Abstract:
To facilitate legal research, companies, such as Thomson West provide subscription-based online information-retrieval systems. Seeking to improve these and related IR systems, the present inventors recognized researchers often overlook some types of documents, such as legal encyclopedias and treatises that may be useful to them. Accordingly, the present inventors devised systems, methods, and software that automatically search for other types of documents not specifically targeted by user queries. One exemplary system automatically submits a user query for legal opinions to first and second databases, with the first storing legal opinions and the second storing non-opinion documents, such as headnotes from the West Key Number System, articles from American Law Reports, and/or articles from American Jurisprudence.

Description:
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION 
     This application claims priority to U.S. provisional application 60/533,819 filed on Dec. 31, 2003. The provisional application is incorporated herein by reference. 
    
    
     COPYRIGHT NOTICE AND PERMISSION 
     A portion of this patent document contains material subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent files or records, but otherwise reserves all copyrights whatsoever. The following notice applies to this document: Copyright® 2003, Thomson Global Resources AG. 
     TECHNICAL FIELD 
     Various embodiments of the present invention concern information-retrieval systems, such as those that provide legal documents or other related content. 
     BACKGROUND 
     The American legal system, as well as some other legal systems around the world, relies heavily on written judicial opinions, the written pronouncements of judges, to articulate or interpret the laws governing resolution of disputes. Each judicial opinion is not only important to resolving a particular legal dispute, but also to resolving similar disputes, or cases, in the future. Because of this, judges and lawyers within our legal system are continually researching an ever-expanding body of past opinions, or case law, for the ones most relevant to resolution of disputes. 
     To facilitate these searches West Publishing Company of St. Paul, Minn. (doing business as Thomson West) collects judicial opinions from courts across the United States, and makes them available electronically through its Westlaw™ information-retrieval system. (Westlaw is a trademark of Thomson West.) Many of these opinions are published with bibliographic cites or hyperlinks to other opinions, that rely on or criticize various points of law in these opinions. The cites and hyperlinks enable researchers to find printed volumes containing the related opinions or readily access the related opinions electronically over a computer network. The Westlaw system empowers users to search over 100 million documents. 
     At least one problem the present inventors recognized with this effective and highly successful system is that there are numerous other types of documents, other than opinions, that may be of use to legal researchers, but are frequently overlooked. For example, some users do not take full advantage of the West Key Number™ System, which provides classified summaries of legal points, made in judicial opinions. (West Key Number is a trademark of Thomson West.) The summaries, known as headnotes, are classified into more than 90,000 distinct legal categories, and can be used for a variety of purposes, such as evaluating the relevance of legal opinions to particular legal issues. Others overlook secondary resources, such as American Law Reports (ALR), which includes about 4,000 in-depth scholarly articles, each teaching about a separate legal issue. 
     Accordingly, the present inventors have recognized a need for improvement of the information-retrieval systems for legal documents. 
     SUMMARY 
     To address this and/or other needs, the present inventors devised systems, methods, and software that facilitate the retrieval of related non-opinion legal documents in response to queries for legal opinions. One exemplary system automatically submits a user query for legal opinions to first and second databases, with the first storing legal opinions and the second storing non-opinion documents, such as headnotes from the West Key Number System, articles from American Law Reports, and/or articles from American Jurisprudence. A first search engine in the system searches the first database for relevant legal opinions based on the query. A second search engine searches the second database twice: the first time based on the user query and the second time based on results from the first search engine. In some embodiments, the first search engine is a conventional tf-idf (term-frequency-inverse-document-frequency) search engine, and the second search engine is a composite vector-based classifier. Results from both the first and second databases are presented to the user via a graphical user interface, which displays them in separate regions, panes, or windows. 
     In other embodiments, the second database provides topical treatises, state practice guides, statutes, and/or law review articles to augment searches of caselaw database. Also, other embodiments augment statute searches, regulatory searches, secondary-material searches, and news searches. Some embodiments charge a separate or additional fee for accessing documents from the second database. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS 
         FIG. 1  is a diagram of an exemplary information-retrieval system  100  corresponding to one or more embodiments of the invention. 
         FIG. 2  is a flowchart corresponding to one or more exemplary methods of operating system  100  and one or more embodiments of the invention; and 
         FIG. 3  is a facsimile of an exemplary query window  300  corresponding to one or more embodiments of the invention. 
