Patent Grant
11683288
This invention relates to any computer of any form, such as a personal computer and/or microchip, that has an inner hardware-based access barrier or firewall that establishes a private unit that is disconnected from a public unit, the public unit being configured for a connection to a public network of computers including the Internet. In addition, the computer's private unit is configured for a separate connection to at least one non-Internet-connected private network for administration, management, and/or control of the computer and/or microchip, locally or remotely, by either a personal user or a business or corporate entity.
More particularly, this invention relates to a computer and/or microchip with an inner hardware-based access barrier or firewall separating the private unit that is not connected to the Internet from a public unit connected to the Internet, the private and public units being connected only by a hardware-based access barrier or firewall in the form of a secure, out-only bus or equivalent wireless connection. Even more particularly, this invention relates to the private and public units also being connected by an in-only bus (or equivalent wireless connection) that includes a hardware input on/off switch or equivalent signal interruption mechanism, including an equivalent circuit on a microchip or nanochip (or equivalent wireless connection). Still more particularly, this invention relates to the private and public units being connected by an output on/off switch or microcircuit or nanocircuit equivalent on the secure, out-only bus (or equivalent wireless connection).
In addition, this invention relates to a computer and/or microchip that is connected to a another computer and/or microchip, the connection between computers being made with the same hardware-based access barriers or firewalls including potentially any of the buses and on/off switches described in the preceding paragraph.
Finally, this invention relates to a computer and/or microchip with hardware-based access barriers or firewalls used successively between an outer private unit, an intermediate more private unit, an inner most private unit, and the public unit (or units), with each private unit potentially being configured for a connection to a separate private network. Also, Faraday Cage protection from external electromagnetic pulses for part or all of the computer and/or microchip can be provided.
By way of background, connecting computers to the Internet has immense and well known benefits today, but also has created overwhelming security problems that were not imagined when the basic architecture of modern electronic computers was developed in 1945, which was about twenty years before networks came into use. Even then, those first networks involved a very limited number of connected computers, had low transmission speeds between them, and the network users were generally known to each other, since most networks were relatively small and local.
In contrast, the number of computers connected to the Internet today is greater by a factor of many millions, broadband connection speeds are faster by a similar magnitude, the network connections stretch worldwide and connect to hundreds of thousands of bad actors whose identity is not easily or quickly known, if ever. Indeed, the Internet of today allows the most capable criminal hackers direct access to any computer connected to the Internet. This inescapable reality of the Internet has created a huge and growing threat to military and economic security worldwide. At the same time, connection to the Internet has become the communication foundation upon which both the global economy and individual users depend every day.
In summary, then, computer connection to the Internet is mandatory in today's world, so disconnection is not a feasible option, given the existing global dependence on the Internet. But those unavoidable connections have created a seemingly inherent and therefore unsolvable security problem so serious that it literally threatens the world. So Internet connection today is both unavoidable and unavoidably unsafe.
Past efforts to provide Internet security have been based primarily on conventional firewalls that are positioned externally, physically and/or functionally, between the computer and an external network like the Internet. Such conventional firewalls provide a screening or filtering function that attempts to identify and block incoming network malware. But because of their functionally external position, conventional firewalls must allow entry to a significant amount of incoming traffic, so either they perform their screening function perfectly, which is an impossibility, or at least some malware unavoidably gets into the computer and just a single instance of malware can cause a crash or worse. Once the malware is in, the von Neumann architecture of current computers provides only software protection, which is inherently vulnerable to malware attack, so existing computers are essentially indefensible from successful attack from the Internet, which has provided an easy, inexpensive, anonymous, and effective means for the worst of all hackers worldwide to access any computer connected to it.
Therefore, computers cannot be successful defended without inner hardware or firmware-based access barriers or firewalls that, because of their internal position, can be designed much more simply to function as a access barrier or blockers rather than as general filters. This is a distinct difference. An Internet filter has to screen any network traffic originating from anywhere in the entire Internet, which is without measure in practical terms and is constantly, rapidly changing, an incredibly difficult if not impossible screening task. In contrast, an access barrier or blocker to an inner protected area of a computer can strictly limit access to only an exception basis. So, in simple terms, a conventional firewall generally grants access to all Internet traffic unless it can be identified as being on the most current huge list of ever changing malware; in contrast, an inner access barrier or blocker can simply deny access to all network traffic, with the only exception being a carefully selected and very short and conditioned list of approved and authenticated sources or types of traffic to which access is not denied.
Such a massively simpler and achievable access blocking function allowing for a much simpler and efficient mechanism for providing reliable security. Whereas a conventional but imperfect firewall requires extremely complicated hardware with millions of switches and/or firmware and/or software with millions of bits of code, the hardware-based access barriers described in this application require as little as a single simple one-way bus and/or another simple one-way bus with just a single switch and/or both simple buses, each with just a single switch. This extraordinarily tiny amount of hardware is at the absolute theoretical limit and cannot be less.
With this new and unique access denial approach, a computer and/or microchip can be simply and effectively defended from Internet malware attack with one or more hardware-based private, protected units (or zones or compartments) inside the computer. Similar to Java Sandboxes in terms of overall function, but far more effective because hardware-based. Any or all of these private units can be administrated, managed, and/or controlled by a personal or corporate computer user through the use of one or more separate and more secure non-Internet private networks. By thus avoiding any connection whatsoever to the generally insecure public Internet, connection of the computer's private unit to the secure private network allows for all the well known speed, efficiency and cost effectiveness of network connection while still completely avoiding the incalculable risk of Internet connection.
Volatile memory like Flash that is read/write can function as inexpensive read-only memory (ROM) when located in the Private Unit(s) because can be protected by an access barrier or firewall against writing. Furthermore, it can even be protected against unauthorized reading, unlike ROM. Finally, it can be written to when authorized by the central controller to update an operating system or download an app, for example, again unlike ROM.
