text:
|Publication number
|Publication type
|Application number
|Publication date
|Feb 2, 2010
|Priority date
|Sep 30, 2002
|Fee status
|Also published as
|Publication number
|A. Mufit Fennan, James H. Errico, Petrus J. L. Van Beek
|Original Assignee
|Sharp Laboratories Of America, Inc.
|Export Citation
|BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
|Patent Citations (332), Non-Patent Citations (118), Referenced by (105), Classifications (30), Legal Events (4)
|External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet
The present invention relates to user profiling.
In the early days of video broadcasting there existed only a limited number of available broadcast channels. In addition, there existed a limited number of video choices, such as movies, news, and sitcoms. To view a particular broadcast, the user needed to make sure he was available during the time that the desired content was broadcast. With a relatively limited amount of content available and a relatively limited number of broadcast channels this requirement for concurrent viewing of the content with the broadcast was not excessively burdensome. In addition, the amount of potential content was limited.
With the extensive development of additional sources of broadcast content together with the decreased ability of users to view the broadcast content concurrent with its broadcast, the concurrent viewing of all potentially desirable content has become a burdensome task. The development of a video cassette recorder (VCR) provides a partial solution to the need for concurrent viewing of content with its broadcast. The VCR permits viewers to record one or more selected programs or portions thereof, onto a tape. Selecting the times for recording may be performed manually at a time concurrent with the start of the content broadcast or otherwise programmed into the VCR to record particular broadcast content at a later time. The tape may then be subsequently played to permit the user to watch previously recorded content. The VCR also permits the user to perform several other functions, such as for example, play, pause, rewind, fast-forward, slow play, slow rewind, fast-reverse, and step frame-by-frame forward or reverse.
Subsequent to the development of the VCR, multimedia (e.g., video and audio) computer based broadcast content recording systems have been developed. These multimedia systems include recording media to record content thereon. One of the advantages of the multimedia systems is the ability to access and view selections from a collection of recorded programs in a nearly instantaneous manner without the need to rewind or fast-forward a tape.
While the development of such multimedia systems are beneficial, there is nearly an endless amount of potential content that is available to the user. As the amount of information and content available for consumption increases at an ever increasing rate, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the user to locate and access the particular content that fits their interests and tastes, without of course spending nearly endless hours watching uninteresting content.
Searching systems have been developed, such as those available from TiVO, that require the user to select a set of attributes of the potentially available content that they may be interested in. For example, the user may select the following attributes: action movies, comedy movies, Brad Pitt, Harrison Ford, and Tanya Puttin. The searching system attempts to match the selected attributes to the attributes of the potentially available content, which may be available from any suitable source, such as a storage device, the Internet, live broadcasts, pay-per-views, video-on demand, video libraries, etc. The search-based paradigm is often inconvenient and time consuming for the user to use. More importantly, with such a search tool the user is limited to content that he is already aware of Accordingly, it is difficult for the user to discover new content that he was previously unaware of that he may find interesting.
One technique to assist the user in discovering and selecting potentially desirable content is to construct and maintain a user profile, which provides a relatively compact description of a user's tastes and personal interests. The user profile may be subsequently utilized by the user to filter available content, so that items that are likely to be enjoyable are readily available to the user. The user profile may be specified directly by the user who explicitly states the descriptions of the programs he is interested in. Alternatively, the user profile may be automatically generated and updated to match the content consumption behavior of the users by recording and subsequently analyzing usage history information. The later alternative typically requires little or no effort on the user's part and is adaptable to the user's changing needs and interests. In addition, the user's perception of his preferences may be significantly different from what the user's content consumption habits actually suggest.
Several techniques have been proposed for discovering and updating user profiles based on the user's consumption history. These methods are often supervised, i.e., they rely on explicit user input (in the form of user-assigned rankings) to identify what the user likes or finds interesting, and the methods then construct simple user profiles that comprise terms extracted from descriptions of the content and their respective weights. The resulting profiles are typically arranged in a non-structured list of the user's preferences.
Referring to
After further consideration the present inventors came to the realization that ever expanding the user profile during an extended period of time and/or extended amount of content being selected will result in an excessively large user profile that is not indicative of the user's current preferences. For example, this year the user may be interested in movies with Bruce Willis but next year the user's preference may shift toward movies with Jackie Chan. Accordingly, the user profile should remove the preference for particular content after some criteria has been achieved, such as for example, sufficient time has elapsed from the time that such content was consumed (e.g., elapsed temporal time period) or sufficient other content has been consumed. In addition, it is to be understood that removal may likewise include setting a preference to a value such that it will not be considered or be statistically irrelevant in the selection.
The user profile typically interrelates the user's preferences to potentially available content in some manner. In many cases the processing of information contained within the user's profile and the description of available programs, a system may determine those programs that are likely desirable to the particular user. The processing by the system for such information may be referred to as an agent.
Existing agents are focused on correlating a limited number of user preference descriptors with a limited number of program descriptors. The designer of such agents manually determines, and hard codes into the agent, predetermined interrelationships which are likely to result in identifying desired programs. As such, the mapping between the user preference descriptors and the program descriptors includes a static model because such designers are under the belief that the domain of data fields is a fixed predetermined set, and therefore the relationships between the potential combinations of relevant data is likewise a fixed predetermined set. For example, the "actor" in the user preference and the "actor" in the program descriptor may be a relevant potential combination. The traditional focus for designing such static agents avoids the problematical dilemma of how to interpret and process an arbitrarily complex set of preferences.
Maintaining the traditional focus of avoiding an arbitrarily complex set of user preferences, commercial products such as TiVO and Replay TV, permit the specification of a first preference, such as a particular actor. The user may further attempt a more specific search by searching for a first preference, a second preference, and additional preferences. While this results in identifying the desired programs, it is a time consuming and frustrating process for the user. Like the static agents, the TiVO and Replay TV devices have a limited set of permitted search queries.
While such static models of the interrelationships is readily easy to implement, it results in a system that is unable to process interrelationships that are not foreseen by the agent designer. The present inventors came to the realization that all of the potentially desirable interrelationships, especially for an arbitrarily complex set of preference criteria, can not be effectively programmed using the traditional static model.
Referring to
Referring to
Referring to
The individual preference may be a single preference test (or multiple preference). It is to be understood that the individual preferences are not limited to tests. For example, the User Preferences may describe the desired configuration for presentation, such as volume or any other functionality. Each preference test describes some aspect or attribute of the Program Description that is to be evaluated. If desired, the preference test may be limited to the smallest granularity of a test that may be executed on the Program Description. A common preference test is a comparison of a Program Description element's value to the preference value. It is also to be understood that the preference tests need not be directly associated with the value of a corresponding element, if any, of the Program Description. For example, a single User Preference element, indicating a desired number of key-frames to be shown, may be tested against the count of elements in the Program Description representing (or describing) a key-frame. In general, the pair (title: title_value) will compare the title element value of the Program Description to title_value.
After further consideration, the present inventors came to the realization that the individual preferences may include composite relationships. Moreover, the relationships may include duplicate fields, such as several instances of "name" in either the user preferences and/or the Program Descriptions. With the inclusion of composite relationships it becomes difficult to determine an appropriate technique for queries, where duplicate individual preferences are at the same or different hierarchy levels. In addition, it is difficult to determine how to interpret queries that provide multiple matching results (such as several instances of "John Doe") or inconsistent matching entries (such as several instances of "John Doe" and a lack of an instance of "Comedy"). For example, referring to
Referring to
The normal behavior of a location path is to retrieve the single data from this node in the program. One potential enhancement is to allow this data to be manipulated and combined with other related nodes to form a composite value.
One example is when evaluating a media review rating, three numerical values may be provided, namely, RatingValue, WorstRating, and BestRating. A composite value for media review rating may be calculated as ((RatingValue)−(WorstRating)/((BestRating)−(WorstRating)).
Another example may include the test of Keyword preferences against the Title or Description fields by concatenating these two fields. A composite value might be calculated as (CreationDescription/TextAnnotation) & (Title/TitleText). It is noted that these two fields use relative paths from the parent "Creation" element.
Yet another example may include a single preference data manipulated to adjust its value numerically, or its text may be translated into a target language.
The composite values provide defaults for any of the calculated elements. This is useful for defining the default range of a media review rating. It is also useful for inserting identity values (e.g. 1, 0, "") when the absence of an element should not make the test fail.
The preference description may make use of built-in composite values. An example of a built-in composite value may be one that is based on the environment of the viewer. For instance, a portion of a Preference Description may define time of day ranges when the user wants the associated preferences to be evaluated. The target location could be defined as a composite value of built-in type "TimeofDay".
Referring to
Common names, such as "Country" used at multiple locations, may be distinguished by including all or part of the ancestry path. For example, the following two preference tests have the same "leaf" name, but it may be desirable to have different tests for each. This may be done by specifying more of the ancestry in the Name field (column 1) of the mapping table: "/FilteringAndSearchPreferences/CreationPreferences/CreationLocation/Country", and "/FilteringAndSearchPreferences/ClassificationPreferences/Country". To distinguish between the two, the following names may be used: "/CreationLocation/Country" and "/ClassificationPreferences/Country". In addition the preference tests may be associated with multiple entries in the Mapping Table. This permits a single test to be performed on more than one location in the Program Description.
The Location field may include various wildcards to expand or restrict the target paths to be evaluated in the Program Description. For example, a "*" wildcard implies that there may be multiple instances of the given location under one parent, e.g., /Creation/*Creator implies that there may be multiple Creators under the Creation parent. A "#xxx" wildcard restricts the target path to the xxx instance of the given location under its parent, e.g., /Creation/#002Creator restricts the target path to the second instance of Creator under Creation. A double forward slash "//" indicates a node of the target path which may be used as a base path for groups of tests which must be constrained to evaluate from the same common location. In particular, this is useful for Constrained-AND operations, described later. The preference paths may be used to build target locations in the program. These preference paths may also allow preference paths to be interpreted as locations. Composite values may be defined for these preference path locations.
Syntax for a default preference and a default location may be provided. This allows updates in the preference or program definition to be handled by the filter agent without requiring changes to the mapping table.
The default mapping elements may be specified for a limited set of preference branches to bound the default mapping to a safe portion of the user preferences.
For instance, the default element "FilteringAndSearchPreferences/CreationPreferences/UserDefinedPreference/.*" may place a default mapping that can only map to elements in the program beneath the "Program/CreationMetaInformation/Creation" branch.
The third column "TestOp" of the Mapping Table includes what comparison to perform between the corresponding user preference path (column 1) and (resolved) input Program Description location (column 2). In this manner, the Mapping Table provides a convenient manner of identifying the interrelationships between the corresponding data from the user preferences and input Program Descriptions. For instance, the "FamilyName" preference in
After the individual preferences are interpreted into individual preference tests, these tests may be combined into a single test that models the user's preferences. The preferred technique includes combining the individual preference tests according to their hierarchy. Each parent test becomes the combination of its children tests, and this continues up to the root preference, yielding in effect one composite test. The combination of "children" tests within a single "parent" may be broken down into the combination of similar tests and the combination of dissimilar tests. Similar tests may have the same name or otherwise be associated in the Mapping Table such as by being on the same row. Also, dissimilar tests may have different entries in the Mapping Table.
It is to be understood that the concept of inter group and intra group interrelations relates to any comparison between different sets of data, whether or not they include a hierarchical scheme. As an example, intragroup may be used to define a group of similar tests. Also, any scheme may be implemented to form comparisons or groupings for the testing of data.
If desired, the mapping table, which may be any type of data structure or otherwise to simply express the desired operations to be performed, may be expanded to include additional functionality. For example, specific groupings of user preference may be denoted, to specify additional operations to be performed on the elements of the group that are separate from the inter group and intra group operations. These specific groupings may provide additional flexibility for combining individual preference tests. The combinatorial operations applied to these groups may be performed before, after or instead of the general inter group and intra group combinatorial operations.
For instance, entries in the mapping table may be explicitly linked together with a shared index, and a specific combinatorial operator may be mapped to each indexed group. The UserPreferences elements may likewise be explicitly linked together with a shared index. The latter two groups and operators present an alternative method to generate the arbitrarily complex combinations. A preferred sequence for performing the various combinatorial operations might be intra group operation, followed by indexed group operation, followed by inter group operation.
In addition to explicitly defined indexed groups, other groupings may be built-in. For instance, a program description may have attributes associated with it. The user preferences that are mapped to this program description and its associated attributes may be grouped together in a so-called attribute group, and a specific combinatorial operator may be mapped to this attribute group. For example, the program description element, TitleText, may have a language attribute associated with it. A user preference, KeywordPreferences, may be mapped to TitleText and a separate user preference may be mapped to the language attribute of TitleText. These two user preferences may be grouped together into the following attribute group, and the results to these two tests may be combined in an attribute group combinatorial operation:
Name Location AttrGroupOperation KeywordPreferences@xml lang Title/TitleText@ AND xml lang KeywordPreferecnes Title/TitleText AND
The functionality may also include multi-mapped preference group and associated operator. Elements in this group may have the same user preference element, but have multiple different program description mappings. For example, PersonName may have the following mappings, forming one multi-mapped group:
Name Location MultiMapGroupOperation PersonName Creator/GivenName OR PersonName Creator/FamilyName OR PersonName Creator/ProfessionalName OR
Preferably, the various groupings are combined in sequence starting with attribute groups, followed by intra groups, multi-mapped groups, indexed groups, and inter groups.
Referring to
For example, the SAND operator provides a soft AND combination of its constituent elements by applying a transformation to the input values before they are combined. This may transform a zero input to a non-zero value. Additionally, the combination operation may be a non-linear function that will increase or decrease the result, related to a strict AND combination.
Another set of combinatorial operators are soft maximum and soft minimum operators. In the typical maximum or minimum operation, only one of the combined individual preference tests determines the combined result value. In contrast, the soft minimum operator and soft maximum operator allows other non-contributing individual preference test results to adjust the final combined result. Typically, the adjustment is a minor amount, e.g., +−10 percent. The purpose of the soft maximum/minimum operators is shown in the example where a user prefers program which contain A or B. IF a program with A and a program with A and B were available, the typical maximum operator would rank both programs equally, whereas the soft maximum operator would rank the program containing A and B above the program containing only A. A similar result occurs from the soft minimum.
Another combinatorial operator is an average, which averages a set of scores resulting from a plurality of tests.
One combination for dissimilar preference tests is under a single parent.
Each entry in the Mapping table has a field that defines how this type of preference test should be combined with different type preference tests under the same parent. This type of test may be referred to as inter group combinatorial operator (InterOperator). Referring to
The rules for combining dissimilar tests (with the operator mappings of OR and AND) may be:
In many cases, preference tests of the same type under a single parent will have a specific desired combination for those preferences before they are combined with the other different children of that parent. Each entry in the Mapping Table has a field that defines how this type of preference test should be combined with similar type preference tests under the same parent. This may be referred to as the intra group combinatorial operator (IntraOperator). Referring to
The rules for combining similar and dissimilar tests (with the operator mappings of OR and AND) may be, for example:
The general case of intra group combinations shown in
An example of a default mapping may include defining a parent (e.g., node) in the user preference that maps to a parent (e.g., node) in the Program Description and setting a "default" comparison between the two. In the event that an additional child user preference is added to the parent in the hierarchal tree then this child is automatically mapped to a corresponding child of the parent in the hierarchal tree of the Program Description. Preferably the two children have the same name to simplify identification.
The example illustrated in
The location mappings described in the Mapping Table yield global paths that start from the root node in the Program Description ("/Program"). Some preference tests may require support for a relative path. A special form of the InterOperator AND is defined which constrains a group of tests to be performed on the same element or parent element in the Program Description. This is defined as a Constrained-AND (CAND) combinatorial operator.
The constrained operation has a base path and multiple tests. The base path defines the starting node for all the predicate tests to be performed from. In the general example illustrated in
A user trying to find programs on stuffed pasta might create the following profile fragment:
<KeywordPreferences xml:lang=en> calzone </KeywordPreferences> <KeywordPreferences xml:lang=en> tortelini </KeywordPreferences> <KeywordPreferences xml:lang=en> ravioli </KeywordPreferences>
The word calzone is a type of stuffed pasta in English, but it is underwear in Spanish.
Without the use of Constrained-AND, the agent may erroneously retrieve programs such as
<CreationDescription xml.lang=en>
Victoria Secrets models women's underwear</CreationDescrition>
<CreationDescription xml.lang=es>
El Secreto de Victoria se demuestra los calzones de mujer
The example shown in
As shown in
As shown in
Referring to
An illustrative example of one embodiment of the technique described herein includes the example illustrated in
The multiple User Preference elements may contain a ranking attribute. Such ranking attributes may be applied at each comparison test and each combinatorial operation, to yield a composite ranking score. this may be utilized to provide a sorted test result for the user.
Referring to
The discrete implementation of the filter agent will yield as output a group of program descriptions that are merely members of the input set. The output group may actually just be a list of the input Program Descriptions that passed the selections. However, there can be components of the User Preference Descriptions that are well suited to extract a subset of the whole Program Description that yields an output more tailored to the user's preference criteria. For instance, the user may request a maximum number of key frames in order to prevent overloading the bandwidth capabilities of their system.
The process of cloning the selected input Program Descriptions and modifying them to include a particular desired subset by the user may achieve enhanced benefits. The modified Program Description is a clone of the input because it refers to the same base set of Program Media. However, it is modified to refer to the subset of the Program Media that is desired by the particular user. In some cases this may result in smaller quantity of the program being available. In other cases, this may result in different summaries of the program, though it refers to the full program.
The cloned Program Description provides a more succinct representation of what the user prefers. In this manner, it may not be necessary to annotate or provide additional identifiers to describe what the user actually desires.
In a modular implementation, the filter agent may not be closely coupled with the media manager and the presentation processes. In this case, the cloned Program Description offers a standardized format for describing the desired program, without having to create a new syntax or an application programming interface (API).
The cloned Program Description may also be used to create a "pull" for Program Media that will yield only the desired portions of the media. This provides a convenient technique for a media provider to provide to the user only that specific media that is desired.
A service provider may likewise provide service to the user according to the user's preference where service includes a modified cloned program description. The cloned description may be a subset of the complete "rich" program description that is usually maintained by the service provider. The clone may contain varying levels of "richness". This permits the provider to offer various service levels to its clients.
The cloned Program Description also allows the customer and/or service provider to tailor the amount of material that will be transmitted to the customer. This enables the quantity of material to be matched to the available memory in the client device and the available bandwidth of the delivery channel.
The cloned program descriptions may provide a memory efficient way of storing descriptions of selected programs in the client's local storage.
