Docket No. 413 8-4003US2
`Express Mail No. EV 245 487 447US
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`PROVISIONAL APPLICATION COVER SHEET
`This is a request for filing a PROVISIONAL APPLICATION under 37 CFR § 1.53(c)(l).
`
`FIRST NAME
`
`INVENTOR(s)/APPLICANT(s)
`MIDDLE INITIAL
`RESIDE!'K:E(CITY ANDEITHERSTA1EORK>REIGNCDUNIRY)
`
`Richard
`
`R.
`
`20 East 9th Street, Apt. 14K, New York, NY 10003
`
`LASTNAME
`
`Reisman
`
`TITLE
`ME1HOD AND APPARATUS FOR BROWSING USING MULTIPLE COORDINATED DEVICE SETS
`CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS
`Customer Number or Bar Code Label, or
`Correspondence address below
`
`[gl
`
`(cid:143)
`
`111111111111·11111111111111111111111
`
`2712J .•.·
`
`Name
`Address
`
`PATENT TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`1'AFFIX CUSTOMER NO. BAR CODE LABEL ABOVE 1'
`
`City
`· Country
`
`D
`
`~k
`~~~
`Fax
`Telephone
`ENCLOSED APPLICATION PARTS (check all that apply)
`~ Specification Number of Pages [235]
`~ Small Entity Status is/has been claimed.
`~ Drawings(s) Number of Sheets Ll.Ql
`D Assignment _ _
`D Other: __
`~ [l-999]Claims(s) Number ofShects [ill] (not required)
`METHOD OF PAYMENT (clteck one)
`A check or money order is enclosed to cover the Provisional
`filing fees.
`!Zl · The Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge the filing fees
`and credit Deposit Account No. 13-4500, .
`Order No. 413 8-4003 US2.
`
`~ The Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any additional
`fee(s) which may be required, or to credit any overpayment, to
`Deposit Account No. 13-4500, Order No. 4138-4003US2.
`
`PROVISIONAL
`FILING FEE
`AMOUNT($)
`
`~ $80.00 (small entity)
`
`0
`
`$160.00
`
`The invention was made by an agency of the United States Government or under a contract with an agency of the United
`States Government.
`[gl No D Yes, the name of the U.S. Government agency and the Government contract number are: __ _
`D Additional inventors are being named on separately numbered sheets attached hereto
`
`Date __ ?,/""'---+) 7A_.,,__,\) __ _
`
`Type or Print Name
`
`f
`
`Registration No.
`
`762344 vi
`
`PROVISIONAL APPLICATION FILING ONLY
`
`j
`
`

`

`Docket No. 4138-4003US2
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Applicant(s):
`
`Richard R. Reisman
`
`Serial No.:
`
`TBA
`
`Group Art Unit:
`
`TBA
`
`Examiner:
`
`TBA
`
`Filed:
`
`For:
`
`Herewith (March 17, 2003)
`
`METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR BROWSING USING MULTIPLE
`COORDINATED DEVICE SETS
`EXPRESS MAIL CERTIFICATE
`
`Express Mail Label No.:
`
`Date of Deposit:
`
`EV 245 487 447US
`March 17, 2003
`
`l hereby certify that the following attached paper(s) and/or fee
`
`1. Provisional Patent Application - Specification - 235 pages; Claims -
`158 pages, Drawings - 10 sheets;
`2. Provisional Application Transmittal;
`3. Return postcard ,
`
`is being deposited with the United States Postal Service "Express Mail Post Office to Addressee"
`service under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1. 10 on the date indicated above and is addressed to Commissioner· for
`Patents, Washington, DC 20231
`
`Correspondence Address:
`MORGAN & FINNEGAN, L.L.P.
`345 Park A venue
`New York, NY 10154-0053
`(212) 758-4800 Telephone
`(212) 751-6849 Facsimile
`
`762360vl
`
`

`

`Docket No. 4138-4003US2
`
`U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT APPLICATION
`
`FOR:
`
`METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR BROWSING USING
`
`MULTIPLE COORDINATED DEVICE SETS
`
`INVENTOR:
`
`RICHARD R. REISMAN
`
`MORGAN & FINNEGAN, LLP
`345 PARK A VENUE
`NEW YORK, NY 10154-0053
`(212) 758-4800
`(212) 751-6849 (FACSIMILE)
`WWW.MORGANFINNEGAN.COM
`
`762258 vi
`
`

