US 8239358

US Patent 8239358, titled "System, method, and user interface for a search engine based on multi-document summarization," was invented by Dmitri Soubbotin. The patent was filed on January 30, 2008, and issued on August 7, 2012. The current assignee, as of March 24, 2026, is Semantic Engines LLC.

The abstract describes a method for searching multiple documents on a computer system. It involves sending a query to a system core, which passes it to a search component. The system core receives search results (related documents) and sends a specified number of these to a summarization component. The summarization component then processes these documents to create a multi-document summary. This summary is then received and displayed by the system core.

A search of CAFC 2026 dockets for patent 8239358 did not yield any specific results indicating litigation or scheduled cases for this patent in 2026.

Here is a plain-language overview of the independent claims:

• Independent Claim 1 (Method Claim): This claim describes a method where a user's query is sent to a system. The system uses a search component to find relevant documents and then sends a select number of these documents to a summarization component. This summarization component creates a multi-document summary, or "digest," based on the query's topic by analyzing the original documents and extracting sentences and text fragments. Importantly, each extracted sentence or fragment in the summary includes a clickable link back to its original source document. This summary is then displayed to the user as the main search result, alongside the traditional list of search results. The system also shows key semantic concepts from the documents. The user can extensively interact with this presentation, including refining their search, navigating parts of the summary, accessing the original documents via the embedded links or the search results list, requesting new summaries with specific content exclusions or inclusions, customizing how source links are shown, rearranging summary content, saving the summary, and providing feedback (rating) to the system.

• Independent Claim 5 (Method Claim): This claim outlines a method where a user sends a query and, in response, directly receives a multi-document summary from a system core. This summary is presented as the primary search output and is a "digest" focused on the query's topic. It comprises combined sentences and text fragments extracted from the relevant documents, with each fragment including a reference link to its source. Alongside this summary, the system also displays the conventional search results and semantic concepts. Similar to Claim 1, the user is provided with extensive interactive capabilities, such as refining the query, navigating the summary, viewing original documents through the embedded links or the search results, requesting further summaries with specific content adjustments, choosing display preferences for links, modifying the summary's arrangement, saving the summary, and rating it to send feedback to the system.

• Independent Claim 7 (System Claim): This claim describes a system designed to perform the functions outlined in the method claims. It includes components (means) for:

  • Allowing a user to interact with the system.
  • Searching documents based on a user's query.
  • Generating a multi-document summary (a digest) that contains sentences and text fragments extracted from the search results, with each fragment having an attached reference link to its source document.
  • Presenting this multi-document summary to the user as the primary result of their query.
  • Also presenting the traditional search results from the search component alongside the summary.
  • Extracting and displaying semantic concepts to the user.
  • Providing a wide range of user interaction capabilities, mirroring those described in Claim 1 and Claim 5, such as refining queries, navigating the summary, accessing source documents, requesting modified summaries, customizing link displays, modifying summary content, saving the summary, and rating it for feedback to the summary generation component.

A search for litigation involving US patent 8239358 revealed the following:

As of May 31, 2026, there are no specific results from CAFC dockets or general patent litigation databases explicitly listing ongoing or past litigation for US Patent 8239358 with case numbers, filing dates, and outcomes. While the Google Patents "Legal Status" section indicates "Family has litigation" and mentions "US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court" for the patent family, specific details for US8239358 were not immediately available in the search results provided.

To obtain comprehensive information regarding any potential litigation, it would be necessary to conduct a more in-depth search using PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) or by contacting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit directly, especially for cases filed before March 1, 2012, as these records are stored with the National Archives and Records Administration.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 8239358. This indicates that the patent has not yet been challenged through Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). For a defendant, this means the patent's claims remain untested by these specific administrative challenges, and all claims are currently sustained as granted.

Strategic summary

As of 2026-05-31, all claims (1-17) of US Patent 82393358 remain untested and sustained as granted, as there have been no AIA trial proceedings filed against this patent. Consequently, there is no estoppel landscape from PTAB proceedings that would bar petitioners or their privies from raising any prior-art grounds. All potential prior-art grounds under §§ 102, 103, and 112 are theoretically still available for a new IPR, PGR, or CBM petition, assuming the statutory requirements for filing such petitions (e.g., timing, claim eligibility) are met.

