filed on Mar. 6, 2007, describes techniques used to infer future behavior of the user from past behavior.
[0038] For illustrative purposes FIG. 4 shows a data hierarchy 400 represented as a tree—it could have been any other form of organization such as a graph. The initial condition of a search space, such as a phonebook, is shown as data nodes (D1-DK). Each data node is in turn a hierarchy of nodes of different depths. If a user were to navigate the tree purely as in a browse based fashion, then the number of steps (the cost of navigation) to reach a node at depth “i” in a pure browse based fashion is Σ(Ldi+Ni) (1<=i<=I) where L is the cost of linear traversal to a node at level “i” where the traversed node is an ancestor of the node of interest, and N is the cost of descending from an ancestor of the node to the first child in its immediate descendants list. This cost is primarily due to the linearization of the data hierarchy as the user descends down the tree by a pure browse action.
[0039] For example, a data hierarchy 401 is representative of a phonebook with data node Dk representing John Doe, child node CkJ representing John Doe's mobile phone number, and the other child node siblings to child node CkJ representing John Doe's other contact information such as home and office numbers. The data hierarchy also contains node D1 representing John Adams and node D2 representing John Brown. The user interface could, from a rendering perspective, display both a contact (e.g. data nodes D1 through Dk) and the associated primary contact number (e.g. child nodes C11 through Ck1). For example, when the user searches for “John” the result set 402 would contain D1 (John Adams) and C11 (John Adams' primary contact number), D2 (John Brown) and C21 (John Brown's primary contact number), up to and including Dk (John Doe) and Ck1 (John Doe's primary contact number). The user would have the option to either see other contact numbers for John Doe by descending down the tree, or directly making a call to the primary contact number initially presented.
[0040] If the user is interested in John Doe's mobile phone number, node CkJ, the user may discover the number using a text search or browse based navigation. In addition, if the user repetitively searches for or browses to node CkJ, the relevance weight assigned to this node would continue to strengthen with each repetitive action taken upon it. The increased relevance weight assigned to the node would be used to reorder the view of the navigation hierarchy from the user's perspective. As illustrated 401 prior to the learned preference and increased relevance weight, the node CkJ would be the jth entry presented in John Doe's list of contact numbers. As illustrated in 403, after the increased relevance weight is applied, node CkJ would bubble up to be the first entry within node Dk, e.g. becoming the first phone number in John Doe's contact folder. The result set 404 displayed for data node Dk (John Doe) would now present John Doe's mobile phone number as the first entry in the result set.
[0041] As illustrated in 405, node CkJ's weight would continue to strengthen with usage and eventually this node would become the first discoverable node in the phonebook list. After learning has taken place the result set 406 would have Dk (John Doe) and CkJ (John Doe's mobile number) as the first entry. The remainder of the result set, absent any other user selections, would contain D1 (John Adams) and C11 (John Adams' primary contact number), and D2 (John Brown) and C21 (John Brown's primary contact number).
[0042] Repetitive actions with regular patterns eventually result in the user not even having to do much. The relevant nodes receive an increased weight and the contact number would be rendered on the phone display at the appropriate time and location. It is important to note that this strengthening of the relevance weight of the node happens regardless of the type of navigation, either search or browse. Both result in the same form of reorganized view of the navigation hierarchy. For example, if the user always searches for John Doe and calls him, the increase in relevance weight of John Doe would result in John Doe being discovered with fewer characters. Finally, if the repetitive pattern is very regular, the text input step may even be eliminated. The first node in the phonebook context would contain John Doe's contact information and the user would just have to select the contact without entering any incremental text.
[0043] While the above illustration focuses on reordering for highly repetitive tasks, the system could also perform reordering of the user's view of the content space based on the broader knowledge of the user's tastes learned from the user's action patterns. For example, if the user always searches for action genre movies, then those movies could be given more relevance so as to be discovered more easily.
[0044] FIG. 5 illustrates a user performing text input based incremental search on a mobile phone. The user types in ‘R’ (501), which results in the rendering of results starting with R. FIGS. 502-504 illustrate the user scrolling down to the last row to select RANDOLF to make a call. If this “search-call” action were a repetitive action (with time and location also considered), the system would learn this over time 505 and boost the relevance of RANDOLF so that the user can find this contact easily. Furthermore, if there is another person “RAMA” who is also called in a regular manner but in a different time window, then the entry of the same character “R” would bring up RANDOLF at 9:00 am (which is typically when a call is made to Randolf) and “Rama” at 5:00 pm (which is typically when a call is made to this person). Over time, this repetitive action would strengthen enough to even obviate the user to have to enter the character “R”. Around 9:00 am in the morning, the phone would display “Randolf” on the top for easy access, and “Rama” around 5:00 pm. Thus, in this example, the presentment of the data hierarchy at 9:00 am is different from the presentment of the data hierarchy at 5:00 pm.
[0045] The time window identified for repetitive actions may be defined in advance or may be determined dynamically according to the frequency of the repetitive actions. For example, the time window may be set as 15-minute periods occurring during each day or the system may determine a larger window is appropriate for a particular day. The time window may also be differentiated by day of the week or date, e.g., different nodes may be of higher relevance during the week as compared to their relevance during the weekend. Finally, the system may interface with external applications and determine an ideal time window based on the data in the application. For example, the system may take data from a calendar application and boost the relevance of nodes based upon a weekly, monthly, or annual event (such as a birthday of a family member or a monthly project meeting).
[0046] Similarly, location of the user may influence the relevance of a node. For example, if the user is at work, the relevance of business contact information may be increased. Location may be determined by a variety of methods well known in the art, e.g., the user's device may have GPS capabilities.
[0047] FIG. 6 illustrates the learning of a browse based repetitive navigation behavior. Steps 601 through 604 illustrate a user initially performing scroll (or page down operations) through a lexicographically sorted list of contacts to reach the desired contact, Randolf. The system learns this action behavior 605 over time, and automatically displays “Randolf's” number on the screen for easier access. Similarly, if the contact “Rama” were typically called at a different time window, then “Rama” would be displayed for easy access during that period of day. Thus from a lexicographic ordering (initial condition) the system learns the user's action patterns over time, to render orderings that reflect the most likely actions the user would perform for that particular time and location.
[0048] FIG. 7 illustrates another instance where a search and browse based navigation to reach an action is learned by the system and optimized to provide a better user experience. The user performs an incremental search 701, entering “BANKE” which results in discovering the bank of choice “BANKEX.” The user then browses to the bank finance portion of the bank “B. FINANCE,” 702 followed by selecting the payment item “PAY” from the submenu 703. The first step of making a payment is pin entry 704. As the system learns 705 the user's actions over time, the user's effort expended is reduced both in the number of characters used to get to the desired bank (“BA”) and the number of browse actions the user needs to perform—the bill pay option is shown along with the bank in the result. The user now has to enter three fewer characters during the incremental text search, and does not need to browse through two submenus to select the payment item. This form of rendering an aggregate node, along with the most likely child node that user may act upon, gives the user the choice to act on both items without further effort. The user can select the pay bill option or choose to browse all the other choices.
[0049] FIG. 8 summarizes the basic concept of personalizing the content space of the user based on learned behavior. The user's navigation through the content space 801 and actions on discovered content 802 is learned by the system. Each time a user performs an action on a node, the relevance of that node (for that particular time and location), with respect to the user is altered. The view of the content hierarchy from the user's perspective is altered to match the user's learned behavior and preferences.