`

`[0001]
`
`Method And Apparatus For Browsing Using Multiple Coordinated Device Sets
`
`TITLE OF THE INVENTION:
`
`Docket No. 4138-4003US2
`
`Field of the Invention
`
`(0002]
`
`The present invention is directed generally to interactive television and similar
`
`interactive hypermedia such as from television or Internet sources, and more particularly to the
`
`provision and use of user interfaces that permit interaction using multiple coordinated device
`
`sets.
`
`Background of the Invention
`
`(0003]
`
`While "convergence" of television (TV) and computer technology have been a
`
`major focus of innovation and commercial development since the early 1990s, particularly in the
`
`area of"interactive television" (ITV), there remains a huge gulf in the nature of the user
`
`experience of ITV and of computer-based media such as the World Wide Web. Convergence
`
`has taken hold in infrastructure technologies, with digital and computer-based TV (DTV) editing,
`
`production, distribution, transmission, and devices. At heart ITV is a matter of hypermedia
`
`browsing, the process of browsing linked media resources like the Web, differing only on its
`
`emphasis on video as the central medium.
`
`[0004]
`
`However, there remains a divide relating to the dramatic difference in how TV -
`
`centric and computer-centric media are used, and to the cultural divide between the TV
`
`production and distribution industry and the computer and Web industries that has prevented a
`
`convergence in user experience from developing or even being seen as possible and desirable.
`
`TV usage and directions are focused on its character as a lean-back, across-the-room, low
`
`resolution, and relatively passive, relaxed experience of couch potatoes viewing large, often
`
`shared TV screens with simple remote controls. PC usage and directions are focused on its
`
`character as lean-forward, up-close, high resolution, and intensive, highly interactive experiences
`
`of individuals with PC-styles displays, keyboards, and pointing devices. Variant device sets and
`
`applications, such as PD As, tablets, and video games, could be taken as suggestive of the
`
`762258 vl
`
`1
`
`

`

`Docket No. 4138-4003US2
`
`desirability of selecting among alternative usage modes and form factors, but only very limited
`
`aspects of these suggestions have been recognized.
`
`[0005]
`
`The limitations of these radically disparate device set form factors have severely
`
`limited the appeal of ITV. ITV promises to greatly enrich the TV experience by allowing
`
`interactive features that can range from access to supplementary enhancement material such as
`
`background on programs, casts and players, sports statistics, polls, chat messaging, and
`
`interactive advertisements and purchase offers ("t-commerce"), and all manner of other
`
`tangential information, to ways to vary the core program content by acting on viewer input and
`
`choices as to camera angles or even alternative plots, as well as providing improved control of
`
`the core experience with electronic program guides (EPGs ), personal video recorders (PVRs) and
`
`video on demand (VOD) and similar features.
`
`[0006]
`
`The problem is that these interactive features are not well served by the TV usage
`
`mode and form factor, and their use interferes with the basic TV experience. Rich interaction
`
`with a TV is inherently difficult. Presentation of information is limited by the poor capabilities
`
`of a TV screen for presenting text, menus, and navigations controls, and the crude input
`
`capabilities of a remote control. The rich information and navigation functionality available on a
`
`Web browser or other PC-based user interface (e.g., UI, especially graphical user interfaces,
`
`GUis) must be "dumbed-down" and limited for use on a TV, and even use of high-definition TV
`
`(HDTV) may not significantly ease that-people do not like to read or do fine work from across(cid:173)
`
`the-room, it is just not comfortable ergonomics. Furthermore, the attempt to show interactive
`
`controls and enhancements on the TV interferes with viewing by the person interacting, as well
`
`as any other viewers in the room. Compounding these issues and slowing recognition of better
`
`solutions is the dominance of the cable TV industry, its struggles in developing and deploying
`
`the advanced set-top boxes (STBs) needed to offermeaningful ITV services of the form it
`
`envisions, and its orientation to closed, proprietary systems that do not fully exploit or adapt to
`
`advances in the PC and Internet world.
`
`[0007]
`
`The computer community has attempted to market PCs that include a TV tuner to
`
`support TV function in a PC-centric model, as promoted by the PC-DTV Consortium. However,
`
`these systems suffer from the converse problem, in that their form factors are not suited to the
`
`fact that most people do not want to watch TV at a PC, with its lean-forward, up-close form
`
`762258 vi
`
`2
`
`