One technique to achieve cloning is cloning by "addition", as illustrated in
Another technique to achieve cloning is cloning by "deletion", as illustrated in
A vast amount of audiovisual material exists from which the user may select appropriate audiovisual materials that may be of interest. However, there needs to be developed effective techniques to determine which audiovisual materials are most likely appropriate for a particular user. Typically these techniques include the use of an agent that compares in some manner the user's preferences to the audiovisual content. Existing agents typically offer rudimentary preference weighting techniques based upon preference items such as title, keyword, author, and cast. The weighting scheme determines to what extent a particular set of user preferences matches the description of the different audiovisual materials, such as a binary yes/no determination. After determining the extent to which the user preferences matches a particular audiovisual material an overall score is calculated. After computing the overall score for each of the audiovisual materials they may be ranked in order from which the user may select desirable material. However, the use of such a technique makes it difficult to distinguish between programs that are strongly desired versus fringe programs that the user may be rarely interested in. An effective agent should include a technique for identifying priority interests and a mechanism for sorting the priority interests. In essence, the audiovisual content should be distinguished in a meaningful manner.
Referring to
Referring to
Referring to
The user preference description may include a hierarchy of preferences, many of which include preference value attributes. When each "individual preference" is evaluated against the corresponding information from the program descriptions a score is calculated for that individual preference. In one embodiment, the hierarchy of preferences for an individual hierarchy may be evaluated by creating a composite score from the aggregation of individual scores within the hierarchy. The resulting composite score is then compared against other composite scores for other program descriptions to determine a relative ranking. The composite score for a particular program description may be determined free from consideration of other program descriptions, if desired.
While a composite score provides a relatively good measure for the desirability for any particular media, especially when compared against other composite scores, the present inventor determined that the resulting relative composite scores may be misleading of the desirability of the content. For example, a particular audiovisual program may have only a limited occurrence of a particular event or item, in which case the composite score will likely consider that limited occurrence as being fully present in the program. However, a different audiovisual program may have frequent occurrences of a particular event or item, in which case the composite score will likely merely consider that frequent occurrence in the same manner as the limited occurrence. Accordingly, it may be preferable to rank programs at an intermediate level, described later. Also, it is not preferable to combine the preference values into a single composite preference value. Instead, each score, which is evaluated using its associated preference value, is combined into a composite score. When examining a user preference, it may be useful to combine one or more of the preference values, but this is actually combining the resultant scores when the preference is found to match a corresponding program description attribute. Also, it is likewise preferable not to compare a score against a preference value. Rather, the score is the result of the actual test considered with the preference value, and this score should be compared against other scores or against implementation-fixed thresholds.
There are preferably at least two distinct processes occurring when the filter agent 600 processes a user preference 608. One process is the filtering of programs (pass or reject). The other process is the scoring and ranking of the selected programs into an ordered list (e.g., from most preferred to least preferred). The ranking values may be any type of indication, as desired. These two processes may be implemented by a variety of functions (e.g. filtering-function ε {Boolean-AND, Boolean-OR, etc.}, ranking-function ε {MIN, MAX, SUM, AVG, etc.}). These two processes may be distinct, such as, filter then rank, or rank then filter, or they may be integrated, namely, simultaneously filter and rank. In the hierarchical combination of user preferences, each combinatorial operator (AND, OR, etc) preferably implements some form of a filtering function and a ranking function. There may be a family of varieties of the AND and OR operators (or other operators) which implement different filtering and ranking functions.
Programs may be ranked according to their respective scores, which is a relative relationship. The preference values and scores may be scaled without changing the result of the filter agent 600. The definition of a zero neutral value (or other value) sets a point for the filtering of programs based on score results. Depending on the filtering function, programs with a score above zero (or other value) may be passed and programs with zero or a negative score (or other value) may be rejected. The definition of the nominal value does not set an absolute significance for preference values and scores. The nominal value merely sets the default value that may then be compared (relatively) to other preference values and scores.
The preference values may likewise be more than simply a number to provide further refinement of the selection process. The preference values may take the form of relativistic operations that compare different portions of the user preferences and multiple program descriptions at a level less than the entire program description. In this manner, portions of the program descriptions may be compared to one another which provides significantly improved results. A set of scenarios are provided to illustrate exemplary comparisons that may be implemented by the filter agent 600.
Each comparison may vary according to any suitable criteria, such as, for example, the following criteria:
Referring to
Sibling nodes may be combined in operations such as OR, AND, MAX, MIN, AVG, SUM, . . . Programs with test results that fall below a threshold may be rejected before or after the results are combined.
Referring to
Referring to
Design Rule 1:
The OR combinatorial operator means "I want programs
with at least one of these listed items." Generally, the
more that are found, the better and hence more should be
ranked above less.
Design Rule 2:
The preferred ranking function for the OR combinatorial
is the SUM function.
Design Rule 3:
An alternative ranking function for the OR combinatorial
is the MAX function. The MAX function selects the
greatest value, e.g., the most desirable. Other ranking
functions may likewise be used.
Test case description: If the user agent wants to see programs with dogs(A) or cats(B), then programs with dogs and cats should rank above programs with just dogs.
[Test case example illustrated in
Test=a OR b
Program J (A=B=1)
Program K (A=1, B=0)
The test is an OR'ing of individual preference 'a' or 'b', where 'a' and 'b' are testing for the presence of 'A' and 'B'. Program 'J' has full presence of 'A' and 'B', and Program 'K' has full presence of 'A' and no presence of 'B'.
Referring to
Test case description: If the user agent wants to see programs with dogs(A) or cats(B), then programs with dogs and only a tiny amount of cats, should rank higher than programs with just dogs. Likewise, Program K would rank higher than Program J, if B=0.3 for Program K.
[Test case example shown in
Test=a OR b
Program J (A=1, B=0.01)
Program K (A=1, B=0)
Referring to
Design rule 4: If a user agent has a strong preference for something, this should override nominal or weaker preferences.
Test case description: If the user agent strongly wants to see programs with dogs(A) or nominally wants to see cats(B) or mice(C), then programs with dogs should rank above programs with cats and mice.
[Test case example illustrated in
Test=a OR b OR c
PVa=4, PVb=PVc=1
Program J (A=1, B=C=0)
Program K (A=0, B=C=1)
Referring to
Design rule 5: The evaluation and combination of individual test results should be linear such that partial preferences and partial presences are ranked in a range from neutral preference/non-presence to full preference/full presence.
Test case description: If the user agent strongly wants to see programs with bears(A) or nominally wants to see lions(B) or tigers(C), then programs with partial bears should rank the same, or higher, or lower than programs with full tigers and lions, depending on the preference values. Programs should be ranked linearly, or in any other manner, according to the PVs and the degree of presence.
[Test case example illustrated in
Test=a OR b OR c
PVa=4, PVb=PVc=1
Program J (A=0.4, B=C=0)
Program K (A=0.5, B=C=0)
Program L (A=0, B=C=1)
Program M (A=0.1, B=C=1)
Referring to
Referring to
Design rule 6: The preferred ranking function for the AND combinatorial is the average function. This takes the average of the component test results to create a score that is used for ranking.
Design rule 7: An alternative ranking function for the AND combinatorial is the minimum function. This takes the value of the lowest test result as the score for the combination.
Design rule 8: When evaluating the AND combination, as with the OR combination, more preference and presence is typically better.
Test case description: If the user agent wants to see programs with neural(A) and network(B), then programs with full neural and full network should rank above programs with full neural and partial network.
[Test case example illustrated in
Test=a AND b
Program J (A=B=1)
Program K (A=1, B=0.5)
Referring to
Design rule 9: When evaluating the AND combination, as with the OR combination, the individual tests and the combination of individual test results should be linear (or any other type) such that partial preferences and partial presences are ranked in a range from neutral preference/non-presence to full preference/full presence.
Test case description: If the user agent wants to see neural(A) and network(B), then programs with full neural and tiny network should rank same, or higher, or lower than programs with partial neural and partial network, depending on the presence and preference values.
[Test case example illustrated in
Test=a AND b
Program J (A=B=0.6)
Program K (A=1, B=0.1)
Program L (A=B=0.5)
Referring to
Design rule 10: The preferred order of operation for the AND combinatorial is score then filter. In this order, the score for the AND combination is calculated and then if it is below some threshold, the program is rejected.
Test case description: If the user agent wants to see artificial(A) and vision(B), then programs with full artificial and partial vision should rank above programs with partial artificial and partial vision which rank above programs with full artificial and no vision.
[Test case example illustrated in
Test=a AND b
Program J (A=1, B=0.9)
Program K (A=B=0.9)
Program L (A=1, B=0)
Referring to
Design rule 11: An alternative order of operation for the AND combinatorial may be filter then score. In this order, if a program has zero or less of some AND'd preference, then it is rejected, regardless of the rest of the scoring. If the score is propagated upward in the hierarchy to be used in other combinatorial operations, then the score should indicate neutral or non-preference (e.g. zero or negative value).
Test case description: If the user agent wants to see artificial(A) and vision(B), then programs with full artificial and no vision should fail.
[Test case example illustrated in
Test=a AND b
Program L (A=1, B=0)
Container preference elements may be evaluated and combined with other preference elements (either container, leaf, or otherwise) in a variety of combinatorial operations.
Referring to
Design rule 12: The OR combinatorial function implemented by SUM (or other functions) should combine all the sibling elements (or otherwise) the same, without regard to the number of siblings (or otherwise).
User agent rule: If the user agent intends that the ratio of passing preferences should matter, then the agent should adjust the preference values accordingly.
Design rule 13: An alternative ranking function for the OR combination would account for the ratio of passed components.
Test case description: A user agent wants to see movies with as many actors from group-N as possible or as many actors from group-M as possible. If N={A,B,C,D) and M={E,F}, then the user agent may wish to see a movie with A, B, C ranked over a movie with E, F.
[Test case example illustrated in
Test=x ORy; x=a OR b OR c OR d; y=e OR f
Program J (A=B=C=1, D=E=F=0)
Program K (A=B=C=D=0, E=F=1)
Test case description: A user agent wants to see movies with the highest percentage of actors from group-N or the highest percentage of actors from group-M. Illustrated in
[Test case example illustrated in
Test=x OR y; x=a OR b OR c OR d; y=e OR f
Program J (A=B=C=1, D=E=F=0)
Program K (A=B=C=D=0, E=F=1)
Referring to
Design rule 14: A preferred method for combining the children test results of a parent element (or otherwise) is to combine them into one composite score and pass this up to the containing grandparent element (or otherwise), as illustrated in
Test case description: In a composite scoring combination, if the user agent partially wants to see westerns (X) that star Eastwood(A) or Wayne(B), or fully wants to see dramas (Y) with a sub-preference that is full for Gibson(C) or small for Cruise(D), then a western with Eastwood should rank higher than a drama with Cruise. The user agent is intending to seek for programs with the highest overall score for all their preferences.
[Test case example illustrated in
Test=x OR y; x=a OR b; y=c OR d
PVx=0.8, PVy=PVa=PVb=PVc=1, PVd=0.5
Program J (A=B=1, C=D=0)
Program K (A=B=0, C=D=1)
Referring to
Design rule 15: An alternative method for combining the children test results of a parent element (or otherwise) is to rank all the programs for each of the children tests (or otherwise) separately. These sublists of rankings are then inserted, as a block, into a super list for the parent element, where each block is ranked according to the preference value of the child test. This method may be referred to as independent evaluation.
Design rule 16: When sublists are inserted into super lists, the position of any program should assume the position that the program takes in the highest sublist that contains the program. (Only keep the highest position for each program.)
Test case description: In an independent evaluation combination, if the user agent partially wants to see westerns (X) that star Eastwood(A) or Wayne(B), or fully wants to see dramas(Y) with a sub-preference that is full for Gibson(C) or small for Cruise(D), then a western with Eastwood should rank lower than a drama with Cruise. The user agent is intending to seek for dramas above all westerns.
[Test case example illustrated in
Test=x OR y; x=a OR b; y=c OR d
PVx=0.8, PVy=PVa=PVb=PVc=1, PVd=0.5
Program J (A=B=1, C=D=0)
Program K (A=B=0, C=D=1)
Design rule 17: The OR'ing of sibling container preferences with equal PVs using independent evaluation is equivalent to using composite scoring.
User agent rule: If the user agent intends to intermingle the ranked results across two branches (or otherwise), but also intends to rank one branch's results slightly higher than the other (or otherwise), then the agent can use composite scoring and adjust the PVs of the leaf tests (or otherwise) of the higher preferred branch to give this slight advantage, and the results will still be intermingled.
Referring to
Design rule 18: In AND operations, creating branch sub-lists and then merging these lists should yield the same results as creating one composite list. Therefore "independent evaluations" are not relevant. All the components of the AND operation should be scored and these results should be combined into a composite score.
Test case description: If the user agent is strongly interested in horses(A) or ostriches(B), and nominally interested in breeding(C) or grooming(D), then a program with partial horses and full grooming should rank lower than a program with full horses and partial grooming.
[Test case example illustrated in
Test=x AND y; x=a OR b; y=c OR d
PVx=2, PVy=PVa=PVb=PVc=PVd=1
Program J (A=0.9, B=C=D=1)
Referring to
Design rule 19: The use of OR combination with non-preferences is a special case that should be used in conjunction with other AND'd preferences. If the non-preference is OR'd in the main branch, without being further qualified with another AND'd preference, this will tend to retrieve the majority of the programs available. OR'ing of non-preferences is generally only useful if this branch is qualified with another branch in an AND'ing combination.
Referring to
Design rule 20: The nature of OR'ing operations is such that individual members of the combination should not decrease the combined score, rather, they can only increase the score. When combining non-preferences in an OR combination, the individual test result (negative value) should be translated into the positive preference range by adding the individual preference value to the result.
Test case description: If the user agent wants to see programs with "nature" (A) or without "city" (B), then a program with nature and city should be ranked lower than a program with just nature.
[Test case example illustrated in
Test=a OR b
PVa=1, PVb=−1
Program J (A=B=1)
Program K (A=1, B=0)
Referring to
Design rule 21: The preferred order of operation for the AND combinatorial of non-preferences is to score then filter. In this case, the score for the AND combination is calculated and if the composite score is below zero, the program is rejected.
Design rule 22: When the order of operation for positive preferences is filter-first and the order for non-preferences is score-first, then the programs are first filtered according to the presence/absence of positive preferences, then the score is calculated for all component preferences (positive and negative). This score is then used to again filter (reject programs below a threshold) and finally rank the programs. (This design rule is not demonstrated in the test cases below.)
Test case description: If the user agent wants to see programs with "nature" (A) and without "city" (B), then a program with just a glimpse of city should pass lower than a program with just nature.
[Test case example illustrated in
Test=a AND b
PVa=1, PVb=−1
Program J (A=1, B=0.01)
Program K (A=1, B=0)
Test case description: If the user agent strongly does not want to see city, then a program with just a glimpse of city should fail.
[Test case example illustrated in
Test=a AND b
PVa=1, PVb=−100
Program J (A=1, B=0.01)
Referring to
Design rule 23: An alternative order of operation for the AND combinatorial of non-preferences is to filter-first then score. So if a program has the slightest amount of a non-preference, then it is rejected, regardless of the rest of the scoring. If the score must be propagated upward to be used in other OR statements, then the score should be zero or something negative.
Test case description: If the user agent wants to see programs with "nature" (A) and without "city" (B), then a program with just a glimpse of city should fail.
[Test case example illustrated in
Test=a AND b
PVa=1, PVb=−1
Program J (A=1, B=0.01)
The range and number of multimedia content available to users have increased at a staggering rate, rendering conventional methods of selecting such multimedia content, such as simple browsing, impractical. In order to provide a usable technique to select desirable multimedia, typically the system limits the set of choices available to the user by constructing and maintaining a user profile, which provides a compact description of a user's interests and personal preferences. This user profile may be subsequently used to (a) filter input content, so that programs or items that the user has shown interest in are presented to the user, and/or (b) request from a content distribution service the programs of interest. If desired, the user profile may be specified directly by the user, who explicitly states the descriptions of the programs he/she is interested in. Alternatively, user profiles can be automatically generated and updated to match content consumption behavior of users by recording and subsequently analyzing usage history information. Furthermore, content providers (broadcasters and advertisers) can use the usage history information to accurately determine consumer response to, and ratings of, specific programs; to provide personalized content to individuals based on their preferences; and develop various content access, billing, and compensation models for consumers and content creators/owners.
Existing systems for selecting multimedia content focus on collecting a limited amount of information as part of the usage history. The list of available actions and content description items provided by these systems is not suitable for extension as new requirements and applications arise. Furthermore, there is a lack of standardized formats for representation of (multimedia) usage history information; hence the usage history data collected by a certain type of device or service cannot often be utilized directly by others. Additionally, usage history has traditionally been considered only as a tool for generating user preferences and profiles. Further, existing systems provide no technique to record usage history in terms of both individual user actions and detailed categorized lists.
After consideration of the existing limitations with respect to the selection of multimedia content the present inventors developed a system for collecting and describing usage history information of one or more users in a much improved manner. The improved system allows non-intrusive observation of user actions over a period of time, enabling collection of consumption-related data without explicit user input. The period of time may be specified, modified, or otherwise dynamic, as desired. The collected usage history provides a list of the actions carried out by the user over a period of time, if desired, as well as statistical information with respect to the content descriptions, if desired. The content descriptions for the system may be custom for the particular system, standard multimedia descriptions, and may be in any format desired. In particular, descriptions may be in the form of a standard description (such as those defined by the MPEG-7, TV-Anytime Forum, ATSC-PSIP or DVB-SI) that accompanies the input content. The descriptions may also be provided as an auxiliary service, such as electronic program guides provided by cable services and Internet sites like Gist.com and TVGuide.com.
The collected usage history information is preferably expressed in a compact, structured, and consistent format. These properties permit efficient and effective exchange of usage history information between various devices, platforms, applications, service providers, equipment and such, thereby increasing the likelihood of interoperability between these entities.
The preferred implementation uses a description scheme/XML-based approach for describing the content usage history of a user over a period of time. The description schemes define a syntax and semantics for specifying usage history descriptions; i.e. description schemes for usage histories include a sets of rules to which an individual usage history description should comply. Descriptors are generally referred to as attributes of these descriptions. The use of a common set of description schemes and descriptors also enables interoperability; that is, different devices and systems are able to interpret usage histories that comply with the description schemes. At the same time, description schemes do not need to prescribe completely how an application should use the information embedded in the description, for instance, applications are free to process a usage history description in various ways to generate a user profile. In all these aspects, the proposed system is different from existing systems, due mainly to the way of describing program and usage history information, and to the fact that it provides an exchangeable representation for interoperability. Further, the program descriptions may generate usage histories that are rather rich in content and structure. Furthermore, many different types of information can be associated with individual user actions, thereby allowing different implementations to include, configure, and customize the usage history data according to their needs without sacrificing interoperability.