[0050] Personalized Navigation Based on the User's Relationship to the Information Hierarchy
[0051] FIG. 9 illustrates an instance of a corporate employee hierarchy tree with a user 904 at a particular level in this hierarchy, specifically level 2. Tom Dalton 901 is at level 0, Tom Clancy 902 is at level 1, Tom Jones 903 is a peer of the user 904 at level 2, and Tom Crawford 905 is a direct report of the user 904 on level 3. In the initial conditions state, a user who just joins a company or moves to a new position within a company, can benefit from the present invention, which adjusts the organization tree to help the user 904 easily find the members of the group at his level, his direct reports, or his manager. The user can easily find the person he is looking for by entering just a few characters of an incremental search or with minimal steps using a pure browse search.
[0052] When the user 904 searches for a particular person by entering text, e.g., “TOM”, the system automatically lists the results in descending order of the proximity of the matched employee(s) in relationship to the user's position in the hierarchy. However, after learning, the nodes that are immediate descendents to the user's node may trump the user's sibling nodes, since the immediate descendents may be direct reports. Additionally, if the user 904 is discovering the information using an incremental search, e.g., “TO”, results may be shown with matches from different nodes as clusters for each level with one match displayed with the aggregate node (e.g. TOM CLANCY at Level 1, TOM CRAWFORD Level 3, TOM DALTON level 0). The system may provide a means to navigate these aggregate nodes, so the user can quickly get to any level. If the user is navigating the tree purely by a browse means, then the employees at the user's level (or his immediate reports) will be listed first as aggregates followed by other levels. This form of navigation would be more user-friendly than a pure lexicographically ordered browse tree.
[0053] The user search experience is also improved, in comparison to pure organization based clustering, by reordering the information hierarchy to match the user's repetitive action behavior. For example, if the user 904 repetitively navigates to a sibling node to perform an action (e.g. navigating to the node for Tom Jones 903 to place a phone call), then the ordering of the user's siblings would be adjusted over time to reduce this navigation distance by bringing that node closer to the user. This approach can also be used for any node that is at any level. For example, if the user 904 always navigates to the node for Tom Clancy 902 to place a phone call, then that node is reordered at its own level to come up quicker. Additionally with time, the nodes that are frequently visited in the hierarchy would move closer to the user's home node 904.
[0054] The navigation process within the corporate employee hierarchy tree could have been text-based search or browse based navigation. Over time the nodes that are frequently visited in the hierarchy would move closer to the user's home node within the hierarchy, thus easing their discovery either by search or browse. If the search were an incremental search, over time personalization would reduce the number of characters required for discovering the node. If the search was a browsed based navigation, over time personalization would reduce the number of user selections required for discovering the node.
[0055] FIG. 10 illustrates the evolution of the navigation system with time 1002 as the navigation hierarchy is reordered to match the user's action behavior (e.g. making a phone call after discovering a node of interest). In an embodiment of the invention, the initial conditions 1001 would start with the “locus of relevance centered” at the user's position in the organization hierarchy. As the user navigates hierarch and selects specific content items, the hierarchy would evolve to bring referenced nodes closer to user's locus of relevance. For example, using the method described in FIG. 4 above, this could be accomplished by assigning initial relevance weights to nodes in the navigation hierarchy based on the users position within a corporate hierarchy. The initial relevance weights could be assigned such that, prior to learning, the results would be ordered to return peers, then subordinates, then supervisors, and finally persons unrelated to the user in the corporate hierarchy. As the user navigates and selects content items from the navigation hierarchy the relevance weights of particular nodes, with respect to the particular user performing the search, would be increased. When the user makes subsequent searches, the nodes with higher relevance weights would be presented higher in the search results.
[0056] In another embodiment of the invention the locus of relevance would always remain at the root of the organization hierarchy, with the user's nodes of interest hoisted to the root for easy access. This method of reordering would be meaningful for information finding in an entertainment space, where no prior knowledge of the user's interest is known, and hence there is no a priori relationship between the user and the content navigation hierarchy.
[0057] Another instance of automatic adjustment of circle of relevance is where the user is part of a defined group, for example, where the user is a member of an Instant Messaging group or an online community group, such as a Yahoo group. The system would automatically increase the relevance weights of the members of the group in relation to the user. Here the adjustment of the circle of relevance is done by the system merely by the participation of the user in these groups and no explicit action by the user is required. This is similar to the corporate setting where a user can be grouped with his or her peers, or where a user can be grouped with all other employees with offices on the same floor in a building.
[0058] Additionally, the system can take advantage of dynamic groups created for projects spanning employees in the corporate hierarchy. The members of these dynamically created groups would also move closer to the “locus of relevance” of the user. These groups could have been created explicitly in the corporate database, or the system may interface with external applications, such as a mailing list in an email application, in order to discover these dynamic groups. Once a dynamically created group is detected, again using the techniques described above, the relevance weights of the members of that group can be adjusted such that group members are returned higher in the result set, overriding the default corporate hierarchy. For example, after a new emailing list for a project is created, the relevance weights of the members of that project can be adjusted and the results would be ordered to return project members, then peers, then subordinates, then supervisors, and finally persons unrelated to the user in the corporate hierarchy.
[0059] Automatic adjustment of locus or circle of relevance would also be applied in a transitive manner between individuals or groups of individuals based on the actions of the individuals. For example, in a community, if a Susie calls Barbara often, and Barbara calls Kate often, then the likelihood of Susie calling Kate increases over time. Hence, when Susie makes a search or performs a browse, the relevance of ordering of Kate is increased, such that Susie can discover Kate more easily. In this case, when Susie navigates and selects the contact information for Barbara, the relevance weight for that node is adjusted. In addition, the relevance weights for any nodes that Barbara has selected, e.g. Kate, are also increased with respect to Susie. The contact information for both Barbara and Kate will now be returned higher in the result set for any subsequent searches by Susie.
[0060] In an embodiment of the invention the locus of relevance would also be adjusted over time by the system taking into account the actions taken by groups of individuals. For example, if members of two groups in an organization hierarchy communicate often with each other (e.g. the action taken by users in this case being making a phone call), then the two groups would come closer to each other in the navigation hierarchy. So when searches are done by a member of one of these groups, the system would give a higher relevance to people from the other group with which the communication was high—this would facilitate the discovery of the desired result with fewer characters in the case of incremental search. Similarly, in a browse based discovery, the other group would be found closer to the user's own group in the organization hierarchy.
[0061] For example, consider a corporate hierarchy where Able and Baker are members of the accounting department, Charlie and Dawn are members of the tax department, and Eugene is a member of the legal department. If Able calls Charlie on a regular basis then the accounting and tax departments become closer to each other in the navigation hierarchy. Here the relevance weights for all members of both departments are adjusted, not just those for Able and Charlie. So when Baker searches the corporate hierarchy members of the tax department will have a higher relevance than members of the legal department. This is due to the contacts, over time, between members of the two departments, e.g. the contacts between Able and Charlie, and the associated adjustments to the relevance weights for all members of both departments.
[0062] Having described preferred embodiments of the present invention, it should be apparent that modifications can be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. For example, the relative weighting of nodes has been used herein in the context of a phone book. However, embodiments of the invention can be implemented for any form of node based content space, such as genres of movies.