In addition, field programmable gate arrays can be used in the private and public units, as well as in the access barriers or firewalls, and can be securely controlled by the computer or microchip central controller through the secure control bus to actively change security and other configurations, thus providing for the first time a dynamic and proactive hardware defense against Internet malware attacks.
This application hereby expressly incorporates by reference in its entirety U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/684,657 filed Oct. 15, 2003 and published as Pub. No. US 2005/0180095 A1 on Aug. 18, 2005 and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/292,769 filed Nov. 25, 2008 and published as Pub. No. US 2009/0200661 A1 on Aug. 13, 2009.
Also, this application hereby expressly incorporates by reference in its entirety U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/802,049 filed Mar. 17, 2004 and published as Pub. No. US 2004/0215931 A1 on Oct. 28, 2004; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/292,553 filed Nov. 20, 2008 and published as Pub. No. US 2009/0168329 A1 on Jul. 2, 2009; and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/292,769 filed Nov. 25, 2008 and published as Pub. No. US 2009/0200661 A1 on Aug. 13, 2009.
Finally, this application hereby expressly incorporates by reference in its entirety U.S. Pat. No. 6,167,428 issued 26 Dec. 2000, U.S. Pat. No. 6,725,250 issued 20 Apr. 2004, U.S. Pat. No. 6,732,141 issued 4 May 2004, U.S. Pat. No. 7,024,449 issued 4 Apr. 2006, U.S. Pat. No. 7,035,906 issued 25 Apr. 2006, U.S. Pat. No. 7,047,275 issued 16 May 2006, U.S. Pat. No. 7,506,020 issued 17 Mar. 2009, U.S. Pat. No. 7,606,854 issued 20 Oct. 2009, U.S. Pat. No. 7,634,529 issued 15 Dec. 2009, U.S. Pat. No. 7,805,756 issued 28 Sep. 2010, and U.S. Pat. No. 7,814,233 issued 12 Oct. 2010.
Definitions and reference numerals are the same in this application as in the above incorporated '657, '769, '049 and '553 U.S. Applications, as well as in the above incorporated '428, '250, '141, '449, '906, '275, '020, '854, '529, '756, and '233 U.S. Patents.
Hardware-based access barrier or firewall 50 (or 50a, 50b, or 50c) as used in this application refers to an access barrier that includes one or more access barrier or firewall-specific hardware and/or firmware components. This hardware and/or firmware configuration is in contrast to, for example, a computer firewall common in the art that includes only software and general purpose hardware, such as an example limited to firewall-specific software running on the single general purpose microprocessor or CPU of a computer.
The Internet-disconnected Private Unit 53 includes a master controlling device (M or CC) 30 for the computer PC1 (and/or a master controller unit 93 for the microchip 90 and/or 501) that can include a microprocessor or processing unit and thereby take the form of a general purpose microprocessor or CPU, for one useful example, or alternatively only control the computer as a master controller 31 or master controller unit 93′ (with relatively little or no general purpose processing power compared to the processing units or cores of the computer or microchip being controlled). The user 49 controls the master controlling device 30 (or 31 or 93 or 93′) located in the Private Unit 53 and controls both the Private Unit 53 at all times and any part or all of the Public Unit 54 selectively, but can peremptorily control any and all parts of the Public Unit 54 at the discretion of the user 49 through active intervention or selection from a range of settings, or based on standard control settings by default, using for example a secure control bus 48 (to be discussed later). The Public Unit 54 typically can include one or more cores or general purpose microprocessors 40 or 94 and/or graphics-based microprocessors 68 or 82 that are designed for more general operations and not limited to graphics-related operations, including very large numbers of either or both types of microprocessors, and potentially including one or more secondary controllers 32, as well as any number of specialized or single-function microprocessors.
The inner hardware-based access barrier or firewall has the capability of denying access to said protected portion of the computer 1 or microchip 90 by a generally insecure public network including the Internet, while permitting access by any other computer in the public network including the Internet to said one or more of the processing units included in the unprotected portion of the computer 1 or microchip 90 for an operation with said any other computer in the public network including the Internet when the computer is connected to the public network including the Internet. The operation can be any computer operation whatsoever involving some interaction between two computers including simply sending and/or receiving data and also including, but not limited to, specific examples such as searching, browsing, downloading, streaming, parallel processing, emailing, messaging, file transferring or sharing, telephoning or conferencing.
More particularly,
Such a one or more private non-Internet-connected network 52 (not connected to the open and insecure public Internet 3 either directly or indirectly, such as through another, intermediate network like an Intranet 2) can allow specifically for use as a highly secure and closed private network for providing administrative or management or control functions like testing, maintenance, trouble-shooting, synchronizing files, modifying security, or operating or application system updates to the Private Units 53 of any computers (PC1 or microchip 90 or 501) with one or more Public Units 54 that are connected to a less secure local network 2, such as a business or home network, that is connected to the public Internet 3.
A particularly useful business example would be administering large numbers of local employee personal computers or network servers, and also including large arrays (especially blades) for cloud applications or supercomputer arrays with a vast multitude of microprocessors or local clusters; in the latter examples, it is possible for a centralized operator to use the private network 52 to control, securely and directly, the master controlling devices 30 or 31 or master controller unit 93 or 93′ and associated memory or other devices in the Private Units 53 of a multitude of servers, blades, or large arrays or clusters of computers that are connected to the Internet 3. A personal use example would be to use a private network 52 to connect the private unit 53 of a personal user's smartphone to the private unit 53 of the user's computer laptop in order to update and/or synchronize data or code between the two private units 53. To maximize security, some or all network 52 traffic can be encrypted and/or authenticated, especially if wireless 100, including with a very high level of encryption.
In addition, in another useful example, a computer (PC1 and/or 90 and/or 501) can be configured so that the private non-Internet-connected network 52 can have the capability to allow for direct operational control of the Private Unit 53, and thus the entire computer, from any location (including a remote one), which can be useful for example for businesses operating an array of servers like blades to host cloud operations or supercomputers with large numbers of microprocessors or cores.