The present inventors determined that the system may include the concept of a "UserAction," which provides a compact yet generic and flexible representation mechanism for collecting usage history information. The list of UserAction types supported by the proposed system may be defined in terms of a thesaurus, and can thus be extended relatively easily. The thesaurus can include a diverse set of items and cover a multitude of different applications. Thus the system may track a diverse set of user activities such as retail purchases, requests for pay-per-programming, and the like. This approach provides a significance improvement over previously introduced methods which permit a very limited number of actions to be represented, and which cannot be easily extended to address various requirements.
The time information associated with each user action may be defined in terms of the general time, which denotes the time of occurrence in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC); media time, which denotes the time information that is encoded with a piece of multimedia content; or both. This functionality allows the time information that is associated with such actions as "fast forward" or "rewind" to be provided accurately.
The proposed framework facilitates the handling of a variety of multimedia content types, such as audio and video data, web pages, or content that is locally available to the consumer on his/her electronic equipment (e.g. a DVD player or Personal Video Recorder (PVR)). This functionality may be enabled by allowing any type of action and all major content categorization methods to be represented in the history.
The system likewise facilitates the referencing functionality to allow different information sources to be associated with a particular action. This aspect of the proposed system allows the reference to a specific part of relevant content descriptions (such as the description of a segment that the user reviews in slow motion). Furthermore, content material related to an action (such as the content of a hyperlink that the user follows; the web site of a product that the user purchases; the electronic program guide which provides a listing of the programs available for the given time period; etc.) can be explicitly specified by virtue of this property.
The system also allows usage history information to be captured at different levels of detail. For example, a usage history description can contain a detailed list of all the actions the user has performed over a period of time; or basic statistical information according to certain categorizations of content, such as language, country of origin, ratings, actors, etc.; or both. This flexibility enables even systems with limited resources (e.g. in terms of available storage space) to generate standardized, exchangeable usage histories.
The structure of the usage history description scheme may be such that the captured usage history information can be arranged and presented in multiple different ways, in whatever form is most useful and efficient for the application that makes use of the history. For example, the usage history can be organized according to the type of user action (e.g. all "record" actions), program genre (e.g. usage history for sports programs), or even specific programs (e.g. usage history for the program "Seinfeld.")
The design may respect a user's privacy by allowing a user to hide his/her identity from being revealed to third parties when the usage history is circulated or distributed.
The description scheme-XML based framework enables the usage history descriptions to co-exist with other description schemes (e.g., those that are included in MPEG-7, for example, Usage Preferences Description Schemes) in the very same framework. These description schemes allow functionalities to the user so that the user can consume the content in ways that fits to his/her preferences, e.g., by consuming programs that are requested on the basis of a recurring preferred theme in the usage history.
The collected usage history information may be personalized at multiple levels of granularity; i.e. it may be defined for multiple users (such as an entire family), or for a single user. This feature expedites many applications; for example, more detailed program rating information can be collected; parents can track their children's viewing habits and more easily control their access to objectionable content; the collected information can be used to generate more personalized programming; etc.
The system is preferably free from relying on explicit user input; rather, it preferably functions in the background and collects data without prompting the user to fill out questionnaires or to respond to questions, which are often considered intrusive by users.
While explicit user input about viewing habits are not required (as noted previously), the system may support a configuration layer or tool that the user can manipulate to define the types of activity and/or content information which he/she would not want the system to monitor or track. The configuration utility allows the user to provide the system with a list of activities approved for collection, which implies that the user has the ultimate control over the type and extent of the information collected.
The preferred context of the system is depicted in
Referring to
Referring to
The UsageHistory Description Scheme 740 serves as a container description scheme for the UserActionHistory Description Scheme 732 and the UserChoiceHistory Description Scheme 734, and describes the consumption history information for a given period of time. The UserActionHistory Description Scheme 732 contains a list of the different types of actions performed by the user during this period of time. The UserChoiceHistory Descriptino Scheme 734 contains the history of user choices with respect to the descriptions associated with the consumed content.
The UserActionHistory Description Scheme 732 contains multiple user action lists, each of which may provide a temporally ordered log of a specific type of action (such as "record" or "play"). Associated with every action are a program identifier that uniquely identifies the program or content for which the action is defined, and also one or more action data items, which can refer to any desired piece of the content description.
The UserChoiceHistory Description Scheme 734 provides a counter-like functionality for categorizing each content item based on its description data. The principal purpose of this component of the UsageHistory description scheme 740 is to provide an alternative history representation that specifies general statistical information about the consumed content. The statistical information may be constantly or periodically updated with the descriptions that accompany the content consumed by the user. This representation is especially useful for long observation periods, when the storage requirements for logging of all user actions and (if desired) associated meta data may become inhibiting for some systems. The UserChoiceHistory Description Scheme 734 may include multiple parts, such as for example, five different parts:
The Classification history 742, may provide a history of the user's choices with respect to classification descriptions of content; such as genre, language, and country of origin;
The Creation history 744, may provide a history of the user's choices with respect to creation descriptions of content, such as title 746, location 748, creator 750, date 752, and actor/director.
The Source history 754, may provide a history of the user's choices with respect to source (such as its publisher or distributor) and format (such as coding type) descriptions of the content.
The Summarization history 756, may provide the summarization-associated viewing/consumption history for a user.
The Keyword history 758, may provide a history of the keywords the user has used while viewing/consuming content.
The UserChoiceHistory Description Scheme 734 preferably shares a similar structure with UsagePreferences description scheme in MPEG-7 described in MPEG-7, ISO/IEC CD 15938-5 Information Technology—Multimedia Content Description Interface—Part 5 Multimedia Description Schemes, N3705, La Baule, France, October 2000, incorporated by reference herein. The principal motivation for the similarity is to simplify mapping of the available history information to the standardized user preference description. However, this similarity is not intended to constrain the set of applications for user choice history, since the information in the description is generic and flexible enough to be utilized in any way desirable. Moreover, the UserChoiceHistory may be structured in any suitable manner.
It should be understood that the UsageHistory Description Scheme 740 serves as a structure to link all the pieces of information together. Various scenarios in different application environments exist in which not all the various parts of the UsageHistory Description Scheme 740 are provided together in one description, but in other cases they may be. For example, in some cases only the UserActionHistory Description Scheme may be instantiated, or parts thereof, whereas in other only UserChoiceHistory Description Scheme might be utilized to describe the usage history, or parts thereof. Also, different descriptions may share description parts through the use of identifiers and identifier references. Different parts of the scheme proposed may exist in standalone descriptions.
UsageHistory DS Semantics
Specifies user's multimedia content consumption history.
Identifies the individual for whom the usage history is
provided specifies. This element is of type
UserIdentifierType, which is described as part of
UserPreferences DS, and contains the protected attribute.
Thus the identity of the user is not disclosed unless this attribute
is set to false.
Describes history of the actions the user has carried out
during the observation period. See below for the
specification of UserActionHistoryType.
Describes a categorized listing of the set of choices the user
has made while consuming content. See below for the
specification of UserChoiceHistoryType.
This attribute specifies whether the user allows his/her
usage history data to be collected. The default value for
allowCollection attribute is true.
UserActionHistory DS Semantics
Specifies a history of the actions carried out by the user.
Describes the time period(s) during which the associated
history items have been recorded. Multiple instance of
ObservationPeriod can be used to represent discontinuous
time periods
Describes a list of actions of the same type, i.e. all actions
in the UserActionList carry the same ActionType value. See
below for the specification of UserActionListType.
This attribute specifies whether the given
UserActionHistory information is to be protected from 3rd
parties, or disclosed freely.
UserActionList DS Semantics
Specifies a list of user actions, with associated semantics.
Denotes the specific action performed by the user, such as
"View," "Pause," "Play," etc. Defined as
ControlledTermType to provide extensibility for different
actions. All actions in an ActionList have the same
ActionType. A list (dictionary) of possible values of
ActionTypeis shown below.
Characterizes a specific user action in the list. Each action
is associated with a single program. See the specification of
UserActionType shown below for more detail.
Specifies the number of UserAction elements in a
UserActionList. (e.g. 21 "Record" actions; 5 "View"
actions; etc.).
he total time spent by the user during the observation period
performing a specific action (e.g. 32 min for "Record"
A list of actions that define an exemplary set of values for ActionType elements is shown. Each term has a numeric identifier, listed in the first column, and a textual label, listed in the second column. A description of each term is listed in the third column. This is one example of a thesaurus for ActionType of usage history.
Actions Related to Audio and Video
Play content from a recording
Play content from input stream
Record input stream to local storage media
View or listen to a summary of the input stream
Pause the input stream
Fast forward the input stream
Rewind the input stream
Skip forward over a portion of the input stream
Skip backward over a portion of the input stream
Turn sound off
Increase volume
Reduce volume
Repeat/loop (part of) the input stream
Randomly select next track
Go to the beginning of the stream
Go to the end of the stream
Copy all or part of a CD
Actions Related to Video
Zoom (in) to the on-screen image or sequence
View input stream in slow motion
Closed caption is on
Advance to next frame
Return to previous frame
Actions Related to Miscellaneous Data
Follow an available link
Scroll up in a web page/composite page
Scroll down in a web page/composite page
View program/resource guide
Save web page/composite page
Print web page/composite page
Search the web or local resources
Submit a form with requested information
Submit a query
Archive content to persistent local storage media
Actions Related to Commerce
Purchase a product or item
Designate a product or item as possible future purchasing item
Designate a product or item as potential immediate purchase
UserAction DS Semantics
Specifies a detailed description of an action, with associated
Specifies the time that the action took place and, if
applicable, its duration (e.g. for "Play," "Pause," etc.). The
time of occurrence of the action can be described in two
ways: by ActionMediaTime and/or by ActionGeneralTime.
The duration of a UserAction refers to the duration in terms
of the media time, which is identical to the duration in UTC
for a large number of action types, but may be different for
such action types as "Repeat" or "FastForward."
Action time relative to the time reference established for the
given media. This time referencing method is useful for
such action items as "Repeat" or "FastForward," and for
manipulating content on the user's local system (such as
personal CDs or DVDs).
Action time relative to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)
in the Gregorian date/time format.
Unique identifier of the program that is associated with the
given action. Each Action is associated with a single
program and, consequently, a single ProgramIdentifier.
Refers to a specific part of the description of the AV
content, or to other material related to the action (e.g. the
URL the user chooses to follow in an enhanced TV
application). Shall refer to an id attribute of an AV content
description instance.
UserAction DS Semantics
Specifies a detailed description of an action, with associated
Specifies the time that the action took place and, if
applicable, its duration (e.g. for "Play," "Pause," etc.). The
time of occurrence of the action can be described in two
ways: by ActionMediaTime and/or by ActionGeneralTime.
The duration of a UserAction refers to the duration in terms
of the media time, which is identical to the duration in UTC
for a large number of action types, but may be different for
such action types as "Repeat" or "FastForward."
Action time relative to the time reference established for the
given media. This time referencing method is useful for
such action items as "Repeat" or "FastForward," and for
manipulating content on the user's local system (such as
personal CDs or DVDs).
Action time relative to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)
in the Gregorian date/time format.
Unique identifier of the program that is associated with the
given action. Each Action is associated with a single
program and, consequently, a single ProgramIdentifier.
Refers to a specific part of the description of the AV
content, or to other material related to the action (e.g. the
URL the user chooses to follow in an enhanced TV
application). Shall refer to an id attribute of an AV content
description instance.
UserChoiceHistory DS Semantics
Specifies a categorized listing of the set of choices the user
has made while consuming content.
Describes the time period(s) during which the associated
history items have been recorded. Multiple instance of
ObservationPeriod can be used to represent discontinuous
time periods.
Describes history of the user's choices with respect to
classification descriptions of content.
Describes history of the user's choices with respect to
creation descriptions of content.
Describes history of the user's choices with respect to
source descriptions of the content, such as its publisher or
Describes history of the keywords the user has used while
viewing/consuming content.
Describes history of the media summaries the user has
consumed during the observation period.
Total number of content items/descriptions considered in
This attribute specifies whether the given
UserChoiceHistory information is to be protected from 3rd
parties, or disclosed freely
ClassificationHistory DS Semantics
Specifies history of the user's choices with respect to
classification descriptions of content.
Describes usage history with respect to country of origin of
the content. The attributes numInstances and totalDuration
specify usage statistics for a specific country instance.
Describes usage history with respect to date of release of
the content. The attributes numInstances and totalDuration
specify usage statistics for a specific release date instance.
Describes usage history with respect to language of the
content. The attributes numInstances and totalDuration
specify usage statistics for a specific language instance.
Describes usage history with respect to genre of the
content. The attributes numInstances and totalDuration
specify usage statistics for a specific genre instance.
Describes usage history with respect to subject of the
content. The subject classifies content from a point of view
of types of program, without considering genre
classification. The attributes numInstances and
totalDuration specify usage statistics for a specific subject
A data type for description of usage history with respect to
reviews of the content, with associated semantics:
Reviewer: Reviewers/critics of the content.
RatingCriterion: The rating criterion used in the review.
RatingCriterion includes CriterionName and the rating
scale (form WorstRating to BestRating
RatingValue: The rating value assigned to the content.
numInstances/totalDuration —Describe the usage statistics
associated with the given Rating Value.
numInstances/totalDuration: Describe the usage statistics
associated with the given MediaReviewHistory.
id: ID of the MediaReviewHistory instance.
Describes user history with respect to parental guidance
ratings of the content. The attributes numInstances and
totalDuration specify usage statistics for a specific parental
guidance instance.
Total number of content items for which
ClassificationHistory information has been generated.
SourceHistory DS Semantics
Specifies history of the user's choices with respect to source
(such as its publisher or distributor) and format (such as
coding type) descriptions of the content.
Describes usage history with respect to publication medium
of content, such as satellite broadcast, CD, etc. The
attributes numInstances and totalDuration specify usage
statistics for a specific publication type instance.
Describes usage history with respect to publication source
of the content, such as broadcast channels. The attributes
numInstances and totalDuration specify usage statistics for
a specific publication channel instance.
Describes usage history with respect to the place content is
distributed from. The attributes numInstances and
totalDuration specify usage statistics for a specific
publication place instance.
Describes usage history with respect to time/date of content
distribution. The attributes numInstances and totalDuration
specify usage statistics for a specific publication date
Describes usage history with respect to publisher or
distributor of content. The attributes numInstances and
totalDuration specify usage statistics for a specific
publisher instance.
Describes usage history with respect to the form in which
content in available. The attributes numInstances and
totalDuration specify usage statistics for a specific
publication form instance.
Describes usage history with respect to format of the
content. The format specifiers considered are file format;
content medium; system; video and audio coding format;
aspect ratio; color appearance; and audio presentation. The
attributes numInstances and totalDuration specify usage
statistics for a specific media format instance.
Total number of content items for which SourceHistory
information has been generated.
KeywordHistory DS Semantics
Specifies history of the keywords the user has used while
viewing/consuming content.
Describes a specific keyword instance, and the statistical
information associated with it (through numInstances and
totalDuration attributes
Total number of content items for which KeywordHistory
information has been generated
SummarizationHistory DS Semantics
Specifies summarization-associated viewing/consumption
history for a user.
Describes the list of summary components consumed by
the user (such as keyFrames, keyVideoClips, etc.) and the
statistics associated with each, as defined by.
Describes the list of textual themes associated with the
summaries consumed by the user, as well as the statistics
for each theme, as defined by the attributes numInstances
and totalDuration.
Describes the duration information for the summaries
consumed by the user. The associated elements of this
complex type are:
Size of the shortest/smallest key frame-based summary
consumed by the user (stated in number of frames).
Temporal duration of the shortest summary consumed by
the user.
Size of the longest/largest key frame-based summary
consumed by the user (stated in number of frames)
Temporal duration of the longest summary consumed by
the user.
Average size of the key frame-based summaries consumed
by the user (stated in number of frames).
Average temporal duration of the summaries consumed by
the user.
Total number of content items for which
SummzarizationHistory information has been generated.
The following example highlights instantiations of the various UsageHistory description schemes. The example contains UserActionHistory and UserChoiceHistory information collected for 12 hours over two days.
The example illustrates how the functionality provided by the ActionMediaTime and ActionGeneralTime elements are different for some user actions such as "Rewind," "FastForward" and "SlowMotion." For example, as shown in the example, a "FastForward" action that lasts only a few seconds in terms of general time may actually correspond to several minutes in terms of the media time base. Relying only on the general time to represent the time of occurrence and duration of an action may lead to inconsistencies and ambiguity. Thus the proposed syntax supports representation of ActionTime in terms of both media time and general time.
With the creation of a hierarchical description, either for the user preferences or the program description, the present inventors then determined that the traditional technique of only manually selecting those preferences with such a hierarchical scheme is unduly burdensome for the user. In contrast, the system preferably automatically generates and provides values to the hierarchical preferences for the user profile. In this manner, the user is alleviated from the need to select the location of data within such a structure. In many instances, it may be necessary for the system to define the hierarchical structure of the program description and/or user description so that the system has a suitable framework to which to include the data.
After consideration of the ability of the system to permit automatic updating of the user profile it was determined that this is suitable for many circumstances, but in other circumstances it is undesirable for the system to automatically update the user profile. For example, during experimentation with different content it may be undesirable for the system to automatically update the profile because the user may not actually prefer the content. As another example, during certain times the user may be viewing content more suitable for "adults", and the user may not desire that the user profile include preferences referring to such content. Normally, preferences are included within the user profile to indicate a positive preference or a negative preference for a vast number of such preferences. However, a system that is totally user selected ("manual") is burdensome for the user to characterize, while a system that is totally free from user selection ("automatic") may similarly be too flexible for the user.
Referring to
Referring to
While defining different weights of a preference value is an improement and preference values are good for computer processing and the exchange of data between computers, however, users may have difficulty assigning these values in a way that is meaningful to them. To overcome this limitation the user preferences preferably assign different degrees of membership in different sets. One way of providing different degrees of membership is to use fuzzy sets, which have semantic labels. In this manner the system models a persons likes and dislikes in a more convenient way.
Natural language abounds with vague and imprecise concepts, such as "Sally is tall," or "It is very hot today." Such statements are difficult to translate into more precise language without losing some of their semantic value: for example, the statement "Sally's height is 152 cm." does not explicitly state that she is tall, and the statement "Sally's height is 1.2 standard deviations about the mean height for women of her age in her culture" is fraught with difficulties. Would a woman 1.1999999 standard deviations above the mean be tall? Which culture does Sally belong to, and how is membership in it defined?