`

`Docket No. 4138-4003US2
`
`factor. Furthermore, such devices cannot effectively receive protected cable or satellite
`
`programming. And here, as with conventional TVs, the use of a single system forces technical,
`
`economical, and usage constraints on the inherently complex, multi-tasking, man-machine
`
`behavior that is desired in a rich hypermedia browsing experience.
`
`[0008]
`
`There has also been some recognition that PCs provide a way around the limited
`
`installed base of advanced STBs, but this is generally perceived only as a limited stopgap. So
`
`called Enhanced TV or Extended TV or "telewebbing" has emerged to exploit the fact that tens
`
`of millions of households have PCs in the same room as their TVs, and can surfrelated content
`
`on the Web while watching TV. Some broadcasters such as ABC and PBS have exploited this to
`
`offer Web content synchronized to a TV program, but it is the user who must coordinate the use
`
`of the PC with the TV, by finding the appropriate Web site. In spite of the fact that the installed
`
`base for such open hardware is some ten times that of ITV-capable set-top boxes; the ITV
`
`community generally views such "two-box" solutions as an unfortunate and awkward stopgap
`
`that may be desirably supplanted by advanced "one-box" systems whose wide deployment must
`
`be awaited. Some major reasons for this lack of acceptance are that this simplistic two-box
`
`model supports only very limited, pre-defined synchronization of the availability of TV and
`
`enhancement content that is built into a rigidly fixed two-box structure at the content source, and,
`
`even more importantly, that it completely fails to address any coordination of user activity at the
`
`two separate boxes.
`
`[0009]
`
`Across all of this, the key elements that are lacking are provision of a broadly
`
`flexible, powerful, selective, and simple user interface paradigm for browsing hypermedia across
`
`multiple device sets, whether they are integrated or not, with related methods for user and/or
`
`authoring control of such a UI, and provision of an effective method for independent systems to
`
`coordinate browsing activities to enable such a user interface to be employed across multiple
`
`independent systems. Further lacking across all of these aspects is delivery of these services in a
`
`way that provides the user with a smoothly integrated experience in which interactions on the
`
`multiple systems are coupled or decoupled to the degree appropriate to the task of the moment.
`
`762258 vi
`
`3
`
`

`

`Docket No. 4138-4003US2
`
`Summary of Various Embodiments the Invention
`
`[001 0]
`
`According to embodiments of the present invention there are provided systems
`
`and methods for navigating hypermedia using multiple coordinated input/output device sets.
`
`Embodiments of the invention allow a user and/or an author to control what resources are
`
`presented on which device sets (whether they are integrated or not), and provide for coordinating
`
`browsing activities to enable such a user interface to be employed across multiple independent
`
`systems. Embodiments of the invention support new and enriched aspects and applications of
`
`hypermedia browsing and related business activities.
`
`Brief Description of the Drawings
`
`[0011]
`
`Further aspects of the instant invention will be more readily appreciated upon
`
`review of the detailed description of the preferred embodiments included below when taken in
`
`conjunction with the accompanying drawings, of which:
`
`[0012]
`
`FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an exemplary assemblage of user systems, networks,
`
`and remote services for implementing certain embodiments of the present invention.
`
`[0013]
`
`FIG. 2 is a set of block diagrams of exemplary groupings of device sets and
`
`systems in the assemblage of FIG. 1.
`
`[0014]
`
`FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram of a number of exemplary user interface display
`
`layouts according to certain embodiments of the present invention.
`
`[0015]
`
`FIG. 4 is a schematic diagram of an exemplary structure for state information
`
`relating to systems within the assemblage of FIG. 1, relating to the coordination of a
`
`multimachine user interface according to certain embodiments of the present invention.
`
`[0016)
`
`FIG. 5 is a schematic diagram of an exemplary process, performed by the systems
`
`of FIG. 1, for transferring state data according to certain embodiments of the present invention.
`
`[0017]
`
`FIG. 6 is a flow chart of an exemplary process, performed by the systems of FIG.
`
`1, for transferring state data according to certain embodiments of the present invention.
`
`[ 0018]
`
`FIG. 7 is a set of block diagrams of exemplary alternative communication
`
`configurations in the assemblage of FIG. 1.
`
`762258 vi
`
`4
`
`