One or more access barriers or firewalls 50a, 50b, or 50c can be located between the secure private non-Internet-connected network 52 and the Private Unit 53, providing a useful example of increased security that can be controlled using the private network 52.
In yet another useful example, a personal user 49 can dock his smartphone (PC1 and/or 90 and/or 501 and/or 1500, 1501, 1502, or 1503) linking through wire or wirelessly to his laptop or desktop computer (PC1 and/or 90 and/or 501 and/or 1500, 1501, 1502, or 1503) in a network 52 connection to synchronize the Private Units 53 of those two (or more) personal computers or perform other shared operations between the Private Units 53. In addition, the Public Units 54 of the user's multiple personal computers can be synchronized simultaneously during the same tethering process, or perform other shared operations between the Public Units 54. Other shared operations can be performed by the two or more linked computers of the user 49 utilizing, for example, two or three or more Private Units 53, each unit with one or more private non-Internet connected networks 52, while two or more Public Units 54 can perform shared operations using one or more other networks 2, including the open and insecure Internet 3, as shown later in
Also shown in
For microchip 90 (and/or 501) embodiments, wireless connection is a feasible option to enable one or more removable memories 47 or one or more removable keys 46 (or combination of both), particularly for ID authentication and/or access control, utilizing the same ports described above. In addition, all or part of the Private Unit 53 of a computer PC1 and/or microchip 90 and/or 501 (or wafer 1500, 1501, 1502, or 1501) can be removable from the remaining portion of the same computer PC1 and/or microchip 90 and/or 501, including the Public Unit 54; the access control barrier or firewall 50 (or 50a and/or 50b and/or 50c) can be removable with the Private Unit 53 or remain with Public Unit 54.
Finally,
In the example shown in
The Private Unit 53 can include any non-volatile memory, of which read-only memory and read/write memory of which flash memory (and hard drives and optical drives) are examples, and any volatile memory, of which DRAM (dynamic random access memory) is one common example.
An equivalent connection, such as a wireless (including radio and/or optical) connection, to the out-only bus or channel 55 between the two Units 53 and 54 would require at least one wireless transmitter in the Private Unit 53 and at least one receiver in the Public Unit 54, so the Private Unit 53 can transmit data or code to the Public Unit 54 only (all exclusive of external wireless transmitters or receivers of the PC1 and/or microchip 90 and/or 501).
An architecture for any computer or microchip (or nanochip) can have any number of inner hardware-based access barriers or firewalls 50a arranged in any configuration.
For one example, the master controller 30 (or 31 or 93 or 93′) can by default use the on/off switch and/or micro-circuit (or nano-circuit) equivalent 57 to break the connection provided by the in-only bus or channel 56 to the Private Unit 53 from the Public Unit 54 whenever the Public Unit 54 is connected to the Internet 3 (or intermediate network 2). In an alternate example, the master controller 30 (or 31 or 93 or 93′) can use the on/off switch and/or micro or nano-circuit equivalent 57 to make the connection provided by the in-only bus or channel 56 to the Private Unit 53 only when very selective criteria or conditions have been met first, an example of which would be exclusion of all input except when encrypted and from one of only a few authorized (and carefully authenticated) sources, so that Public Unit 54 input to the Private Unit 53 is extremely limited and tightly controlled from the Private Unit 53.
Another example is an equivalent connection, such as a wireless (including radio and/or optical) connection, to the in-only bus or channel 56 with an input on/off switch 57 between the two Units 53 and 54 would require at least one wireless receiver in the Private Unit 53 and at least one transmitter in the Public Unit 54, so the Private Unit 53 can receive data or code from the Public Unit 54 while controlling that reception of data or code by controlling its receiver, switching it either “on” when the Public Unit 54 is disconnected from external networks 2 and/or 3, for example, or “off” when the Public Unit 54 is connected to external networks 2 and/or 3 (all exclusive of external wireless transmitters or receivers of the PC1 and/or microchip 90 and/or 501).
An architecture for any computer and/or microchip (or nanochip) can have any number of inner hardware-based access barriers or firewalls 50b arranged in any configuration.
The output switch or microcircuit equivalent 58 is capable of disconnecting the Public Unit 54 from the Private Unit 53 when the Public Unit 54 is being permitted by the master controller 30 (or 31 or 93 or 93′) to perform a private operation controlled (completely or in part) by an authorized third party user from the Internet 3, as discussed previously by the applicant relative to FIG. 17D and associated textual specification of the '657 Application incorporated above. The user 49 using the master controller 30 (or 31 or 93 or 93′) always remains in preemptive control on the Public Unit 54 and can at any time for any reason interrupt or terminate any such third party-controlled operation. The master controller 30 (or 31 or 93 or 93′) controls both on/off switches 57 and 58 and traffic (data and code) on both buses or channels 55 and 56 and the control can be hardwired.
Another example is an equivalent connection, such as a wireless connection, to the in-only bus or channel 56 and out-only bus or channel 55, each with an on/off switch 57 and 58 between the two Units 53 and 54, would require at least one wireless transmitter and at least one receiver in the Private Unit 53, as well as at least one transmitter and at least one receiver in the Public Unit 54, so the Private Unit 53 can send or receive data or code to or from the Public Unit 54 by directly controlling the “on” or “off” state of its transmitter and receiver, controlling that flow of data or code depending, for example on the state of external network 2 or Internet 3 connection of the Public Unit 54 (again, all exclusive of external wireless transmitters or receivers of the PC1 and/or microchip 90 and/or 501).
The buses 55 and/or 56 can be configured to transport control and/or data and/or code between the Units (or any components thereof) of a computer and/or microchip; and there can be separate buses 55 and/or 56 for each of control and/or data and/or code, or for a combination of two of control or data or code.