         FIG. 4  is a facsimile of an exemplary user interface  400  corresponding to one or more embodiments of the invention. 
         FIG. 5  is a facsimile of an exemplary user interface  500  corresponding to one or more embodiments of the invention. 
         FIG. 6  is a facsimile of an exemplary user interface  600  corresponding to one or more embodiments of the invention. 
         FIG. 7  is a diagram of an exemplary architecture and workflow for a secondary search module corresponding to one or more embodiments of the invention. 
         FIG. 8  is a diagram of an exemplary architecture or workflow for a text classifier that corresponds to one or more embodiments of the invention. 
     
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EXEMPLARY EMBODIMENTS 
     This description, which references and incorporates the above-identified Figures, describes one or more specific embodiments of an invention. These embodiments, offered not to limit but only to exemplify and teach the invention, are shown and described in sufficient detail to enable those skilled in the art to implement or practice the invention. Thus, where appropriate to avoid obscuring the invention, the description may omit certain information known to those of skill in the art. 
     Additionally, this document incorporates by reference U.S. Provisional Patent Application 60/436,191, which was filed on Dec. 23, 2002; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/027,914, which was filed on Dec. 21, 2001; U.S. Provisional Patent Application 60/437,169, which was filed on Dec. 30, 2002; and U.S. Provisional Patent Application 60/480,476, which was filed on Jun. 19, 2003. One or more embodiments of the present application may be combined or otherwise augmented by teachings in the referenced applications to yield other embodiments. 
     Exemplary Information-Retrieval System 
       FIG. 1  shows an exemplary online information-retrieval system  100 . System  100  includes one or more databases  110 , one or more servers  120 , and one or more access devices  130 . 
     Databases  110  includes a set of primary databases  112  and a set of second databases  114 . Primary databases  112 , in the exemplary embodiment, include a caselaw database  1121  and a statutes database  1122 , which respectively include judicial opinions and statutes from one or more local, state, federal, and/or international jurisdictions. Secondary databases  114 , which contain legal documents of secondary legal authority or more generally authorities subordinate to those offered by judicial or legislative authority in the primary database, includes an ALR (American Law Reports) database,  1141 , an AMJUR database  1142 , a West Key Number (KNUM) Classification database  1143 , and a law review (LREV) database  1144 . Other embodiments may include non-legal databases that include financial, scientific, or health-care information. Also, in some embodiments, primary and secondary connote the order of presentation of search results and not necessarily the authority or credibility of the search results. 
     Databases  110 , which take the exemplary form of one or more electronic, magnetic, or optical data-storage devices, include or are otherwise associated with respective indices (not shown). Each of the indices includes terms and phrases in association with corresponding document addresses, identifiers, and other conventional information. Databases  110  are coupled or couplable via a wireless or wireline communications network, such as a local-, wide-, private-, or virtual-private network, to server  120 . 
     Server  120 , which is generally representative of one or more servers for serving data in the form of webpages or other markup language forms with associated applets, ActiveX controls, remote-invocation objects, or other related software and data structures to service clients of various “thicknesses.” More particularly, server  120  includes a processor module  121 , a memory module  122 , a subscriber database  123 , a primary search module  124 , secondary search module  125 , and a user-interface module  126 . 
     Processor module  121  includes one or more local or distributed processors, controllers, or virtual machines. In the exemplary embodiment, processor module  121  assumes any convenient or desirable form. 
     Memory module  122 , which takes the exemplary form of one or more electronic, magnetic, or optical data-storage devices, stores subscriber database  123 , primary search module  124 , secondary search module  125 , and user-interface module  126 . 
     Subscriber database  123  includes subscriber-related data for controlling, administering, and managing pay-as-you-go or subscription-based access of databases  110 . In the exemplary embodiment, subscriber database  123  includes one or more preference data structures, of which data structure  1231  is representative. Data structure  1221  includes a customer or user identifier portion  1231 A, which is logically associated with one or more secondary search preferences, such as preferences  1231 B,  1231 C, and  1231 D. Preference  1231 B includes a default value governing whether supplemental searching is enabled or disabled when searching select databases, such as case-law databases. Preference  1231 C includes a default value governing presentation of supplemental of secondary search results, for example, the listing priority of various content types or the maximum number of such results to display. Preference  1231 D includes a default value governing which among two or more secondary search algorithms or acceptance criteria are used during secondary searching. (In the absence of a temporary user override, for example, an override during a particular query or session, the default value for the supplemental search preferences govern.) 