`

`Docket No. 4138-4003US2
`
`(0019]
`
`FIG. 8 is a block diagram of details of an exemplary portal facilitating session
`
`coordination linkage in the assemblage of FIG. 1.
`
`[0020]
`
`FIG. 9 is a schematic diagram portraying exemplary further detail of a user
`
`interface for a cross-program portal.
`
`[0021]
`
`FIG. 10 is a schematic diagram of an exemplary LiberatedSTB configuration.
`
`Detailed Description of the Invention
`
`Overview
`
`[ 0 0 2 2]
`
`The present invention may be described, in various embodiments, as a system and
`
`method for navigating hypermedia using multiple coordinated input/output device sets. It
`
`provides a broadly flexible, powerful, selective, and simple user interface paradigm for browsing
`
`that allows the user (and/or an author) to control what resources are presented on which device
`
`sets (whether they are integrated or not), and provides an effective method for coordinating
`
`browsing activities to enable such a user interface to be employed across multiple independent
`
`systems.
`
`[0023]
`
`One aspect is, in the spirit of human-centered design, to anticipate and be
`
`responsive to the user's desires (and the author's suggestions) as to what resources to present
`
`where, in order to make the best possible use of the hardware resources at a user's disposal.
`
`Homes, offices, and other personal environments of the future will have a rich array of
`
`computer-based input output devices of various kinds, some general purpose, and some more or
`
`less dedicated to specific uses. The desire is to minimize constraints on what system resources
`
`can be used for a given task, to enable the most powerful browsing experience possible.
`
`Browsing of hypermedia, such as in the case of ITV is a task in which the use of multiple devices
`
`might be valuable because it may be expected to be a dominant activity, if supported effectively,
`
`and because of the disparity ofUI issues between watching extended video segments and doing
`
`. intensive interactions (such as with Web media) that may be more or less closely coupled with
`
`such video segments.
`
`762258 vi
`
`5
`
`

`

`Docket No. 4138-4003US2
`
`(0024]
`
`Prior work has generally not recognized that it is inherent in rich ITV and similar
`
`forms of video-centric hypermedia browsing to be best served as "two-box," multitasking
`
`experiences, at least much of the time, and the problem is not to squeeze it into one box (and
`
`fight over which box's functionality and form factor is better), but to enable effective
`
`coordination of both boxes. While the TV vendors and the PC vendors might fervently wish to
`
`offer a single system that meets the needs of ITV users, that is not an effective solution. If one
`
`assumes that an ideal level of coordination among device sets can be enabled and explores usage
`
`scenarios, it can then be seen that different modes of viewing are best served by different device
`
`set form factors. These modes are not fixed for the duration of a session or task, but can blend,
`
`overlap, and vary as the flow of a set of linked tasks changes. What begins as a TV-centric
`
`browsing (or pure viewing) experience may shift to casual use of a PC for light interaction (such
`
`as looking at menus and options or doing a quick lookup) to intensive PC-centric activity (and
`
`then back again). The user may shift focus from the TV to both, to primarily the PC for a time,
`
`then become involved in the TV again. Conversely, an user at a PC may shift to immersion in a
`
`TV program or movie, then return to intensive use of the PC. While some broad usage patterns
`
`tend to favor video on the lean-back TV device set and interactivity on the lean-forward PC-type
`
`device set, other issues may relate to incidental viewing of video from a PC centric phase of
`
`activity, and casual interactions with enhancements in a TV-centric experience, as well as a
`
`complex mix of secondary issues, such as quality-of-service factors, whether an alternative
`
`device set is at hand and ready for use, other activities, presence of other people, location/setting,
`
`mood, and the like. The point in a session at which a user may wish to shift device sets may
`
`depend not only on the immediate task, but the user's expectation of where that task is leading,
`
`so an intensive task soon to end may not warrant a shift from TV to PC, but a less intensive task
`
`leading to deeper interaction may warrant an early shift. Varying form factors of different TV
`
`devices and of the range of PCs, PDAs, tablets, and Internet appliances may also affect what
`
`tasks a user wants to do on what device, with what UI. At the same time, to avoid burdening the
`
`user with the complications of too much flexibility and too many choices, it may be desirable
`
`that both the user and the content author be able to pre-set affinities, preferences, and
`
`recommendations, relating to task types, content types, and device availabilities, that could
`
`automatically place elements on the device set or device set group that is presumably best suited
`
`to the apparent context, while leaving the user with the ability to recognize that expected
`
`762258 vl
`
`6
`
`