The absence of PTAB activity is a notable signal. Patents that are actively asserted or highly valued often attract IPR challenges, especially if there are strong prior art arguments. The fact that this patent has not faced such challenges could indicate various scenarios: it has not been heavily asserted, potential challengers have deemed IPR unlikely to succeed, or it is a relatively young patent (though granted in 2012, it's had sufficient time to be challenged).

Recommended next steps

Since there is no PTAB activity on US Patent 8239358, the following steps are recommended:

• Prior Art Search: Conduct a thorough prior art search to identify any unconsidered prior art that could be used to challenge the validity of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103.
• Validity Analysis: Perform a detailed validity analysis of the patent's claims against any newly identified prior art.
• Monitor for Future Filings: Continuously monitor the PTAB E2E system and relevant dockets for any future filings against US8239358. While there are no proceedings now, this could change at any time, especially if the patent becomes part of an assertion campaign.
• Consider IPR/PGR: If facing an assertion of this patent, and strong prior art is found, consider initiating an IPR or PGR petition to challenge the validity of the asserted claims. The absence of previous challenges means the claims are "fresh" for PTAB review.
• Engagement Strategy: The lack of PTAB history means the patent owner has not had to defend these claims in an administrative setting, which may impact their strategic posture in negotiations.

Inventors

The sole named inventor is Dmitri Soubbotin. At the time of filing (January 30, 2008), the original assignee was listed as "Individual," indicating that Dmitri Soubbotin likely owned the patent rights personally rather than through an employer.

Original assignee

The original assignee on the issued patent was "Individual" (Dmitri Soubbotin). As of March 24, 2026, the patent was assigned to Semantic Engines LLC.

Semantic Engines LLC, based on its name and known patent litigation activity (e.g., against major tech companies like Google, Apple, Microsoft, as referenced by Unified Patents litigation data), appears to be primarily involved in intellectual property holding and licensing, rather than shipping a widespread product embodying the claims directly. Their primary line of business is patent assertion and monetization. Semantic Engines LLC is currently an operating entity, actively involved in patent ownership and litigation.

Assignment timeline

• 2026-03-24 (executed) / recorded 2026-03-27 — Reel 074173/0434

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: SOUBBOTIN, DMITRI
  • Assignee: SEMANTIC ENGINES LLC
  • Correspondent: ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C., 80 SOUTH 8TH STREET, SUITE 2100, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
  • Context: Transfer of patent ownership from the individual inventor to an entity likely formed for patent monetization.

• 2026-03-25 (executed) / recorded 2026-03-27 — Reel 074177/0233

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: SEMANTIC ENGINES LLC
  • Assignee: SONA ASSET MANAGEMENT (US) LLC
  • Correspondent: SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP, 30 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10112-0015
  • Context: Granting of a security interest in the patent by Semantic Engines LLC to an asset management firm, indicating financial structuring.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8239358
    2008 : Filed by Individual Inventor
    2012 : Issued to Individual Inventor
    2026 : Assigned to Semantic Engines LLC
         : Security interest to Sona Asset Mgmt

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. The transfer from the individual inventor, Dmitri Soubbotin, to "Semantic Engines LLC" on 2026-03-24 (Reel 074173/0434) is a strong signal. Semantic Engines LLC's name and known patent assertion activities (as identified by Unified Patents) suggest a focus on intellectual property monetization rather than commercial product development.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. Semantic Engines LLC is a high-frequency patent plaintiff, as evidenced by litigation filed in the Texas Eastern District Court (case 2:26-cv-00339), indicating it is a known asserter. SONA ASSET MANAGEMENT (US) LLC, while not an NPE itself, is an asset management firm that has taken a security interest in the patent (2026-03-25, Reel 074177/0233), which is consistent with NPE financing models.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present. The assignment to Semantic Engines LLC was handled by ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. (Reel 074173/0434), while the security interest to SONA ASSET MANAGEMENT (US) LLC was handled by SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP (Reel 074177/0233). These are different firms for the recorded assignments in this chain.
4. Cascading transfers — Present. Two conveyance events occurred in rapid succession, with execution dates of 2026-03-24 and 2026-03-25, and both were recorded on 2026-03-27 (Reel 074173/0434 and Reel 074177/0233). This quick succession of an assignment followed by a security interest, particularly involving an asset management firm, signifies financial structuring often associated with patent assertion.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Present. The assignment to Semantic Engines LLC occurred on 2026-03-24, and a US case was filed in the Texas Eastern District Court (case 2:26-cv-00339) in 2026, as noted in the Google Patents legal events. This indicates that the patent was transferred within months of, or concurrently with, the initiation of litigation, a strong indicator of assertion-driven activity.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No evidence of bankruptcy for the original inventor or assignees.
7. Privateering — Unclear. While Semantic Engines LLC engages in assertion, there is no explicit public information linking this activity to an operating company's strategy against competitors.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent has not been assigned to a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The strong signals of a shell-entity transfer to Semantic Engines LLC (Reel 074173/0434, executed 2026-03-24), the immediate granting of a security interest to an asset management firm (Reel 074177/0233, executed 2026-03-25), and the recorded litigation (case 2:26-cv-00339 in Texas Eastern District Court) shortly after the assignment, collectively indicate a high-confidence NPE pattern.

Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US Patent 8239358, I will examine the patent citations listed within the patent itself. "Prior art" refers to any evidence that an invention was already known or available to the public before the effective filing date of a patent application. This can include previously granted patents and published applications.

Based on the patent document US8239358, here are the cited prior art references that were considered by the examiner:

Patent Citations for US8239358

1. US5384703A:

   • Full Citation: US5384703A, "Method and apparatus for summarizing documents according to theme"
   • Publication Date: 1995-01-24
   • Priority Date: 1993-07-02
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a method and apparatus for summarizing documents based on identified themes. It focuses on extracting key information related to a specific subject within a document.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent potentially anticipates aspects of Claim 1, Claim 5, and Claim 7 related to the concept of generating a summary of documents. Specifically, the idea of producing a "digest, on a topic specified by said query, produced by analyzing syntax and semantics of said related documents, extracting sentences and text fragments" may be anticipated by a method that summarizes documents "according to theme."

2. US5623652A:

   • Full Citation: US5623652A, "Method and apparatus for searching for information in a network and for controlling the display of searchable information on display devices in the network"
   • Publication Date: 1997-04-22
   • Priority Date: 1994-07-25
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a method for searching information in a network and controlling its display. It focuses on presenting search results effectively to a user.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent might anticipate elements of Claim 1, Claim 5, and Claim 7 concerning the "means for interfacing with a user" and "means for presenting said multi-document summary to the user," as it deals with methods for displaying searchable information in a network.

3. US5634051A:

   • Full Citation: US5634051A, "Information management system"
   • Publication Date: 1997-05-27
   • Priority Date: 1993-10-28
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a system for managing information, which could involve retrieval and organization of documents.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This may generally anticipate elements of the system claims (Claim 7) related to overall information retrieval and management.

4. US5859972A:

   • Full Citation: US5859972A, "Multiple server repository and multiple server remote application virtual client computer"
   • Publication Date: 1999-01-12
   • Priority Date: 1996-05-10
   • Brief Description: This patent relates to a system involving multiple servers and client computers for managing and accessing information.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This could potentially anticipate system architecture aspects of Claim 7, particularly where the "system core" interacts with various components across a network.

5. US6181342B1:

   • Full Citation: US6181342B1, "Computer file directory system displaying visual summaries of visual data in desktop computer documents for quickly identifying document content"
   • Publication Date: 2001-01-30
   • Priority Date: 1998-07-06
   • Brief Description: This patent focuses on displaying visual summaries of documents in a computer file directory system to aid in quick content identification. While it mentions "visual summaries," the concept of providing a summary for quick content review is relevant.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent may anticipate the general idea of providing a "summary" to help users quickly understand document content, as described in Claim 1, Claim 5, and Claim 7, even if the summary format is visual rather than text-based.

6. US6199077B1:

   • Full Citation: US6199077B1, "Server-side web summary generation and presentation"
   • Publication Date: 2001-03-06
   • Priority Date: 1998-12-08
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a system for generating and presenting web summaries on the server side.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent appears highly relevant as it explicitly covers "summary generation and presentation" for web content. It could potentially anticipate the "generating a multi-document summary" and "presenting said multi-document summary to the user" aspects of Claim 1, Claim 5, and Claim 7.

7. US6338059B1:

   • Full Citation: US6338059B1, "Hyperlinked search interface for distributed database"
   • Publication Date: 2002-01-08
   • Priority Date: 1998-12-17
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a search interface for distributed databases that uses hyperlinks.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent could potentially anticipate the "attached reference link to at least one related document" feature in Claim 1, Claim 5, and Claim 7, as well as the user's ability "to view a one of said related documents by choosing a one of said attached reference links."