     Primary search module  124  includes one or more search engines and related user-interface components, for receiving and processing user queries against one or more of databases  110 . In the exemplary embodiment, one or more search engines associated with search module  124  provide Boolean, tf-idf, natural-language search capabilities. 
     Secondary search module  125  includes one or more search engines for receiving and processing queries against one or more of databases  110 . In the exemplary embodiment, secondary search module  125  provides a composite vector-based classification search using a user query and/or results from primary search module  124 . In other embodiments, the second database provides topical treatises, state practice guides, statutes, and/or law review articles to augment searches of caselaw database. Also, other embodiments augment statute searches, regulatory searches, secondary-material searches, and news searches. Some embodiments charge a separate or additional fee for accessing documents from the second database. 
     User-interface module  126  includes machine readable and/or executable instruction sets for wholly or partly defining web-based user interfaces, such as search interface  1261  and results interface  1262 , over a wireless or wireline communications network on one or more accesses devices, such as access device  130 . 
     Access device  130  is generally representative of one or more access devices. In the exemplary embodiment, access device  130  takes the form of a personal computer, workstation, personal digital assistant, mobile telephone, or any other device capable of providing an effective user interface with a server or database. Specifically, access device  130  includes a processor module which includes one or more processors (or processing circuits)  131 , a memory  132 , a display  133 , a keyboard  134 , and a graphical pointer or selector  135 . 
     Processor module  131  includes one or more processors, processing circuits, or controllers. In the exemplary embodiment, processor module  131  takes any convenient or desirable form. Coupled to processor module  131  is memory  132 . 
     Memory  132  stores code (machine-readable or executable instructions) for an operating system  136 , a browser  137 , and a graphical user interface (GUI)  138 . In the exemplary embodiment, operating system  136  takes the form of a version of the Microsoft Windows operating system, and browser  137  takes the form of a version of Microsoft Internet Explorer. Operating system  136  and browser  137  not only receive inputs from keyboard  134  and selector  135 , but also support rendering of GUI  138  on display  133 . Upon rendering, GUI  138  presents data in association with one or more interactive control features (or user-interface elements). (The exemplary embodiment defines one or more portions of interface  138  using applets or other programmatic objects or structures from server  120 .) 
     More specifically, graphical user interface  138  defines or provides one or more display regions, such as a query or search region  1381  and a search-results region  1382 . Query region  1381  is defined in memory and upon rendering includes one or more interactive control features (elements or widgets), such as a query input region  1381 A, a query submission button  1381 B, and a secondary search selection  1381 C. Search-results region  1382  is also defined in memory and upon rendering includes a primary results region  1382 A and a secondary results region  1382 B. Region  1382 A includes one or more interactive control features, such as features A1, A2, A3 for accessing or retrieving one or more corresponding primary search result documents from one or more of databases  110  via server  120 . Each control feature includes a respective document identifier or label, such as DOC X, DOC Y, DOC Z identifying respective titles and/or citations for the corresponding documents. Region  1382 B includes one or more interactive control features, such as features B1, B2, B3 for accessing or retrieving one or more corresponding secondary search result documents from one or more of databases  110  via server  120 . Each control feature includes a respective document identifier or label, such as DOC 1, DOC 2, DOC 3 identifying respective titles and/or citations for the corresponding documents. 
     In the exemplary embodiment, each of these control features takes the form of a hyperlink or other browser-compatible command input, and provides access to and control of query region  1381  and search-results region  1382 . User selection of the control features in region  1382  results in retrieval and display of at least a portion of the corresponding document within a region of interface  138  (not shown in this figure.) Although  FIG. 1  shows query region  1381  and results region  1382  as being simultaneously displayed, some embodiments present them at separate times. Additionally or alternatively, some embodiments intermingle the primary and secondary results within region  1382 . Some variants of these embodiments present the secondary results in a font that visibly distinguishes them from the primary results and/or in combination with an icon that indicates them as being secondary or supplemental. 