`

`Docket No. 4138-4003US2
`
`targeting (based on conventions and/or unobtrusive cues) and to accept it with no further action,
`
`or override it if desired.
`
`[0025]
`
`Providing the desired flexibility can be viewed in terms of three interrelated
`
`issues, one of structuring an effective and flexible multimachine user interface (MMUI) for
`
`browsing by a user, one of providing methods (such as markup) for the resource
`
`creator/author/producer to aid in exploiting that MMUI, and one of implementing such an
`
`interface on a wide range of hardware and software, including systems for which such usage may
`
`not be a primary mission (including both new systems and legacy systems).
`
`[0026]
`
`A general approach to a MMUI for browsing that provides both user control and
`
`authoring support may advantageously build on the concept of targets for presentation of linked
`
`resources already present in hypermedia formats such as HTML (and XLink). In HTML, the
`
`link target attribute can be used to specify which of multiple frames a linked resource is to be
`
`presented in, with options that include the current frame, another existing frame, or a new frame.
`
`Coded specifications within the link are typically set by authors/producers of content, and
`
`controls in the browser allow the user to override and alter these settings, such as (with
`
`MICROSOFT Internet Explorer, MSIE) by using a shift-click combination to indicate that a link
`
`should be opened in a new window. Extending this to an MMUI can be done by expanding the
`
`coding of target attributes and by adding new browser control options, such as control-click, to
`
`target a window on an alternate device set. Additional control can be achieved by extending the
`
`richer drop-down control that is invoked in MSIE by right-clicking on a link. That drop-down
`
`list can be extended to list windows on alternate device sets. This provides a very flexible,
`
`general, and simple way to shift activity from one device set to another. Similar controls can be
`
`provided on simpler devices, such as for example, with a TV remote control, instead of select to
`
`activate a link to an enhancement overlay on the TV, a combination such as exit-select could be
`
`used to activate that link to an associated PC, or a new control button could be provided. As
`
`with current browsers, variations on such controls can also be defined to open the current
`
`resource at a second location ( cloning).
`
`[002 7]
`
`To implement such an interface on multiple independent device sets, the ending
`
`system must be given information to inform it when a link is to be activated, to what resource,
`
`with what browser attributes, and with what context information. A basic method is to transfer
`
`762258 vi
`
`7
`
`

`

`Docket No. 4138-4003US2
`
`from the starting system to the ending system a link activation message that that includes a state
`
`record and contains relevant link arc information. The state record contains essential information
`
`on the state of the browser and related activities on the starting system that can be used at the
`
`ending system to configure its browser and related context accordingly. A state
`
`exporter/importer/tracker component may be provided as an addition to a standard browser to
`
`provide these functions (with exporter/importer function being sufficient for simple
`
`applications).
`
`[0028)
`
`In simple embodiments, export from the starting system and import at the ending
`
`system need be done only once per transfer of locus. In certain embodiments, full event
`
`synchronization can be maintained, when desired, by the state tracker to provide ongoing
`
`collaborative functionality, as well. This is useful in the case of multiple users, and also can be
`
`useful for a single user that desires the ability to use both device sets in a fully replicated mode.
`
`However an advantage of the proposed method over conventional collaboration and
`
`synchronization systems, is that such ongoing event synchronization is not needed for basic
`
`MMUI browsing by a single user, and the complications and overhead of continually logging,
`
`exporting and importing all events that may alter state can be avoided. Instead, state information
`
`need be assembled for transfer only when a transfer is actually invoked, and only at the
`
`necessary granularity. This simple, occasional, coarse-grained transfer is readily added to any
`
`browser of existing architecture, unlike more fine-grained full synchronization approaches,
`
`which require either excessive tracking activity, display replication approaches, or rearchitecting
`
`of browsing to use model-view-controller architectures, such as in event replication approaches.
`
`[0029]
`
`Another key benefit of this method is that it is readily applied to heterogeneous
`
`systems with only simple addition of an exporter/importer and some new UI functions to each
`
`system's own native browser. This exploits the fact that the underlying resources being browsed
`
`can be common to all systems, and that at a high level, browsing state is relatively independent
`
`of system architecture. Thus the method is readily applied to both TV and PC-based systems,
`
`and could be added to existing or new systems by manufacturers, integrators, distributors, service
`
`providers, or by end users themselves. The proposed methods are well suited to standardization,
`
`which could facilitate the inherent capability of the methods described here to allow any suitably
`
`functional device sets and systems to be used together in the desired coordinated fashion,
`
`regardless of its internal software and hardware architecture, vendor, or provisioning. Use of
`
`762258 vi
`
`8
`
`