An architecture for any computer and/or microchip (or nanochip) can have any number of inner hardware-based access barriers or firewalls 50c arranged in any configuration.
The connection between the first and second computer can be any connection, including a wired network connection like the Ethernet, for example, or a wireless network connection, similar to the examples described above in previous
In addition,
The microprocessors S (or processing units or cores) can be located in any of the computer units, but the majority in a many core architecture can be in the public unit to maximize sharing and Internet use. Alternatively, for computers that are designed for more security-oriented applications, a majority of the microprocessors S (or processing units or cores) can be located in the private units; any allocation between the public and private units is possible. Any other hardware, software, or firmware component or components can be located in the same manner as are microprocessors S (or master controllers-only C) described above.
The one or more master controlling device (M) 30 or master controller unit 93 (or 31 or 93′), sometimes called the central controller (CC) or central processing unit (CPU), can be usefully located in any Private Unit 53, including for example as shown in
An architecture for any computer and/or microchip or nanochip can have any number of inner hardware-based access barriers or firewalls 50a and/or 50b and/or 50c arranged in any combination or configuration.
As shown in
Similarly, a computer PC1 and/or microchip 90 or 501 Public Unit 54 can be subdivided into a number of different levels of security, for example, and each subdivided Public Unit 54 can have a separate, non-Internet connected network 52; and a subdivided Public Unit 54 can be further subdivided with the same level of security. In addition, any hardware component (like a hard drive or Flash memory device (and associated software or firmware), within a private (or public) unit of a given level of security can be connected by a separate non-Internet network 52 to similar components within a private (or public) unit of the same level of security.
Any configuration of access barriers or firewalls 50a and/or 50b and/or 50c can be located between any of the private non-Internet-connected networks 522, 521, and 52, and the Private Units 532, 531, and 53, respectively, providing a useful example of increased security control as shown in
Also shown in the example embodiment of
Any data or code or system state, for example, for any Public or Private Unit 54 or 53 can be displayed to the personal user 49 and can be shown in its own distinctive color or shading or border (or any other visual or audible distinctive characteristic, like the use of flashing text).
For embodiments requiring a higher level of security, it may be preferable to eliminate permanently or temporarily block (by default or by user choice, for example) the non-Internet network 522 and all ports or port connections in the most private unit 532.
The public unit 54 can be subdivided into an encrypted area (and can include encryption/decryption hardware) and an open, unencrypted area, as can any of the private units 53; in both cases the master central controller 30, 31, 93, or 93′ can control the transfer of any or all code or data between an encrypted area and an unencrypted area considering factors such authentication.
Finally,
The invention example structural and functional embodiments shown in the above described
Finally,
Finally,
Finally,
The example embodiments shown in
The Public Unit 54 shown in
Some or all personal data pertaining to a user 49 can be kept exclusively on the user's computer PC1 and/or microchip 90 and/or 501 for any cloud application or app to protect the privacy of the user 49 (or kept non-exclusively as a back-up), unlike conventional cloud apps, where the data of a personal user 49 is kept in the cloud. In existing cloud architectures, user data is separated and protected only by software, not hardware, and there can be potentially shared intentionally or carelessly compromised without authorization by or knowledge of the personal user 49. In effect, the Public Unit 54 can function as a safe and private local cloud, with personal files can be operated on there using cloud apps downloaded from a cloud web site and those personal files can be retained in the Private Unit 53 after the operation is completed. All or part of an app can also potentially be downloaded or streamed to one or more Private Units, including 532, 531, and 53, and retained or used for local operations either in the Private Unit or in a Public Unit, in the manner that apps are currently.
Privacy in conventional clouds can also be significantly enhanced using the inner hardware-based access barriers or firewalls 50a and/or 50b and/or 50c described in this application, since each individual or corporate user of the cloud can be assured that their data is safe because it can be physically separated and segregated by hardware, instead of by software alone, as is the case currently.
Similarly, the example embodiment of
The secure control bus 48 can also provide connection for the central controller to control a conventional firewall or for example access barrier or firewall 50c located on the periphery of the computer or microchip to control the connection of the computer PC1 and/or microchip 90 and/or 501 to the Internet 3 and/or intervening other network 2.
The secure control bus 48 can also be used by the master central controller 30, 31, 93, or 93′ to control one or more secondary controllers 32 located on the bus 48 or anywhere in the computer PC1 and/or microchip 90 and/or 501, including in the Public Unit 54 that are used, for example, to control microprocessors or processing units or cores S (40 or 94) located in the Public Unit 54. The one or more secondary controllers 32 can be independent or integrated with the microprocessors or processing units or cores S (40 or 94) shown in
As shown, the access barrier/firewall lock mechanism 51 includes at least one switch 58 that is located between the RAM 66 component and the Public Unit 54 and is shown in the open position so that transmission of data and/or code is interrupted or blocked between RAM 66 and Public Unit 54. In addition, the lock mechanism 51 includes at least one switch 57 that is located between the RAM 66 component and the Private Unit 53 and is shown in the closed position so that the transmission of data and/or code is enabled between RAM 66 and Private Unit 53.
Finally,
The access barrier/firewall lock mechanism 51 can include any number of the RAM 66 components, buses 55, 56, or 55/56, and switches 57 and 58 in any useful configuration in any of the access barriers/firewalls 50 shown in other figures of this application or in the applicant's previous related applications and patents that have been incorporated by reference. Any other components of the computer or microchip can also be incorporated temporarily or permanently in any lock mechanism 51 to provide additional useful functions. Any or all of the components of the lock mechanism can be controlled through the secure control bus 48.
In a general way, the lock mechanism 51 example shown in
So in a manner like the canal lock allowing a boat to safely move between different water levels of a canal, the access barrier/firewall lock mechanism 51 allows data and/or code to move in a safely controlled fashion between different hardware-based security levels in a microchip or computer. The lock mechanism 51 allows data and/or code to be transmitted between different levels of microchip 90 (or computer 1 hardware) security, such as between a Public Unit 54 and a Private Unit 53, in a manner of transmission that can be controlled by the master controlling mechanism of the computer 1 and/or microchip 90 (and/or 501, and/or 1500, 1501, 1502, or 1503) using the secure control bus 48, for example.
