The subject matter of this patent application relates to modeling software systems, and more particularly to modeling the composition and interaction of components in a software system including user interfaces.
Enterprises are typically modifying and adapting enterprise software systems with increasing frequency. But enterprise software systems are generally large and complex. Such systems can require many different components, distributed across many different hardware platforms, possibly in several different geographical locations. Typical software systems may not be able to reduce this complexity for end users. In order to change the design, configuration and implement new parts of an enterprise software system, one is required to understand details of the system at varying levels, depending on his or her role in designing, managing or implementing the system.
For example, some individuals may grasp how a given business scenario works from a business person's perspective, but do not necessarily understand how to model a software architecture formally to realize the business scenario. Whereas others may have knowledge of a software model but no know how to adapt the model to a business scenario. Given a business scenario that needs to be realized, composite application modeling helps users to understand and adapt existing software systems. This includes modeling components with and without a user interface. It may be that only the user interface needs to be adjusted, not the underlying software components.
In general, in one aspect, embodiments of the invention feature defining a user-centric modeling component, the user-centric modeling component modeling an interactive software system and including a plurality of process steps, the plurality of process steps defining a business scenario. For each process step in the plurality of process steps identifying one or more service requirements, where a service requirement represents functionality necessary to accomplish a step. For each service requirement, identifying a process component capable of providing the service requirement, the process component modeling software implementing a business process and defining a service operation for providing the service requirement and for interacting with other process components.
These and other embodiments can optionally include one or more of the following features. The plurality of process steps are defined by a composite pattern. The one or more service requirements are defined by a service pattern. The plurality of services are defined by a service pattern. Defining a new process component to provide a service requirement. An existing process component can be modified to provide a service requirement. A detailed process step model can be defined, the detailed process step model including one or more decision points. A detailed process step model can be defined, the detailed process step model including one or more user interface screens, one or more user roles, and one or more departments. A detailed process step model can be defined, the detailed process step model including one or tasks to be accomplished by a department or user role. One or more process component interaction models can be generated with a plurality of identified process components. A process component models software implementing a distinct business process. The user-centric modeling component is part of a composite integration scenario; and the composite integration scenario comprises a plurality of logically associated process components to realize a business scenario. Each process component belongs to exactly one deployment unit; and a deployment unit characterizes independently operable software deployable on a separate computer hardware platform. A detailed process step model is defined, the detailed process step model including one or more of: a decision point, an event, a workflow, an assigned department or a role.
In general, in another aspect, embodiments of the invention feature defining a user-centric modeling component including a plurality of process steps, the plurality of process steps defining a business scenario. For each process step in the plurality of process steps identifying one or more service requirements for each step. For each service requirement identifying a process component capable of providing the service requirement, the process component defining a service interface for providing the service requirement and for interacting with other process components. And defining a detailed process step model, the detailed process step model including one or more decision points.
In general, in another aspect, embodiments of the invention feature displaying, in a first view, a composite catalog illustrating composite integration scenarios, each of the composite integration scenarios characterizing software implementing a respective and distinct business scenario. Displaying, in a second view, a composite integration scenario illustrating a user-centric component and one or more process components, where a process component characterizes software implementing a respective and distinct business process. And displaying, in a third view, a process step model corresponding to the user-centric component, the process step model illustrating one or more process steps in a business scenario.
These and other embodiments can optionally include one or more of the following features. A user-initiated selection of a first graphical user interface associated with a single composite integration scenario in the first view is received, and wherein the second view is displayed in response to the selection of the first graphical user interface element. A user-initiated selection of a second graphical user interface associated with the user-centric component in the second view is received, and wherein the third view is displayed in response to the selection of the second graphical user interface element. Displaying, in a fourth view, a process component model illustrating one or more process interfaces and a business object. Receiving a user-initiated selection of a third graphical user interface associated with a process component in the second view, and wherein the fourth view is displayed in response to the selection of the third graphical user interface element.
In general, in another aspect, embodiments of the invention feature a user interface; and a model design component coupled to the user interface and configured to perform operations comprising displaying, in a first view, a composite integration scenario catalog illustrating one or more composite integration scenarios, each of the composite integration scenarios characterizing software implementing a respective and distinct business scenario. Displaying, in a second view, a composite integration scenario illustrating a user-centric component and one or more process components, where a process component characterizes software implementing a respective and distinct business process. And displaying, in a third view, a process step model corresponding to the user-centric component, the process step model illustrating one or more process steps in a business scenario.
Particular embodiments of the invention can be implemented to realize one or more of the following advantages. A model provides modeling entities to represent aspects of a software system. Multiple views of the model are provided in a user interface. The model views offer varying levels of detail, allowing users to focus on the information that is important for their task. Model entities can be reused and correspond to reusable software that implements functionality corresponding to the model entity. The model supports dynamic mapping between incompatible message formats. A model can incorporate external components. The models can be used to generate metadata, which can be stored in a repository and used in various downstream processes and tools.