Claims
What is claimed is:
1. A user-interface method of presenting a collection of items in which the presentation is ordered at least in part based on navigation and selection behavior of a user learned over time, the method comprising:
providing access to a set of items;
associating an initial relevance weight with each of a plurality of the items of the set;
receiving input entered by the user for identifying desired items;
in response to the input entered by the user, selecting and presenting a subset of items to the user in a first presentation order of items browsable by the user wherein the arrangement of the items within the first presentation order is based at least in part on the initial associated relevance weights associated with the items;
receiving input entered by the user for browsing through the first presentation order of items and for identifying and selecting the desired items;
in response to a selection by the user of an item, presenting said item to the user and adjusting the associated relevance weight of said item;
subsequent to adjusting the associated relevance weight of any of the items, selecting and presenting a subset of items to the user in a second presentation order of items browsable by the user wherein the arrangement of the items within the second presentation order is based at least in part on the adjusted associated relevance weights assigned to the items.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the initial relevance weights associated with an item of the plurality of items is based on a relative measure of a likelihood that the item is desired by the user.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
organizing the set of items into nodes based on the information content of the items;
associating an initial relevance weight with at least one of the nodes; and
in response to the selection by the user of an item, adjusting the relevance weight associated with the node containing the selected item;
wherein the selecting and presenting the subset of items in the first presentation order includes selecting and presenting a subset of the nodes within the first presentation order wherein the selection and arrangement of the nodes within the first presentation order is based at least in part on the initial relevance weights associated with the nodes; and
wherein the subsequent selecting and presenting a subset of items to the user in the second presentation order includes selecting and presenting a subset of the nodes within the second presentation order wherein the selection and arrangement of the nodes within the second presentation order is based at least in part on the adjusted associated relevance weights assigned to the nodes.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a context in which the user performed the selection actions, the context including at least one of geographic location of the user, day, date, and time; and
associating the contexts of the user selection actions with the corresponding items selected by the user;
wherein the arrangement of items within the second presentation order are further based on a match between contexts associated with the items and a context in which the subsequent selection and presentation occurs.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the adjusted associated relevance weights are decayed as time passes from the act of adjusting the associated relevance weights.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the adjusted associated relevance weights are decayed based upon the number of user selections occurring after the act of adjusting the associated relevance weights.
7. A user-interface system for presenting a collection of items in which the presentation is ordered at least in part based on navigation and selection behavior of a user learned over time, the system comprising:
logic for providing access to a set of items;
logic for associating an initial relevance weight with each of a plurality of the items of the set;
logic for receiving input entered by the user for identifying desired items;
logic, responsive to the input entered by the user, for selecting and presenting a subset of items to the user in a first presentation order of items browsable by the user wherein the arrangement of items within the first presentation order is based at least in part on the initial associated relevance weights associated with the items;
logic for receiving input entered by the user for browsing through the first presentation order of items and for identifying and selecting the desired items;
logic, responsive to a selection by the user of an item, for presenting said item to the user and for adjusting the associated relevance weight of said item;
logic for selecting and presenting a subset of items to the user in a second presentation order subsequent to adjusting the associated relevance weight of any of the items, wherein the arrangement of items within the second presentation order is based at least in part on the adjusted associated relevance weights assigned to the items.
8. The system of claim 7, wherein at least one of the initial relevance weights associated with an item of the plurality of items is based on a relative measure of a likelihood that the item is desired by the user.
9. The system of claim 7, further comprising:
logic for organizing the set of items into nodes based on the information content of the items;
logic for associating an initial relevance weight with at least one of the nodes; and
logic, responsive to the selection by the user of an item, for adjusting the relevance weight associated with the node containing the selected item;
wherein the logic for selecting and presenting a subset of items to the user in a first presentation order of items includes logic for selecting and presenting a subset of nodes within the first presentation order, wherein the selection and arrangement of the nodes within the first presentation order is based at least in part on the initial relevance weights associated with the nodes; and
wherein the logic for selecting and presenting a subset of items to the user in a second presentation order of items includes logic for selecting and presenting a subset of nodes within the second presentation order, wherein the selection and arrangement of the nodes within the second presentation order is based at least in part on the adjusted relevance weights associated with the nodes.
10. The system of claim 7, further comprising:
logic for determining a context in which the user preformed the selection actions, the context including at least one of geographic location of the user, day, date, and time; and
logic for associating the contexts of the user selection actions with the corresponding items selected by the user;
wherein the logic for selecting and presenting a subset of items to the user in the second presentation order of items includes logic for arranging items within the second presentation order further based on a match between contexts associated with the items and a context in which the subsequent selection and presentation occurs.
11. The system of claim 7, further comprising logic for decaying the adjusted associated relevance weights as time passes from the act of adjusting the associated relevance weights.
12. The system of claim 7, further comprising logic for decaying the adjusted associated relevance weights based upon the number of user selections occurring after the act of adjusting the associated relevance weights.
13. A computer readable medium comprising program instructions for presenting a collection of items in which the presentation is ordered at least in part based on navigation and selection behavior of a user learned over time, wherein execution of the program instructions by a computer system causes the computer system to:
provide access to a set of items;
associate an initial relevance weight with each of a plurality of the items of the set;
receive input entered by the user for identifying desired items;
in response to the input entered by the user, select and present a subset of items to the user in a first presentation order of items browsable by the user wherein the arrangement of the items within the first presentation order is based at least in part on the initial associated relevance weights associated with the items;
receive input entered by the user for browsing through the first presentation order of items and for identifying and selecting the desired items;
in response to a selection by the user of an item, present said item to the user and adjust the associated relevance weight of said item;
subsequent to adjusting the associated relevance weight of any of the items, select and present a subset of items to the user in a second presentation order of items browsable by the user wherein the arrangement of the items within the second presentation order is based at least in part on the adjusted associated relevance weights assigned to the items.
14. The computer readable medium of claim 13, wherein at least one of the initial relevance weights associated with an item of the plurality of items is based on a relative measure of a likelihood that the item is desired by the user.
15. The computer readable medium of claim 13, wherein execution of the program instructions by the computer system further causes the computer system to:
organize the set of items into nodes based on the information content of the items;
associate an initial relevance weight with at least one of the nodes; and
in response to the selection by the user of an item, adjust the relevance weight associated with the node containing the selected item;
wherein the selecting and presenting the subset of items in the first presentation order includes selecting and presenting a subset of the nodes within the first presentation order-wherein the selection and arrangement of the nodes within the first presentation order is based at least in part on the initial relevance weights associated with the nodes; and
wherein the subsequent selecting and presenting a subset of items to the user in the second presentation order-includes selecting and presenting a subset of the nodes within the second presentation order wherein the selection and arrangement of the nodes within the second presentation order is based at least in part on the adjusted associated relevance weights assigned to the nodes.
16. The computer readable medium of claim 13, wherein execution of the program instructions by the computer system further causes the computer system to:
determine a context in which the user performed the selection actions, the context including at least one of geographic location of the user, day, date, and time; and
associate the contexts of the user selection actions with the corresponding items selected by the user;
wherein the arrangement of items within the second presentation order are further based on a match between contexts associated with the items and a context in which the subsequent selection and presentation occurs.
17. The computer readable medium of claim 13, wherein execution of the program instructions by the computer system further causes the computer system to decay the adjusted associated relevance weights as time passes from the act of adjusting the associated relevance weights.
18. The computer readable medium of claim 13, wherein execution of the program instructions by the computer system further causes the computer system to decay the adjusted associated relevance weights based upon the number of user selections occurring after the act of adjusting the associated relevance weights.