The at least one lock mechanism 51 can provide other advantageous embodiments besides the either/or state described above, but the either/or state embodiment of the lock mechanism 51 described in
The one or more access barrier/firewall lock mechanism 51 can include other computer or microchip components besides the one or more RAM 66 component shown that are useful to fulfill the lock mechanism's general function, as well as to provide other security functions between units such as screening or testing data and/or code to be transmitted between units.
The RAM 66 component of the lock mechanism 51 shown in
Finally,
The at least one buffer zone 350 can be used, for example, with benefit in either or both of the floorplan or integrated circuit layout of a microchip 90 (and/or 501 and/or 1500, 1501, 1502, or 1503), but the buffer zone 350 provides a particularly significant security enhancement particularly when used in the physical design of a microchip 90 (and/or 501 and/or 1500, 1501, 1502, or 1503). One or more buffer zones 350 can be configured to provide a sufficient vacant space between the integrated circuits of the Public Unit 54 and the access barrier/firewall 50 (including the 50a, 50b, or 50c examples) to ensure that no “backdoor” connections exist between any portions of the Public Unit 54 and the Private Unit 53, or between any two portions of the microchip 90 (and/or 501 and/or 1500, 1501, 1502, or 1503) that are separated by an access barrier/firewall 50). The one or more buffer zones 350 can also be used in the same or similar manner in the motherboard of a computer.
Besides the absence of integrated circuitry, the one or more buffer zones 350 can usefully be configured in three dimensions so that, somewhat like a moat or an indentation, it can interrupt multiple layers of the microchip process used in making the microchip 90 (and/or 501 and/or 1500, 1501, 1502, or 1503), including 3D designs, so that there are no backdoor connections between the Public Unit 54 and the access barrier/firewall 50 (or any other units separated by an access barrier/firewall 50); a continuous boundary completely separating all microchip process layers between two units, such as the Units 54 and 53, provides the highest level of security.
The one or more buffer zones 350 can be of any number or configured in any size or shape or space necessary or useful to facilitate their function or that provides a security benefit. One or more of the buffer zones 350 can be usefully located at or near the same location as a part or all of one or more Faraday Cages 300 or Faraday Cage partitions 301, including for example fitting part or all of a boundary edge of a Faraday Cage 300 or partition 301 into a three dimensional moat-like or indented structure of the one or more buffer zones 350.
The one or more buffer zones 350 can also be configured to protect a part or all of one or more secure control buses 48, such as in the Public Unit 54 as shown in the
The one or more buffer zones 350 can be particularly useful prior to microchip packaging (or computer assembly), so that it can be visually inspected, including by microscopic scanning or other device for manual or automated (including digital) comparison to an approved template, physical or digitized, including by xray or any other useful electromagnetic wavelength. The one or more buffer zones 350 can also be configured to include, for example, a non-conductive marker material in the form of a layer that outlines the boundary of the buffer zone, for example, to enhance the accuracy and speed of a scanning validation process to ensure compliance with an approved template and to mark the microchip for ease of alignment with the template.
The width of the buffer zone 350 can be configured to be any useful width, including to provide electromagnetic radiation buffering against interference or surveillance where a Faraday Cage 300 or partition 301 are not used; the width can be, for example, at least the size of process used in making the microchip 90 (and/or 501 and/or 1500, 1501, 1502, or 1503), such as current examples like 180, 130, 90, 65, 32, or 22 nanometer processes, or multiples of any of those processes, such as at least 360 nm, 480 nm, or 720 nm, for example.
The buffer zone 350 can also be positioned between, for example, the access barrier/firewall 50 and the Private Unit 53, and it can be incorporated into the access barrier/firewall 50.
More than one buffer zone 350 can be used between any two units in any configuration, as shown in the
The one or more buffer zones 350 can be configured to allow planned and/or authorized buses such as 55, 56, and/or 55/56, and/or one or more secure control buses 48, for example.
Finally,
In accordance with the present disclosure, a method of protecting a computer is disclosed in
In accordance with the present disclosure, a method of protecting a computer disclosed in
Similarly, operating system files can also be authenticated and brought from the network side of the PC1 or microchip 90 into compartment O1 for decryption and security evaluation or other use, and then finally transferred into the most secure compartment O2. Again, similarly, a row of compartments can be used for separating hardware, such as a master microprocessor 30 or 93 being located in compartment M1 and a remote controller 31, for example, located in compartment M2.
Also, additional inner firewalls 5022, 5033, and 5044 can be located outside the primary firewall 50, but within the network portion of the PC1 or microchip 90, to separate user files in compartment U from operating system files in compartment O from hardware such a slave microprocessor in compartment S on the network side. In the example shown, an additional row is shown for hardware, including a hard drive in a compartment HD on the network side, a hard drive in compartment HD1 on the PC1 or microchip 90 user's side, and flash memory (such as system bios 88) in compartment F2. Each microprocessor 30, 40, 93, or 94 can have its own compartment in a manner like that shown in
A secondary operating system O2 can be software located advantageously on flash or other microchip non-volatile memory such as magnetic (or less advantageously, a hard drive or other mechanical storage media) and can consist of additional features that are more optional, such as those not always used in every session, or features that require updating, changing, or improving, such features coming from trusted sources located on a network, such as the Internet or the Web; additional portions of or upgrades to the system BIOS and the operating system kernel can be located in O2, for example. A third level operating system O3 located, for example, on a hard drive, can consist of additional software features that are used only occasionally and are more optional, and can be loaded as needed by a user into DRAM or magnetic memory microchip for execution, for example. Operating systems O2 and O3 can include, for example, the most recent upgrades from a known and trusted source, such as a commercial software vendor or open source software developer, that are downloaded from a network, including the Internet and the Web, or loaded from conventional memory media like CD or floppy diskette. All three levels of such operating systems O1, O2, and O3 together can constitute, for example, roughly the equivalent of a conventional PC operating system typical in the year 2000.