Models can be used at specification and design time, reused for testing, reused for consulting purposes and reused again for documentation (for the developing company, independent software vendors, and customers). Since different parts of a software system can be used within composites, there can be different organizational departments that realize a composite. The models improve collaboration between these departments by providing people with different backgrounds a common language for interaction.
Moreover, the specification discloses a logical abstraction of how various software modules can interact to realize a business scenario. In particular, effective use can be made of process components as units of software reuse, to provide a design that can be implemented reliably in a cost effective way. Deployment units, each of which is deployable on a separate computer hardware platform independent of every other deployment unit, are capable of enabling a scalable design. Furthermore, service interfaces of the process components can define a pair-wise interaction between pairs of process components that are in different deployment units in a scalable manner.
The modeling methodology allows users to quickly adapt software systems. The models can be used to improve communication between different user groups within a software company. Composite patterns can be used to support and simplify modeling of common composite integration scenarios. If business functionality is missing, a new process component with new business object(s) can be modeled.
Some processes are automated and do not need a user interface. Others need user interfaces, for example if a user has to enter data. Combining the end user experience with the application integration leads to the topic of composite applications. Composite applications have a user interface. A composite application can define business activities covering one or many backend components in a user-centric way and provides independence from underlying application systems. A composite application can guide one or many users through a set of process steps.
Models for composite modeling are used at specification and design time, reused for testing, reused for consulting purposes and reused again for documentation (for the developing company, ISVs and customers). Since different parts of a software system are used within composites, there can be different departments that realize a composite. The models improve collaboration between these departments. Composite application modeling gives people with different backgrounds a common language to exchange information.
The details of one or more embodiments of the invention are set forth in the accompanying drawings and the description below. Other features, aspects, and advantages of the invention will become apparent from the description, the drawings, and the claims.
Like reference numbers and designations in the various drawings indicate like elements.
A detailed process step model is defined (step 104). The detailed process step model is based on the process step model and augments process steps with branching logic and events. In addition, the detailed process step model can provide information about user interface involvement (e.g., which user interface screens are used) and department and user roles that accomplish a given process step.
One or more service requirements by one or more process steps in the process step model are identified (step 106). A service requirement represents functionality that is needed to accomplish a process step. A model that shows the process steps and service requirements is termed a consumer model. Decision logic and other information is omitted so that the user creating the model can concentrate on process steps and service requirements.
As will be discussed below, a business scenario encompasses process component models and interactions between them, which are required for realization of the business scenario. A process component model characterizes software implementing a respective and distinct business process. Each service requirement is paired with a process component model that is capable of fulfilling the service requirement (step 108). This can include using an existing process component model (step 110) or modifying an existing process component model (step 112). Alternatively, a new process component model can be created to provide the service requirement (step 114).
When a composite application does not require the ability to persist information in a new business object, the composite application is termed ultra-light. In contrast, when a composite application requires the ability to persist information in a business object, the composite application is termed heavy. The process components paired with the service requirements are modeled in a provider model. A software implementation can be created from the defined models by generating service definitions, implementing the services, and developing the user interface.
In this illustration, the process step 302 for receiving refunds data from a customer has a receive refunds data service requirement 402. The process step 304 for validating refunds data has four service requirements: read delivery 404, read material 406, read customer 408, and read invoice 410. The process step 306 for creating a refunds coupon has a create refunds coupon service requirement 412. The process step 308 for sending refunds to a customer includes a sends refunds coupon service requirement 414.
The receive refunds data from Receive Refunds Data from customer process step 302 receives an electronic mail message 420 from a Refunds Processing at Customer process component 422 containing a refund request for a purchased product via the receive refunds data service requirement 402. Process step 304 is performed after which a decision point 438 is reached. A decision point represents conditional flow control logic (e.g., if-then, if-then-else, and combinations of these). If the refund data is correct, a data correct event 440 is generated and received by process step 306. Otherwise, a data incorrect event 442 is generated.
Process step 308 is performed after process step 306, assuming the data correct event 440 was generated. As part of the send refunds coupon to service requirement 414 in process step 308, an electronic mail message 426 is provided to the product data processing process component 422 to relay a refunds form.
Roles can be associated with process steps and organizations. For example, a vender organizational unit 416 is associated with process step 302 and an organizational unit role 418 is associated with the product data processing process step 422. User interface building blocks can be added to the model 400 to represent points of user interaction. A user interface building block can be a screen or part of a screen, for example, and can be reused in other models. A check user interface user interface block 430 is associated with the validate refunds data process step 304 and a refunds user interface block 432 is associated with process step 306.
In addition to what is described above, a detailed process step model can include operation requirements, interfaces, services, packages (which are logical groupings of process steps), forks, joins, iterations (e.g., which are typically done when something has been rejected instead of approved), forms, workflows shown by role assignments, involved departments (even different companies that are involved in a process). Other model entities are also possible.