Patent Citations (368)
| Patent | Date | Inventor | Cited By |
|---|---|---|---|
| US1261167(A) | 1918-04-01 | Russell | Applicant |
| US4045777(A) | 1977-08-01 | Mierzwinski et al. | Applicant |
| US4453217(A) | 1984-06-01 | Boivie | Applicant |
| US4760528(A) | 1988-07-01 | Levin | Applicant |
| US4797855(A) | 1989-01-01 | Duncan, IV et al. | Applicant |
| US4893238(A) | 1990-01-01 | Venema | Applicant |
| US5224060(A) | 1993-06-01 | Ma et al. | Applicant |
| US5337347(A) | 1994-08-01 | Halstead-Nussloch et al. | Applicant |
| US5369605(A) | 1994-11-01 | Parks | Applicant |
| US5487616(A) | 1996-01-01 | Ichbiah | Applicant |
| US5532754(A) | 1996-07-01 | Young et al. | Applicant |
| US5557686(A) | 1996-09-01 | Brown et al. | Applicant |
| US5623406(A) | 1997-04-01 | Ichbiah | Applicant |
| US5635989(A) | 1997-06-01 | Rothmuller | Applicant |
| US5745889(A) | 1998-04-01 | Burrows | Applicant |
| US5774588(A) | 1998-06-01 | Li | Applicant |
| US5802361(A) | 1998-09-01 | Wang et al. | Applicant |
| US5805155(A) | 1998-09-01 | Allibhoy et al. | Applicant |
| US5818437(A) | 1998-10-01 | Grover et al. | Applicant |
| US5828420(A) | 1998-10-01 | Marshall et al. | Applicant |
| US5828991(A) | 1998-10-01 | Skiena et al. | Applicant |
| US5835087(A) | 1998-11-01 | Herz et al. | Applicant |
| US5859662(A) | 1999-01-01 | Cragun et al. | Applicant |
| US5872834(A) | 1999-02-01 | Teitelbaum | Applicant |
| US5880768(A) | 1999-03-01 | Lemmons et al. | Applicant |
| US5896444(A) | 1999-04-01 | Perlman et al. | Applicant |
| US5912664(A) | 1999-06-01 | Eick et al. | Applicant |
| US5930788(A) | 1999-07-01 | Wical | Applicant |
| US5937422(A) | 1999-08-01 | Nelson et al. | Applicant |
| US5945928(A) | 1999-08-01 | Kushler et al. | Applicant |
| US5945987(A) | 1999-08-01 | Dunn | Applicant |
| US5953541(A) | 1999-09-01 | King et al. | Applicant |
| US6005565(A) | 1999-12-01 | Legall et al. | Applicant |
| US6005597(A) | 1999-12-01 | Barrett et al. | Applicant |
| US6006225(A) | 1999-12-01 | Bowman et al. | Applicant |
| US6008799(A) | 1999-12-01 | Van Kleeck | Applicant |
| US6009459(A) | 1999-12-01 | Belfiore et al. | Applicant |
| US6011554(A) | 2000-01-01 | King et al. | Applicant |
| US6041311(A) | 2000-03-01 | Chislenko et al. | Applicant |
| US6047300(A) | 2000-04-01 | Walfish et al. | Applicant |
| US6075526(A) | 2000-06-01 | Rothmuller | Applicant |
| US6133909(A) | 2000-10-01 | Schein et al. | Applicant |
| US6169984(B1) | 2001-01-01 | Bogdan | Applicant |
| US6184877(B1) | 2001-02-01 | Dodson et al. | Applicant |
| US6189002(B1) | 2001-02-01 | Roitblat | Applicant |
| US6204848(B1) | 2001-03-01 | Nowlan et al. | Applicant |
| US6223059(B1) | 2001-04-01 | Haestrup | Applicant |
| US6260050(B1) | 2001-07-01 | Yost et al. | Applicant |
| US6266048(B1) | 2001-07-01 | Carau, Sr. | Applicant |
| US6266814(B1) | 2001-07-01 | Lemmons et al. | Applicant |
| US6269361(B1) | 2001-07-01 | Davis et al. | Applicant |
| US6286064(B1) | 2001-09-01 | King et al. | Applicant |
| US6292804(B1) | 2001-09-01 | Ardoin et al. | Applicant |
| US6307548(B1) | 2001-10-01 | Flinchem et al. | Applicant |
| US6307549(B1) | 2001-10-01 | King et al. | Applicant |
| US6360215(B1) | 2002-03-01 | Judd et al. | Applicant |
| US6377945(B1) | 2002-04-01 | Risvik | Applicant |
| US6383080(B1) | 2002-05-01 | Link et al. | Applicant |
| US6385602(B1) | 2002-05-01 | Tso et al. | Applicant |
| US6392640(B1) | 2002-05-01 | Will | Applicant |
| US6438579(B1) | 2002-08-01 | Hosken et al. | Applicant |
| US6438751(B1) | 2002-08-01 | Voyticky et al. | Applicant |
| US6463586(B1) | 2002-10-01 | Jerding | Applicant |
| US6466933(B1) | 2002-10-01 | Huang et al. | Applicant |
| US6529903(B2) | 2003-03-01 | Smith | Applicant |
| US6543052(B1) | 2003-04-01 | Ogasawara | Applicant |
| US6564213(B1) | 2003-05-01 | Ortega et al. | Applicant |
| US6564313(B1) | 2003-05-01 | Kashyap | Applicant |
| US6594657(B1) | 2003-07-01 | Livowsky et al. | Applicant |
| US6600496(B1) | 2003-07-01 | Wagner et al. | Applicant |
| US6614422(B1) | 2003-09-01 | Rafii et al. | Applicant |
| US6614455(B1) | 2003-09-01 | Cuijpers et al. | Applicant |
| US6615248(B1) | 2003-09-01 | Smith | Applicant |
| US6622148(B1) | 2003-09-01 | Noble et al. | Applicant |
| US6631496(B1) | 2003-10-01 | Li et al. | Applicant |
| US6662177(B1) | 2003-12-01 | Martino et al. | Applicant |
| US6664980(B2) | 2003-12-01 | Bryan et al. | Applicant |
| US6708336(B1) | 2004-03-01 | Bruette | Applicant |
| US6721954(B1) | 2004-04-01 | Nickum | Applicant |
| US6732369(B1) | 2004-05-01 | Schein et al. | Applicant |
| US6734881(B1) | 2004-05-01 | Will | Applicant |
| US6735695(B1) | 2004-05-01 | Gopalakrishnan et al. | Applicant |
| US6757906(B1) | 2004-06-01 | Look et al. | Applicant |
| US6766526(B1) | 2004-07-01 | Ellis | Applicant |
| US6772147(B2) | 2004-08-01 | Wang | Applicant |
| US6785671(B1) | 2004-08-01 | Bailey et al. | Applicant |
| US6801909(B2) | 2004-10-01 | Delgado et al. | Examiner |
| US6835602(B2) | 2004-12-01 | Norskov et al. | Applicant |
| US6839702(B1) | 2005-01-01 | Patel et al. | Applicant |
| US6839705(B1) | 2005-01-01 | Grooters | Applicant |
| US6850693(B2) | 2005-02-01 | Young et al. | Applicant |
| US6865575(B1) | 2005-03-01 | Smith et al. | Applicant |
| US6865746(B1) | 2005-03-01 | Herrington et al. | Applicant |
| US6907273(B1) | 2005-06-01 | Smethers | Applicant |
| US6965374(B2) | 2005-11-01 | Villet et al. | Applicant |
| US6999959(B1) | 2006-02-01 | Lawrence et al. | Applicant |
| US7013304(B1) | 2006-03-01 | Schuetze et al. | Applicant |
| US7117207(B1) | 2006-10-01 | Kerschberg et al. | Examiner |
| US7130866(B2) | 2006-10-01 | Schaffer | Applicant |
| US7136845(B2) | 2006-11-01 | Chandrasekar et al. | Applicant |
| US7136854(B2) | 2006-11-01 | Smith et al. | Applicant |
| US7146627(B1) | 2006-12-01 | Ismail et al. | Applicant |
| US7149983(B1) | 2006-12-01 | Robertson et al. | Applicant |
| US7191238(B2) | 2007-03-01 | Uchida | Applicant |
| US7213256(B1) | 2007-05-01 | Kikinis | Applicant |
| US7225180(B2) | 2007-05-01 | Donaldson et al. | Applicant |
| US7225184(B2) | 2007-05-01 | Carrasco et al. | Applicant |
| US7225455(B2) | 2007-05-01 | Bennington et al. | Applicant |
| US7269548(B2) | 2007-09-01 | Fux et al. | Applicant |
| US7293231(B1) | 2007-11-01 | Gunn et al. | Applicant |
| US7461061(B2) | 2008-12-01 | Aravamudan et al. | Applicant |
| US7487151(B2) | 2009-02-01 | Yamamoto et al. | Applicant |
| US7509313(B2) | 2009-03-01 | Colledge et al. | Applicant |
| US7529741(B2) | 2009-05-01 | Aravamudan et al. | Applicant |
| US7529744(B1) | 2009-05-01 | Srivastava et al. | Applicant |
| US7536384(B2) | 2009-05-01 | Venkataraman et al. | Applicant |
| US7536854(B2) | 2009-05-01 | Da-Silva | Applicant |
| US7539676(B2) | 2009-05-01 | Aravamudan et al. | Applicant |
| US7548915(B2) | 2009-06-01 | Ramer et al. | Applicant |
| US7594244(B2) | 2009-09-01 | Scholl et al. | Applicant |
| US7644054(B2) | 2010-01-01 | Garg et al. | Applicant |
| US7657526(B2) | 2010-02-01 | Aravamudan et al. | Applicant |
| US7679534(B2) | 2010-03-01 | Kay et al. | Applicant |
| US7683886(B2) | 2010-03-01 | Willey | Applicant |
| US7685197(B2) | 2010-03-01 | Fain et al. | Applicant |
| US7712053(B2) | 2010-05-01 | Bradford et al. | Applicant |
| US7725485(B1) | 2010-05-01 | Sahami et al. | Applicant |
| US7725486(B2) | 2010-05-01 | Tsuzuki et al. | Applicant |