     Exemplary Operation 
       FIG. 2  shows a flow chart  200  of one or more exemplary methods of operating a system, such as system  100 . Flow chart  200  includes blocks  210 - 270 , which, like other blocks in this description, are arranged and described in a serial sequence in the exemplary embodiment. However, some embodiments execute two or more blocks in parallel using multiple processors or processor-like devices or a single processor organized as two or more virtual machines or sub processors. Some embodiments also alter the process sequence or provide different functional partitions to achieve analogous results. For example, some embodiments may alter the client-server allocation of functions, such that functions shown and described on the server side are implemented in whole or in part on the client side, and vice versa. Moreover, still other embodiments implement the blocks as two or more interconnected hardware modules with related control and data signals communicated between and through the modules. Thus, the exemplary process flow (in  FIG. 2  and elsewhere in this description) applies to software, hardware, and firmware implementations. 
     Block  210  entails presenting a search interface to a user. In the exemplary embodiment, this entails a user directing a browser in a client access device to internet-protocol (IP) address for an online information-retrieval system, such as the Westlaw system and then logging onto the system. Successful login results in a web-based search interface, such as interface  138  in  FIG. 1  or interface  300  in  FIG. 3  (or one or more portions thereof) being output from server  120 , stored in memory  132 , and displayed by client access device  130 . 
     As shown in  FIG. 3 , interface  300  includes a number of interactive control features, including a query input region  310 , a query-submit command  320 , and a secondary directive region  330 . Query input region  310  receives textual input defining a query. Secondary directive region  320  allows the user to specifically enable or disable searching of secondary databases or resources. The initial state of this directive region is determined by a default user preference value stored in a subscriber database, such as database  124 . Changing the state of the directive region, in the exemplary embodiment, changes the directive for the current query; the default preference value is unaffected unless changed at a superior control level, such as via a preference control region. Some embodiments also include an interactive control feature, such as set of check boxes or a menu, that allows users to define preferences related to the display of secondary results. For example, one embodiment allows users to prioritize the display order of secondary results by content type, specifically which content type should be listed first. Query-submit command  320  allows a user to cause access device  130  to submit the query defined in input region  310  and the setting in secondary directive region  320  to a server, such as server  120 . 
     Using interface  138  or  300 , the user can define or submit a query and cause it to be output to a server, such as server  120 . In other embodiments, a query may have been defined or selected by a user to automatically execute on a scheduled or event-driven basis. In these cases, the query may already reside in memory of a server for the information-retrieval system, and thus need not be communicated to the server repeatedly. Execution then advances to block  220 . 
     Block  220  entails receipt of a query. In the exemplary embodiment, the query includes a query string and/or a set of target databases, which includes one or more of the select databases. In some embodiments, the query string includes a set of terms and/or connectors, and in other embodiment includes a natural-language string. Also, in some embodiments, the set of target databases is defined automatically or by default based on the form of the system or search interface. Also in some embodiments, the received query may be accompanied by other information, such as information defining whether to search secondary resources. In any case, execution continues at block  230 . 
     Block  230  entails identifying a set of documents or search results based on or in response to the received query. In the exemplary embodiment, this entails the server or components under server control or command, executing the query against the targeted set of databases and identifying documents that satisfy the query criteria. Execution proceeds to block  240 . 
     Block  240  entails identifying a set of one or more secondary documents based on the query. (In some embodiments, execution of the duplicate identification block is contingent on a default or selected user option that specifies whether to identify duplicate documents.) In the exemplary embodiment, secondary identification generally entails using a second search engine or more precisely a multi-classifier text classification engine to search a second database. 
     More specifically, the exemplary embodiment follows the method shown in flow chart  240 , which includes process blocks  241 - 244 . Block  241  entails searching the secondary databases based on the user query. In the exemplary embodiment, this search entails use of secondary search module, which includes composite vector based classifier. More particularly, some of the exemplary systems classify or aid manual classification of an input text by determining a set of composite scores, with each composite score corresponding to a respective document being considered for inclusion as a secondary search results and based on a “similarity or relevance score from one or more, preferably two or more, classifiers. Determining each score entails computing and applying class-specific weights to one or more of the following types of scores:
         a first type based on similarity of the query text (or primary result documents) to text associated with a respective one of documents in the secondary databases (potential secondary documents);   a second type based on similarity of a set of Key Number classes associated with the query text and a set of Key Number classes associated with a respective one of the potential secondary documents;   a third type based on probability of one of the potential secondary documents given a set of one or more Key Number classes associated with the query text; and   a fourth type based on a probability of the query text given text (for example, headnotes) associated with a respective one of the potential secondary documents.