A fourth level operating system O4, for example, can consist of special use or single use operating system add-ons, especially software coming from untrusted or unauthenticated sources on a network, such as the Internet or the Web.
For example, the graphical interface of the operating system can be in 2D only at the O1 level, in 3D at the O2 level, rendering at the O3 level, and animation in the O4 level; additionally, a standard format can be maintained in the O1 and O2 levels, with user or vender customization at the O3 level.
As shown in
The kernel operating system files O1 and O2, as well as kernel application files A1 and A2 can be located in any personal computer PC1 or PC90, including at the level of an appliance including the simplest device, advantageously in ROM and in non-volatile read/write memory such as Flash (or magnetic such as MRAM, or ovonic memory) microchips, for example, as described in
An advantage of the file and firewall structures shown in
Thus,
Any one or more features or components of
Furthermore, any one or more features or components of
In addition, one or more features or components of any one of
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/174,693, flied Feb. 6, 2014, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/815,814 filed Mar. 15, 2013, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,898,768, which claims priority to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/398,403 filed on Feb. 16, 2012 which is a non-provisional of U.S. Provisional Patent Application 61/457,184, filed Feb. 15, 2011; U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/457,297, filed Feb. 18, 2011; U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/457,976, filed Jul. 26, 2011; U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/457,983, filed Jul. 28, 2011; U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/573,006, filed Aug. 2, 2011; and U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/573,007, filed Aug. 3, 2011. This application is also a continuation-in-part of U.S. application Ser. No. 13/014,201, filed Jan. 26, 2011. U.S. application Ser. No. 13/014,201 is a non-provisional of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/282,337 filed Jan. 26, 2010; U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/282,378, filed Jan. 29, 2010; U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/282,478, filed Feb. 17, 2010; U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/282,503, filed Feb. 22, 2010; U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/282,861, filed Apr. 12, 2010; U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/344,018, filed May 7, 2010; and U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/457,184, filed Jan. 24, 2011. This application is also a continuation-in-part of U.S. application Ser. No. 13/016,527 filed Jan. 28, 2011. U.S. application Ser. No. 13/016,527 is a non-provisional of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/282,378, filed Jan. 29, 2010; U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/282,478, filed Feb. 17, 2010; U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/282,503, filed Feb. 22, 2010; U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/282,861, filed Apr. 12, 2010; U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/344,018, filed May 7, 2010; and U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/457,184, filed Jan. 24, 2011. This application is also a continuation-in-part of PCT Application No. PCT/US011/023028, filed Jan. 28, 2011. PCT Application No. PCT/US011/023028 is a non-provisional of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/282,378, filed Jan. 29, 2010; U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/282,478, filed Feb. 17, 2010; U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/282,503, filed Feb. 22, 2010; U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/282,861, filed Apr. 12, 2010; U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/344,018, filed May 7, 2010; and U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/457,184, filed Jan. 24, 2011. This application is also a continuation-in-part of PCT Application No. PCT/US011/025257, filed Feb. 17, 2011. PCT Application No. PCT/US011/025257 is a non-provisional of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/282,478, filed Feb. 17, 2010; U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/282,503, filed Feb. 22, 2010; U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/282,861, filed Apr. 12, 2010; U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/344,018, filed May 7, 2010; and U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/457,184, filed Jan. 24, 2011. PCT Application No. PCT/US011/025257 also claims the right to priority based on U.S. Nonprovisional patent application Ser. No. 13/014,201, filed Jan. 26, 2011, and U.S. Nonprovisional patent application Ser. No. 13/016,527, filed Jan. 28, 2011. The contents of all of these provisional and nonprovisional patent applications are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3539876 | Feinberg et al. | Nov 1970 | A |
| 3835530 | Kilby | Sep 1974 | A |
| 4245306 | Besemer et al. | Jan 1981 | A |
| 4276594 | Morley | Jun 1981 | A |
| 4278837 | Best | Jul 1981 | A |
| 4370515 | Donaldson | Jan 1983 | A |
| 4467400 | Stopper | Aug 1984 | A |
| 4489397 | Lee | Dec 1984 | A |
| 4703436 | Varshney | Oct 1987 | A |
| 4736317 | Hu et al. | Apr 1988 | A |
| 4747139 | Taaffe | May 1988 | A |
| 4827508 | Shear | May 1989 | A |
| 4855903 | Carleton et al. | Aug 1989 | A |
| 4882752 | Lindman et al. | Nov 1989 | A |
| 4893174 | Yamada et al. | Jan 1990 | A |
| 4907228 | Bruckert et al. | Mar 1990 | A |
| 4918596 | Nakano | Apr 1990 | A |
| 4969092 | Shorter | Nov 1990 | A |
| 5025369 | Schwartz | Jun 1991 | A |
| 5031089 | Liu et al. | Jul 1991 | A |
| 5068780 | Bruckert et al. | Nov 1991 | A |
| 5103393 | Harris et al. | Apr 1992 | A |
| 5109329 | Strelioff | Apr 1992 | A |
| 5109512 | Bahr et al. | Apr 1992 | A |
| 5136708 | LaPourtre et al. | Aug 1992 | A |
| 5155808 | Shimizu | Oct 1992 | A |
| 5195031 | Ordish | Mar 1993 | A |
| 5212780 | Padgaonkar et al. | May 1993 | A |
| 5214657 | Farnworth et al. | May 1993 | A |
| 5237507 | Chasek | Aug 1993 | A |
| 5260943 | Comroe et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
| 5282272 | Guy et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
| 5283819 | Glick et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
| 5291494 | Bruckert et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
| 5291502 | Pezeshki et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
| 5291505 | Nielsen | Mar 1994 | A |
| 5341477 | Pitkin et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
| 5349682 | Rosenberry | Sep 1994 | A |
| 5357404 | Bright et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
| 5357632 | Pian et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
| 5361362 | Benkeser et al. | Nov 1994 | A |
| 5381534 | Shi | Jan 1995 | A |
| 5388211 | Hornbuckle | Feb 1995 | A |
| 5392400 | Berkowitz et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
| 5410651 | Sekizawa et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
| 5426741 | Butts, Jr | Jun 1995 | A |
| 5428783 | Lake | Jun 1995 | A |
| 5434998 | Akai | Jul 1995 | A |
| 5446843 | Fucito et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
| 5457797 | Butterworth | Oct 1995 | A |
| 5475606 | Muyshondt et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
| 5497465 | Chin et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
| 5515511 | Nguyen et al. | May 1996 | A |
| 5522070 | Sumimoto | May 1996 | A |
| 5530949 | Koda | Jun 1996 | A |
| 5535408 | Hillis | Jul 1996 | A |
| 5546594 | Wazumi | Aug 1996 | A |
| 5550984 | Gelb | Aug 1996 | A |
| 5568375 | Rausch | Oct 1996 | A |
| 5570270 | Naedel et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