In addition, a process component defines one or more respective service interfaces for interacting with other process components. A service interface (or “interface”) is a named grouping of one or more service operations. An interface specifies offered (inbound service interface) or used (outbound service interface) functionality. A user-centric component calls synchronous services, so this model utilizes with inbound service interfaces.
A service operation belongs to exactly one process component. A process component generally has multiple service operations. A service operation is the smallest, separately-callable functionality of a process component. An operation modeled by a set of data types used as input, output, and fault parameters serves as a signature. A service operation can use multiple message types for inbound, outbound, or error messages.
Process components can be assigned to multiple deployment units so that each process component is included in exactly one deployment unit. Each deployment unit characterizes independently operable software that can be separately deployed on different hardware platforms. Each process component is entirely included in exactly one deployment unit. Context independent interactions among a plurality of process components are defined so that all communication and interaction between a process component in one deployment unit and any process component in any other deployment unit takes place through the respective process service interfaces (i.e., through operation) of the process components.
Separate deployment units can be deployed on separate physical computing systems and include one or more process components. For example, a physical system can be a cluster of computers having direct access to a common database. The process components of one deployment unit interact with those of another deployment unit only using messages passed through one or more data communication networks or other suitable communication channels. Thus, a deployment unit software entity deployed on a platform belonging to Company A can interact with a deployment unit software entity deployed on a separate platform belonging to Company B, allowing for business-to-business communication. Or deployment units in different divisions of the same company can interact with each other. More than one instance of a given deployment unit software entity can execute at the same time.
A user-centric process component is only represented once in an integration scenario model, even though the actual flow in the software system might invoke the same component multiple times. A scenario describes at a high level the potential direct or indirect (i.e., through one or more other components) interaction between components in one or more deployment units that are relevant to realize the business scenario. For example, a user-centric component 804 represents a user interface and consumes services of the existing process components 604, 422, 606, 802, 806, 808 and the new composite process component 608. The new process component 608 gets data from one or more services of process component 602. Components of customer systems can be incorporated here such as 604 (e.g., a process component outside company). Different interactions can be distinguished such as service interactions, direct interactions (with proprietary technology), email and other interactions, for example. Internal details of components are not described, nor are details of process component interactions (e.g., service interfaces, service operations and messages). This is done in other models which can be accessed via drilldown in user interface 204.
The scenario 800 includes three deployment units: 810, 812 and 814. The deployment unit 810 includes the outbound delivery processing process component 602. The process component 602 in deployment unit 810 provides one or more services for the refunds processing process component 608. The refunds processing process component 608 was newly created to provide services required by a process step model of the user-centric component 804. Newly created process components that provide services to a user-centric component are included in their own deployment unit. In addition to utilizing one or more services provided by the process component 608, the user-centric component 804 uses the services of process components 422, 606, 802, 806, 808, in deployment unit 814, and external process component 604.
Service operations are described for purposes of exposition in terms of process agents. A process agent (or “agent”) is an optional modeling entity representing software that implements a service operation. Service operations can be implemented through other conventional techniques. Service operations (and hence agents) can be synchronous or asynchronous, and inbound or outbound.
Synchronous outbound service operations send synchronous request messages and process response messages. Synchronous inbound service operations respond to messages from synchronous outbound service operations. Synchronous communication is when a message is sent with the expectation that a response will be received promptly. Asynchronous communication comes with the expectation that a response will be provided by a separate service operation invoked at a later point in time.
An asynchronous outbound service operation is specific to a sending business object. If the asynchronous outbound service operation is triggering a new communication to another process component, it is specific for the triggered process component. However, the same asynchronous outbound process service operation can be used for two service operations which are part of the same message choreography.
Inbound service operations are called after a message has been received by a process component. Based on the process component's business object's status, inbound service operations may initiate communication across deployment units, may initiate business-to-business (B2B) communication, or both by sending messages using well-defined services.
The Refunds Processing process component 608 includes an Refunds Coupon business object 906 which can use a Query Delivery of Refunds Coupon outbound process agent 908 to invoke a Query Delivery Date and Receiver service operation 910 included in a Query Delivery Out service interface 914 which causes a Simple Delivery Query message 916 to be sent to the Outbound Delivery Processing process component 602. The Refunds Coupon business object 906 can use a Notify of Refunds Creation outbound process agent 932 to invoke a Notify of Delivery Creation service operation 912 included in service interface 926 which causes a Refunds Notification message 926 to be sent to the Outbound Delivery Processing process component 602.
The Outbound Delivery Processing process component 602 receives the Simple Delivery Query message 916 by way of a Find Delivery by Date and Receiver service operation 920 included in service interface 930 which provides the message 916 to the synchronous Query Outbound Delivery service agent 922. The agent 922 assembles the queried data from the business object outbound delivery 924 and provides the data to the message Simple Delivery Query Response 940. The service operation 910 receives the data and provides the information to the agent 908.