While it might be argued that such vagueness is an obstacle to clarity of meaning, only the most staunch traditionalists would hold that there is no loss of richness of meaning when statements such as "Sally is tall" are discarded from a language. Yet this is just what happens when one tries to translate human language into classic logic. Such a loss is not noticed in the development of a payroll program, perhaps, but when one wants to allow for natural language queries, or "knowledge representation" in expert systems, the meanings lost are often those being searched for.
For example, when one is designing an expert system to mimic the diagnostic powers of a physician, one of the major tasks is to codify the physician's decision-making process. The designer soon learns that the physician's view of the world, despite her dependence upon precise, scientific tests and measurements, incorporates evaluations of symptoms, and relationships between them, in a "fuzzy," intuitive manner. Deciding how much of a particular medication to administer will have as much to do with the physician's sense of the relative "strength" of the patient's symptoms as it will their height/weight ratio. While some of the decisions and calculations could be done using traditional logic, a fuzzy systems affords a broader, richer field of data and the manipulation of that data than do more traditional methods.
The precision of mathematics owes its success in large part to the efforts of Aristotle and the philosophers who preceded him. In their efforts to devise a concise theory of logic, and later mathematics, the so-called "Laws of Thought" were posited. One of these, the "Law of the Excluded Middle," states that every proposition must either be True or False. Even when Parminedes proposed the first version of this law (around 400 B.C.) there were strong and immediate objections: for example, Heraclitus proposed that things could be simultaneously True and not True.
It was Plato who laid the foundation for what would become fuzzy logic, indicating that there was a third region (beyond True and False) where these opposites "tumbled about." Other, more modern philosophers echoed his sentiments, notably Hegel, Marx, and Engels. But it was Lukasiewicz who first proposed a systematic alternative to the bi-valued logic of Aristotle.
In the early 1900's, Lukasiewicz described a three-valued logic, along with the mathematics to accompany it. The third value he proposed can best be translated as the term "possible," and he assigned it a numeric value between True and False. Eventually, he proposed an entire notation and axiomatic system from which he hoped to derive modern mathematics.
Later, he explored four-valued logics, five-valued logics, and then declared that in principle there was nothing to prevent the derivation of an infinite-valued logic. Lukasiewicz felt that three- and infinite-valued logics were the most intriguing, but he ultimately settled on a four-valued logic because it seemed to be the most easily adaptable to Aristotelian logic.
Knuth proposed a three-valued logic similar to Lukasiewicz's, from which he speculated that mathematics would become even more elegant than in traditional bi-valued logic. His insight, apparently missed by Lukasiewicz, was to use the integral range [−1, 0 +1] rather than [0, 1, 2]. Nonetheless, this alternative failed to gain acceptance, and has passed into relative obscurity.
The notion common to fuzzy systems is that truth values (in fuzzy logic) or membership values (in fuzzy sets) are indicated by a value on the range [0.0, 1.0], with 0.0 representing absolute Falseness and 1.0 representing absolute Truth. For example, let us take the statement: "Jane is old."
If Jane's age was 75, we might assign the statement the truth value of 0.80. The statement could be translated into set terminology as follows:
This statement would be rendered symbolically with fuzzy sets as:
where m is the membership function, operating in this case on the fuzzy set of old people, which returns a value between 0.0 and 1.0.
At this juncture it is important to point out the distinction between fuzzy systems and probability. Both operate over the same numeric range, and at first glance both have similar values: 0.0 representing False (or non-membership), and 1.0 representing True (or membership). However, there is a distinction to be made between the two statements: The probabilistic approach yields the natural-language statement, "There is an 80% chance that Jane is old," while the fuzzy terminology corresponds to "Jane's degree of membership within the set of old people is 0.80." The semantic difference is significant: the first view supposes that Jane is or is not old (still caught in the Law of the Excluded Middle); it is just that we only have an 80% chance of knowing which set she is in. By contrast, fuzzy terminology supposes that Jane is "more or less" old, or some other term corresponding to the value of 0.80. Further distinctions arising out of the operations will be noted below.
The next step in establishing a complete system of fuzzy logic is to define the operations of EMPTY, EQUAL, COMPLEMENT (NOT), CONTAINMENT, UNION (OR), and INTERSECTION (AND). It is helpful to state some formal definitions:
It is noted that the last two operations, UNION (OR) and INTERSECTION (AND), which represent the clearest point of departure from a probabilistic theory for sets to fuzzy sets. Operationally, the differences are as follows:
For independent events, the probabilistic operation for AND is multiplication, which (it can be argued) is counterintuitive for fuzzy systems. For example, let us presume that x=Bob, S is the fuzzy set of smart people, and T is the fuzzy set of tall people. Then, if mS(x)=0.90 and uT(x)=0.90, the probabilistic result would be:
whereas the fuzzy result would be:
MIN(uS(x), uT(x))=0.90
The probabilistic calculation yields a result that is lower than either of the two initial values, which when viewed as "the chance of knowing" makes good sense.
However, in fuzzy terms the two membership functions would read something like "Bob is very smart" and "Bob is very tall." If we presume for the sake of argument that "very" is a stronger term than "quite," and that we would correlate "quite" with the value 0.81, then the semantic difference becomes obvious. The probabilistic calculation would yield the statement If Bob is very smart, and Bob is very tall, then Bob is a quite tall, smart person. The fuzzy calculation, however, would yield
If Bob is very smart, and Bob is very tall, then Bob is a very tall, smart person.
Another problem arises as we incorporate more factors into our equations (such as the fuzzy set of heavy people, etc.). We find that the ultimate result of a series of AND's approaches 0.0, even if all factors are initially high. Fuzzy theorists argue that this is wrong: that five factors of the value 0.90 (let us say, "very") AND'ed together, should yield a value of 0.90 (again, "very"), not 0.59 (perhaps equivalent to "somewhat").
Similarly, the probabilistic version of A OR B is (A+B−A*B), which approaches 1.0 as additional factors are considered. Fuzzy theorists argue that a sting of low membership grades should not produce a high membership grade instead, the limit of the resulting membership grade should be the strongest membership value in the collection.
Another feature common to fuzzy systems is the ability to define "hedges," or modifier of fuzzy values. These operations are provided in an effort to maintain close ties to natural language, and to allow for the generation of fuzzy statements through mathematical calculations. As such, the initial definition of hedges and operations upon them will be quite a subjective process and may vary from one project to another. Nonetheless, the system ultimately derived operates with the same formality as classic logic.
The simplest example is in which one transforms the statement "Jane is old" to "Jane is very old." The hedge "very" is usually defined as follows:
Thus, if mOLD(Jane)=0.8, then mVERYOLD(Jane)=0.64. Other common hedges are "more or less" [typically SQRT(mA(x))], "somewhat," "rather," "sort of," and so on. Again, their definition is entirely subjective, but their operation is consistent: they serve to transform membership/truth values in a systematic manner according to standard mathematical functions.
It is noted that algorithmic procedures can be devised which translate "fuzzy" terminology into numeric values, perform reliable operations upon those values, and then return natural language statements in a reliable manner.
One technique to provide a system that assigns different degrees of membership is to utilize a fuzzy inference system to process and interpret the available usage history data (data regarding content previously viewed). Fuzzy inference methods enable flexible, intuitive representation of system variables to utilize knowledge collected from individuals. An imprecise linguistic description that models how the system operates may be provided by an operator, in the form of a series of rules, which may be readily represented by fuzzy sets and operators. The rules that characterize the system can also be computed automatically from a training set through statistical analysis and data mining techniques.
It is to be understood that the proposed techniques described herein are likewise capable of handling a variety of applications and associated multimedia content types, such as for example, audio, video data, web pages, or content that is otherwise available to the user. The particular form of representation of the content, usage history, and user preference descriptions may be proprietary or in a standard-compliant format. Preferably the representation utilizes Extensible Markup Language (XML) and complies with the multimedia standards for MPEG-7 and TV Anytime. Both MPEG-7 and TV Anytime define description schemes for structured representation of content descriptions, usage history information, and preferences.
Referring to
The fuzzy inference system readily addresses both of these issues, although other techniques may likewise be used. The fuzzy inference enables the formulation of a mapping between the input and output variables of a system using fuzzy logic. Referring to
Referring to
The fuzzy rule base 200 and fuzzy inference engine 202 may include the following rules for
The defuzzification module 206 occurs after computing the fuzzy rules and evaluating the fuzzy variables to translate the results back to the real world. Defuzzification uses a membership function for each output variable, such as those illustrated in
Stated another way, normally the relevant input and output variables for a fuzzy system, together with their range of values, are initially identified. Meaningful linguistic states for each variable are subsequently selected and expressed by appropriate fuzzy sets, which represent labels such as "small", "large", "approximately zero", etc. The fuzzy memberships of each crisp input value in the fuzzy sets are computed by the fuzzification module 204. The membership values are then used by the rule base 200, which may include a set of if-then statements that characterize the relationship between the input and output variables. Given a set of input values, the relevant rules may be evaluated using the corresponding fuzzy logical rules, resulting in a fuzzy set that is defined on the universe of possible actions or outcomes. In the defuzzification module 206, this fuzzy set is converted into a crisp value through defuzzification, as previously discussed.
Given the usage history information and the descriptions of the associated content, the system may first compute, for each description attribute or category of interest, a number of features. Different types of user actions serve as different interest indicators. For example, recording a TV program suggests that the user would like to view that program, while fast-forwarding through parts of a program implies that the user does not care about the content of those portions. These features are then interpreted by the fuzzy inference engine using the available rule base, and finally the appropriate action is taken by the system based on the output.
With respect to batch mode processing a set of input and output variables are introduced. These features take into account the amount of time the user interacts with given content, as well as the way the user interacts with it, to provide an indication of the user's interest in that type of content. The level of interest or affinity of a user for a given program may be modeled using a content affinity feature, such as:
where R1 denotes the ranking that the user has assigned to program i, Aik is the ratio of the duration of the kth action associated with i to the duration of I, and ωk is the weight of the action. f(Ri) is a function that determines how the user's ranking of the program influences his overall affinity for the program. Each user action is weighted by a coefficient ω that specifies the significance of the action. Actions like "skip" and "fast forward" can be assigned negative weights, since they point to a lack of interest by the user, while others like "record" and "repeat" may receive positive coefficients. The value of the coefficient for each action may be predefined, or determined through analysis of appropriate training data. Similarly, the value of f(R1) may be negative or less than 1 when the user ranking falls below average, and greater than 1 when the ranking exceeds the average. In the absence of an explicit user ranking or input, f(R1) is preferably set to 1, and CA is preferably determined through observation of user actions only. Since each user has a different ranking strategy, it may be appropriate to define the function f(R1) individually for each user, based on the user's ranking habits. For example, a user may be inclined to rank the majority of programs favorably, and assign poor rankings infrequently. In this case, a poor ranking proves more information of the user's interest in the program, and thus the weight of this particular ranking may be adjusted to reflect its significance. The ranking system for a particular user may be determined by computing the probability of each ranking value over a training set of programs.
Using the content affinity (CA) for a program, the system may readily compute an average content affinity (ACA) for a particular description category. A category is a general term that corresponds to a particular value or value range of the descriptive attribute in consideration, such as genre, program title, actor, etc. An example of a category is "the genre attribute has the value comedy." ACA preferably considers all the programs or content that belongs to a particular category of interest (e.g., belonging to a particular genre, or starring a specific actor) to determine the average affinity of the user for an arbitrary program in that category:
where L is a set of programs in the user's history that belong to the category of interest, and |L| denotes the cardinality of L. It is expected that ACA will be large for categories of content that the user likes. ACA constitutes the first input variable of the fuzzy inference system for batch mode processing.
The second input variable for batch mode processing is category affinity ratio, or CAR, which represents the user's affinity for a particular category instance relative to other instances in the given category. CAR may be computed as follows:
L is the number of programs in the user's history that belong to the category of interest, (e.g., all movies in the usage history that belong to the "comedy" genre, or all sitcomes that star Jerry Seinfeld), and P is the set of all programs. It is expected that the higher the user's preference for a particular category, the larger the value of the CAR attribute. For example, in the genre category, if the CAR value for "comedy" is greater than that of "drama," it implies that the user enjoys comedy programs more.
The output variable for the inference system is the preference value, of pV, which denotes the user's preference associated with a particular category based on the two inputs. The pV ranges between 0 and 100. Negative preference values may be assigned in batch processing mode, if desired.
In one embodiment by way of example, the system considers a single action ("view") for computation of the input feature values, and assigns the weight of "1" to this action. In the unsupervised case, no user ranking about programs is available; hence the value of f(R1) is also set to "1". The average category affinity feature becomes analogous to the average viewing ratio for programs from a particular category. For example, if a viewer has watched 10 minutes of a 30-minute comedy program, and 15 minutes of another, then ACA for comedy programs is (10/30+15/30)/2=5/12. Similarly, category affinity ratio represents the amount of time spent by the user viewing programs from a particular category instance relative to the other instances in the given category. For example, if a user has viewed 2 hours of comedy programs, 1.5 hours of news, and 30 minutes of sports, then the CAR for the three genres will be 2/4=0.5, 1.5/4=0.375, and 0.5/4=0.125, respectively.
The membership functions for the two input variables, ACA and CAR, are illustrated in
The fuzzy inference system for incremental mode processing may include three input variables and one output variable, for example. The first input variable for the incremental inference system is pV, the current preference value for the preference attribute of interest. The pV can take on positive and negative values, with negative numbers denoting user's dislike. For the preferred system, 7 input states are defined for pV, as illustrated in
The second input variable is current category affinity ratio (CAR) for the attribute of interest, as previously discussed. The membership functions for this variable are illustrated in
The third input variable, dCAR, measures the amount of change between the previous and current category affinity ratios (CARs) for a particular content description category (e.g., genre). dCAR is defined as the ratio of prior and current CARs, i.e.,
where CAR− and CAR denote the previous and present category viewing ratios, respectively. When dCAR is in the range [0,1), this indicates that the viewing ratio for the given category has increased since the last update; whereas dCARε (1,∞) implies a drop of the viewing ratio. The membership functions for this variable are illustrated in
The output variable is the change in preference value, or dpV, which specifies how much the present preference value for the given category should be incremented or decremented. In the preferred embodiment, dpV ranges between −10 and 10. The 7 states and the corresponding membership functions for the output variable are illustrated in
Referring to
Normally the traditional techniques used for updating the filtering is based upon the prior user's actions and selections. After further consideration, the present inventors realized that the choices by one user, such as selecting both Die Hard II as desirable and Lethal Weapon II as desirable, may be used as the basis for supplementing another user's profile. Accordingly, without any additional effort by the user, the user's profile may be supplemented to reflect additional information that may more accurately reflect the user's desires, albeit potentially unknown to the user. In addition, the user may be presented options to incorporate additional potentially desirable content based upon the other user profiles. These options for example could be presented to the user from which the user selects additional potentially desirable content or descriptors, or otherwise automatic upon activation, if desired. A2
The user profiling and filtering framework, previously described, has the ability to perform both information and collaborative filtering.
After further consideration of the present inventors came to the realization that the same approach used for information filtering (i.e., matching content descriptions to user profile descriptions) may be utilized directly for user profile comparison. Since the filtering agent may be designed to compare two closely harmonized hierarchical structures, it may also be used as-is to compare two user profile descriptions.
Existing techniques primarily make use of a narrow piece of the available usage history, namely an explicit user rating. The present inventors further determined that the system may compute user similarity on the basis of, at least in part, (a) the type of each user action (as part of the history) comes from an extensible dictionary and (b) the fact that the system can associate a time with each user action. The extensible dictionary permits the system to function on the basis of any type of associated action including a user rating. The associated time permits the system to refine its user matching method, esp. in cases such as TV watching, and provide better recommendations. One example is based on time of day, i.e., what a user watched in the morning can be separated from what he/she watched in the evening. Another example is based on day of the week.
A method to compute actual similarity could use vector similarity. A usage history could be represented by multiple vectors and similarity could be a weighted average of similarity of the individual vectors.
|Cited Patent
|Filing date
|Publication date
|May 23, 1977
|Jan 8, 1980
|Kewp Electronic Systems, Inc.
|Apparatus and method for monitoring sports contests
|Jun 4, 1979
|Feb 24, 1981
|Zenith Radio Corporation
|Control for color killer and automatic color limiter
|Mar 31, 1980
|Nov 3, 1981
|Zenith Radio Corporation
|Chroma amplifier and color killer
|Apr 20, 1979
|Mar 23, 1982
|Teac Corporation
|Apparatus for selective retrieval of information streams or items
|Jan 5, 1979
|Apr 13, 1982
|Mattel, Inc.
|Electronic baseball game
|Aug 23, 1982
|May 28, 1985
|Kohorn H Von
|System, apparatus and method for recording and editing broadcast transmissions
|Feb 5, 1985
|Mar 1, 1988
|Lex Computing & Management Corporation
|Method and apparatus for playing serially stored segments in an arbitrary sequence
|Dec 2, 1983
|Jun 26, 1990
|Lex Computer And Management Corporation
|Method of display presentation for video editing
|Jan 29, 1990
|Apr 30, 1991
|Dubner Computer Systems, Inc.
|Video image bank for storing and retrieving video image sequences
|Aug 16, 1989
|Jun 25, 1991
|Hitachi Ltd.
|Multimedia bidirectional broadcast system
|Feb 9, 1990
|Mar 31, 1992
|Massachusetts Institute Of Technology
|Method and facility for dynamic video composition and viewing
|Feb 19, 1991
|Apr 28, 1992
|David Bohrman
|Interactive video control system for displaying user-selectable clips
|Dec 4, 1990
|Sep 15, 1992
|Sony Corporation Of America
|Multi-dimensional user interface
|Jul 1, 1992
|Apr 6, 1993
|Beam Laser Systems, Inc.
|Commercial insertion system remotely controlling multiple video switches
|Sep 8, 1992
|Jun 29, 1993
|Chan Shin
|Over-drive gear device
|May 27, 1992
|Jun 29, 1993
|North American Philips Corporation
|System and method for automatically correlating user preferences with a T.V. program information database
|Oct 26, 1989
|Aug 31, 1993
|Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.
|Multimedia search system using a plurality of entry path means which indicate interrelatedness of information
|Nov 20, 1992
|Feb 22, 1994
|Susan Matsumoto
|Talking football
|Jan 8, 1993
|Jul 26, 1994
|Arthur D. Little Enterprises, Inc.
|Method and apparatus for controlling a videotape player to automatically scan past recorded commercial messages
|Apr 15, 1993
|Aug 16, 1994
|Sony Electronics, Inc.
|Graphical user interface for displaying available source material for editing
|Feb 16, 1993
|Jan 10, 1995
|Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.
|Method of selecting cable television converter groups
|Aug 3, 1992
|Apr 4, 1995
|Spectra Group Ltd., Inc.
