Improving the comprehension of legal documentation: The case of patent claims

Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 78-87

  Bouayad Agha, Nadjet ^a   Casamayor, Gerard ^a   Ferraro, Gabriela ^a   Mille, Simon ^a   Vidal, Vanesa ^a   Wanner, Leo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITAT POMPEU FABRA   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LEGAL DOCUMENTATION; MULTILINGUAL SUMMARIZATION; NON-NATIVE; PATENT CLAIMS; SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; LINGUISTICS; SYNTACTICS;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

EID: 70450162471     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1568234.1568244     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. A. Farzinfar, G. Lapalme, and J.-P. Declés. Résumé de textes juridiques par identification de leur structure thématique. Traitement automatique des langues, 45(1):39-64, 2004.
2. B. Hachey and C. Grover. Extractive summarisation of legal texts. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 14(4):305-345, 2006.
3. C.-Y. Lin. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on "Text Summarization Branches Out", Barcelona, 2004.
4. D. Lin. Dependency-based evaluation of minipar. In Proc. Workshop on the Evaluation of Parsing Systems, LREC'98, Granada, 1998.
5. W. C. Mann and S. Thompson. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3):243-281, 1988.
6. D. Marcu. The Theory and Practice of Discourse Parsing and Summarization. The MIT Press, November 2000.
7. I. Mel'cuk. Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. SUNY, 1988.
8. S. Mille and L. Wanner. Making text resources accessible to the reader: The case of patent claims. In Proceedings of the International Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC), Marrakech, 2008.
9. M. Nagao, J. ichi Tsujii, and J. ichi Nakamura. The japanese government project for machine translation. Computational Linguistics, 11:2-3, 1985.
10. D. Pressman. Patent It Yourself. Nolo, Berkeley, CA, 2006.
11. H. Schmid. Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. In Proceedings of the International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing, pages 44-49, Manchester, UK, September 1994.
12. S. Sheremetyeva. Natural language analysis of patent claims. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop On Patent Corpus Processing, 2003.
13. A. Shinmori, M. Okumura, Y. Marukawa, and M. Iwayama. Patent processing for readability. structure analysis and term explanation. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Patent Corpus Processing held at the ACL Meeting, pages 56-65, 2003.
14. S. Teufel and M. Moens. Summarizing scientific articles: Experiments with relevance and rhetorical status. Computational Linguistics, 28(4):409-445, 2002.
15. L. Wanner, R. Baeza-Yates, S. Brügmann, J. Codina, B. Diallo, E. Escorsa, M. Giereth, Y. Kompatsiaris, S. Papadopoulos, E. Pianta, G. Piella, I. Puhlmann, G. Rao, M. Rotard, P. Schoester, L. Serafini, and V. Zervaki. Towards content-oriented patent document processing. World Patent Information Journal, 28(4):409-445, 2007.
16. L. Wanner, S. Bott, N. Bouayad-Agha, G. Casamayor, G. Ferraro, J. Graën, A. Joan, F. Lareau, S. Mille, V. Rodríguez, and V. Vidal. Paraphrasing and multilingual summarization of patent claims. In L. Wanner, S. Brügmann, and B. Diallo, editors, PATExpert: A Next Generation Patent Processing Service. IOS Press, Amsterdam, in press.
17. I. H. Witten and E. Frank. Data Mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 2005.