| 5572643 | Judson | Nov 1996 | A |
| 5576554 | Hsu | Nov 1996 | A |
| 5586121 | Moura et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
| 5587928 | Jones et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
| 5588003 | Ohba et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
| 5590284 | Crosetto | Dec 1996 | A |
| 5592376 | Hodroff | Jan 1997 | A |
| 5592632 | Leung et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
| 5594491 | Hodge et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
| 5600597 | Kean et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
| 5604882 | Hoover et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
| 5606615 | Lapointe et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
| 5608448 | Smoral et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
| 5615127 | Beatty et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
| 5627879 | Russell et al. | May 1997 | A |
| 5666484 | Orimo et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
| 5678028 | Bershteyn et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
| 5680461 | McManis | Oct 1997 | A |
| 5680548 | Trugman | Oct 1997 | A |
| 5696902 | Leclercq et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5699528 | Hogan | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5701507 | Bonneau, Jr. et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5710884 | Dedrick | Jan 1998 | A |
| 5734913 | Iwamura et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
| 5748489 | Beatty et al. | May 1998 | A |
| 5752067 | Wilkinson et al. | May 1998 | A |
| 5754766 | Shaw et al. | May 1998 | A |
| 5758077 | Danahy et al. | May 1998 | A |
| 5758345 | Wang | May 1998 | A |
| 5761507 | Govett | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5764889 | Ault et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5774337 | Lee et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5774668 | Choquier et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5774721 | Robinson | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5777400 | Bouthillier | Jul 1998 | A |
| 5784551 | De Leva et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
| 5784628 | Reneris | Jul 1998 | A |
| 5790431 | Ahrens, Jr. et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5793968 | Gregerson et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5794059 | Barker et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5802320 | Baehr et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5809190 | Chen | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5815665 | Teper et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5815793 | Ferguson | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5826014 | Coley et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5826029 | Gore | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5828833 | Belville et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5835726 | Shwed et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5838436 | Hotaling et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5838542 | Nelson | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5843799 | Hsu et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5844594 | Ferguson | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5845074 | Kobata | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5850443 | McManis | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5861817 | Palmer et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
| 5862357 | Hagersten et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
| 5864738 | Kessler et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
| 5870721 | Norris | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5872987 | Wade et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5881284 | Kubo | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5889989 | Robertazzi et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5894551 | Huggins | Apr 1999 | A |
| 5896499 | McKelvey | Apr 1999 | A |
| 5905429 | Hornstein et al. | May 1999 | A |
| 5909052 | Ohta et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5909681 | Passers et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5917629 | Hortensius et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5919247 | Van Hoff et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5930511 | Hinsley | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5940516 | Mason et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5943421 | Grabon | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5955704 | Jones | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5964832 | Kisor | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5978829 | Chung et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 6003133 | Moughanni et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6025259 | Yu | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6026502 | Wakayama | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6052555 | Ferguson | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6065118 | Bull et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6067082 | Enmei | May 2000 | A |
| 6073209 | Bergsten | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6075280 | Yung | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6078733 | Osborne | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6093933 | Farnworth et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6098091 | Kisor | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6108787 | Anderson et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6112225 | Kraft et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6112243 | Downs et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6115698 | Tuck et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6115819 | Anderson | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6167428 | Ellis | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6202153 | Diamant et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6208634 | Boulos et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6219627 | Bonneau et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6268788 | Gray | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6272533 | Browne | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6287949 | Mori et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
| 6326245 | Farnworth et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6366472 | Alina et al. | Apr 2002 | B2 |
| 6440775 | Khoury | Aug 2002 | B2 |
| 6487664 | Kellum | Nov 2002 | B1 |
| 6507495 | Hailey | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6578089 | Simpson et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
| 6578140 | Policard | Jun 2003 | B1 |
| 6645832 | Kim et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
| 6701432 | Deng et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 6715084 | Aaron et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
| 6725250 | Ellis | Apr 2004 | B1 |
| 6732141 | Ellis | May 2004 | B2 |
| 6772347 | Xie | Aug 2004 | B1 |
| 6797545 | Farnworth et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
| 6865672 | Carmeli | Mar 2005 | B1 |
| 6950947 | Purtell et al. | Sep 2005 | B1 |
| 7024449 | Ellis | Apr 2006 | B1 |
| 7035906 | Ellis | Apr 2006 | B1 |
| 7047275 | Ellis | May 2006 | B1 |
| 7148565 | Kim et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
| 7161175 | Shau | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7236455 | Proudler | Jun 2007 | B1 |
| 7406583 | Warrier et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
| 7412588 | Georgiou et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
| 7467406 | Cox et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
| 7484247 | Rozman et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
| 7490350 | Murotake | Feb 2009 | B1 |
| 7506020 | Ellis | Mar 2009 | B2 |
