Data processing: database and file management or data structures – Database design – Data structure types
Reexamination Certificate
1999-04-08
2002-05-21
Alam, Hosain T. (Department: 2172)
Data processing: database and file management or data structures
Database design
Data structure types
C707S793000, C707S793000, C707S793000, C707S793000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06393423
ABSTRACT:
TECHNICAL FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates in general to electronic information exchange and in particular to apparatus and methods for facilitating information exchange between an information requestor and an information custodian via a network.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The Internet has been heralded as the “information superhighway”, a place where a person can quickly obtain information about any of a large variety of topics. As is well known, a person can use a search engine to do a key word search for web pages containing information of interest. However, as any user of the Internet will readily appreciate, such searching is often frustrating. For example, after a long list of potential web sites of interest is compiled by the search engine, the searcher must often wander from page to page manually searching for information that may or may not actually be present, a time consuming, and possibly disappointing procedure.
As is well known, web pages and/or the code that generates them are fixed in time. In other words, web pages are created by individuals based on beliefs that the information placed in the page will be of interest to future, unknown readers. Such readers are typically not involved in the creation of the page. Thus, web pages tend to be “generalized” in the sense that they include substantial quantities of information that may be of interest to certain segments of the public, but they are not specifically tailored to the interests or information needs of any particular person. This generalist approach results in circumstances such as those described above; where an individual searching for an answer to a seemingly simple question must wade through pages of “general” information with little or no applicability to the subject question before finding an answer (if one exists in the compilation of general information developed by the search engine).
Often times a person exists who knows where to locate and/or has custody of the information that interests the searcher (“an information custodian”). For example, if the searcher wants to know how bats see in the dark, a zoologist with a specialty in bats could very likely recommend a web page on point and/or answer that question precisely and concisely in a matter of moments. However, in most instances the searcher does not know a zoologist, and is, therefore, relegated to searching through a list of web pages to find an answer. In short, while Internet searching is a powerful resource, it is often inferior to having the capability of posing a direct question to a human expert who can provide a direct answer.
Of course, networked environments such as the Internet do allow people to quickly and easily send messages directly to other people. For example, an electronic mail (e-mail) system allows an originator to send a message to a recipient. Typically, an e-mail message comprises text, but may also include graphics, audio clips, video clips, and/or other forms of communication. Typically, the originator composes the message on a personal computer (PC).
The amount and direction of logical message flow varies with the type of message(s) being sent. Often, a message flows logically from an originator to a recipient. For example, a mother might send her daughter a “happy birthday” message. Other times it is desirable to have a message flow from an originator to multiple recipients. For example, an employer might send a “meeting notice” message to several employees. Yet other times multiple related messages may flow from several originators to a single recipient. For example, each employee in the above example may respond to the “meeting notice” to indicate availability. Of course, many other combinations and examples are possible.
In a direct messaging system, the originator(s) addresses the message to the recipient(s) explicitly (e.g., To: John@example.com). In a grouped messaging system, the originator (and/or another person or persons) may pre-select certain addresses and combine them into a named group to facilitate addressing. For example, the employer in the above examples may define a “marketing” group with three addresses (e.g., marketing=Al@xyz.com, Bob@xyz.com, Cathy@xyz.com). In such an instance, the employer may simply address the meeting notice to “marketing”, and the message will be sent to Al, Bob, and Cathy. Of course, group names and individual addresses could be used in combination.
In some systems the definition of certain groups is maintained independent of the originator. For example, if Al in the above example left the company, his address may be removed from the marketing group by the human resources department. In this manner everyone using the centrally defined groups is always using a consistent and recent version of the group's definition. Further, individual recipients may add and delete their own address from one or more groups to keep the group definitions current. For example, each employee interested in receiving messages about the company softball team could add his address to a “softball” group. Subsequently, the person organizing the softball team would simply addresses messages to “softball” without even knowing who was in the “softball” group. In fact, the originator may never know the identity of one or more recipients, if a recipient chooses to remain anonymous.
Well known list servers operate in this manner. Recipients add and delete their e-mail address from a central list, specific to a certain topic, by sending an e-mail message to a predefined address associated with that topic, wherein the body of the message contains a key word (e.g., “add”, “remove”, etc.). Subsequently, when originators send e-mail messages to another predefined address associated with that topic, the list server forwards the e-mail message to each person currently on the central list.
Similarly, well know discussion groups such as Usenet Newsgroups operate in essentially the same manner. An originator posts a message to a particular interest group. Typically the message includes a short subject field (e.g., web portals) and a body field (e.g., I think XYZ is the best portal because . . . ). Subsequently, multiple originators may post messages to the same interest group in response to the original message. Recipients periodically retrieve all the messages (or optionally just the new messages) posted in a particular group and read the ones they are interested in based on the subject field.
Many well known chat rooms and other “instant” messaging systems have many of the features of both direct and grouped messaging systems. Participants may enter “rooms” designated by topic (i.e., the address of the room). Subsequently, any and all participants may type messages which are then displayed on all other participant's screens. Similarly, participants may designate topics they are interested in by completing a personal profile. Then, other participants may contact similarly interested participants by searching a directory of potential participants. Participants wishing to engage in one-to-one conversations may enter private rooms and/or exchange e-mail addresses.
Although direct messaging and grouped messaging systems are very popular and have been around for a long time, these systems have several drawbacks. For example, when an originator has a specific question he wishes to have answered, it is often difficult to determine how to address the message containing the question. Further, responsiveness to information requests varies dramatically. Thus, even if the originator knows or discovers who to send his question to, there is no guarantee that he will receive an answer, particularly if the originator has no preexisting relationship with the person receiving the message. In other words, these systems are disadvantageous because they require an information requestor to know the address of a person (or group) who is both likely to know the answer and is willing to respond (i.e., an appropriate information custodian). These systems are also disadvan
LandOfFree
Apparatus and methods for electronic information exchange does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Apparatus and methods for electronic information exchange, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Apparatus and methods for electronic information exchange will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2898699