|Desktop digital video processing system
|Sep 22, 1993
|Apr 25, 1995
|Arrowsmith Technologies, Inc.
|Apparatus and method of selecting video programs based on viewers' preferences
|Sep 15, 1994
|Jun 13, 1995
|Cable Service Technologies, Inc.
|Method and apparatus for automatic insertion of a television signal from a remote source
|Jan 11, 1993
|Jul 18, 1995
|Abecassis; Max
|Seamless transmission of non-sequential video segments
|Dec 21, 1993
|Aug 22, 1995
|Sony Corporation
|Audio video apparatus with intelligence for learning a history of user control
|Mar 10, 1993
|Sep 19, 1995
|Texas Instruments
|Combined digital color control and chroma killer device
|Jul 10, 1992
|Oct 17, 1995
|Sony Corporation
|Animation data index creation drawn from image data sampling composites
|Sep 28, 1993
|Jan 9, 1996
|Philips Electronics North America Corporation
|System and method for finding a movie of interest in a large movie database
|Mar 31, 1994
|May 28, 1996
|Siemens Corporate Research, Inc.
|Browsing contents of a given video sequence
|Dec 27, 1993
|Aug 27, 1996
|Lucent Technologies Inc.
|Method and system for operating a data processor to index primary data in real time with iconic table of contents
|Dec 2, 1993
|Sep 24, 1996
|Discovery Communications, Inc.
|Television program delivery system
|Sep 13, 1994
|Dec 31, 1996
|Abecassis; Max
|Computer-themed playing system
|Dec 2, 1993
|Feb 4, 1997
|Discovery Communications, Inc.
|Network controller for cable television delivery systems
|Dec 2, 1994
|Feb 4, 1997
|Discovery Communications, Inc.
|Operations center with video storage for a television program packaging and delivery system
|May 21, 1996
|Feb 4, 1997
|Intel Corporation
|Method and apparatus for creating a portable personalized operating environment
|Apr 24, 1995
|Mar 11, 1997
|Abecassis; Max
|Method and system for automatically tracking a zoomed video image
|Apr 12, 1995
|Jun 3, 1997
|Abecassis; Max
|Content-on-demand interactive video method and apparatus
|Jun 27, 1994
|Jun 3, 1997
|Zhang; Hong J.
|System for automatic video segmentation and key frame extraction for video sequences having both sharp and gradual transitions
|Jun 7, 1995
|Aug 5, 1997
|Texas Instruments Incorporated
|Digital color control and chroma killer device
|Dec 2, 1993
|Aug 19, 1997
|Discovery Communications, Inc.
|Operations center for a television program packaging and delivery system
|Apr 10, 1995
|Sep 2, 1997
|Abecassis; Max
|Autoconfigurable video system
|Oct 14, 1994
|Sep 2, 1997
|Carnegie Mellon University
|System and method for skimming digital audio/video data
|Sep 15, 1994
|Oct 7, 1997
|Sony Corporation
|Interactive applications generator for an interactive presentation environment
|Dec 2, 1993
|Oct 28, 1997
|Discovery Communications, Inc.
|Digital cable headend for cable television delivery system
|Sep 8, 1994
|Nov 4, 1997
|Abecassis; Max
|System for integrating video and communications
|Dec 12, 1996
|Dec 2, 1997
|Intel Corporation
|Method and apparatus for viewing of on-line information service chat data incorporated in a broadcast television program
|Sep 19, 1994
|Dec 9, 1997
|Max Abecassis
|Variable-content-video provider system
|Nov 3, 1994
|Dec 9, 1997
|Intel Corporation
|Electronic information appraisal agent
|Mar 29, 1995
|Jan 20, 1998
|Intel Corporation
|System for automatically updating personal profile server with updates to additional user information gathered from monitoring user's electronic consuming habits generated on computer during use
|Sep 16, 1994
|Feb 10, 1998
|Max Abecassis
|Variable-content video retriever
|Nov 3, 1995
|Feb 10, 1998
|Xerox Corporation
|System for the capture and replay of temporal data representing collaborative activities
|Nov 3, 1994
|Feb 10, 1998
|Intel Corporation
|Method and apparatus for dynamically customizing electronic information to individual end users
|May 1, 1995
|Mar 3, 1998
|Abecassis; Max
|Content map for seamlessly skipping a retrieval of a segment of a video
|Jun 4, 1996
|Mar 10, 1998
|International Business Machines Corporation
|Network system for profiling and actively facilitating user activities
|Oct 2, 1996
|Mar 24, 1998
|Internet Angles, Inc.
|Audio message exchange system
|Dec 2, 1993
|Mar 31, 1998
|Discovery Communications, Inc.
|Set top terminal for cable television delivery systems
|Nov 29, 1994
|May 26, 1998
|Herz; Frederick
|System and method for scheduling broadcast of and access to video programs and other data using customer profiles
|Mar 11, 1997
|May 26, 1998
|Microsoft Corporation
|Automated selective programming guide
|Jan 13, 1997
|Jun 9, 1998
|Wall; Benjamin
|Process and apparatus for wrapping paper rolls
|Sep 27, 1996
|Jun 9, 1998
|Ichat, Inc.
|Method and apparatus for real time communication over a computer network
|Jun 6, 1995
|Jun 30, 1998
|Hoffberg; Steven M.
|Human factored interface incorporating adaptive pattern recognition based controller apparatus
|Jun 7, 1996
|Jul 7, 1998
|Electronic Data Systems Corporation
|Method and system for detecting transitional markers such as uniform fields in a video signal
|Jun 27, 1996
|Jul 14, 1998
|Indicating activeness of clips and applying effects to clips and tracks in a timeline of a multimedia work
|Dec 11, 1995
|Aug 11, 1998
|Cybergold, Inc.
|Attention brokerage
|Sep 26, 1996
|Aug 18, 1998
|Hitachi America, Ltd.
|Broadcast interactive multimedia system
|Dec 2, 1993
|Aug 25, 1998
|Discovery Communications, Inc.
|Terminal for suggesting programs offered on a television program delivery system
|Dec 12, 1994
|Sep 8, 1998
|Apple Computer, Inc.
|Method and system for detecting scenes and summarizing video sequences
|Oct 18, 1993
|Sep 15, 1998
|Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson
|Arrangement in mobile telecommunications systems for providing synchronization of transmitters of base stations
|May 15, 1997
|Oct 13, 1998
|The Trustees Of Princeton University
|Method and apparatus for video browsing based on content and structure
|Apr 5, 1996
|Oct 13, 1998
|At&T Corp.
|Multimedia networked system detecting congestion by monitoring buffers' threshold and compensating by reducing video transmittal rate then reducing audio playback rate
|Oct 1, 1996
|Oct 27, 1998
|Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
|Method and apparatus for extracting indexing information from digital video data
|Nov 14, 1996
|Oct 27, 1998
|Interactive Broadcaster Services Corp.
|Computer network chat room based on channel broadcast in real time
|Oct 31, 1995
|Nov 10, 1998
|Herz; Frederick S. M.
|System for generation of object profiles for a system for customized electronic identification of desirable objects
|Apr 26, 1996
|Dec 8, 1998
|Freedom Of Information, Inc.
|Method and apparatus for determining behavioral profile of a computer user
|Feb 8, 1996
|Jan 19, 1999
|Actv, Inc.
|Interactive computer system for providing an interactive presentation with personalized video, audio and graphics responses for multiple viewers
|Dec 15, 1995
|Feb 2, 1999
|Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc.
|Scheduler employing a predictive agent for use in a television receiver
|Jun 6, 1995
|Feb 2, 1999
|Hoffberg; Steven M.
|Morphological pattern recognition based controller system
|Sep 9, 1997
|Feb 23, 1999
|Mitsubishi Denki Kabushiki Kaisha
|Inverter apparatus
|Jun 6, 1995
|Feb 23, 1999
|Hoffberg; Steven M.
|Ergonomic man-machine interface incorporating adaptive pattern recognition based control system
|Jan 30, 1997
|Mar 2, 1999
|Motorola, Inc.
|Multimedia input and control apparatus and method for multimedia communications
|Jul 7, 1997
|Mar 2, 1999
|Intel Corporation
|Method and apparatus for controlling video/audio and channel selection for a communication signal based on channel data indicative of channel contents of a signal
|Oct 3, 1996
|Apr 6, 1999
|Personal Audio
|Systems and methods for computer enhanced broadcast monitoring
|Jul 17, 1995
|May 4, 1999
|Gateway 2000, Inc.
|Self identifying remote control device having a television receiver for use in a computer
|Jun 6, 1995
|May 4, 1999
|Hoffberg; Steven M.
|Ergonomic man-machine interface incorporating adaptive pattern recognition based control system
|Dec 23, 1991
|May 11, 1999
|Hoffberg; Linda Irene
|Human-factored interface corporating adaptive pattern recognition based controller apparatus
|Nov 5, 1997
|May 25, 1999
|Intel Corporation
|Method for saving and accessing desktop conference characteristics with a persistent conference object
|Dec 15, 1997
|Jun 15, 1999
|Abecassis; Max
|Seamless transmission of non-sequential video segments
|Mar 18, 1997
|Jun 15, 1999
|International Business Machines Corporation
|Method and system for client/server communications with user information revealed as a function of willingness to reveal and whether the information is required
|Oct 13, 1995
|Jul 6, 1999
|Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd.
|Active matrix liquid crystal display device
|Jun 7, 1996
|Jul 6, 1999
|Electronic Data Systems Corporation
|Method and system for detecting fade transitions in a video signal
|Jun 6, 1995
|Jul 6, 1999
|Hoffberg; Steven M.
|Human factored interface incorporating adaptive pattern recognition based controller apparatus
|Dec 6, 1996
|Jul 13, 1999
|Orad Hi-Tech Systems, Ltd
|Sports event video manipulating system for highlighting movement
|Sep 12, 1996
|Jul 20, 1999
|Audible, Inc.
|Digital information library and delivery system with logic for generating files targeted to the playback device
|Aug 29, 1997
|Jul 27, 1999
|Nec Usa, Inc.
|Semantic and cognition based image retrieval
|Aug 20, 1996
|Aug 3, 1999
|Paul D. Angles
|System and method for delivering customized advertisements within interactive communication systems
|May 30, 1997
|Aug 31, 1999
|Intel Corporation
|Method and apparatus for automatically determining and dynamically updating user preferences in an entertainment system
|Dec 19, 1997
|Sep 21, 1999
|Sharp Laboratories Of America, Inc.
|Method for hierarchical summarization and browsing of digital video
|Dec 19, 1995
|Sep 28, 1999
|Motorola, Inc.
|Method and apparatus for communicating summarized data
|Dec 30, 1996
|Sep 28, 1999
|Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
|Motion picture detecting method
|Jun 7, 1996
|Sep 28, 1999
|Electronic Data Systems Corporation
|Method and system for detecting dissolve transitions in a video signal
|Feb 5, 1997
|Oct 19, 1999
|Texas Instruments Incorporated
|Motion based event detection system and method
|Nov 24, 1997
|Oct 26, 1999
|International Business Machines Corporation
|Dynamic regulation of television viewing content based on viewer profile and viewing history
|Jan 5, 1998
|Nov 2, 1999
|Intel Corporation
|Method and apparatus for automatically configuring a system based on a user's monitored system interaction and preferred system access times
|Nov 7, 1994
|Nov 16, 1999
|Discovery Communications, Inc.
|Electronic book selection and delivery system
|Dec 15, 1998
|Nov 16, 1999
|Logan; James D.
|Systems and methods for computer enhanced broadcast monitoring
|Nov 8, 1997
|Nov 16, 1999
|Abecassis; Max
|Seamless transmission of non-sequential video segments
|Dec 2, 1993
|Nov 23, 1999
|Discovery Communications, Inc.
|Advanced set top terminal for cable television delivery systems
|May 28, 1998
|Nov 23, 1999
|Sarnoff Corporation
|Detection of transitions in video sequences
|Mar 4, 1997
|Nov 30, 1999
|U.S. Philips Corporation
|User-oriented multimedia presentation system for multiple presentation items that each behave as an agent
|May 21, 1999
|Nov 30, 1999
|Sharp Laboratories Of America, Inc.
|Method for hierarchical summarization and browsing of digital video
|Nov 8, 1997
|Dec 14, 1999
|Abecassis; Max
|Disc storing a variable-content-video and a user interface
|Mar 25, 1997
|Dec 21, 1999
|Sony Corporation
|Integrated search of electronic program guide, internet and other information resources
|Oct 27, 1997
|Dec 21, 1999
|Disney Enterprises, Inc.
|Method and apparatus for program selection
|Apr 2, 1998
|Dec 21, 1999
|Hotv, Inc.
|Hyperlinks resolution at and by a special network server in order to enable diverse sophisticated hyperlinking upon a digital network
|May 1, 1998
|Jan 4, 2000
|Abecassis; Max
|Keyword responsive variable content video program
|Aug 6, 1997
|Jan 11, 2000
|Imagine Products, Inc.
|Method and apparatus for detecting scene changes in a digital video stream
|Feb 23, 1998
|Feb 1, 2000
|Fred Herz
|System and method for scheduling broadcast of and access to video programs and other data using customer profiles
|Dec 5, 1997
|Feb 22, 2000
|Herz; Frederick S. M.
|System for customized electronic identification of desirable objects
|Feb 19, 1999
|Mar 14, 2000
|Abecassis; Max
|Playing a Video Responsive to a comparison of two sets of Content Preferences
|Apr 17, 1997
|Mar 21, 2000
|International Business Machines Corporation
|Information search method, information search device, and storage medium for storing an information search program
|Jan 24, 1997
|Apr 11, 2000
|Motorola, Inc.
|Proxy host computer and method for accessing and retrieving information between a browser and a proxy
|Sep 10, 1996
|Apr 18, 2000
|Discovery Communications, Inc.
|Television program delivery system
|Nov 4, 1997
|Apr 25, 2000
|Ati Technologies, Inc.
|System and method for reconstructing noninterlaced captured content for display on a progressive screen
|Feb 20, 1998
|May 9, 2000
|E. I. Du Pont De Nemours And Company
|Non-chalking release/wear coating
|Sep 30, 1997
|May 16, 2000
|Compaq Computer Corporation
|Systems with user preference setting schemes
|Oct 31, 1997
|May 16, 2000
|Webtv Networks, Inc.
|Automatic characterization of a television signal
|Dec 11, 1997
|May 23, 2000
|Abecassis; Max
|Playing a version of and from within a video by means of downloaded segment information
|Mar 2, 1998
|May 30, 2000
|Sharp Laboratories Of America, Inc.
|Hierarchical method and system for object-based audiovisual descriptive tagging of images for information retrieval, editing, and manipulation
|Oct 20, 1997
|Jun 6, 2000
|Abecassis; Max
|Video previewing method and apparatus
|Jan 17, 1997
|Jun 13, 2000
|Philips Electronics North America Corporation
|Personalizing hospital intranet web sites
|Dec 18, 1997
|Jun 20, 2000
|International Business Machines Corporation
|System for searching internet using automatic relevance feedback
|Dec 12, 1997
|Jun 20, 2000
|Missouri Botanical Garden
|Site-specific interest profiling system
|Jun 11, 1998
|Jun 27, 2000
|Chen; Shenchang Eric
|Animation object having multiple resolution format
|Jun 6, 1995
|Jun 27, 2000
|Hoffberg; Steven Mark
|Ergonomic man-machine interface incorporating adaptive pattern recognition based control system
|Jan 7, 1997
|Jul 11, 2000
|Logan; James D.
|Methods and apparatus for selectively reproducing segments of broadcast programming
|Nov 29, 1995
|Jul 11, 2000
|Herz; Frederick
|System and method for scheduling broadcast of and access to video programs and other data using customer profiles
|Jul 1, 1998
|Jul 18, 2000
|Abecassis; Max
|Video viewing responsive to content and time restrictions
|Jul 28, 1998
|Aug 8, 2000
|U.S. Philips Corporation
|Apparatus and method for locating a commercial disposed within a video data stream
|Sep 18, 1998
|Sep 5, 2000
|Tacit Knowledge Systems, Inc.
|Method and system for constructing a knowledge profile of a user having unrestricted and restricted access portions according to respective levels of confidence of content of the portions
|Mar 11, 1997
|Sep 19, 2000
|Networks Associates, Inc.
|Internet computer system with methods for dynamic filtering of hypertext tags and content
|Nov 12, 1997
|Oct 3, 2000
|Ncr Corporation
|Collection and integration of internet and electronic commerce data in a database during web browsing
|Jun 12, 1997
|Oct 17, 2000
|Starsight Telecast, Inc.
|Method and apparatus for searching a guide using program characteristics
|Sep 23, 1997
|Oct 24, 2000
|Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.
|Image display control device for restricting display of video data viewed on a television in accordance with a restrict level of the video data
|Jun 22, 1998
|Oct 31, 2000
|Lucent Technologies Inc.
|Method and apparatus for determination and visualization of player field coverage in a sporting event
|Mar 5, 1999
|Oct 31, 2000
|Fox Sports Productions, Inc.
|Method and apparatus for adding a graphic indication of a first down to a live video of a football game
|Aug 14, 1998
|Nov 7, 2000
|Praja Inc.
|Multi-perspective viewer for content-based interactivity
|Jun 30, 1998
|Nov 21, 2000
|Abecassis; Max
|Motion picture including within a duplication of frames
|Oct 23, 1996
|Dec 12, 2000
|Discovery Communications, Inc.
|Network controller for cable television delivery systems
|Jan 10, 2000
|Dec 12, 2000
|The Musicbooth Llc
|Method and system for using a communication network to supply targeted streaming advertising in interactive media
|Oct 3, 1997
|Dec 19, 2000
|Texas Instruments Incorporated
|Electronic programming system and method
|Dec 14, 1998
|Jan 2, 2001
|Gte Main Street Incorporated
|Method of delivering advertising through an interactive video distribution system
|Jul 21, 1998
|Jan 23, 2001
|Index Systems, Inc.
|Systems and methods for displaying and recording control interface with television programs, video, advertising information and program scheduling information
|Sep 21, 1998
|Jan 30, 2001
|Discovery Communications, Inc.
|Card for a set top terminal
|Dec 20, 1996
|Feb 6, 2001
|Intel Corporation
|Scaling proxy server sending to the client a graphical user interface for establishing object encoding preferences after receiving the client's request for the object
|Oct 24, 1994
|Feb 27, 2001
|Hitachi, Ltd.
|Associated image retrieving apparatus and method
|Mar 27, 1995
|Mar 6, 2001
|International Business Machines Corporation
|Apparatus for color component compression
|Oct 2, 1996
|Mar 6, 2001
|James Logan
|Audio program player including a dynamic program selection controller
|Dec 2, 1994
|Mar 13, 2001
|Discovery Communications, Inc.