The service agent 922 changes the Outbound Delivery Object 924 based on the message 926. The Outbound Delivery Processing process component 602 receives the Refunds Notification message 926 by way of a Change Delivery Based on Refunds Processing service operation 922 included in service interface 928 which provides the message 926 to the Change Outbound Delivery service agent 934. The service agent 934 creates or modifies the Outbound Delivery Object 924 based on the message 926.
The message format of a message sent by an outbound service operation need not match the message format expected by an inbound service operation. If the message formats do not match, and the message is transformed, or mapped. Message mapping is indicated by interposition of an intermediary mapping model element between the source and the destination of the message in a PCM or a PCIM.
When business analysts and architects have assigned process components to process steps (
The PCM models service operations incorporated in a process component. For example, the inbound service operation 1004 called by the user-centric component, and outbound service operations 910 and 912. The arc 1010 connecting the outbound service operation 910 to the process component 602 represents that the outbound service operation 910 can invoke a service operation for the process component 602. (Similarly, arc 1012 connects outbound service operation 912 with process component 602.)
The PCM optionally models process agents (e.g., 1006, 908, 932) corresponding to the process component's service operations. For example, the inbound process agent 1006 models processing or responding to a message routed to inbound service operations 1004. The inbound process agent 1006, for example, will access and modify the business object 906 as part of the processing. The outbound process agents 908 and 932 can react to the state or a change in the state associated with the business object 906 by invoking service operations. The outbound process agent 908 can invoke the synchronous service operation 910 which will cause a message to be sent to process component 602. Likewise, the outbound process agent 932 can invoke the asynchronous service operation 912 which will also cause a message to be sent to process component 602.
If new services are consumed by the process component, these process components appear in the PCM. If new services are consumed by the user-centric component of the composite, the user-centric component does not appear. Service patterns are important in order to make sure developers use the same approach and cut (granularity) for services. Services are described below.
Inbound process agent 934 models processing or responding to a message routed to inbound service operation 922 and can, for example, access and modify business object 924 as part of the processing. Likewise, inbound process agent 922 models responding to a message routed to inbound service operation 920 and can access business object 924. Outbound process agent 1016 can react to the state or a change in the state associated with the business object 924 by invoking service operation 1026. Service operation 1026 will cause a message to be sent to external process component 1028. Outbound process agent 1018 can also react to the state or a change in the state associated with the business object 924 by invoking service operation 1022 which can cause a message to be sent to process component 1014.
In one implementation, the aforementioned graphical depictions can be presented singularly or in combination with each other in the GUI 204. Moreover, a given graphical depiction can present all of its underlying information or a portion thereof, while allowing other portions to be viewed through a navigation mechanism, e.g., user selection of a graphical element, issuance of a command, or other suitable means. Information can also be represented by colors in the display of model entities. For example, color can be used to distinguish types of business objects, types of process agents and types of interfaces.
Composite patterns and service patterns can be used to simplify the modeling of composite applications by providing reusable modeling components. A composite pattern characterizes common user interactions. TABLE 1 illustrates four such patterns.
The approval composite pattern 1200 includes a request process step 1202 for data gathering, a first guided procedure process step 1204, a second guided procedure process step 1206 for additional data processing necessary before the approval step (e.g., a form might be sent to a customer 1222 that sends additional data back 1226), an approve process step 1208, an update process step 1210 where the approved document gets a new status, and a follow up process step 1212 (e.g., sending the finalized document out to the customer).
The request process step 1202 has a service requirement 1214 for finding a business object and a service requirement 1216 for reading details of the business object. The first guided procedure setup process step 1204 has a service requirement 1218 for finding a business object by some additional criteria, and a second service requirement 1220 for sending a form to a customer. The service requirement 1220 uses a service operation defined by the process component 1222. The second guided procedure process step 1206 includes a service requirement 1226 for receiving a form from a customer.
The approve process step 1208 may include a service requirement or not (e.g., a user interface with a button ‘approve’ and a button ‘rejected’). The update process step 1230 includes a service requirement 1230 for changing a business object (e.g., the status is changed to approved or rejected). Finally, the follow up process step 1212 has a service requirement 1232 for sending the completed form with the finalized document to a customer. The service requirement 1232 utilizes a service operation defined by process component 1234. The service requirements 1214, 1216, 1218, and 1230 use operations defined by process components 1224 or 1228.
There are two process steps: analyze 1302 and execute 1304 for doing the changes. The analyze process step 1302 includes an analyze service requirement 1306 which utilizes a service operation from an analytics process component 1308. When the user has chosen an object on which actions in the operational system have to be done, an identifier of this particular object is save within a buffer. The execute process step 1304 includes a find business object by selection criteria service requirement 1310, which provides the object's identifier to the operational system and finds the object data therein. A read business object service requirement 1314 reads details of the business object which are needed for executing the necessary changes. When the user has done the needed changes on a user interface, a change business object service requirement 1316 is needed for changing the object in the operational system. The service requirements 1314 and 1316 utilize service operations defined by process component 1312.