| US7739280(B2) | 2010-06-01 | Aravamudan et al. | Applicant |
| US7757250(B1) | 2010-07-01 | Horvitz et al. | Applicant |
| US7774294(B2) | 2010-08-01 | Aravamudan et al. | Applicant |
| US7774341(B2) | 2010-08-01 | Aravamudan et al. | Applicant |
| US7779011(B2) | 2010-08-01 | Venkataraman et al. | Applicant |
| US7788266(B2) | 2010-08-01 | Venkataraman et al. | Applicant |
| US7792815(B2) | 2010-09-01 | Aravamudan et al. | Applicant |
| US7835998(B2) | 2010-11-01 | Aravamudan et al. | Applicant |
| US2001/0044759(A1) | 2001-11-01 | Kutsumi et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0002550(A1) | 2002-01-01 | Berman | Applicant |
| US2002/0042791(A1) | 2002-04-01 | Smith et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0049752(A1) | 2002-04-01 | Bowman et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0052873(A1) | 2002-05-01 | Delgado et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0059066(A1) | 2002-05-01 | O'Hagan | Applicant |
| US2002/0059621(A1) | 2002-05-01 | Thomas et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0077143(A1) | 2002-06-01 | Sharif et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0083448(A1) | 2002-06-01 | Johnson | Applicant |
| US2002/0116291(A1) | 2002-08-01 | Grasso et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0120925(A1) | 2002-08-01 | Logan | Applicant |
| US2002/0133481(A1) | 2002-09-01 | Smith et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0144267(A1) | 2002-10-01 | Gutta et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0152190(A1) | 2002-10-01 | Biebesheimer et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0184373(A1) | 2002-12-01 | Maes | Applicant |
| US2002/0188488(A1) | 2002-12-01 | Hinkle | Applicant |
| US2002/0199194(A1) | 2002-12-01 | Ali | Applicant |
| US2003/0005452(A1) | 2003-01-01 | Rodriguez | Applicant |
| US2003/0005462(A1) | 2003-01-01 | Broadus et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0011573(A1) | 2003-01-01 | Villet et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0014753(A1) | 2003-01-01 | Beach et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0023976(A1) | 2003-01-01 | Kamen et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0033292(A1) | 2003-02-01 | Meisel et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0037043(A1) | 2003-02-01 | Chang et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0037333(A1) | 2003-02-01 | Ghashghai et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0046698(A1) | 2003-03-01 | Kamen et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0051240(A1) | 2003-03-01 | Schaffer et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0066068(A1) | 2003-04-01 | Gutta et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0066079(A1) | 2003-04-01 | Suga | Applicant |
| US2003/0067495(A1) | 2003-04-01 | Pu et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0084270(A1) | 2003-05-01 | Coon et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0097661(A1) | 2003-05-01 | Li et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0103088(A1) | 2003-06-01 | Dresti et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0135464(A1) | 2003-07-01 | Mourad et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0154138(A1) | 2003-08-01 | Phillips et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0217121(A1) | 2003-11-01 | Willis | Applicant |
| US2003/0226146(A1) | 2003-12-01 | Thurston et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0229900(A1) | 2003-12-01 | Reisman | Applicant |
| US2003/0237096(A1) | 2003-12-01 | Barrett et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0013909(A1) | 2004-01-01 | Shimizu et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0021691(A1) | 2004-02-01 | Dostie et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0024777(A1) | 2004-02-01 | Schaffer | Applicant |
| US2004/0034652(A1) | 2004-02-01 | Hofmann et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0049783(A1) | 2004-03-01 | Lemmons et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0054520(A1) | 2004-03-01 | Dehlinger et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0073432(A1) | 2004-04-01 | Stone | Applicant |
| US2004/0073926(A1) | 2004-04-01 | Nakamura et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0078815(A1) | 2004-04-01 | Lemmons et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0078816(A1) | 2004-04-01 | Johnson | Applicant |
| US2004/0078820(A1) | 2004-04-01 | Nickum | Applicant |
| US2004/0083198(A1) | 2004-04-01 | Bradford et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0093616(A1) | 2004-05-01 | Johnson | Applicant |
| US2004/0111745(A1) | 2004-06-01 | Schein et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0128686(A1) | 2004-07-01 | Boyer et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0139091(A1) | 2004-07-01 | Shin | Applicant |
| US2004/0143569(A1) | 2004-07-01 | Gross et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0155908(A1) | 2004-08-01 | Wagner | Applicant |
| US2004/0163032(A1) | 2004-08-01 | Guo et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0194141(A1) | 2004-09-01 | Sanders | Applicant |
| US2004/0205065(A1) | 2004-10-01 | Petras et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0216160(A1) | 2004-10-01 | Lemmons et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0220926(A1) | 2004-11-01 | Lamkin et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0221308(A1) | 2004-11-01 | Cuttner et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0254911(A1) | 2004-12-01 | Grasso et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0261021(A1) | 2004-12-01 | Mittal et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0015366(A1) | 2005-01-01 | Carrasco et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0038702(A1) | 2005-02-01 | Merriman et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0071874(A1) | 2005-03-01 | Elcock et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0079895(A1) | 2005-04-01 | Kalenius et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0086234(A1) | 2005-04-01 | Tosey | Applicant |
| US2005/0086691(A1) | 2005-04-01 | Dudkiewicz et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0086692(A1) | 2005-04-01 | Dudkiewicz et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0125307(A1) | 2005-06-01 | Hunt et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0129199(A1) | 2005-06-01 | Abe | Applicant |
| US2005/0174333(A1) | 2005-08-01 | Robinson et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0187945(A1) | 2005-08-01 | Ehrich et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0192944(A1) | 2005-09-01 | Flinchem | Applicant |
| US2005/0210020(A1) | 2005-09-01 | Gunn et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0210383(A1) | 2005-09-01 | Cucerzan et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0210402(A1) | 2005-09-01 | Gunn et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0223308(A1) | 2005-10-01 | Gunn et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0240580(A1) | 2005-10-01 | Zamir et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0246311(A1) | 2005-11-01 | Whelan et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0246324(A1) | 2005-11-01 | Paalasmaa et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0267994(A1) | 2005-12-01 | Wong et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0278175(A1) | 2005-12-01 | Hyvonen | Applicant |