|Network manager for cable television system headends
|Feb 7, 1992
|Mar 27, 2001
|Max Abecassis
|Inhibiting a control function from interfering with a playing of a video
|Nov 2, 1998
|Apr 3, 2001
|Survivors Of The Shoah Visual History Foundation
|Method and apparatus for cataloguing multimedia data
|Nov 6, 1998
|Apr 10, 2001
|Tivo, Inc.
|Analog video tagging and encoding system
|Mar 12, 1999
|Apr 10, 2001
|Expanse Networks, Inc.
|Advertisement selection system supporting discretionary target market characteristics
|Oct 23, 1997
|Apr 17, 2001
|International Business Machines Corporation
|Summary frames in video
|Sep 25, 1996
|May 1, 2001
|Netspeak Corporation
|Method and apparatus for dynamically defining data communication utilities
|Sep 3, 1999
|May 8, 2001
|Microsoft Corporation
|Production of a video stream with synchronized annotations over a computer network
|May 3, 1999
|May 15, 2001
|Promxd Technology, Inc.
|Ergonomic systems and methods providing intelligent adaptive surfaces and temperature control
|Jul 16, 1997
|May 15, 2001
|Seagate Technolgy, Inc.
|High rate trellis code for partial response channels
|Jul 30, 1998
|May 15, 2001
|Tivo, Inc.
|Multimedia time warping system
|Apr 1, 1998
|May 15, 2001
|International Business Machines Corp.
|Federated searching of heterogeneous datastores using a federated query object
|Dec 5, 1997
|May 15, 2001
|Venson M. Shaw
|Server apparatus for distributed communications supporting multiple user/application environment
|Apr 26, 1999
|May 22, 2001
|Sharp Laboratories Of America, Inc.
|Audiovisual information management system
|Aug 31, 1998
|May 29, 2001
|The Trustees Of The University Of Pennsylvania
|System and method for optimizing queries with aggregates and collection conversions
|Sep 8, 1999
|Jun 26, 2001
|Hyundai Electronics Industries Co., Ltd.
|Reset signal generation circuit
|Jan 25, 1999
|Jun 26, 2001
|Steven M. Hoffberg
|Mobile communication device
|Oct 2, 1998
|Jun 26, 2001
|Ncr Corporation
|Privacy-enhanced database
|May 14, 1998
|Jul 31, 2001
|Max Abecassis
|Intermittently arranged frames for instantaneously shifting among video segments
|Aug 4, 1999
|Aug 14, 2001
|United Video Properties, Inc.
|Electronic television program guide with remote product ordering
|Nov 20, 1997
|Sep 4, 2001
|Thomas P. Ivanyi
|System and method for measuring and storing information pertaining to television viewer or user behavior
|May 22, 1997
|Sep 4, 2001
|Soundview Technologies Incorporated
|Personal editing system
|Feb 9, 1999
|Sep 11, 2001
|Max Abecassis
|System for and a method of playing interleaved presentation segments
|Nov 12, 1997
|Oct 2, 2001
|International Business Machines Corporation
|System for two-way digital multimedia broadcast and interactive services
|Apr 1, 1999
|Oct 16, 2001
|Sportvision, Inc.
|System for determining the end of a path for a moving object
|Dec 10, 1997
|Oct 16, 2001
|Max Abecassis
|Disc having a code for preventing an interference with a playing of a video segment
|Dec 3, 1998
|Oct 30, 2001
|Altavista Company
|Technique for matching a query to a portion of media
|Feb 26, 1999
|Nov 13, 2001
|Accenture Properties (2) B.V.
|System, method and article of manufacture for location-based filtering for shopping agent in the physical world
|Nov 4, 1998
|Nov 13, 2001
|Intel Corporation
|Method and apparatus for collecting and providing viewer feedback to a broadcast
|Jan 16, 1998
|Nov 20, 2001
|Method and system for combining video sequences with spatio-temporal alignment
|Jun 10, 1998
|Jan 15, 2002
|Dennis Sunga Fernandez
|Digital television with subscriber conference overlay
|Dec 17, 1998
|Jan 29, 2002
|Newstakes, Inc.
|Creating a slide presentation from full motion video
|Mar 2, 1999
|Mar 5, 2002
|Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
|User interface apparatus and broadcast receiving apparatus
|Jan 22, 1999
|Mar 26, 2002
|Intel Corporation
|Interface using pattern recognition and tracking
|May 22, 1998
|Apr 9, 2002
|University Of Washington
|Speech recognition on MPEG/Audio encoded files
|Jun 3, 1998
|Jun 11, 2002
|Konklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
|Navigating through television programs
|Jan 28, 1999
|Jun 25, 2002
|International Business Machines Corporation
|System and method for cooperative client/server customization of web pages
|Mar 23, 2000
|Jul 9, 2002
|Sony Corporation
|Motion vector detection apparatus, method of the same, and image processing apparatus
|Dec 15, 1998
|Jul 16, 2002
|International Business Machines Corporation
|Method, system and computer program product for case and character-encoding insensitive searching of international databases
|Oct 1, 1998
|Jul 23, 2002
|General Instrument Corporation
|Method for configuring cable television converter terminal using multiple channels and arrangement therefor
|Apr 23, 1999
|Jul 30, 2002
|Internation Business Machines Corporation
|Information presentation system for a graphical user interface
|Aug 9, 1999
|Jul 30, 2002
|Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
|Image conversion apparatus for transforming compressed image data of different resolutions wherein side information is scaled
|Jul 14, 2000
|Aug 20, 2002
|Agent Arts, Inc.
|Automated content and collaboration-based system and methods for determining and providing content recommendations
|Jul 31, 2000
|Aug 27, 2002
|Teresa H. Bowen
|Baseball and soccer training system for children
|Dec 17, 1997
|Sep 3, 2002
|Princeton Video Image, Inc.
|Set top device for targeted electronic insertion of indicia into video
|Dec 23, 1997
|Nov 12, 2002
|Intel Corporation
|Method of time shifting to simultaneously record and play a data stream
|May 15, 2000
|Nov 26, 2002
|Clubcom, Inc.
|System and method for interactive on-demand information
|Apr 11, 2000
|Dec 3, 2002
|Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories Inc.
|Adaptable bitstream video delivery system
|Jun 22, 1999
|Dec 24, 2002
|Lucent Technologies Inc.
|Traffic monitoring system and service differentiation in a dynamic channel assignment system for TCP/IP data transmitted via cable television channels
|Jan 27, 1999
|Feb 18, 2003
|Hughes Electronics Corporation
|Graphical tuning bar for a multi-program data stream
|Apr 30, 1998
|Mar 4, 2003
|Wink Communications, Inc.
|Configurable monitoring of program viewership and usage of interactive applications
|Mar 12, 1999
|Mar 18, 2003
|Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd.
|Automatic video summarization using a measure of shot importance and a frame-packing method
|Nov 20, 1997
|Apr 1, 2003
|University Of Hong Kong
|Interactive video-on-demand system
|Jul 23, 1998
|Apr 8, 2003
|Siemens Corporate Research, Inc.
|System for hypervideo filtering based on end-user payment interest and capability
|Nov 30, 1999
|Apr 15, 2003
|Siemens Corporate Research, Inc.
|System and method for selecting key-frames of video data
|Sep 8, 1994
|Apr 22, 2003
|Max Abecassis
|Advertisement subsidized video-on-demand system
|Jun 8, 2001
|Apr 29, 2003
|Hitachi Ltd
|Video capture device
|May 19, 1999
|May 27, 2003
|Pinpoint Incorporated
|Location enhanced information delivery system
|Jul 1, 1997
|Jun 10, 2003
|More Magic Holdings, Inc.
|Methods and arrangements for distributing services and/or programs in a network environment
|Jun 29, 1999
|Jun 17, 2003
|Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba
|Information filtering system and method
|Nov 24, 1998
|Jul 1, 2003
|Motorola, Inc.
|Content player method and server with user profile
|Feb 1, 2000
|Jul 15, 2003
|At&T Corp.
|Synthetic audiovisual description scheme, method and system for MPEG-7
|Oct 10, 1997
|Jul 15, 2003
|Kasenna, Inc.
|System for capability based multimedia streaming over a network
|Dec 16, 1999
|Jul 22, 2003
|Intel Corporation
|Method and apparatus for abstracting video data
|Oct 28, 1999
|Aug 26, 2003
|International Business Machines Corporation
|Method for establishing optimal intermediate caching points by grouping program elements in a software system
|Jun 12, 1998
|Sep 2, 2003
|Metabyte, Inc.
|Television program recording with user preference determination
|Mar 19, 2002
|Dec 2, 2003
|Nortel Networks Limited
|Customized presence information delivery
|Jan 27, 2000
|Dec 16, 2003
|Eastman Kodak Company
|Method and system for object-oriented motion-based video description
|Nov 7, 2000
|Jan 6, 2004
|Sony Corporation
|Method and apparatus for organizing data pertaining to audiovisual content
|Jan 23, 2001
|Jan 13, 2004
|Intel Corporation
|Method and system for detecting semantic events
|Jun 20, 1997
|Jan 13, 2004
|Swisscom Ag
|System and method of voice information dissemination over a network using semantic representation
|Mar 18, 1999
|Jan 20, 2004
|Matsushita Electric Industrial Company, Ltd.
|Template set for generating a hypertext for displaying a program guide and subscriber terminal with EPG function using such set broadcast from headend
|Jun 14, 2000
|Feb 10, 2004
|International Business Machines Corporation
|Method and apparatus for locating multi-region objects in an image or video database
|Aug 9, 2000
|Feb 24, 2004
|Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories, Inc.
|Method for summarizing a video using motion and color descriptors
|Aug 18, 1999
|Mar 9, 2004
|Webtv Networks, Inc.
|Tracking viewing behavior of a home entertainment system
|Jul 28, 2000
|Apr 20, 2004
|Microsoft Corporation
|Media segmentation system and related methods
|May 5, 1998
|May 25, 2004
|The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New York
|Algorithms and system for object-oriented content-based video search
|Dec 30, 1999
|Jun 22, 2004
|America Online, Inc.
|Informing network users of television programming viewed by other network users
|Mar 24, 2000
|Jun 22, 2004
|The Directv Group, Inc.
|Categorical electronic program guide
|Jul 28, 2000
|Jul 20, 2004
|Seiko Epson Corporation
|Providing a network-based personalized newspaper with personalized content and layout
|Mar 11, 1999
|Aug 10, 2004
|Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd.
|Methods and apparatuses for interactive similarity searching, retrieval, and browsing of video
|Mar 24, 2000
|Nov 2, 2004
|The Directv Group, Inc.
|Method and apparatus for sharing viewing preferences
|Nov 5, 1998
|Nov 16, 2004
|United Video Properties, Inc.
|Cooperative television application system having multiple user television equipment devices
|May 24, 2000
|Dec 7, 2004
|At&T Corp.
|Network-based service to provide on-demand video summaries of television programs
|Feb 4, 2000
|Mar 15, 2005
|Microsoft Corporation
|Multi-level skimming of multimedia content using playlists
|Jun 25, 1999
|Apr 12, 2005
|Interval Research Corporation
|Browser for use in navigating a body of information, with particular application to browsing information represented by audiovisual data
|Oct 25, 2001
|Aug 2, 2005
|Nec Corporation
|Creating audio-centric, image-centric, and integrated audio-visual summaries
|Mar 30, 2001
|Aug 16, 2005
|Sharp Laboratories Of America, Inc.
|Method for automatic extraction of semantically significant events from video
|Mar 2, 1998
|Nov 1, 2005
|The Mitre Corporation
|Automated segmentation, information extraction, summarization, and presentation of broadcast news
|Apr 25, 2000
|Nov 29, 2005
|Wee Susie J
|Method for downstream editing of compressed video
|Nov 2, 2000
|Dec 27, 2005
|Intel Corporation
|Breaking replay dependency loops in a processor using a rescheduled replay queue
|Dec 19, 2000
|Jan 24, 2006
|Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
|Program surf grid
|Nov 18, 2000
|Jan 31, 2006
|Vulcan Patents Llc
|Iterative, maximally probable, batch-mode commercial detection for audiovisual content
|Mar 17, 2005
|Apr 11, 2006
|Microsoft Corporation
|Generating and searching compressed data
|Sep 22, 2000
|May 30, 2006
|Sharp Laboratories Of America, Inc.
|Method for interpreting and executing user preferences of audiovisual information
|May 21, 2002
|Jun 20, 2006
|United Video Properties, Inc.
|Client-server electronic program guide
|Jun 22, 1999
|Aug 22, 2006
|Hitachi, Ltd.
|TV program selection support system
|Jul 30, 2002
|Oct 31, 2006
|Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
|Controlling the growth of a feature frequency profile by deleting selected frequency counts of features of events
|Jun 6, 1995
|Nov 14, 2006
|Hoffberg Steven M
|Ergonomic man-machine interface incorporating adaptive pattern recognition based control system
|Mar 24, 2000
|Dec 5, 2006
|The Directv Group, Inc.
|Method and apparatus for storing and displaying digital objects associated with an electronic television program guide using fuzzy logic
|Mar 4, 1998
|Feb 27, 2007
|United Video Properties, Inc.
|Program guide system with preference profiles
|Sep 21, 2000
|Nov 13, 2007
|Lg Electronics, Inc.
|Multiple item user preference information data structure and method for providing multi-media information
|Jul 22, 2003
|Mar 11, 2008
|Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
|Index structure for TV-Anytime Forum metadata having location information for defining a multi-key
|Jun 12, 2001
|May 27, 2008
|Thomson Licensing
|Method and apparatus for generating a list of suggested scheduled television programs
|Jul 27, 2000
|Nov 18, 2008
|Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
|Method and apparatus for generating television program recommendations based on similarity metric
|Nov 29, 2000
|Oct 18, 2001
|Shulman Leo A.
|Method and apparatus for configuring icon interactivity
|Apr 22, 1998
|Nov 22, 2001
|Teruo Hieda
|Data transmission with receiver side control
|Apr 24, 2001
|Jan 31, 2002
|Seth Haberman
|System and method for simultaneous broadcast for personalized messages
|Apr 20, 2001
|Feb 14, 2002
|Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories, Inc.
|Method and system for high-level structure analysis and event detection in domain specific videos
|Mar 8, 2001
|Feb 28, 2002
|Ari Juels
|Targeted delivery of informational content with privacy protection
|Jul 23, 2001
|Jun 6, 2002
|Sanghoon Sull
|System and method for indexing, searching, identifying, and editing portions of electronic multimedia files
|Dec 22, 2000
|Jun 27, 2002
|Wolfe Albert A.
|Scaffolding system having improved safety structures and connecting members
|Mar 30, 2001
|Jun 27, 2002
|Hao Pan
|Method for automatic extraction of semantically significant events from video
|Dec 21, 2000
|Jun 27, 2002
|Philips Electronics North America Corporation
|System and method for accessing a multimedia summary of a video program
|Oct 25, 2001
|Jul 18, 2002
|Nec Usa, Inc.
|Creating audio-centric, imagecentric, and integrated audio visual summaries
|Mar 31, 1998
|Jul 25, 2002
|Peter John Hulme
|Method for remotely controlling a plurality of apparatus using a single remote control device
|Dec 5, 2000
|Aug 1, 2002
|Philips Electronics North America Corp.
|Method and apparatus for selective updating of a user profile
|Feb 1, 2002
|Aug 8, 2002
|Ensequence, Inc.
|System and method for thematically analyzing and annotating an audio-visual sequence
|Feb 28, 2001
|Aug 29, 2002
|Schwalb Eddie M.
|Method and system for mass customization of digital television broadcasts
|Mar 6, 1998
|Sep 19, 2002
|David M. Oliver
|System for management of transactions on networks
|Mar 30, 2001
|Oct 3, 2002
|Standridge Aaron D.
|Motion and audio detection based webcamming and bandwidth control
|Feb 14, 2002
|Oct 24, 2002
|Harrington Jeffrey M.
|System and method for server side control of a flash presentation
|Feb 23, 1999
|Nov 28, 2002
|Sumiyo Tanaka
|Image searching system and image searching method, and a recording medium storing an image searching program
|Jan 23, 2002
|Dec 5, 2002
|International Business Machines Corporation
|Index generation method, index generation apparatus, index addition system, and program and storage medium therefor
|May 16, 2002
|Dec 19, 2002
|Daniel Efran
|3-D instant replay system and method
|May 8, 2001
|Dec 19, 2002
|Cristofalo Michael
|Technique for optimizing the delivery of advertisements and other programming segments by making bandwidth tradeoffs
|Aug 1, 2002
|Jan 2, 2003
|Parkervision, Inc.
|Method, system, and computer program product for producing and distributing enhanced media
|Apr 27, 2001
|Jan 9, 2003
|Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories, Inc.
|Method for summarizing a video using motion descriptors
|Dec 28, 2001
|Feb 6, 2003
|Minoru Kawahara
|Content creating device and method
|Dec 5, 2001
|Feb 13, 2003
|Xerox Corporation
|Document-centric system with auto-completion and auto-correction
|Sep 28, 2001
|Apr 3, 2003
|Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
|Individual recommender database using profiles of others
|Sep 24, 2001
|Apr 10, 2003
|Klarfeld Kenneth A.
|System and method for personalized TV
|Dec 13, 2002
|Apr 17, 2003
|Murray Thomas A.
|Communication device having illuminated audio indicator
|May 23, 2002
|May 1, 2003
|Baoxin Li
|Summarization of video content
|Oct 26, 2001
|May 1, 2003
|Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
|Automatic viewing-history based television control system
|Oct 11, 2002
|May 1, 2003
|Thurston Nathaniel J.
|Method and system for presenting personalized television program recommendation to viewers
|Nov 4, 2002
|May 8, 2003
|Nds Limited
|Advanced television system
|Oct 7, 2002
|Jun 5, 2003
|Dicker Russell A.
|User interface and methods for recommending items to users
|Feb 19, 2003
|Sep 18, 2003
|Sanghoon Sull
|Method and apparatus for fast metadata generation, delivery and access for live broadcast program
|Mar 25, 2002
|Sep 25, 2003
|Sony Corporation
|System and method for sharing user comments on TV screens
|Apr 2, 2003
|Oct 2, 2003
|Worldcom. Inc.
|Call completion via instant communications client
|May 8, 2003
|Dec 11, 2003
|Richard Reisman
|Method and apparatus for browsing using multiple coordinated device sets
|Apr 2, 2003
|Jan 1, 2004
|Worldcom, Inc.
|Messaging response system
|Jul 16, 2002
|Jan 22, 2004
|Mikko Lonnfors
|System and method for providing partial presence notifications
|Sep 27, 2002
|Jan 29, 2004
|Hao Pan
|Summarization of soccer video content
|Aug 6, 2003
|Feb 12, 2004
|Worldcom, Inc.