In a first screen the user enters some data. Then the system has to find out if the business object already exists or not. For this a request business object data process step 1402 includes a find help business object service requirement 1406 and a find business object process step 1408. Service requirement 1406 utilizes a service operation defined by a customer invoice processing process component and 1408 and service requirement 1410 utilizes a service provided by another process component 1412. Now the system has found out if a business object has to be created, changed or deleted. So the update or create business object process step 1404 includes service requirements 1414 for creation, 1416 and 1418 for changing and 1420 for deleting the business object. All service requirements 1414, 1416, 1418, 1420 utilize service operations defined by the process component 1412.
In addition to composite patterns which help business analysts to model their composite in a consumer model, there are service patterns that help architects and developers to model services the process components have to provide. A service pattern is used by composite applications in order to communicate with different components and can be created in a process component model or a process component interaction model. There are two types of service patterns: services consumed by users interfaces (typically synchronous, sometimes named A2X services) and services to communicate between process components (typically asynchronous, A2A or B2B services).
A2X service patterns can be used to represent communication between a user-centric component and one or more process components, and can be modeled within process component models. For example, a user-centric component can communicate with a process component that provides the user-centric component with operations on a business object, such as for creating, finding, modifying, deleting, accessing and triggering actions on a the business object. TABLE 2 illustrates three such patterns.
Asynchronous service patterns can be used to represent communication of new composite process component model(s) with existing process component model(s), and can be modeled with process component interaction models. TABLE 3 illustrates three such patterns. (These service patterns may also be synchronous.)
Embodiments of the invention and all of the functional operations described in this specification can be implemented in digital electronic circuitry, or in computer software, firmware, or hardware, including the structures disclosed in this specification and their structural equivalents, or in combinations of one or more of them. Embodiments of the invention can be implemented as one or more computer program products, i.e., one or more modules of computer program instructions encoded on a computer-readable medium for execution by, or to control the operation of, data processing apparatus. The computer-readable medium can be a machine-readable storage device, a machine-readable storage substrate, a memory device, a composition of matter effecting a machine-readable propagated signal, or a combination of one or more them.
The term “data processing apparatus” encompasses all apparatus, devices, and machines for processing data, including by way of example a programmable processor, a computer, or multiple processors or computers. The apparatus can include, in addition to hardware, code that creates an execution environment for the computer program in question, e.g., code that constitutes processor firmware, a protocol stack, a database management system, an operating system, or a combination of one or more of them. A propagated signal is an artificially generated signal, e.g., a machine-generated electrical, optical, or electromagnetic signal, that is generated to encode information for transmission to suitable receiver apparatus.
A computer program (also known as a program, software, software application, script, or code) can be written in any form of programming language, including compiled or interpreted languages, and it can be deployed in any form, including as a stand-alone program or as a module, component, subroutine, or other unit suitable for use in a computing environment. A computer program does not necessarily correspond to a file in a file system. A program can be stored in a portion of a file that holds other programs or data (e.g., one or more scripts stored in a markup language document), in a single file dedicated to the program in question, or in multiple coordinated files (e.g., files that store one or more modules, sub-programs, or portions of code). A computer program can be deployed to be executed on one computer or on multiple computers that are located at one site or distributed across multiple sites and interconnected by a communication network.
The processes and logic flows described in this specification can be performed by one or more programmable processors executing one or more computer programs to perform functions by operating on input data and generating output. The processes and logic flows can also be performed by, and apparatus can also be implemented as, special purpose logic circuitry, e.g., an FPGA (field programmable gate array) or an ASIC (application-specific integrated circuit).
Processors suitable for the execution of a computer program include, by way of example, both general and special purpose microprocessors, and any one or more processors of any kind of digital computer. Generally, a processor will receive instructions and data from a read-only memory or a random access memory or both. The essential elements of a computer are a processor for performing instructions and one or more memory devices for storing instructions and data. Generally, a computer will also include, or be operatively coupled to receive data from or transfer data to, or both, one or more mass storage devices for storing data, e.g., magnetic, magneto-optical disks, or optical disks. However, a computer need not have such devices. Moreover, a computer can be embedded in another device, e.g., a mobile telephone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a mobile audio player, a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver, to name just a few. Computer-readable media suitable for storing computer program instructions and data include all forms of non-volatile memory, media and memory devices, including by way of example semiconductor memory devices, e.g., EPROM, EEPROM, and flash memory devices; magnetic disks, e.g., internal hard disks or removable disks; magneto-optical disks; and CD-ROM and DVD-ROM disks. The processor and the memory can be supplemented by, or incorporated in, special purpose logic circuitry.