 
Deciding whether to include or exclude a particular document within the secondary search results entails evaluating each score against decision criteria, such as document-specific thresholds.
       

     Block  242  entails searching the secondary databases based on results from the first search engine at block  230 . In the exemplary embodiment, this search entails extracting text, such as noun-word pairs, from a subset of the documents of the primary search results to define a pool or set of features. The extracted text is then input into a text classifier, such as the multi-classifier engine note above, and compared to text of potentially related articles or more generally documents in the secondary databases. In the context of the text classifiers, potential documents in databases, such the ALR, AmJur, or Key Number headnote conglomerations are treated as classes. Those judged by the multi-classifier engine to be sufficiently similar to the other search results by virtue of meeting a similarity threshold are then included in the secondary search results. In some embodiments, a preset number of the most relevant documents from the primary search results—for example, the top 5 documents or the top 5% of documents—are used as a basis. Also, some embodiments may use a subset of the primary search results as a basis for a “more like this” type of search of the secondary databases. Execution continues at block  243 . 
     Block  243  entails combining the results from the searches of the secondary databases into a secondary results set. In the exemplary embodiment, extended or secondary search results include ALRs, AmJur sections, and West Key Number System classifications codes (and/or associated headnotes) that are determined to be relevant to the query. 
     In the exemplary embodiment, the topical scope of the secondary databases is focused on legal materials. However, in some embodiments, any relevant domain of information can be searched, including for example, news and financial databases, professional directories, etc. In determining relevance of secondary database documents, some embodiments rely on customer-tracking or usage information in addition to the secondary search engine. This information ensures documents that are frequently used (that is, “clicked on,”), printed, and/or KeyCited after similar searches are more likely to be included within secondary results. Additionally, some embodiments use term location within a document as a factor in determining the relevance score or ranking of candidate secondary results. Execution continues at block  250 . 
     Block  250  entails presenting results from primary and secondary databases to the user via a graphical user interface. In the exemplary embodiment, this entails displaying a listing of the secondary results in one or more separate regions, panes, or windows, adjacent to a listing of the primary results, with each listed document or more generally item, associated with a corresponding interactive control feature, such as hyperlink, that is selectable by a user to invoke retrieval and/or display of the associated document (or a portion thereof) in the same or separate window. See, for example, regions  1381  and  1382  in  FIG. 1  or regions  310  and  320  in  FIG. 3 . 
     Some embodiments automatically limit the number of secondary items shown in the separate pane to a predetermined number of items, such as 10. Exemplary findings include links to documents from the American Law Reports (ALR) and American Jurisprudence  2   d  (AMJUR) databases, and West topic and key number references. (Some embodiment also excludes secondary result documents, such as ALR or AmJur documents, that have red KeyCite status flags (indicating that the documents have been superseded)). In addition, primary results that include case law and statutes may include links to treatises and law reviews. Some embodiments include an “expand” control feature which allows users to selectively extend the number and/or size of the displayed secondary results list and thus gain access to a more extended list of secondary results. 
     Block  260  entails presenting one or more of the secondary search results. In the exemplary embodiment, this entails a user clicking on one or more of the listed secondary search results and thereby causing access device  130  to initiate or submit a request for the one or more items. Depending on the access rights of the user, generally determined by subscription parameters, the user account is charged a fee for accessing the secondary search results. Some embodiments present an advisory message to the user regarding any assessment of fees, providing users an option to cancel access. 
     For example, clicking on listed item  322  (in  FIG. 3 ) results in presentation of a corresponding ALR article within an interface, such as interface  400  in  FIG. 4 . Interface  400  includes a document display region  410  which shows at least a portion of the corresponding ALR article, a document listing  420  which re-lists the identifying information for ALR article, and a print command input  430  which is selectable to cause print, email, or other output of the article for the user. 
     Similarly, selecting or clicking on listed item  324  in  FIG. 3  results in presentation of a corresponding AMJUR article within an interface, such as interface  500  in  FIG. 5 . Interface  500  includes a document display region  510  which shows at least a portion of the corresponding AMJUR article, a document listing  520  which re-lists the identifying information for the AMJUR article, and a print command input  530  which is selectable to cause print, email, or other output the article for the user. 
