Multiparameter indexing and searching for documents

• US 20040193596A1
• Filed: 02/23/2004
• Published: 09/30/2004
• Est. Priority Date: 02/21/2003
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: Practice Technologies, Inc. (Gannett Co., Inc.)
• Original Assignee: Practice Technologies, Inc. (Gannett Co., Inc.)
• Inventors: Defelice, Rudy, McGregor, Russell
• Application Number:
  US10/785,699
• Publication Number:
  US 20040193596A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 1/1
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 16/345 Summarisation for human users
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 16/93 Document management systems

Abstract

A multiparameter abstract and search system for documents, e.g. legal documents. The documents are abstracted by an abstract creation engine. The abstract creation engine may process the documents based on objective criteria and subjective criteria. The processing creates a searchable abstract file that can be searched in various ways.

Claims

1. A system comprising:

an abstract creation computer, running a plurality of rules, accessing a plurality of documents, each of said plurality of documents including information therein, and said computer processing said documents using said rules to create a searchable abstract file,

at least one of said rules determining information within the document based upon an analysis of words in the document and a position of those words within the document,

and at least another of said rules determining a specific enumerated item of information from within the document,

and at least another of said rules determining certain categories that apply to the document,

said rules forming information about the document that is stored by the abstract creation computer in said abstract file.

2. A system as in claim 1, further comprising a searching interface, which allows searching said abstract file, based on a plurality of different parameters, to obtain search results therefrom.

3. A system as in claim 2, wherein documents located through said searching interface include links therein, each link including a reference to the full text of a statute referenced in a document located through said interface.

4. A system as in claim 1, wherein said document abstract is in a markup language format, and includes metadata which has been automatically determined by application of said rules.

5. A system as in claim 4, wherein said rules include rules to determine information about legal documents.

6. A system as in claim 5, wherein said rules determine references to statutes, and wherein said abstract file includes a link to an actual version of the statutes.

7. A system as in claim 1, wherein one of said rules is a minimum size rule, which prevents processing of a document which does not meet a size threshold.

8. A system as in claim 4, wherein one of said rules is a junk word filter rule which identifies words indicating that the document should not be processed, and preventing said processing based on determining a junk word.

9. A system as in claim 4, wherein said abstract creation computer also includes a link to an existing document management system, and said abstract creation computer creates and stores metadata about said document based on said information in said existing document management system.

10. A system as in claim 7, further comprising an additional rule, which determines a minimum size of text only within the document, and prevents processing of the document when the text only does not meet said minimum size.

11. A system as in claim 5, wherein said rules include information to determine names of lawyers referenced within a document.

12. A system as in claim 1, wherein said rules include rules which identify and extract objective data of specific enumerated types from contents of the documents, based on searching for specific information within the documents, and rules which determine subjective categories that apply to the documents.

13. A system as in claim 12, wherein one of said subjective data rules is an analysis of a specific point of law referenced in the document.

14. A system as in claim 12, wherein one of said objective data rules includes a name of a lawyer within the document.

15. A system as in claim 12, wherein one of said objective rules categorizes the document based on governing law of the document.

16. A system as in claim 1, wherein one of the rules categorizes the document based on searching automatically for synonyms for a specified word in context.

17. A system as in claim 1, wherein one of said rules recognizes a cite within the document, which represents information which is available in full text elsewhere, and automatically creates a link to the full text information.

18. A system as in claim 1, wherein said documents include at least one of word processing documents, scanned documents, documents including statutes, and documents including other information.

19. A system, comprising:

a searching engine which allows a user to search among a plurality of documents based on a plurality of criteria including at least type of document, and substantive areas addressed by the document; and

a user interface portion, which produces information indicative of a display of results from a search conducted by said searching engine, said information including a first result indicating relevant search results, and enabling selection of one of the documents and responsively displaying information about the selected document other than contents of the document itself, and allowing selection of the displayed information, to create a display showing subcategories or further detail within the displayed information.

20. A system as in claim 19, wherein said categorization includes legal characterization and includes at least substantive legal areas discussed by the document, and subcategories of legal information discussed within the substantive legal areas.

21. A system as in claim 19, wherein said user interface portion enables viewing jurisdiction of the document, parties of the document, document type and subtype and substantive legal areas of the document.

22. A system, comprising:

a user interface which receives a request for information about a legal task, including at least a legal category, a document type, and a jurisdiction; and

an information provider, which returns information based on said legal task, document type and jurisdiction, said information including jurisdiction-specific law for said legal issue, narrative information about the jurisdiction-specific law, and links to specific sources including information about the jurisdiction-specific law, and also includes specific local information including local information about the document type for the jurisdiction.

23. A system as in claim 22, wherein said information includes a specific judge'"'"'s rules for a certain task.

24. A system as in claim 22, wherein said information provider also returns procedural checklists for a specific task.

25. A system as in claim 22, wherein said information also includes court specific rules for a specific task.

26. A system as in claim 22, wherein said information provider includes document specific rules including information about a format of a document for a specific task.