To provide for interaction with a user, embodiments of the invention can be implemented on a computer having a display device, e.g., a CRT (cathode ray tube) or LCD (liquid crystal display) monitor, for displaying information to the user and a keyboard and a pointing device, e.g., a mouse or a trackball, by which the user can provide input to the computer. Other kinds of devices can be used to provide for interaction with a user as well; for example, feedback provided to the user can be any form of sensory feedback, e.g., visual feedback, auditory feedback, or tactile feedback; and input from the user can be received in any form, including acoustic, speech, or tactile input.
Embodiments of the invention can be implemented in a computing system that includes a back-end component, e.g., as a data server, or that includes a middleware component, e.g., an application server, or that includes a front-end component, e.g., a client computer having a graphical user interface or a Web browser through which a user can interact with an implementation of the invention, or any combination of one or more such back-end, middleware, or front-end components. The components of the system can be interconnected by any form or medium of digital data communication, e.g., a communication network. Examples of communication networks include a local area network (“LAN”) and a wide area network (“WAN”), e.g., the Internet.
The computing system can include clients and servers. A client and server are generally remote from each other and typically interact through a communication network. The relationship of client and server arises by virtue of computer programs running on the respective computers and having a client-server relationship to each other.
While this specification contains many specifics, these should not be construed as limitations on the scope of the invention or of what may be claimed, but rather as descriptions of features specific to particular embodiments of the invention. Certain features that are described in this specification in the context of separate embodiments can also be implemented in combination in a single embodiment. Conversely, various features that are described in the context of a single embodiment can also be implemented in multiple embodiments separately or in any suitable subcombination. Moreover, although features may be described above as acting in certain combinations and even initially claimed as such, one or more features from a claimed combination can in some cases be excised from the combination, and the claimed combination may be directed to a subcombination or variation of a subcombination.
Similarly, while operations are depicted in the drawings in a particular order, this should not be understand as requiring that such operations be performed in the particular order shown or in sequential order, or that all illustrated operations be performed, to achieve desirable results. In certain circumstances, multitasking and parallel processing may be advantageous. Moreover, the separation of various system components in the embodiments described above should not be understood as requiring such separation in all embodiments, and it should be understood that the described program components and systems can generally be integrated together in a single software product or packaged into multiple software products.
Thus, particular embodiments of the invention have been described. Other embodiments are within the scope of the following claims. For example, the actions recited in the claims can be performed in a different order and still achieve desirable results.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4947321 | Spence et al. | Aug 1990 | A |
5361198 | Harmon et al. | Nov 1994 | A |
5550734 | Tarter et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
5560005 | Hoover et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5566097 | Myers et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5586312 | Johnson et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5590277 | Fuchs et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5632022 | Warren et al. | May 1997 | A |
5634127 | Cloud et al. | May 1997 | A |
5680619 | Gudmundson et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5704044 | Tarter et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5710917 | Musa et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5768119 | Havekost et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5822585 | Noble et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5832218 | Gibbs et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5848291 | Milne et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5867495 | Elliott et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5870588 | Rompaey et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5881230 | Christensen et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5893106 | Brobst et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5898872 | Richley | Apr 1999 | A |
5918219 | Isherwood | Jun 1999 | A |
5987247 | Lau | Nov 1999 | A |
5991536 | Brodsky et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
H001830 | Petrimoulx et al. | Jan 2000 | H |
6028997 | Leymann et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6038393 | Iyengar et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6049838 | Miller et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6067559 | Allard et al. | May 2000 | A |
6070197 | Cobb et al. | May 2000 | A |
6112024 | Almond et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6151582 | Huang et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6167563 | Fontana et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6167564 | Fontana et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6177932 | Galdes et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6182133 | Horvitz | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6192390 | Berger et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6208345 | Sheard et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6237136 | Sadahiro | May 2001 | B1 |
6272672 | Conway | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6311170 | Embrey | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6338097 | Krenzke et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6424991 | Gish | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6434740 | Monday et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6442748 | Bowman-Amuah | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6445782 | Elfe et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6446045 | Stone et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6446092 | Sutter | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6473794 | Guheen et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6493716 | Azagury et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6571220 | Ogino et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6594535 | Costanza | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6601233 | Underwood | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6601234 | Bowman-Amuah | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6606744 | Mikurak | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6609100 | Smith et al. | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6640238 | Bowman-Amuah | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6671673 | Baseman et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6678882 | Hurley et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6687734 | Sellink et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6691151 | Cheyer et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6721783 | Blossman et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6738964 | Zink et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6747679 | Finch et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6750885 | Finch et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6757837 | Platt et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6764009 | Melick et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6772216 | Ankireddipally et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6782536 | Moore et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6789252 | Burke et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6845499 | Srivastava et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6847854 | Discenzo | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6859931 | Cheyer et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6889197 | Lidow | May 2005 | B2 |
6889375 | Chan et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6895438 | Ulrich | May 2005 | B1 |
6898783 | Gupta et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6904399 | Cooper et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6907395 | Hunt et al. | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6954736 | Menninger et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6985939 | Fletcher et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6990466 | Hu | Jan 2006 | B1 |
7003474 | Lidow | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7031998 | Archbold | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7043448 | Campbell | May 2006 | B2 |
7047518 | Little et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7050056 | Meyringer | May 2006 | B2 |
7050873 | Discenzo | May 2006 | B1 |