8. US6430563B1:

   • Full Citation: US6430563B1, "Integrated knowledge provider with logical hyperlinks"
   • Publication Date: 2002-08-06
   • Priority Date: 1997-10-07
   • Brief Description: This patent relates to a knowledge provider system that integrates information and uses logical hyperlinks.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to US6338059B1, this patent could anticipate the use of hyperlinks to navigate to source documents within the context of an information system as described in Claim 1, Claim 5, and Claim 7.

9. US6446065B1:

   • Full Citation: US6446065B1, "Document retrieval assisting method and system for the same and document retrieval service using the same"
   • Publication Date: 2002-09-03
   • Priority Date: 1996-07-05
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a method and system for assisting in document retrieval, focusing on enhancing the retrieval process.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This could generally anticipate the "searching the documents using a query from the user" aspects of Claim 1, Claim 5, and Claim 7.

10. US20040054973A1:

    • Full Citation: US20040054973A1, "Method and apparatus for transforming contents on the web"
    • Publication Date: 2004-03-18
    • Priority Date: 2000-10-02
    • Brief Description: This patent application describes methods and apparatus for transforming web content. This could include processing and re-presenting information.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): The transformation of web content could encompass aspects of extracting and combining text fragments, potentially anticipating elements of the summarization process in Claim 1, Claim 5, and Claim 7.

11. US6775677B1:

    • Full Citation: US6775677B1, "System, method, and program product for identifying and describing topics in a collection of electronic documents"
    • Publication Date: 2004-08-10
    • Priority Date: 2000-03-02
    • Brief Description: This patent focuses on identifying and describing topics within a collection of electronic documents.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent appears highly relevant to the "digest, on a topic specified by said query" and "extracting sentences and text fragments" aspects of Claim 1, Claim 5, and Claim 7. The identification of topics is a core part of summarization focused on a query.

12. US20050203970A1:

    • Full Citation: US20050203970A1, "System and method for document collection, grouping and summarization"
    • Publication Date: 2005-09-15
    • Priority Date: 2002-09-16
    • Brief Description: This patent application explicitly describes a system and method for document summarization, including collection and grouping.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent is very highly relevant due to its explicit focus on "document summarization." It likely anticipates many aspects of the summarization process described in Claim 1, Claim 5, and Claim 7, particularly the generation of a multi-document summary from related documents.

13. US6944612B2:

    • Full Citation: US6944612B2, "Structured contextual clustering method and system in a federated search engine"
    • Publication Date: 2005-09-13
    • Priority Date: 2002-11-13
    • Brief Description: This patent describes a method and system for structured contextual clustering within a federated search engine. Clustering can be related to organizing information from multiple sources.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent may anticipate elements related to organizing and presenting extracted "semantic concepts" or grouping information from various sources as mentioned in Claim 1, Claim 5, and Claim 7.

14. US7013478B1:

    • Full Citation: US7013478B1, "Method and apparatus for interactive program suggestion"
    • Publication Date: 2006-03-14
    • Priority Date: 1992-12-09
    • Brief Description: This patent describes an interactive system for suggesting programs. While not directly related to document summarization, it involves user interaction and suggestions based on input.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent is less directly relevant to the core summarization aspects but could broadly anticipate the "enabling the user to use the presentation by the displaying steps to refine the query" or other interactive features of Claim 1, Claim 5, and Claim 7.

15. US20070106653A1:

    • Full Citation: US20070106653A1, "Search engine"
    • Publication Date: 2007-05-10
    • Priority Date: 2005-10-12
    • Brief Description: This patent application describes a search engine.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This broadly anticipates the "search component for searching the documents" or "means for searching the documents using a query from the user" in Claim 1, Claim 5, and Claim 7.

16. US20070288230A1:

    • Full Citation: US20070288230A1, "Simplifying query terms with transliteration"
    • Publication Date: 2007-12-13
    • Priority Date: 2006-04-19
    • Brief Description: This patent application focuses on simplifying query terms, which relates to the initial input for a search.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This could potentially anticipate the "sending a query to a system core" or "refine the query" aspects of Claim 1 and Claim 5.

17. US7707220B2:

    • Full Citation: US7707220B2, "Methods and apparatus for interactive searching techniques"
    • Publication Date: 2010-04-27
    • Priority Date: 2004-07-06
    • Brief Description: This patent describes methods and apparatus for interactive searching.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent is relevant to the interactive elements of Claim 1, Claim 5, and Claim 7, particularly the numerous user interaction steps described, such as refining queries, navigating summaries, and requesting modified summaries.