27. A system, comprising:

an abstract creation element, receiving information about a plurality of documents, and determining, from each document, specific information about each document, based on the actual words within the document, and context of said words within the document, where said context includes at least the presence of at least one of a plurality of specified other words within the document, and which produces an abstract based on said specific information, in a searchable form.

28. A system as in claim 27, wherein said specific information includes a point of law discussed by the document.

29. A system as in claim 27, wherein said specific information includes a court name within the document.

30. A system as in claim 27, wherein said specific information includes a cite to a statute, and wherein said database includes information enabling determination of the full text of the statute.

31. A system as in claim 27, wherein said database is in hyperlinked format.

32. A system as in claim 31, wherein said database is in XML format.

33. A system as in claim 31, wherein said plurality of documents include documents produced by users of the system, and documents representing external information, and said specific information includes at least one cite to the external information, and produces a database which enables viewing said external information based on said cite.

34. A system as in claim 27, wherein said specific information includes first information enabling determination of a proper name of a specific category of person referenced within the document while excluding other proper names within the document, and second information enabling determination of a document category.

35. A system as in claim 34, wherein said proper name is a lawyer'"'"'s name, and said specified other words within the document include at least one of “

Esq”

or “

LLP”

.

36. A system as in claim 34, wherein said proper name is a judge'"'"'s name.

37. A system as in claim 34, wherein said document category represents a point of law being discussed in the document.

38. A system as in claim 34, wherein said document category represents a type of the document.

39. A computer-readable storage medium having a set of instructions for a computer having a user interface, a database, and access to a plurality of documents, the set of instructions comprising:

a first objective-extracting instruction set determining information within each document based on analysis of words in the document and a position of those words within the document to look for a specific pre-enumerated item of information from within the document;

a second subjective-extracting instruction set, determining a category for the document by searching the document; and

a third instruction set, producing a document index in a searchable form based on first and second instruction sets.

40. A medium as in claim 39, said instruction sets determine information about legal documents.

41. A medium as in claim 40, further comprising instructions which determine references to statutes within the documents, and wherein said document index includes a link to a full text of the statutes.

42. A medium as in claim 39 further comprising instructions to determine a size of the document, to compare said size of said document to a minimum size, and to prevent said first instruction set and said second instruction set from operating when said document is smaller than said minimum size.

43. A medium as in claim 39, further comprising instructions to determine specific words in the document which indicate that the document should not be indexed, and to prevent said first instruction set and said second instruction set from operating when said words are determined.

44. A medium as in claim 43, wherein said words include words indicating that the document should be discarded.

45. A medium as in claim 40, further comprising instructions to determine specified names of a certain type within the documents while excluding other names which are not of said certain type.

46. A medium as in claim 43, further comprising instructions to determine words within the document which indicate that the document is one which is intended to be discarded, and to prevent said first instruction set and said second instruction set from operating when said words are determined.

47. A medium as in claim 40, further comprising instructions to determine cites to legal statutes within the document, and to create links to full text of said legal statutes.

48. A method comprising:

using a first rule to determine information about each of a plurality of documents, said first rule analyzing words in the document and a position of those words within the document;

using a second rule to determine information about each of the plurality of documents, said second rule determining a specific enumerated item of information from within the document while ignoring other items of information within the document which have the same class as said specific item;

using a third rule to determine information about each of said plurality of documents, to determine a category that applies to the document; and

storing said information from said rules in a searchable abstract file.

49. A method as in claim 48, further comprising searching said abstract file, based on a plurality of different parameters, to obtain search results therefrom.

50. A method as in claim 48, wherein said rules include at least one rule to determine information about legal documents.

51. A method as in claim 50, further comprising determining references to statutes in said documents, and storing a link to an actual version of the statutes in said abstract file.

52. A method as in claim 48, wherein said second rule determines names of specified professionals referenced within a document, and ignores other names that are not of said specified professionals within the document.

53. A method as in claim 48, wherein said rules include rules which identify and extract certain objective data from contents of the documents, based on searching for specific information within the documents, and rules which determine subjective categories that apply to documents.

54. A method as in claim 53, wherein one of said subjective data rules is an analysis of a specific point of law referenced in the document.

55. A method as in claim 53, wherein one of said objective data rules includes a name of a specified professional within the document.

56. A method comprising:

using a computer to review contents of a plurality of documents;

using said computer to determine specified items of information within said documents based on context and position within the documents, while ignoring other information of the same type within the document; and

creating a searchable abstract of the documents, based on said specified items of information.

57. A method as in claim 56, wherein said specified item of information is a name of a specified kind of person, and said other information is other names within the document.

58. A method as in claim 56, wherein said specified item of information is a specified type of law.