| US2005/0283468(A1) | 2005-12-01 | Kamvar et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0010477(A1) | 2006-01-01 | Yu | Applicant |
| US2006/0010503(A1) | 2006-01-01 | Inoue et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0013487(A1) | 2006-01-01 | Longe et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0015906(A1) | 2006-01-01 | Boyer et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0020662(A1) | 2006-01-01 | Robinson | Applicant |
| US2006/0036640(A1) | 2006-02-01 | Tateno et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0041843(A1) | 2006-02-01 | Billsus et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0044277(A1) | 2006-03-01 | Fux et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0059044(A1) | 2006-03-01 | Chan et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0069616(A1) | 2006-03-01 | Bau | Applicant |
| US2006/0075429(A1) | 2006-04-01 | Istvan et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0090182(A1) | 2006-04-01 | Horowitz et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0090185(A1) | 2006-04-01 | Zito et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0090812(A1) | 2006-05-01 | Summerville | Applicant |
| US2006/0098899(A1) | 2006-05-01 | King et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0101499(A1) | 2006-05-01 | Aravamudan et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0101503(A1) | 2006-05-01 | Venkataraman et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0101504(A1) | 2006-05-01 | Aravamudan et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0106782(A1) | 2006-05-01 | Blumenau et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0112162(A1) | 2006-05-01 | Marot et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0117019(A1) | 2006-06-01 | Sylthe et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0136379(A1) | 2006-06-01 | Marino et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0156233(A1) | 2006-07-01 | Nurmi | Applicant |
| US2006/0161520(A1) | 2006-07-01 | Brewer et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0163337(A1) | 2006-07-01 | Unruh | Applicant |
| US2006/0167676(A1) | 2006-07-01 | Plumb | Applicant |
| US2006/0167859(A1) | 2006-07-01 | Verbeck Sibley et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0173818(A1) | 2006-08-01 | Berstis et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0176283(A1) | 2006-08-01 | Suraqui | Applicant |
| US2006/0184989(A1) | 2006-08-01 | Slothouber | Applicant |
| US2006/0190308(A1) | 2006-08-01 | Janssens et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0195435(A1) | 2006-08-01 | Laird-McConnell et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0206454(A1) | 2006-09-01 | Forstall et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0206815(A1) | 2006-09-01 | Pathiyal et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0242178(A1) | 2006-10-01 | Butterfield et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0242607(A1) | 2006-10-01 | Hudson | Applicant |
| US2006/0248078(A1) | 2006-11-01 | Gross et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0256070(A1) | 2006-11-01 | Moosavi et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0256078(A1) | 2006-11-01 | Flinchem et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0259344(A1) | 2006-11-01 | Patel et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0259479(A1) | 2006-11-01 | Dai | Applicant |
| US2006/0261021(A1) | 2006-11-01 | Stagnaro | Applicant |
| US2006/0271552(A1) | 2006-11-01 | McChesney et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0274051(A1) | 2006-12-01 | Longe et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0282856(A1) | 2006-12-01 | Errico et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0005526(A1) | 2007-01-01 | Whitney et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0005563(A1) | 2007-01-01 | Aravamudan | Applicant |
| US2007/0005576(A1) | 2007-01-01 | Cutrell et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0016476(A1) | 2007-01-01 | Hoffberg et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0016862(A1) | 2007-01-01 | Kuzmin | Applicant |
| US2007/0027852(A1) | 2007-02-01 | Howard et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0027861(A1) | 2007-02-01 | Huentelman et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0027871(A1) | 2007-02-01 | Arbajian | Applicant |
| US2007/0043750(A1) | 2007-02-01 | Dingle | Applicant |
| US2007/0044122(A1) | 2007-02-01 | Scholl et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0050337(A1) | 2007-03-01 | Venkataraman et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0050348(A1) | 2007-03-01 | Aharoni et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0061244(A1) | 2007-03-01 | Ramer et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0061317(A1) | 2007-03-01 | Ramer et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0061321(A1) | 2007-03-01 | Venkataraman et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0061753(A1) | 2007-03-01 | Ng et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0061754(A1) | 2007-03-01 | Ardhanari et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0067272(A1) | 2007-03-01 | Flynt et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0074131(A1) | 2007-03-01 | Assadollahi | Applicant |
| US2007/0088681(A1) | 2007-04-01 | Aravamudan et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0094024(A1) | 2007-04-01 | Kristensson et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0100650(A1) | 2007-05-01 | Ramer et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0130128(A1) | 2007-06-01 | Garg et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0143567(A1) | 2007-06-01 | Gorobets | Applicant |
| US2007/0150606(A1) | 2007-06-01 | Flinchem et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0182595(A1) | 2007-08-01 | Ghasabian | Applicant |
| US2007/0208718(A1) | 2007-09-01 | Javid et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0219984(A1) | 2007-09-01 | Aravamudan et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0219985(A1) | 2007-09-01 | Aravamudan et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0226649(A1) | 2007-09-01 | Agmon | Applicant |
| US2007/0240045(A1) | 2007-10-01 | Fux et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0242178(A1) | 2007-10-01 | Kawasaki et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0255693(A1) | 2007-11-01 | Ramaswamy et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0256070(A1) | 2007-11-01 | Bykov et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0260703(A1) | 2007-11-01 | Ardhanari et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0266021(A1) | 2007-11-01 | Aravamudan et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0266026(A1) | 2007-11-01 | Aravamudan et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0266406(A1) | 2007-11-01 | Aravamudan et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0271205(A1) | 2007-11-01 | Aravamudan et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0276773(A1) | 2007-11-01 | Aravamudan et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0276821(A1) | 2007-11-01 | Aravamudan et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0276859(A1) | 2007-11-01 | Aravamudan et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0288456(A1) | 2007-12-01 | Aravamudan et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0288457(A1) | 2007-12-01 | Aravamudan et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0065617(A1) | 2008-03-01 | Burke et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0071771(A1) | 2008-03-01 | Venkataraman et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0077577(A1) | 2008-03-01 | Byrne et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0086704(A1) | 2008-04-01 | Aravamudan | Applicant |