`

`Docket No. 4138-4003US2
`
`XML, RDF, and related standards is suggested to facilitate this. These features for ad hoc
`
`provisioning and use of devices acquired for other purposes removes a major hurdle to the
`
`introduction of MMUis for ITV and other hypermedia browsing applications. Thus, for
`
`example, a household need not buy a lean forward device for ITV, but can simply use an existing
`
`PC, PDA, tablet, or the like.
`
`[ 0 0 3 0]
`
`As a further perspective on the range of ways to use a MMUI for interactive TV
`
`and similar hypermedia browsing as described herein it may be helpful, perhaps with regard to
`
`varied levels of multitasking and ( correspondingly) of how closely enhancement resources relate
`
`to the viewing of a "primary program", to consider the term "interactivity." The term
`
`"interactive TV" might tend to suggest that a viewer interacts with a TV device and/or with TV
`
`content. Such a view may be appropriate to many kinds of ITV interaction. However, in
`
`considering the embodiments ofMMUI browsing described herein, it is noted that many cases of
`
`what might be broadly described in terms of "interactive TV" could involve interactions that
`
`need not directly involve the TV device, or even the actual program content that is "on the TV",
`
`but that, for instance, involve other content perhaps more or less closely related to the program
`
`content that is on the TV.
`
`[0031 J
`
`From such a standpoint, the term "coactivity" might be considered as useful to
`
`emphasize the possible distinction between what is interacted with and what is on TV. Thus, for
`
`example, in the case of a loosely coupled interactive sub-task on a PC that relates to a program
`
`on the TV, the interactivity that takes place as part of that sub-task might be described as
`
`"coactivity".
`
`[0032]
`
`The concept of coactivity could be useful, for instance, in clarifying certain
`
`motivations for using a MMUI. To the extent that one might think of a task as "interacting with
`
`the TV," the idea of using another device set (for example, a PC) might seem odd and unnatural
`
`to the task. However, by recognizing that many interactive tasks actually involve coactivity with
`
`content that might not be "on the TV", but that relates to what is on the TV, the use of a separate
`
`device set might be more readily recognized as possibly being natural and appropriate.
`
`Accordingly, "two-box" embodiments of the present invention could be seen as potentially well
`
`suited to the essential nature of ITV and similar hypermedia browsing, and not as a "stopgap" or
`
`762258 vi
`
`9
`
`