The most relevant prior art references, particularly concerning the core inventive concept of multi-document summarization, appear to be:

• US5384703A ("Method and apparatus for summarizing documents according to theme")
• US6199077B1 ("Server-side web summary generation and presentation")
• US6775677B1 ("System, method, and program product for identifying and describing topics in a collection of electronic documents")
• US20050203970A1 ("System and method for document collection, grouping and summarization")

These patents explicitly address summarization and the identification of topics within documents, which are central to US8239358's claims.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 8239358 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis identifies combinations of prior art references that would render the independent claims of US Patent 8239358 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention (priority date of February 6, 2007).

Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA)

A PHOSITA in 2007 would be a software engineer or researcher with experience in information retrieval, natural language processing (NLP), and web application development. They would possess knowledge of how search engines function, various document summarization techniques (including single and multi-document summarization), and standard user interface (UI) design principles for displaying information and facilitating user interaction on the internet.

Problem Addressed by US8239358

The background of US8239358 identifies a key problem with existing internet search methods: users face a "large amount of Web pages" and "spends a considerable time before finding satisfactory results," often dealing with "contradictory" information or content "irrelevant" to their specific query. [cite: US8239358 Description, Background of the Invention] The patent aims to improve user satisfaction by presenting an automatically generated multi-document summary as a primary search result, providing a concise digest of relevant information with direct links to original sources, and offering extensive user interaction capabilities. [cite: US8239358 Description, Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments]

Obviousness Combination

The independent claims (1, 5, and 7) of US8239358 would have been obvious to a PHOSITA by combining the "iResearch Reporter" system (as described in the Wikipedia entry on Multi-document summarization), US Patent 5,623,652 (Apple Computer, Inc.) [cite: US5623652A Abstract], US Patent 6,775,677 (International Business Machines Corporation) [cite: US6775667B1 Abstract], and general knowledge of user interface design common in the art.

Motivation for Combination: A PHOSITA, motivated to address the identified problems of information overload and poor user satisfaction in web search, would logically seek to integrate known multi-document summarization capabilities into search engine interfaces. The existence of systems like "iResearch Reporter" explicitly combining search, multi-document summarization, and source linking demonstrates that this integration was known and desired. Enhancing such a system with common user interaction features found in other information retrieval systems would be a natural and obvious step to further improve usability and user control.

Analysis Against Independent Claim 1 (Method Claim)

Claim 1 describes a method for searching and summarizing multiple documents with extensive user interaction.

• Sending a query to a search component and receiving results: The "iResearch Reporter" system "accepts user-entered query, passes it on to Google search engine, retrieves multiple relevant documents." This directly teaches the initial steps of query submission and receiving search results. US5623652A further teaches a "method and apparatus for searching for information" and "displaying to a user... representations of portions of search results." [cite: US5623652A Abstract]
• Passing results to a summarization component to produce a multi-document summary (digest) on a query-specified topic, by analyzing syntax/semantics, and extracting sentences/text fragments: The "iResearch Reporter" system "produces categorized, easily readable natural language summary reports covering multiple documents in retrieved set." This clearly describes the creation of a multi-document summary responsive to the query. Multi-document summarization techniques, including extraction based on semantic analysis, were well-known prior to the priority date, as evidenced by US5384703A (Xerox) which describes "summarizing one or more documents according to a theme specified by a user query" by "identifying and scoring concepts" and "extracting important sentences" [cite: US5384703A Abstract], and by the existence of Document Understanding Conferences (DUC) which began in 2001 addressing multi-document summarization challenges.
• Each sentence/text fragment in the summary comprises an attached reference link to its source document: The "iResearch Reporter" explicitly states that "all extracts linked to original documents on the Web." This directly teaches the inclusion of source links within the multi-document summary fragments.
• Displaying the multi-document summary as a product of the query: The "iResearch Reporter" "returns the summary to a client-side system for display, for example, within a web browser." Presenting this summary as the direct output of a search query is a straightforward integration into a search interface.
• Receiving and displaying search results in addition to the multi-document summary: A PHOSITA would find it obvious to display both the generated summary (as from "iResearch Reporter") and the conventional list of search results (as taught by US5623652A [cite: US5623652A Abstract]). This provides users with flexibility, allowing them to quickly grasp the main points or delve into individual documents, addressing the problem of varying user information needs.
• Extracting and displaying semantic concepts to a user: The "iResearch Reporter" produces "categorized" summary reports, which implies the extraction and presentation of concepts. Furthermore, US6775677B1 teaches a "system, method, and program product for identifying and describing topics in a collection of electronic documents." [cite: US6775677B1 Abstract] A PHOSITA would understand the value of presenting these concepts to a user for better understanding of the summarized content.
• Enabling extensive user interaction (refine query, navigate summary, view source documents via links/results, request another summary with exclusions/inclusions, choose display preferences, modify/regroup summary, save, and rate): These user interaction features are common and well-known in web-based information retrieval systems by the priority date.
  • Refining the query and viewing source documents from search results are fundamental functionalities of any search engine (e.g., US5623652A [cite: US5623652A Abstract]).
  • Viewing source documents via attached reference links in the digest is explicitly taught by the "iResearch Reporter".
  • Navigating parts of the summary (e.g., scrolling, clicking headings) is standard functionality for any displayed text on a web page.
  • Requesting another summary with modifications (e.g., excluding/including documents or fragments, modifying/regrouping content): Given the existence of multi-document summarization systems ("iResearch Reporter", US5384703A [cite: US5384703A Abstract]) and the general trend toward user customization in web applications and "interactive searching techniques" (US7707220B2 [cite: US7707220B2 Abstract]), a PHOSITA would find it obvious to implement controls allowing users to refine the summary output. This directly addresses the problem of users not finding satisfactory results and wanting more control over the information they receive.
  • Choosing a display preference for attached reference links (e.g., inline, at the end, full URL vs. short title) is a routine UI customization option.
  • Saving and rating the currently displayed multi-document summary for feedback: These are common features in web applications for content management and collecting user feedback, motivated by a desire to enhance user experience and improve system performance (as stated in US8239358's description for "self-learning features").