| US2008/0109401(A1) | 2008-05-01 | Sareen et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0114743(A1) | 2008-05-01 | Venkataraman et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0177717(A1) | 2008-07-01 | Kumar et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0195601(A1) | 2008-08-01 | Ntoulas et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0209229(A1) | 2008-08-01 | Ramakrishnan et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0313564(A1) | 2008-12-01 | Barve et al. | Applicant |
| US2009/0077496(A1) | 2009-03-01 | Aravamudan et al. | Applicant |
| US2009/0198688(A1) | 2009-08-01 | Venkataraman et al. | Applicant |
| US2009/0217203(A1) | 2009-08-01 | Aravamudan et al. | Applicant |
| US2010/0121845(A1) | 2010-05-01 | Aravamudan et al. | Applicant |
| US2010/0153380(A1) | 2010-06-01 | Garg et al. | Applicant |
| US2010/0241625(A1) | 2010-09-01 | Aravamudan et al. | Applicant |
| US2010/0293160(A1) | 2010-11-01 | Aravamudan et al. | Applicant |
| US2010/0325111(A1) | 2010-12-01 | Aravamudan et al. | Applicant |
| EP181058 | 1986-05-01 | Applicant | |
| EP1050794(A) | 2000-11-01 | Applicant | |
| EP1143691 | 2001-10-01 | Applicant | |
| EP1338967(A2) | 2003-08-01 | Applicant | |
| EP1338976 | 2003-08-01 | Applicant | |
| EP1458193 | 2004-09-01 | Applicant | |
| EP1463307(A2) | 2004-09-01 | Applicant | |
| EP1622054 | 2006-02-01 | Applicant | |
| EP1810120 | 2007-07-01 | Applicant | |
| EP1810508 | 2007-07-01 | Applicant | |
| EP1955130 | 2008-08-01 | Applicant | |
| EP2016513 | 2009-01-01 | Applicant | |
| EP2062171 | 2009-05-01 | Applicant | |
| JP2009534761 | 2009-09-01 | Applicant | |
| JP2010-503931 | 2010-02-01 | Applicant | |
| WO-9856173 | 1998-12-01 | Applicant | |
| WO-0070505 | 2000-11-01 | Applicant | |
| WO-2004/010326 | 2004-01-01 | Applicant | |
| WO-2004010326 | 2004-01-01 | Applicant | |
| WO-2005174333 | 2004-01-01 | Applicant | |
| WO-2004/031931(A1) | 2004-04-01 | Applicant | |
| WO-2005/033967 | 2005-04-01 | Applicant | |
| WO-2005054982(A2) | 2005-06-01 | Applicant | |
| WO-2005/084235(A2) | 2005-09-01 | Applicant | |
| WO-2005084235 | 2005-09-01 | Applicant | |
| WO-2006052959 | 2006-05-01 | Applicant | |
| WO-2006052966 | 2006-05-01 | Applicant | |
| WO-2007025148 | 2007-03-01 | Applicant | |
| WO-2007025149 | 2007-03-01 | Applicant | |
| WO-2007062035 | 2007-05-01 | Applicant | |
| WO-2007118038 | 2007-10-01 | Applicant | |
| WO-2007124429 | 2007-11-01 | Applicant | |
| WO-2007124436(A2) | 2007-11-01 | Applicant | |
| WO-2007131058 | 2007-11-01 | Applicant | |
| WO-2008034057 | 2008-03-01 | Applicant | |
| WO-2008091941 | 2008-07-01 | Applicant | |
| WO-2008063987 | 2008-08-01 | Applicant | |
| WO-2008148012 | 2008-12-01 | Applicant |
Non-Patent Literature (81)
- Ardissono, L. et al., User Modeling and Recommendation Techniques for Personalized Electronic Program Guides, Personalized Digital Television, Editors: Ardissono, et al., Kluwer Academic Press, 2004 (27 pages).Applicant
- Benes, V.E., “Mathematical Theory of Connecting Networks and Telephone Traffic,” Academic Press, NY, 1965 (4 pages).Applicant
- Dalianis, “Improving search engine retrieval using a compound splitter for Swedish,” Abstract of presentation at Nodalida 2005—15th Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics, Joensuu Finland, May 21-22, 2005. Retrieved Jan. 5, 2006 from http://phon.joensuu.fi/nodalida/abstracts/03.shtml, 3 pages.Applicant
- Digital Video Broadcasting, http://www.dvb.org (Oct. 12, 2007) (2 pages).Applicant
- Duff, I.S. et al., “Direct Methods for Sparse Matrices,” Monographs on Numerical Analysis, Oxford Science Publications, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1986 (7 pages).Applicant
- European Search Report for 06838179.7, dated Dec. 9, 2009, 7 pages.Applicant
- European Search Report for EP 05826129.8 dated Aug. 11, 2009, 15 pages.Applicant
- European Supplementary Search Report dated Aug. 11, 2009, for PCT/US2005040415, 15 pages.Applicant
- Gadd, Phonix: The Algorith, Program, vol. 24(4), Oct. 1990 (pp. 363-369).Applicant
- Garey, M.R. et al., “Computers and Intractability a Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness,” W.H. Freeman and Co., New York, 1979 (2 pages).Applicant
- Good, N. et al., Combining Collaborative Filtering with Personal Agents for Better Recommendations, in Proc. of the 16th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 439-446, Orlando, Florida, Jul. 18-22, 1999.Applicant
- Hildrebrand, F.B., “Introduction to Numerical Analysis,” Second Ed., McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1974.Applicant
- International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for PCT/US2005/040415, dated Nov. 27, 2006, 4 pages.Applicant
- International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for PCT/US2006/033257, dated Mar. 26, 2008, 5 pages.Applicant
- International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for PCT/US2006/045053, dated Jul. 24, 2008, 8 pages.Applicant
- International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for PCT/US2006/33258, dated Mar. 26, 2008, 5 pages.Applicant
- International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for PCT/US2007/067114, dated Jul. 2, 2008, 4 pages.Applicant
- International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for PCT/US2007/068064, 9 pages.Applicant
- International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for PCT/US2007/078490, Jul. 4, 2008, 4 pages.Applicant
- International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for PCT/US2008/051789, dated Jul. 14, 2008, 5 pages.Applicant
- International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for PCT/US2008/064730, dated Sep. 8, 2008, 5 pages.Applicant
- International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office for PCT/US2007/084500, dated May 20, 2008, 6 pages.Applicant
- International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, dated Jan. 25, 2008, for PCT/US2007/065703, 4 pages.Applicant
- International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, for PCT/US2005/40424, mailing date of Nov. 21, 2006, 6 pages.Applicant
- International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, for PCT/US2007/067114, dated Jul. 2, 2008, 4 pages.Applicant
- International Search Report and Written Opinion, International Patent Application No. PCT/US06/45053, mailed Jul. 24, 2004 (10 pages).Applicant
- International Search Report and Written Opinion, International Patent Application No. PCT/US07/67114, mailed Jul. 2, 2008 (6 pages).Applicant
- International Search Report and Written Opinion, International Patent Application No. PCT/US08/51789, mailed Jul. 14, 2008 (7 Pages).Applicant
- International Search Report and Written Opinion, International Patent Application No. PCT/US097/78490, mailed Jul. 3, 2008 (6 pages).Applicant
- International Search Report, International Application No. PCT/US06/25249, mailed Jan. 29, 2008 (2 pages).Applicant
