🚀 go-pugleaf

>    Yes, and that's exactly the scheme described by Knuth, volume 3, page
>    486 (start from the top), 1973, as well as many other sources.
> Knuth actually documents the reverse strategy, which uses a tree for
> the first few level, and a list of keys for the rest.  -- J

Actually, he documents both. See the exercises. The point is that
there's no conceivable way that the subject of the claim could be
considered novel. If the USPTO had a blanket policy of rejecting mental
processes---even mental processes performed with the aid of a computer,
or applied in non-essential ways to physical elements---then the patent
examiner would not have needed to be familiar with Knuth in order to
reject the claim at hand.

---Dan