`

`Docket No. 4138-4003US2
`
`"work-around" embodiments. Development of this new paradigm for man-machine-media
`
`interaction affords enriched capabilities and supports new and enriched applications.
`
`[0033]
`
`As used herein, the term "hypermedia" is meant to refer to any kind of media that
`
`may have the effect of a non-linear structure of associated elements represented as a network of
`
`information-containing nodes interconnected by relational links. Hypermedia is meant to include
`
`"hypertext", and the two may at times be used synonymously in the broad sense, but where
`
`stated or otherwise clear in context, "hypertext" can refer particularly to text content, and
`
`"hypermedia" to extend that to content that includes other formats such as graphics, video, and
`
`sound. The terminology used herein is meant ofbe generally consistent with that used in World
`
`Wide Web Consortium (W3C) recommendations.
`
`[ 0 0 3 4]
`
`The associations of elements may be specified as "hyperlinks" or "links," such as
`
`described by the XLink (XML Linking Language), SMIL (Synchronized Multimedia Integration
`
`Language), HTML, XHTML, and similar W3C recommendations. Links define an association
`
`between a "starting resource," the source from which link traversal is begun, and an "ending
`
`resource," the destination, collectively referred to as "participating resources." A "resource" is
`
`used to refer to any addressable unit of information or service and may at times refer to a
`
`resource portion rather than a whole resource, and a "content resource" to refer to any resource
`
`suited to presentation to a user. In the context of hypermedia, "node" may be used
`
`synonymously with resource. "Navigation" is meant to refer to the process of following or
`
`"traversing" links. Unless specifically indicated as "link navigation" or otherwise clear in
`
`context, navigation also is meant to include the control of presentation within a resource, such as
`
`scrolling, panning, and zooming, using VCR-like controls to play a continuous media resource,
`
`and the like. Addresses for Internet resources are typically in the form of Universal Resource
`
`Locators (URLs) or Universal Resource Names (URNs) or other Universal Resource Identifiers
`
`(URis), but may be based on any other suitable addressing mechanism. Hypermedia resources
`
`may contain content (also referred to as mediadata) and metadata (including hyperlinks), aspects
`
`of a resource may be declarative (such as markup) or procedural (such as embedded logic or
`
`program code elements) and may include embedded resources.
`
`[ 0 0 3 5]
`
`Links may have information about how to traverse a pair of resources, including
`
`direction and application behavior information, called an "arc," and such information may
`
`762258 vi
`
`10
`
`

`

`Docket No. 4138-4003US2
`
`include link "elements" having "attributes" that take on "values." Behavior attributes include
`
`"show" to specify how to handle the current state of the presentation at the time the link is
`
`activated, "external" to specify whether the link is to be opened in the current application, or an
`
`external application, such as one suited to a special media type, "activate" or "actuate" to specify
`
`whether the link is triggered by some event, typically user interaction, or automatically traversed
`
`when its time span is active, and "target" to specify either the existing display environment in
`
`which the link should be opened ( e.g., a SMIL region, an HTML frame or another named
`
`window), or trigger the creation of a new clisplay environment with the given name. It should be
`
`noted that the term target is sometimes also used in the art to refer to an ending resource as the
`
`target of a link, as for a "target resource" or "target page."
`
`[0036]
`
`Links may be contained in the starting or ending resource, "outbound" or
`
`"inbound" respectively, or may be independently stored as "third-party" arcs. Standard HTML
`
`links are typically outbound, but inbound and third-party link arcs may be useful, such as for
`
`adding links that are external to read-only or third-party content. By providing such external,
`
`third-party links, resources not originally intended to be used as hypermedia can be made into
`
`hypermedia. Third-party links may be coHected in "linkbases." Linkbases may be directly
`
`associated with their starting resources by a resource that leads to both the starting resource and
`
`the linkbase, referred to herein as "coupled" linkbases, such as a set of image map links in a Web
`
`page that has an embedded image link, or may be "decoupled" and obtained by other means.
`
`[0037]
`
`Where so indicated or clear in context, the term hypermedia may also be used to
`
`include "hypermedia-like" resources and systems that do not use coded links as such, but which
`
`support functionally similar non-linear resource relationships using other more or less similar
`
`mechanisms, such as special coding and logic that implements structures such as menu structures
`
`that have a defined graph structure, transaction request forms that have an associated address or
`
`other process identifier for transaction submission, and selectable content elements having a
`
`defined relationship to other resources or actions. This is meant to include any scheme that
`
`associates defined resource anchors or triggers with corresponding actions. Use of VCR-like or
`
`audio recorder-like controls to add non-linearity to a linear medium (e.g., fast forward/reverse,
`
`and skip ahead), also referred to as "trick-play" functionality, is also considered as hypermedia(cid:173)
`
`like.
`
`762258 vi
`
`11
`
`

`

`Docket No. 4138-4003US2
`
`[0038]
`
`According to embodiments of the invention, links may refer to specific portions
`
`of a node or resource, such a by an "anchor" that associates the link to a position in text (such as
`
`in a HTML "A element"), or an "area" or "region" that associates the link to a spatial portion of
`
`an object's visual display, or to non-spatial portions, such as temporal subparts that may be
`
`defined by "begin" and "end" attributes, also referred to as "time positions" or together as a
`
`"time scope" or "time-span." Similar facilities are provided by XPointer, which supports
`
`addressing into the