7055136 | Dzoba et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7058587 | Horne | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7069536 | Yaung | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7072855 | Godlewski et al. | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7076766 | Wirts et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7100195 | Underwood | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7103873 | Tanner et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7117447 | Cobb et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7120597 | Knudtzon et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7120896 | Budhiraja et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7131069 | Rush et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7149887 | Morrison et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7155403 | Cirulli et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7155409 | Stroh | Dec 2006 | B1 |
7181694 | Reiss et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7184964 | Wang | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7194431 | Land et al. | Mar 2007 | B1 |
7197740 | Beringer et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7200569 | Gallagher et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7206768 | deGroeve et al. | Apr 2007 | B1 |
7213232 | Knowles | May 2007 | B1 |
7216091 | Blandina et al. | May 2007 | B1 |
7219107 | Beringer | May 2007 | B2 |
7222786 | Renz et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7225240 | Fox et al. | May 2007 | B1 |
7249044 | Kumar et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7257254 | Tunney | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7283973 | Loghmani et al. | Oct 2007 | B1 |
7293254 | Bloesch et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7299970 | Ching | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7315830 | Wirtz et al. | Jan 2008 | B1 |
7322024 | Carlson et al. | Jan 2008 | B2 |
7324966 | Scheer | Jan 2008 | B2 |
7353180 | Silverstone et al. | Apr 2008 | B1 |
7356492 | Hazi et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7367011 | Ramsey et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7370315 | Lovell et al. | May 2008 | B1 |
7376601 | Aldridge | May 2008 | B1 |
7376604 | Butcher | May 2008 | B1 |
7376632 | Sadek et al. | May 2008 | B1 |
7383201 | Matsuzaki et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7386833 | Granny et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7406716 | Kanamori et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7415697 | Houlding | Aug 2008 | B1 |
7418409 | Goel | Aug 2008 | B1 |
7418424 | Martin et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7424701 | Kendall et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7433979 | Need | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7448022 | Ram et al. | Nov 2008 | B1 |
7451432 | Shukla et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7460654 | Jenkins et al. | Dec 2008 | B1 |
7461030 | Hibler et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7469233 | Shooks et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7516088 | Johnson et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7523054 | Tyson-Quah | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7529699 | Fuse et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7536325 | Randell et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7536354 | deGroeve et al. | May 2009 | B1 |
7546520 | Davidson et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7546575 | Dillman et al. | Jun 2009 | B1 |
7565640 | Shukla et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7574694 | Mangan et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7624371 | Kulkarni et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7631291 | Shukla et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7640195 | Von Zimmermann et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7640291 | Maturana et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7644390 | Khodabandehloo et al. | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7657406 | Tolone et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7657445 | Goux | Feb 2010 | B1 |
7665083 | Demant et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7668761 | Jenkins et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7672888 | Allin et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7681176 | Wills et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7693586 | Dumas et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7703073 | Illowsky et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7739160 | Ryan et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7742985 | Digrigoli et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7747980 | Illowsky et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7765156 | Staniar et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7765521 | Bryant | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7788145 | Wadawadigi et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7788319 | Schmidt et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7793256 | Charisius et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7793258 | Sundararajan et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7797698 | Diament et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7814142 | Mamou et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7822682 | Arnold et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7835971 | Stockton et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7886041 | Outhred et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7895568 | Goodwin et al. | Feb 2011 | B1 |
7904350 | Ayala et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7912755 | Perry et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7917889 | Devarakonda et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7925985 | Moore | Apr 2011 | B2 |
8001519 | Conallen et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8010938 | Elaasar | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8051332 | Zakonov et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8091065 | Mir et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8112738 | Pohl et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
20010052108 | Bowman-Amuah | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020026394 | Savage et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020042756 | Kumar et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020049622 | Lettich et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020073114 | Nicastro et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020078046 | Uluakar et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020082892 | Raffel et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020103660 | Cramon et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020104071 | Charisius et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020107826 | Ramachandran et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020120553 | Bowman-Amuah | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020133368 | Strutt et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020138281 | Cirulli et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020138358 | Scheer | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020143598 | Scheer | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020156695 | Edwards | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020161907 | Moon | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020184111 | Swanson | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020188486 | Gil et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020198798 | Ludwig et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020198828 | Ludwig et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030009754 | Rowley et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030034578 | Kim et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030058277 | Bowman-Amuah | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030069774 | Hoffman et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030074271 | Viswanath et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030074360 | Chen et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030083762 | Farrah et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030084127 | Budhiraja et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030130860 | Datta et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030182206 | Hendrix et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030212602 | Schaller | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030233290 | Yang et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040015367 | Nicastro et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040054564 | Fonseca et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040093268 | Ramchandani et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040093381 | Hodges et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040111304 | Meka et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040111639 | Schwartz et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040128180 | Abel et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040133481 | Schwarze et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040153359 | Ho et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040158506 | Wille | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040172510 | Nagashima et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040181470 | Grounds | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040181538 | Lo et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040205011 | Northington et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040236639 | Candadai et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040236687 | Tyson-Quah | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040243489 | Mitchell et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040254866 | Crumbach et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040255152 | Kanamori et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050010501 | Ward, Jr. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050033588 | Ruiz et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050044015 | Bracken et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050060235 | Byrne | Mar 2005 | A2 |