|Messaging response system
|Aug 16, 2002
|Feb 19, 2004
|Shusman Chad W.
|Method and apparatus for interactive programming using captioning
|Mar 15, 2002
|May 6, 2004
|Li-Qun Xu
|Image processing
|Jul 18, 2003
|May 20, 2004
|Mx Entertainment
|Electronic messaging synchronized to media presentation
|Feb 18, 2003
|Jul 1, 2004
|Hyeokman Kim
|Techniques for constructing and browsing a hierarchical video structure
|Apr 9, 2001
|Jul 1, 2004
|Shin-Fu Chang
|Method and system for indexing and content-based adaptive streaming of digital video content
|Mar 31, 2003
|Oct 7, 2004
|Ferman Ahmet Mufit
|System for presenting audio-video content
|Feb 25, 2004
|Nov 18, 2004
|Creative Frontier, Inc.
|System and method for tracking an object in a video and linking information thereto
|Jun 21, 2004
|Nov 18, 2004
|America Online, Inc., A Delaware Corporation
|Informing network users of television programming viewed by other network users
|Dec 29, 2000
|Dec 9, 2004
|Durden George A.
|Systems and methods for controlling and managing programming content and portions thereof
|Sep 2, 2002
|Jan 27, 2005
|Christian Prehofer
|Device and method for the automatic configuration of user profiles
|Sep 2, 2004
|Feb 3, 2005
|Elenbaas Jan Hermanus
|Personalized news retrieval system
|Sep 9, 2004
|Mar 10, 2005
|Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
|Apparatus and method for sharing recommended programs using digital set-top boxes
|Dec 10, 2004
|May 12, 2005
|Linden Gregory D.
|Content personalization based on actions performed during browsing sessions
|Nov 19, 2004
|Jun 16, 2005
|Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
|Method and apparatus for managing data written in markup language and computer-readable recording medium for recording a program
|Aug 12, 2004
|Nov 24, 2005
|United Video Properties, Inc.
|Television chat system
|Feb 14, 2006
|Jun 15, 2006
|Lg Electronics, Inc.
|User preference information structure having multiple hierarchical structure and method for providing multimedia information using the same
|Aug 31, 2006
|Jan 11, 2007
|Accenture Llp
|System, method and article of manufacture for advanced information gathering for targetted activities
|Dec 9, 1992
|Jun 28, 1994
|Discovery Communications, Inc.
|Menu control panel for a universal remote control unit
|Dec 3, 1992
|Jan 3, 1995
|Discovery Communications, Inc.
|Remote control unit
|Jul 12, 1994
|Mar 26, 1996
|Discovery Communications, Inc.
|Remote control unit
|Jul 12, 1994
|Aug 5, 1997
|Discovery Communications, Inc.
|Remote control unit
|Nov 7, 1994
|Dec 8, 1998
|Discovery Communications, Inc.
|Electronic book
|Jan 11, 2000
|Dec 26, 2000
|Tivo, Inc.
|Replay bar icon for a display
|Apr 18, 1996
|Aug 1, 2000
|James Logan
|Time delayed digital video system using concurrent recording and playback
|Jan 5, 1998
|Oct 21, 2009
|Texas Instruments Incorporated
|Electronic television program guide system and method
|May 14, 1998
|Nov 18, 1998
|General Instrument Corporation
|Virtual information selection system
|Dec 19, 2000
|Nov 22, 2006
|America Online, Inc.
|Method and system for selecting a television channel
|Title not available
|"A Proposal for User Preference Descriptions in MPEG-7," ISO/IEC JTC1SC29/WG11 M5222, MPEG 99, Oct. 4, 1999, pp. 1-6.
|"Information Technology-Multimedia Content Description Interface-Part 5: Multimedia Description Schemes," ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29 N 3705, Nov. 17, 2000, ISO/IEC CD 15938-5.
|"Information Technology—Multimedia Content Description Interface—Part 5: Multimedia Description Schemes," ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29 N 3705, Nov. 17, 2000, ISO/IEC CD 15938-5.
|"User Preference Description for MPEG-7," ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, MPEG 99/MXXXX, Maui, Hawaii, Dec. 1999, pp. 1-18.
|"User Preference Descriptions for MPEG-7," ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, MPEG 99/MXXXX, Maui, Hawaii, Dec. 1999, pp. 1-18.
|AHG on MPEG7 Media/Meta DSs and Harmonization with other Schemes, "MPEG-7 Media/Meta DSs upgrade (V0.2)," ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 MXXXX, MPEG 99 Oct. 1999, Melbourne, pp. 1-17.
|Alan E Bell, "The dynamic digital disk," IEEE Spectrum, Oct. 1999, pp. 28-35.
|Alberto Del Bimbo, et al., "A Spatial Logic for Symbolic Description of Image Contents," Journal of Visual Languages and Computing (1994) 5, pp. 267-286.
|B. B. Chaudhuri, et al., "Improved fractal geometry based texture segmentation technique," IEE Proceedings-E, vol. 140, No. 5, Sep. 1993, pp. 233-241.
|B. S. Manjunath, et al., "Texture Features for Browsing and Retrieval of Image Data," IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 18, No. 8, Aug. 1996, pp. 837-842.
|Baoxin Li and M. Ibrahim Sezan, "Event Detection and Summarization in Sports Video," Sharp Laboratories of America, 5750 NW Pacific Rim Blvd., Camas, WA 98607, USA, 5 pages.
|Bilge Gunsel, et al., "Hierarchical Temporal video Segmentation and content Characterization," Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Center for Electronic Imaging Systems, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, SPIE vol. 3229, 1997.
|Boon-Lock Yeo et al., "On the Extraction of DC Sequence from MPEG Compressed Video," 1995 IEEE, pp. 260-263.
|Boon-Lock Yeo, et al., "Retrieving and Visualizing Video," Communications of the ACM, Dec. 1997, vol. 40, No. 12, pp. 43-52.
|Chung-Lin Huang, et al., "Video summarization using Hidden Markov Model," Electrical Engineering Department, National Tsing-Hua University, Hsin-Chu, Taiwan, ROC, 2001 IEEE, pp. 473-477.
|Daniel Dementhon, et al., "Video summarization by Curve Simplification," Language and Media Processing (LAMP), University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-3275, 1998 ACM, pp. 211-218.
|David Beech, et al., editors, "XML Schema Part 1: Structures," http://www.w3.org/1999/05/06-xmlschema-1/, W3C Working Draft, May 6, 1999, 67 pages.
|DDL Group, "MPEG-7 Description Definition Language Document V 2," ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11/N2997, Oct. 1999/Melbourne, 56 pages.
|Dennis Yow, et al., "Analysis and Presentation of Soccer Highlights from Digital Video," To appear in the Proceedings, Second Asian Conference on Computer Vision (ACCV '95).
|Description Scheme Group, "MPEG-7 Description Schemes (V0.5)," ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 N2844, MPEG 99, Jul. 1999, Vancouver, pp. 1-59.
|Description Scheme Group, "MPEG-7 Generic AV Description Schemes (V0.7)," MPEG 99, Oct. 1999, Melbourne.
|Drew D. Saur, et al. "Automated Analysis and Annotation of Basketball Video," SPIE vol. 3022, pp. 176-187, 1997.
|Dulce Ponceleon, et al. "Key to Effective Video Retrieval: Effective Cataloging and Browsing," ACM Multimedia '98, Bristol, UK, 1998, pp. 99-107.
|F. Arman, et al., "Content-based Browsing of Video Sequences," to appear in the Proceedings of ACM International Conference on Multimedia '94, Oct. 15-20, San Francisco, CA, 7 pages.
|F. Pereira, Editor, "MPEG-7 Requirements Document V.9," ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11/N2859, Jul. 1999/Vancouver (Canada).
|FAP Specifications, MPEG-4 Compliant Facial Animation, http://www.dsp.dist.unige.it/~pok/RESEARCH/MPEG/fapspec.htm, 4 pages.
|FAP Specifications, MPEG-4 Compliant Facial Animation, http://www.dsp.dist.unige.it/˜pok/RESEARCH/MPEG/fapspec.htm, 4 pages.
|Francis C. Li et al., "Browsing Digital Video," CHI 2000 Apr. 1-6, 2000, CHI Letters vol. 2 issue 1, pp. 169-176.
|Frank R. Kschischang, et al., "Factor Graphs and the Sum-Product Algorithm," IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 47, No. 2, Feb. 2001, pp. 498-519.
|Franklin Reynolds, et al. "Composite Capability/Preference Profiles (CC/PP): A user side framework for content negotiation," W3C Note Jul. 27, 1999, http://www.w3.org/1999/07/NOTE-CCPP-19990727/, 15 pages.
|Giridharan Iyengar, et al., "Models for automatic classification of video sequences," SPIE vol. 3312, 1997, pp. 216-227.
|H. Pan, et al. "Detection of Slow-Motion Replay Segments in sports Video for Highlights Generation," Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and signal Processing, Salt Lake City, UT, 2001, 4 pages.
|H.B. Lu, et al., "Robust Gradual Scene Change Detection," Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, Kobe, Japan, 1999, 5 pages.
|Hao Pan, et al., "Automatic Detection of Replay Segments in Broadcast Sports Programs by Detection of Logos in Scene Transitions," 2002 IEEE, pp. IV-3385-IV-3388.
|Henry Lieberman, et al. "Let's Browse: A collaborative Web Browsing Agent," Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 20 Ames Street #E15-305, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA, Copyright ACM 1999, pp. 65-68.
|Hongjiang Zhang, et al. "Content-Based Video Browsing Tools," SPIE vol. 2417, 1995, pp. 389-398.
|J. Alspector, A. Kolcz, N. Karunanithi, Comparing Feature-Based and Clique Based User Models for Movie, Proc ACM Digital Libraries, v. 1998, pp. 11-18.
|Jane Hunter (DSTC Pty Ltd), Editor, "DDL Working Draft 3.0," ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 N3391, MPEG 00/May 2000 (Geneva), 23 pages.
|Jane Hunter (DSTC Pty Ltd.), "Text of ISO/IEC CD 15938-2 Information technology-Multimedia content description interface-Part 2 Description definition language," ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 N3702, MPEG 00/3702, Oct. 2000 (La Baule).
|Jane Hunter (DSTC Pty Ltd.), "Text of ISO/IEC CD 15938-2 Information technology—Multimedia content description interface—Part 2 Description definition language," ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 N3702, MPEG 00/3702, Oct. 2000 (La Baule).
|Jim Stroud, TV Personalization: A Key Component of Interative TV, The Carmel Group, 2001, pp. 1-8.
|Jin-Soo Lee, et al. Editors, "Specification of The UsageHistory DS," ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11/M5748, Mar. 2000, Noordwijkerhout, pp. 1-6.
|John Canny, "A Computational Approach to Edge Detection," IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. PAMI-8, No. 6, Nov. 1986, IEEE 1986, pp. 679-698.
|John S. Boreczky, et al. "A Hidden Markov Model Framework for Video Segmentation Using Audio and Image Features," Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, Seattle, WA, 1998, 4 pages.
|Jonathan D. Courtney, "Automatic Video Indexing via Object Motion Analysis," Pattern Recognition, vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 607-625, 1997.
|Josh Bernoff, Charlene Li, Jennifer Parr, Greg Flemming, How Cable TB Can Beat Satellite, The techStrategy Report, Apr. 2002, Forrester, pp. 1-20.
|Kathy Bohrer and Bobby Holland, editors, "Customer Profile Exchange (CPExchange) Specification," Oct. 20. 2000, Version 1.0, International digital Enterprise Alliance, Inc. (IDEAlliance), pp. 1-127.
|Keith Millar and David White, "A Schema for TV-Anytime: Segmentation Metadata AN195," NDS Contribution from MyTV, NDS Limited 2000, 27 pages.
|Keith Millar et al., "A Schema for TV-Anytime Segmentation Metadata AN195rt myTV project," NDS Systems Division, NDS Limited 2000, 28 pages.
|Ken Masumitsu, et al., "Video Summarization Using Reinforcement Learning in Eigenspace," IBM Research, Tokyo Research Laboratory, 1623-14, Shimotsuruma, Yamato-shi, Kanagawa, Japan, 4 pages.
|Kurapati Gutta Schaffer Martino and Zimmerman, A Multi-Agent TV Recommender, Proc Workshop on Personalization in Fugure TV, User Modeling 20, V. 2001, July, pp.
|Kyoungro Yoon, et al., "Proposal of Usage History DS," ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, MPEG00/M6259, Jul. 2000, Beijing.
|Lawrence R. Rabiner, "A Tutorial on Hidden Markov Models and Selected Applications in Speech Recognition," Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 77, No. 2, Feb. 1989, pp. 257-286.
|Leszek Cieplinski, et al. "Visual Working Draft 3.0," ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11/N3399, Jun. 2000 (Geneva), 92 pages.
|Lexing Lie, "Segmentation and Event Detection in Soccer Audio," EE 6820 Project, Soccer Audio, May 15, 2001, 9 pages.
|Lexing Xie, et al., "Structure Analysis of Soccer Video with Hidden Markov Models," Department of Electrical Engineering, Columbia University, New York, NY, 4 pages.
|M. R. Naphade, et al. "A High-Performance Shot Boundary Detection Algorithm Using Multiple Cues," Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, Chicago, IL, 1998, pp. 884-887.
|Marc Light, Mark T. Maybury, Personalized Multimedia Information Access, Communications of the ACM,May 2002, vol. 45, No. 5, pp. 54-59.
|Mark T. Maybury, et al., "Multimedia Summaries of Broadcast News," Advanced Information Systems Center, The MITRE Corporation, 202 Burlington Road, Bedford, MA 01730, USA, pp. 442-449.
|Michael A. Smith, et al., "Video Skimming for Quick Browsing based on Audio and Image Characterization," School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, Jul. 30, 1995, 24 pages.
|Michael Ehrmantraut, et al., "The Personal Electronic Program guide-Towards the Pre-selection of Individual TV Programs," 1996 ACM, pp. 243-250.
|Michael Ehrmantraut, et al., "The Personal Electronic Program guide—Towards the Pre-selection of Individual TV Programs," 1996 ACM, pp. 243-250.
|Michael G. Christel, Alexander G. Hauptmann, Adrienne S. Warmack, Scott A. Crosby, "Adjustable Filmstrips and Skims as Abstractions for a Digital Video Library," Computer Science Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA.
|Michael T. Chan, et al., "Real-Time Lip Tracking and Bimodal Continuous Speech Recognition," Rockwell Science Center, 1049 Camino Dos Rios, Thousand Oaks, CA 91360, 6 pages, date unknown.
|Minerva M. Yeung, et al., "Video visualization for Compact Presentation and Fast Browsing of Pictorial Content," IEEE Transactions on circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 7, No. 5, Oct. 1997, pp. 771-785.
|Minerva Yeung, "Extracting Story Units from Long Programs for Video Browsing and Navigation," Proceedings of Multimedia 1996, 1996 IEEE, pp. 296-304.
|Nathaniel J. Thurston, Devin F. Hosea, Thomas L. Renger, Intelligent Audience Guidance: The New Paradigm in Television Navigation, Predictive Networks, Inc. Feb. 21, 2002, pp. 1-8.
|Nevenka Dimitrova, et al., "Motion Recovery for Video Content Classification," ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 13, No. 4, Oct. 1995, pp. 408-439.
|Noboru Babaguchi, "Towards Abstracting Sports Video by Highlights," ISIR, Osaka University, Ibaraki, Osaka 567-0047, Japan, 2000 IEEE, pp. 1519-1522.
|Noboru Babaguchi, et al., "Linking Live and Replay Scenes in Broadcasted Sports Video," ACM Multimedia Workshop, Marina Del Rey, CA, USA, Copyright ACM 2000, pp. 205-208.
|Nuno Vasconcelos and Andrew Lippman, "Bayesian Modeling of Video Editing and Structure: Semantic Features for Video Summarization and Browsing," 1998 IEEE, pp. 153-157.
|P. Van Beek et al., "MPEG-7 Requirements for Description of Users," ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, MPEG99/4601, Mar. 1999, 5 pages.
|Padhraic Smyth, "Belief Networks, Hidden Markov Models, and Markov Random Fields: a Unifying View," To appear in Pattern Recognition Letters, 1998, Information and Computer Science Department, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-3425, Mar. 20, 1998.
|Paul V. Birch, et al., editors, "SML Schema Part 2: Datatypes, World Wide Web Consortium Working Draft," May 6, 1999, http://www.w3.org/1999/05/06-xmlschema-2/, 37 pages.
|Peng Xu, et al., "Algorithms and System for High-Level Structure Analysis and Event Detection in Soccer Video," Columbia University, ADVENT-Technical Report #111, Jun. 2001.
|Peng Xu, et al., "Algorithms and System for High-Level Structure Analysis and Event Detection in Soccer Video," Columbia University, ADVENT—Technical Report #111, Jun. 2001.
|Peter Van Beek, et al, Editors, "MPEG-7 Multimedia Description Schemes WD (Version 3.0)," ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11/N3411, May 2000, Geneva.
|Peter Van Beek, et al., "Text of 15938-5 FCD Information Technology-Multimedia Content Description Interface-Part 5 Multimedia Description Schemes," ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29 N3966 Mar. 12, 2001, 500 pages.
|Peter Van Beek, et al., "Text of 15938-5 FCD Information Technology—Multimedia Content Description Interface—Part 5 Multimedia Description Schemes," ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29 N3966 Mar. 12, 2001, 500 pages.
|Peter Van Beek, et al., Editors, "MPEG-7 Multimedia Description Schemes XM (Version 3.0)," ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC29/WG 11/N3410, May 2000, Geneva.
|R. W. Picard, "A Society of Models for Video and Image Libraries," IBM Systems Journal, vol. 35, Nos. 3 & 4, 1996, pp. 292-312.
|Rainer Lienhart, "Comparison of Automatic Shot Boundary Detection Algorithms," Part of the IS&T/SPIE conference on Storage and Retrieval for Image and Video Databases VII, San Jose, CA, Jan. 1999, SPIE vol. 3656, pp. 290-301.
|Rainer Lienhart, et al., "Video Abstracting," Communications of the ACM, Dec. 1997/ vol. 40, No. 12, pp. 55-62.
|Riccardo Leonardi, et al., "Content-Based Multimedia Indexing and Retrieval: Semantic Indexing of Multimedia Documents," IEEE 2002, pp. 44-51.
|Richard J. Qian, et al. "Description Schemes for Consumer Video Applications," Proposal ID 429, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11-MPEG-7 Proposal, Feb. 1999.