- International Search Report, International Application No. PCT/US06/33204, mailed Sep. 21, 2007 (2 pages).Applicant
- International Search Report, International Application No. PCT/US06/33257, mailed Mar. 26, 2008 (2 pages).Applicant
- International Search Report, International Application No. PCT/US06/33258, mailed Mar. 26, 2008 (2 pages).Applicant
- International Search Report, International Application No. PCT/US06/40005, mailed Jul. 3, 2007 (4 Pages).Applicant
- International Search Report, International Application No. PCT/US07/65703, mailed Jan. 25, 2008 (2 pages).Applicant
- International Search Report, International Application No. PCT/US07/67100, mailed Mar. 7, 2008 (2 pages).Applicant
- International Search Report, International Patent Application No. PCT/US05/40517, mailed Jun. 13, 2008 (2 Pages).Applicant
- Kurapati, et al., “A Multi-Agent TV Recommender,” In Proceedings of the UM 2001 Workshop “Personalization in Future TV,” 2001, 8 pages.Applicant
- Lindren, B.W. et al., “Introduction to Probability and Statistics,” MacMillan Publishing Co., New York, New York, 1978.Applicant
- Luenberger, D.G., “Linear and Nonlinear Pogramming,” Second Ed., Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA, 1989.Applicant
- Mackenzie et al. “Letterwise: Prefix-Based Disambiguation for Mobile Text Input, Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology—UIST 2001” (pp. 111-120).Applicant
- Matthom, “Text Highlighting in Search Results”, Jul. 22, 2005. Available at www.matthom.com/archive/2005/07/22/text-highlighting-in-search-results; retrieved Jun. 23, 2006. (4 pages).Applicant
- Mokotoff, Soundexing and Genealogy, Available at http://www.avotaynu.com/soundex.html, retrieved Mar. 19, 2008, last updated Sep. 8, 2007 (6 pages).Applicant
- Murray et al., “Inferring Demographic Attributes of Anonymous Internet Users,” WEBKDD '99 LNAI, 1836, pp. 7-20, 2000.Applicant
- Nardi, et al., “Integrating Communication and Information Through Contact Map,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 45, No. 4, Apr. 2002, 7 pages, retrieved from URL:http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id+505251>.Applicant
- Nemhauser, G.L. et al., “Integer and Combinational Optimization,” John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1988 (2 pages).Applicant
- Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/204,546 mailed Jul. 8, 2008, 30 pages.Applicant
- Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/204,546 mailed Mar. 3, 2009, 26 pages.Applicant
- Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/204,546 mailed Sep. 17, 2009, 34 pages.Applicant
- Press Release from Tegic Communications, Tegic Communications is awarded patent for Japanese T9(R) text input software from the Japan Patent Office, Oct. 12, 2004. Retrieved Nov. 18, 2005 from http://www.tegic.com/press—view.html?release—num=55254242 (4 pages).Applicant
- Review of Personalization Technologies: Collaborative Filtering vs. ChoiceStream's Attributized Bayesian Choice Modeling, Technology Brief, ChoiceStream Technologies, Cambridge, MA, Feb. 2004, 13 pages.Applicant
- Roe, et al., “Mapping UML Models Incorporating OCL Constraints into Object-Z,” Technical Report, Sep. 2003, Department of Computing, Imperial College London, retrieved on Jul. 12, 2007, retrieved from the internet: <URL: http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/-ar3/TechnicalReport2003—9.pdf>, 17 pages.Applicant
- Silfverberg et al., Predicting text entry speed on mobile phones, Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing System—Chi, 2000. pp. 1-16.Applicant
- Supplemental European Search Report dated Aug. 11, 2009 for PCT/US2005040415, 15 pages.Applicant
- Supplemental European Search Report dated Aug. 20, 2009 for PCT/US2005040424, 13 pages.Applicant
- Supplemental European Search Report for 05826114.0 dated Aug. 20, 2009, 13 pages.Applicant
- Supplemental European Search Report for 05826129.8 dated Aug. 11, 2009, 15 pages.Applicant
- Supplemental European Search Report for 07761026.9 dated Jan. 28, 2010, 8 pages.Applicant
- Supplemental European Search Report for EP 06838179 dated Dec. 9, 2009, 7 pages.Applicant
- Supplemental European Search Report for PCT/US2005040415, dated Aug. 11, 2009, 15 pages.Applicant
- Supplemental European Search Report for PCT/US2005040424 dated Aug. 20, 2009, 13 pages.Applicant
- Supplementary European Search Report and Written Opinion for EP07842499, dated Aug. 25, 2010, 6 pages.Applicant
- Supplementary European Search Report and Written Opinion for European Patent Application No. 07842499, dated Aug. 26, 2010, 6 pages.Applicant
- Supplementary European Search Report dated Aug. 20, 2009 for PCT/US2005/040424, 13 pages.Applicant
- Supplementary European Search Report dated Jul. 20, 2009 for PCT US2005/040424, 13 pages.Applicant
- Supplementary European Search Report for EP07761026.9 dated Jan. 28, 2010, 8 pages.Applicant
- Supplementary European Search Report for PCT/US2005040415, dated Aug. 11, 2009, 15 pages.Applicant
- Supplementary European Search Report for PCT/US2005040424, dated Aug. 20, 2009, 13 pages.Applicant
- Talbot, David. “Soul of a New Mobile Machine.” Technology Review: The Design Issue May/Jun. 2007. (pp. 46-53).Applicant
- Turski, et al., “Inner Circle—People Centered Email Client,” CHI 2005 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Apr. 2005, pp. 1845-1848, 4 pages, retrieved from URL:http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id+1056808.1057037.Applicant
- Villani, et al., Keystroke Biometric Recognition Studies on Long-Text Input under Ideal and Application-Oriented Conditions, Proceedings of Student/Faculty Research Day, CSIS, Pace University, May 2006, pp. C3.1-C3.8, retrieved from URL: <http://www.csis.pace.edu/-ctappert/srd2006/c3.pdf>, p. 6, para 6.Applicant
- Wikipedia's entry for Levenshtein distance (n.d.). Retrieved Nov. 15, 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levenshtein—distance (9 pages).Applicant
- Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority and International Search Report for PCT/US05/040517 dated Jun. 13, 2008, 4 pages.Applicant
- Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, International Application No. PCT/US06/25249, mailed Jan. 29, 2008 (4 pages).Applicant
- Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, International Application No. PCT/US06/33204, mailed Sep. 21, 2007 (3 pages).Applicant
- Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, International Application No. PCT/US06/33257, mailed Mar. 26, 2008 (4 pages).Applicant
- Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, International Application No. PCT/US06/33258, mailed Mar. 26, 2008 (4 pages).Applicant
- Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, International Application No. PCT/US06/40005, mailed Jul. 3, 2007 (4 Pages).Applicant
- Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, International Application No. PCT/US07/65703, mailed Jan. 25, 2008 (4 pages).Applicant
- Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, International Application No. PCT/US07/67100, mailed Mar. 7, 2008 (3 pages).Applicant
- Zimmerman, et al., “TV Personalization System Design of a TV Show Recommender Engine and Interface,” In Liliana Ardissono, Alfred Kobsa, Mark Maybury (eds) Personalized Digital Television: Targeting Programs to Individual Viewers, Kluwer: 27-52; 2004, 29 pages.Applicant