     Selecting listed item  326  in  FIG. 3  results in presentation of an interface, such as an interface  600  in  FIG. 6  that displays a custom digest page showing headnotes related to the West Key Number classification for listed item  326 . Interface  600  includes a document display region  610  which shows at least a portion of the corresponding custom digest page, a document listing  620  which re-lists the identifying information for the West Key Number classification, and a print command input  530  which is selectable to print, email, or otherwise output the article. 
     After viewing the secondary search results, a user may redisplay the primary search results (and the secondary search results.) For example, the user may use the “back” button on her browser or activate a return or ‘back’ link on one of interface  400 ,  500 , or  600 . 
     Exemplary Architecture for Supplemental Search Function 
       FIG. 7  shows an exemplary architecture  700  for implementing the supplemental searching function of server  120 . The exemplary architecture includes a load-balancing router  710 , command-and-control (CnC) services  720 , and back-end search (or classification) service sets  730 . 
     Specifically, load-balancing router  710  receives primary and secondary search requests from one or more clients, such as clients  702 ,  704 , and  706 . Router  710  sends queries to CnC services in a round-robin or other fashion, ensuring that both phases (i.e., the primary and secondary requests) of the same request are sent to the same back-end services set (or machine) and adding and subtracting machines from its services pool to reflect current availability. All requests/responses are encoded in XML prior to being forwarded to one of CnC services  720 . 
     CnC services  720  include one or more independent CnC services, such as CnC services  722 ,  724 , and  726 . CnC service  724 , which is generally representative of each CnC application service, includes a message handler  724 A, an AMJUR event handler  724 B, a Key Number (KN) event handler  724 C, and an ALR event handler  724 D. Each CnC service passes client messages to back-end services, combines the responses from back-end services  730  to generate the suggestions (or search results), and sends them back to the clients through router  710 . 
     Back-end search service sets  730  includes classifier service sets  732 ,  734 , and  736 . Service set  734 , which—in the exemplary embodiment—is generally representative of each classifier service set, includes AMJUR classifier (or search) service  744 A, KNA classifier service  744 B, KN-lookup service  744 C, ALR-CC service  744 D, ALR-HN service  744 E, ALR-SEC service  744 F. The name of each services reflects the relevant query area. For example, ALR-HN processes word-pair classifiers or feature sets extracted from all headnotes (HNs) cited in ALR. These back-end services “suggest” multiple information categories (for example, ALR annotations) within two processing phases. The first phase is based on directly on the user query, and the second phase is based on the retrieved cases by the primary search engine in response to the user query. The services and the CnC are available as web services and use XML-RPC (Remote Procedure Calls) to communicate with each other. 
     In the exemplary embodiment, a search query is sent to the secondary search module (phase 1) in parallel with or at the same time it is sent to the primary search module. In the second phase, retrieved cases (or other documents) are forwarded by the client to the appropriate CnC service once they become available. If the primary search does not retrieve any cases, the client sends an empty phase-two request because the router and the CnC service are expecting a phase-two request. The top row in the Figure represents Westlaw clients, with each client sending its phase-one (i.e., query text) and phase-two (i.e., resulting cases) requests to a router/load-balancer. 
     Exemplary Architecture for Classifier Services 
       FIG. 8  shows an exemplary architecture  800  for implementing the multi-classifier used in exemplary system  100  and exemplary architecture  700 . Architecture  800  includes a feature pool  810 , a category pool  820 , classifier pool  830 , a meta-classifier pool  840 , and a decision-maker pool  850 . 
     CONCLUSION 
     In furtherance of the art, the inventors have presented various exemplary systems, methods, and software which, among other things, facilitate the supplementation of search results with additional information. One exemplary system automatically submits a user query for legal opinions to first and second databases, with the first storing legal opinions and the second storing non-opinion documents, such as headnotes from the West Key Number System, articles from American Law Reports, and/or articles from American Jurisprudence. 
     The embodiments described above are intended only to illustrate and teach one or more ways of practicing or implementing the present invention, not to restrict its breadth or scope. The actual scope of the invention, which embraces all ways of practicing or implementing the teachings of the invention, is defined only by the following claims and their equivalents.