20050060408 | McIntyre et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050065828 | Kroswek et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050108680 | Cheng et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050113092 | Coppinger et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050114829 | Robin et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050125310 | Hazi et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050144125 | Erbey et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050144226 | Purewal | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050156500 | Birecki et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050160104 | Meera et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050165784 | Gomez et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050177435 | Lidow | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050203760 | Gottumukkala et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050203813 | Welter et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050209732 | Audimoolam et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050209943 | Ballow et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050216325 | Ziad et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050216507 | Wright | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050222896 | Rhyne et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050234787 | Wallmeier et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050235020 | Gabelmann et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050240592 | Mamou et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050246250 | Murray | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050246482 | Gabelmann et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050256775 | Schapler et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050256882 | Able et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050257125 | Roesner et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050257197 | Herter et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050262192 | Mamou et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050262453 | Massasso | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050284934 | Ernesti et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050288987 | Sattler et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050289020 | Bruns et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050289079 | Krishan et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060004802 | Phillips et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060053063 | Nagar | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060064344 | Lidow | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060074704 | Shukla et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060074731 | Green et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060080338 | Seubert et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060085243 | Cooper et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060085294 | Boerner et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060085336 | Seubert et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060089886 | Wong | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060095439 | Buchmann et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060129978 | Abrari et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060143029 | Akbay et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060149574 | Bradley et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060206352 | Pulianda | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060248504 | Hughes | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060274720 | Adams et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060287939 | Harel et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060288350 | Grigorovitch et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070011650 | Hage et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070022410 | Ban et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070050308 | Latvala et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070075916 | Bump et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070094098 | Mayer et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070094261 | Phelan et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070129964 | Helmolt et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070129984 | von Helmolt et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070129985 | Helmolt et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070143164 | Kaila et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070150332 | Grichnik et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070150387 | Seubert et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070150855 | Jeong | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070156428 | Brecht-Tillinger et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070156430 | Kaetker et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070156474 | Scherberger et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070156475 | Berger et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070156476 | Koegler et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070156482 | Bagheri | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070156489 | Berger et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070156493 | Tebbe et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070156499 | Berger et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070156500 | Merkel et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070156538 | Peter et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070156550 | Der Emde et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070156731 | Ben-Zeev | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070162893 | Moosmann et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070164849 | Haeberle et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070168303 | Moosmann et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070174068 | Alfandary et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070174145 | Hetzer et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070174811 | Kaetker et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070186209 | Kaetker et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070197877 | Decorte et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070198391 | Dreyer et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070214065 | Kahlon et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070220046 | Moosmann et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070220143 | Lund et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070233539 | Suenderhauf et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070233541 | Schorr et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070233545 | Cala et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070233574 | Koegler et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070233575 | Berger et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070233581 | Peter | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070233598 | Der Emde et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070234282 | Prigge et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070239508 | Fazal et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070239569 | Lucas et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070265860 | Herrmann et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070265862 | Freund et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080004929 | Raffel et al. | Jan 2008 | A9 |
20080017722 | Snyder et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080027831 | Gerhardt | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080065437 | Dybvig | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080120129 | Seubert et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080147507 | Langhammer | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080162382 | Clayton et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080208707 | Erbey et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080215354 | Halverson et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080263152 | Daniels et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080300959 | Sinha et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090037287 | Baitalmal et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090037492 | Baitalmal et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090063112 | Hader et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090171716 | Suenderhauf et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090171818 | Penning et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090172699 | Jungkind et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090189743 | Abraham et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090192858 | Johnson | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20100070324 | Bock et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100070331 | Koegler et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100070336 | Koegler et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100070395 | Elkeles et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100070555 | Duparc et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100100464 | Ellis et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100138269 | Cirpus et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20110252395 | Charisius et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0023874 | Apr 2000 | WO |
WO 2004083984 | Sep 2004 | WO |
WO 2005114381 | Dec 2005 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20070234282 A1 | Oct 2007 | US |