|Richard J. Qian, et al. "Description Schemes for Consumer Video Applications," Proposal ID 429, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11—MPEG-7 Proposal, Feb. 1999.
|Richard J. Qian, et al., "A Robust Real-Time Face Tracking Algorithm," Sharp Laboratories of America, 5750 N.W. Pacific Rim Blvd., Camas, WA 98607, 1998 IEEE, pp. 131-135.
|Richard O. Duda et al., "Use of the Hough Transformation To Detect Lines and Curves in Pictures," Communications of the ACM, Jan. 1972, vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 11-15.
|Richard Qian et al., "A Computational Approach to Semantic Event Detection," 1999 IEEE, pp. 200-206.
|Richard W. Conners, et al., "A Theoretical comparison of Texture Algorithms," IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol., PAMI-2, No. 3, May 1980, pp. 204-222.
|S.E. Levinson, L. R. Rabiner, and M. M. Sondhi, "An Introduction to the Application of the Theory of Probabilistic Functions of a Markov Process to Automatic Speech Recognition," Copyright 1983 American Telephone and Telegraph company, The Bell system Technical Journal, vol. 62. No. 4, Apr. 1983, pp. 1035-1074.
|Selim Aksoy, et al., "Textural Features for Image Database Retrieval," Intelligent Systems Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-2500, 5 pages.
|Shingo Uchihashi, et al., "Video Manga: Generating Semantically Meaningful Video Summaries,"FX Palo Alto Laboratory, 3400 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA, pp. 383-392.
|Shinichi Satoh, et al., "Name-It: Association of Face and Name in Video," School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, Dec. 20, 1996, 19 pages.
|Stefan Eickeler, et al., "Content-based Video Indexing of TV Broadcast News Using Hidden Markov Models," Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, Phoenix, AZ, 1999, 4 pages.
|Stephen S. Intille, "Tracking Using a Local Closed-World Assumption: Tracking in the Football Domain," MIT Media Lab Perceptual computing group Technical Report No. 296, pp. 1-62.
|Stephen S. Intille, et al., "Visual Tracking Using closed-Worlds,", MIT Media Laboratory Perceptual computing Section Technical Report No. 294, Nov. 1994. pp. 1-18.
|Stephen W. Smoliar, et al. "Content-Based Video Indexing and Retrieval," 1994 IEEE, pp. 62-72.
|Stuart J. Golin, "New metric to detect wipes and other gradual transitions in . . . " Part of the IS&T/SPIE Conference on Visual communications and Image Processing '99, San Jose, CA Jan. 1999, SPIE vol. 3653, pp. 1464-1474.
|Sunghoon Choi, et al., "Where are the ball and players?: Soccer Game Analysis with Color-based Tracking and Image Mosaick," Dept. of EE, Pohang University of Science and Technology, San 31 Hyoja Dong, Pohang, 790-784, Republic of Korea, pp. 1-15.
|Sylvie Jeannin, et al., Editors, "MPEG-7 Visual part of eXperimentation Model Version 6.0," ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11/N3398, Geneva, Jun. 2000.
|T. Lambrou, et al., "Classification of Audio Signals Using Statistical Features on Time and Wavelet Transform Domains," 1998 IEEE, pp. 3621-3624.
|Ted Lewis, "UbiNet: The Ubiquitous Internet Will Be Wireless,"DaimlerChrysler Research & Technology North America, 3 pages, date unknown.
|Toshio Kawashima, et al., "Indexing of Baseball Telecast for Content-based Video Retrieval," Dept. of Information engineering, Hokkaido University, Kita-13, Nishi-8, Sapporo, 060-8628, Japan, 1998 IEEE, pp. 871-874.
|Ullas Gargi, et al., "Transactions Letters: Performance Characterization of Video-Shot-Change Detection Methods," IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 10. No. 1, Feb. 2000, 13 pages.
|Vikrant Kobla, et al. "Detection of Slow-Motion Replay Sequences for Identifying Sports Videos," Laboratory for Language and Media Processing, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-3275, USA, 6 pages.
|Vikrant Kobla, et al., "Detection of Slow-Motion Replay Sequences for Identifying Sports Videos," Laboratory for Language and Media Processing, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-3275, USA, pp. 135-140.
|Vikrant Kobla, et al., "Identifying sports videos using replay, text, and camera motion features," Laboratory for Language and Media Processing, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-3275, USA, Date Unknown.
|Wayne Wolf, "Hidden Markov Model Parsing of Video Programs," Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP '97), pp. 2609-2611.
|Y Kawai, "Detection of Replay Scenes in Broadcasted Sports Video by focusing on digital Video Effects," IEICE (D-II), vol. J84-D-II, No. 2, pp. 432-435, Feb. 2001, (In Japanese), pp. 432-437.
|Yao Wang, et al., "Multimedia Content Analysis," IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, Nov. 2000, pp. 12-35.
|Yihong Gong, et al., "Automatic Parsing of TV soccer Programs," 1995 IEEE, pp. 167-174.
|Yihong Gong, et al., "Video Summarization Using Singular Value Decomposition," C&C Research laboratories, NEc USA, Inc. 110 Rio Robles, San Jose, CA 95134, USA, 2000 IEEE, 7 pages.
|Yihong Gong, et al., "Video Summarization with Minimal Visual Content Redundancies," C&C Research Laboratories, NEC USA, Inc., 110 Rio robles, San Jose, CA 95134, USA, 2001 IEEE. pp. 362-365.
|Yong Rui, et al. "Automatically Extracting Highlights for TV Baseball Programs," ACM Multimedia 2000 Los Angeles, CA, USA, pp. 105-115.
|Yuichi Yagawa et al., "TV Program Planning Agent using Analysis Method of User's Taste", Technical report of IEICE, vol. 98, No. 437, AI98-54-61, Dec. 1, 1998.
|Zhu Liu and Qian Huang, "Detecting News Reporting Using Audio/Visual Information," 1999 IEEE, pp. 324-328.
|Citing Patent
|Filing date
|Publication date
|Nov 18, 2008
|Sep 20, 2011
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for deriving income from URL based context queries
|Oct 4, 2011
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for URL based query for retrieving data related to a context
|Nov 8, 2011
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for context based query augmentation
|Nov 15, 2011
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for generation of URL based context queries
|Dec 6, 2007
|Nov 29, 2011
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for synchronizing data on a network
|Jul 29, 2008
|Dec 27, 2011
|Yahoo! Inc.
|Region and duration uniform resource identifiers (URI) for media objects
|Sep 30, 2008
|Jan 31, 2012
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for context enhanced mapping within a user interface
|Mar 24, 2009
|Apr 3, 2012
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for verified presence tracking
|Dec 19, 2008
|Apr 24, 2012
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for automated service recommendations
|Apr 24, 2012
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for disambiguating non-unique identifiers using information obtained from disparate communication channels
|Aug 14, 2012
|Gartner, Inc.
|Interactive peer directory
|Sep 18, 2012
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for modeling relationships between entities
|Oct 2, 2012
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for distributing media related to a location
|Jul 31, 2007
|Oct 2, 2012
|Rovi Guides, Inc.
|Systems and methods for providing media guidance planners
|Dec 10, 2007
|Nov 6, 2012
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for conditional delivery of messages
|Nov 27, 2012
|Porto Vinci Ltd. Limited Liability Company
|Presentation of still image data on display devices using a wireless home entertainment hub
|Aug 13, 2009
|Jan 29, 2013
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for precaching information on a mobile device
|Aug 21, 2008
|Feb 26, 2013
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for context enhanced messaging
|Nov 22, 2006
|Mar 19, 2013
|Yahoo! Inc.
|Methods, systems and apparatus for delivery of media
|Jun 27, 2008
|May 28, 2013
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for presentation of media related to a context
|May 7, 2010
|Jul 16, 2013
|Sirius Xm Radio Inc.
|Method and apparatus for providing enhanced electronic program guide with personalized selection of broadcast content using affinities data and user preferences
|Mar 3, 2008
|Sep 17, 2013
|Yahoo! Inc.
|Method and apparatus for social network marketing with advocate referral
|Mar 3, 2008
|Oct 8, 2013
|Yahoo! Inc.
|Method and apparatus for social network marketing with consumer referral
|Mar 3, 2008
|Oct 15, 2013
|Yahoo! Inc.
|Method and apparatus for social network marketing with brand referral
|Jun 30, 2010
|Nov 5, 2013
|Accton Technology Corporation
|Adaptive infotainment device
|Jul 30, 2008
|Nov 12, 2013
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for context enhanced mapping
|Mar 28, 2008
|Nov 19, 2013
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for addressing communications
|Sep 28, 2009
|Nov 19, 2013
|United Video Properties, Inc.
|Electronic program guide with advance notification
|Nov 6, 2006
|Nov 26, 2013
|Yahoo! Inc.
|Context server for associating information based on context
|Jun 20, 2012
|Feb 25, 2014
|Gartner, Inc.
|Bimodal recommendation engine for recommending items and peers
|Dec 10, 2007
|Mar 11, 2014
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for contextual addressing of communications on a network
|Jun 27, 2008
|Apr 22, 2014
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for determination and display of personalized distance
|Mar 28, 2008
|Jun 3, 2014
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for optimizing the storage of data
|Dec 8, 2008
|Jun 17, 2014
|Verizon Patent And Licensing Inc.
|Cluster analysis of viewer tendencies
|Jun 24, 2008
|Jun 24, 2014
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for message clustering
|Dec 28, 2006
|Jul 1, 2014
|Yahoo! Inc.
|Methods and systems for pre-caching information on a mobile computing device
|Sep 24, 2008
|Aug 5, 2014
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for conditional delivery of messages
|Jun 27, 2008
|Aug 19, 2014
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for location based media delivery
|Aug 5, 2011
|Oct 14, 2014
|Ca, Inc.
|Server and system for automatic profiling based in part on user names
|Jan 8, 2013
|Nov 18, 2014
|Blanding Hovenweep, Llc
|Adaptive pattern recognition based controller apparatus and method and human-interface therefore
|Jun 17, 2011
|Nov 18, 2014
|Cox Communications, Inc.
|Systems and methods for combining user profiles
|Aug 12, 2009
|Dec 16, 2014
|Yahoo! Inc.
|Personal data platform
|Jun 26, 2012
|Dec 23, 2014
|Gartner, Inc.
|Interactive peer directory with question router
|Jun 11, 2007
|Mar 24, 2015
|Porto Vinci Ltd. Limited Liability Company
|Calibration of a home entertainment system using a wireless home entertainment hub
|Oct 24, 2012
|Apr 7, 2015
|Porto Vinci Ltd. Limited Liability Company
|Presentation of still image data on display devices using a wireless home entertainment hub
|Mar 17, 2011
|Jun 16, 2015
|Xerox Corporation
|System and method for advertising using image search and classification
|May 27, 2011
|Jun 16, 2015
|AVG Netherlands B.V.
|Systems and methods for recommending software applications
|Nov 22, 2006
|Aug 18, 2015
|Yahoo! Inc.
|Method, system and apparatus for using user profile electronic device data in media delivery
|Mar 14, 2013
|Sep 1, 2015
|Robert Osann, Jr.
|User preference correlation for web-based selection
|Feb 25, 2011
|Oct 6, 2015
|Porto Vinci Ltd. Limited Liability Company
|Audio control using a wireless home entertainment hub
|May 24, 2013
|Oct 13, 2015
|Google Inc.
|System and method for presentation of media related to a context
|Mar 31, 2009
|Oct 27, 2015
|At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P.
|Content recommendations based on personal preferences
|Mar 14, 2014
|Oct 27, 2015
|Porto Vinci Ltd. Limited Liability Company
|Automatic adjustment of devices in a home entertainment system
|Jun 8, 2007
|Nov 10, 2015
|Porto Vinci Ltd. Limited Liability Company
|Remote control operation using a wireless home entertainment hub
|Mar 5, 2013
|Nov 17, 2015
|Porto Vinci Ltd. Limited Liability Company
|Device control using motion sensing for wireless home entertainment devices
|Apr 22, 2014
|Dec 15, 2015
|Rovi Guides, Inc.
|Systems and methods for providing enhanced sports watching media guidance
|Dec 2, 2008
|Dec 29, 2015
|Yahoo! Inc.
|Customizable content for distribution in social networks
|Sep 7, 2006
|Jan 12, 2016
|Rateze Remote Mgmt Llc
|Control of data presentation from multiple sources using a wireless home entertainment hub
|Jun 11, 2007
|Feb 23, 2016
|Rateze Remote Mgmt Llc
|Data presentation in multiple zones using a wireless entertainment hub
|Jul 26, 2011
|Mar 29, 2016
|Xerox Corporation
|System and method for computing the visual profile of a place
|Jun 17, 2013
|Apr 12, 2016
|Google Inc.
|Enhanced program guide
|Nov 27, 2006
|Apr 19, 2016
|Rateze Remote Mgmt Llc
|Finding devices in an entertainment system
|Jan 19, 2007
|Jul 5, 2016
|Rateze Remote Mgmt Llc
|Presentation of data on multiple display devices using a wireless hub
|Jul 2, 2013
|Jul 12, 2016
|Sirius Xm Radio Inc.
|Method and apparatus for providing enhanced electronic program guide with personalized selection of broadcast content using affinities data and user preferences
|Jul 31, 2007
|Mar 6, 2008
|Guideworks, Llc
|Systems and methods for providing media guidance planners
|Jun 11, 2007
|Mar 13, 2008
|Technology, Patents & Licensing, Inc.
|Presentation of Still Image Data on Display Devices Using a Wireless Home Entertainment Hub
|Nov 22, 2006
|May 22, 2008
|Ronald Martinez
|Methods, Systems and Apparatus for Delivery of Media
|Nov 22, 2006
|May 22, 2008
|Ronald Martinez
|Methods, Systems and Apparatus for Delivery of Media
|Nov 6, 2006
|May 29, 2008
|Yahoo! Inc.
|Context server for associating information based on context
|Dec 28, 2006
|Jul 3, 2008
|Yahoo! Inc.
|Methods and systems for pre-caching information on a mobile computing device
|Dec 6, 2007
|Jun 11, 2009
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for synchronizing data on a network
|Dec 10, 2007
|Jun 11, 2009
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for conditional delivery of messages
|Sep 24, 2008
|Jun 11, 2009
|Marc Eliot Davis
|System and method for conditional delivery of messages
|Dec 10, 2007
|Jun 11, 2009
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for contextual addressing of communications on a network
|Jan 4, 2008
|Jul 9, 2009
|Davis Marc E
|Interest mapping system
|Jun 24, 2008
|Jul 9, 2009
|Marc Eliot Davis
|System and method for message clustering
|Mar 3, 2008
|Sep 3, 2009
|Yahoo! Inc.
|Method and Apparatus for Social Network Marketing with Advocate Referral
|Jun 27, 2008
|Dec 31, 2009
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for determination and display of personalized distance
|Feb 4, 2010
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for improved mapping and routing
|Aug 21, 2008
|Feb 25, 2010
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for context enhanced messaging
|Sep 8, 2008
|Mar 11, 2010
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for socially aware identity manager
|Sep 30, 2008
|Apr 1, 2010
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for reporting and analysis of media consumption data
|Sep 30, 2008
|Apr 1, 2010
|Athellina Athsani
|System and method for context enhanced mapping within a user interface
|Jun 4, 2009
|Apr 15, 2010
|Electronics And Telecommunications Research Institute
|Apparatus for driving artificial retina using medium-range wireless power transmission technique
|Sep 28, 2009
|Apr 29, 2010
|Mckissick Pamela L
|Electronic program guide with advance notification
|Nov 18, 2008
|May 20, 2010
|Yahoo, Inc.
|System and method for generation of url based context queries
|Nov 18, 2008
|May 20, 2010
|Yahoo, Inc.
|System and method for url based query for retrieving data related to a context
|Nov 18, 2008
|May 20, 2010
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for data privacy in url based context queries
|Dec 2, 2009
|Jun 10, 2010
|Gartner, Inc.
|Interactive peer directory
|Dec 8, 2008
|Jun 10, 2010
|Verizon Data Services Llc
|Cluster analysis of viewer tendencies
|Dec 19, 2008
|Jun 24, 2010
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for automated service recommendations
|Jan 21, 2009
|Jul 22, 2010
|Yahoo! Inc.
|User interface for interest-based targeted marketing
|Jan 21, 2009
|Jul 22, 2010
|Yahoo! Inc.
|Interest-based activity marketing
|Mar 6, 2009
|Sep 9, 2010
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for contextual advertising based on status messages
|Mar 19, 2009
|Sep 23, 2010
|Yahoo! Inc.
|Method and apparatus for associating advertising with computer enabled maps
|Sep 30, 2010
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for verified presence tracking
|Mar 31, 2009
|Sep 30, 2010
|At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P.
|Content recommendations based on personal preferences
|Nov 4, 2010
|Yahoo! Inc.
|Gift incentive engine
|Nov 4, 2010
|Yahoo! Inc.
|Gift credit matching engine
|May 7, 2010
|Nov 11, 2010
|Stuart Cox
|Method and apparatus for providing enhanced electronic program guide with personalized selection of broadcast content using affinities data and user preferences
|Jun 30, 2010
|Dec 30, 2010
|Accton Technology Corporation
|Adaptive infotainment device
|Aug 6, 2009
|Feb 10, 2011
|Yahoo! Inc.
|System and method for verified monetization of commercial campaigns
|Feb 3, 2010
|Aug 4, 2011
|Gartner, Inc.
|Bi-model recommendation engine for recommending items and peers
|Mar 28, 2013
|Facebook, Inc.
|Sharing on-line media experiences
|Dec 19, 2012
|Jun 27, 2013
|Alibaba Group Holding Limited
|Providing information recommendations based on determined user groups
|U.S. Classification
|725/46, 725/14, 725/45
|International Classification
|Cooperative Classification
|European Classification
|Dec 16, 2002
Owner name: SHARP LABORATORIES OF AMERICA INC., WASHINGTON
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:FERMAN, A. MUFIT;ERRICO, JAMES H.;VAN BEEK, PETRUS;REEL/FRAME:014047/0657;SIGNING DATES FROM 20021004 TO 20021007
Owner name: SHARP LABORATORIES OF AMERICA INC.,WASHINGTON
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:FERMAN, A. MUFIT;ERRICO, JAMES H.;VAN BEEK, PETRUS;SIGNING DATES FROM 20021004 TO 20021007;REEL/FRAME:014047/0657
|Feb 23, 2010
Owner name: SHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA,JAPAN
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:SHARP LABORATORIES OF AMERICA INC.;REEL/FRAME:023973/0150
Effective date: 20100223
|Mar 23, 2010
|Certificate of correction
|Mar 13, 2013
|Fee payment
Year of fee payment: 4