Analysis Against Independent Claim 5 (Method Claim)

Claim 5 presents a method similar to Claim 1, focusing on receiving and displaying the multi-document summary as the primary product of the query, along with similar user interaction steps. For the same reasons outlined for Claim 1, the combination of the "iResearch Reporter" system, US5623652A [cite: US5623652A Abstract], US6775677B1 [cite: US6775677B1 Abstract], and general UI design principles would render Claim 5 obvious. The core inventive concept of providing a multi-document summary with source links alongside traditional search results and offering interactive controls is anticipated or obvious in light of this prior art.

Analysis Against Independent Claim 7 (System Claim)

Claim 7 describes a system (comprising "means for" various functions) to achieve the methods of Claims 1 and 5.

• Means for interfacing with a user: Inherently present in any web-based system, as taught by the "iResearch Reporter" demo nature and US5623652A's user display [cite: US5623652A Abstract].
• Means for searching the documents using a query from the user: Taught by the "iResearch Reporter" which "passes [query] on to Google search engine", and US5623652A's searching apparatus. [cite: US5623652A Abstract]
• Means for generating a multi-document summary comprising a digest with attached reference links: Taught by the "iResearch Reporter" system, which "produces...summary reports covering multiple documents...all extracts linked to original documents on the Web." This directly covers the generation of the digest with linked fragments.
• Means for presenting said multi-document summary to the user as a product of said query: Taught by the "iResearch Reporter" which "returns the summary to a client-side system for display."
• Means for receiving and presenting said results from said search component in addition to presenting said multi-document summary: This "means" would be an obvious combination of the "iResearch Reporter's" summary output and the standard search result display component of a search engine (e.g., as taught by US5623652A [cite: US5623652A Abstract]), motivated by user choice and comprehensive information delivery.
• Means for extracting and displaying semantic concepts to the user: Taught by the "categorized" reports of "iResearch Reporter" and the topic identification capabilities of US6775677B1. [cite: US6775677B1 Abstract]
• Means for enabling user interaction (as detailed in Claim 1 and 5): These "means" correspond to standard software modules and user interface components that a PHOSITA would readily implement in any interactive web application or information retrieval system. For example, the means for viewing source documents via reference links is directly taught by the functionality described for "iResearch Reporter". The other interactive "means" are well-understood design choices for enhancing user experience in a search environment, particularly when a novel display (like a multi-document summary) is introduced.

In conclusion, the combination of the "iResearch Reporter" system, US Patent 5,623,652, US Patent 6,775,677, and the general knowledge of a PHOSITA regarding user interface design would render independent claims 1, 5, and 7 of US8239358 obvious.