| 7562211 | Paya et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
| 7606854 | Ellis | Sep 2009 | B2 |
| 7634529 | Ellis | Dec 2009 | B2 |
| 7675867 | Mraz et al. | Mar 2010 | B1 |
| 7761605 | Rothwell et al. | Jul 2010 | B1 |
| 7805756 | Ellis | Sep 2010 | B2 |
| 7814233 | Ellis | Oct 2010 | B2 |
| 7840997 | Shevchenko | Nov 2010 | B2 |
| 7908650 | Ellis | Mar 2011 | B2 |
| 7926097 | Ellis | Apr 2011 | B2 |
| 7984301 | Kaabouch et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
| 8010789 | Witchey | Aug 2011 | B2 |
| 8068415 | Mraz | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8090810 | Insley | Jan 2012 | B1 |
| 8090819 | Ramamurthy | Jan 2012 | B1 |
| 8108679 | Wiseman | Jan 2012 | B2 |
| 8125796 | Ellis | Feb 2012 | B2 |
| 8164170 | Ellis | Apr 2012 | B2 |
| 8171537 | Ellis | May 2012 | B2 |
| 8209373 | Ellis | Jun 2012 | B2 |
| 8255986 | Ellis | Aug 2012 | B2 |
| 8291485 | Ellis, III | Oct 2012 | B2 |
| 8312529 | Ellis | Nov 2012 | B2 |
| 8327038 | Alcouffe et al. | Dec 2012 | B2 |
| 8378474 | Ellis | Feb 2013 | B2 |
| 8429735 | Ellis | Apr 2013 | B2 |
| 8474033 | Ellis | Jun 2013 | B2 |
| 8554748 | Kamity | Oct 2013 | B1 |
| 8646108 | Shiakallis | Feb 2014 | B2 |
| 8677026 | Ellis, III | Mar 2014 | B2 |
| 8898768 | Ellis | Nov 2014 | B2 |
| 9003510 | Ellis | Apr 2015 | B2 |
| 9009809 | Ellis | Apr 2015 | B2 |
| 9705848 | Cullimore et al. | Jul 2017 | B2 |
| 9735979 | Al Amri | Aug 2017 | B2 |
| 20010039624 | Kellum | Nov 2001 | A1 |
| 20010046119 | Hamano et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
| 20010054159 | Hoshino | Dec 2001 | A1 |
| 20020012240 | Hailey | Jan 2002 | A1 |
| 20020122005 | Lebaric | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020130739 | Cotton | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20030037120 | Rollins | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030126459 | Kao | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030146020 | Brist | Aug 2003 | A1 |
| 20030229810 | Bango | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20040073603 | Ellis, III | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040098621 | Raymond | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040107358 | Shiakallis | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040111633 | Chang | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040158744 | Deng et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040162992 | Sami et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040215931 | Ellis | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040236874 | Largman et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20050028012 | Amamiya | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050044358 | Anspach | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050073021 | Gabriel | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050138169 | Bahr | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050180095 | Ellis | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050278783 | Chien | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20060004912 | Najam et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060031940 | Rozman et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060075001 | Canning et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060087010 | Hong | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060095497 | Ellis | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060095961 | Govindarajan | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060168213 | Richardson | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060177226 | Ellis, III | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060190565 | Ellis | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060200471 | Holland | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060205342 | McKay, Sr. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060206921 | Wang | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060248749 | Ellis | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20070127500 | Maeng | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070162955 | Zimmer | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070162974 | Speidel | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070196948 | Trezza | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070245415 | Wiseman | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070261112 | Todd et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070263372 | Kuo | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070271612 | Fang | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070290772 | Lai | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20070297396 | Eldar | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20070300305 | Gonsalves et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20080016313 | Murotake | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080052505 | Theobald | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080083976 | Haba et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080134290 | Olsson | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080163353 | Conti | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080271122 | Nolan et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20090006834 | Rothman | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090013393 | Xi | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090031412 | Ellis | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090089887 | Aissi | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090165139 | Yerazunis et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090172690 | Zimmer | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090200661 | Ellis | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090204831 | Cousson et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090254986 | Harris et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090265241 | Kreupl et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090282092 | Ellis | Nov 2009 | A1 |
| 20100005531 | Largman et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100011083 | Ellis, III | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100082729 | Shitomi | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100131729 | Fulcheri et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100169949 | Rothman | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100211705 | Alcouffe | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20110004930 | Ellis | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110004931 | Ellis, III | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110040917 | Lambert | Feb 2011 | A1 |
| 20110225645 | Ellis | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20120003658 | Davies et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120036581 | Maximilien | Feb 2012 | A1 |
| 20120096537 | Ellis | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120140929 | Clark | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120155002 | Ellis | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120175752 | Ellis | Jul 2012 | A1 |
| 20130003966 | Ihle | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20140082344 | Case, Sr. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140380001 | Schubert et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
| 20170063877 | Newman | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 40 08 335 | Sep 1991 | DE |
| 0 647 052 | Apr 1995 | EP |
| 0 840216 | May 1998 | EP |
| 0 853 279 | Jul 1998 | EP |
| 1164766 | Dec 2001 | EP |
| 1 164 766 | Dec 2011 | EP |
| WO 9401964 | Jan 1994 | WO |
| WO 9501060 | Jan 1995 | WO |
| WO 9826366 | Jun 1998 | WO |
| WO 9904561 | Jan 1999 | WO |
| WO 9932972 | Jul 1999 | WO |
| W02011094616 | Aug 2011 | WO |
| W02011103299 | Aug 2011 | WO |
| WO 2011094616 | Aug 2011 | WO |
| WO 2011103299 | Aug 2011 | WO |
| W02012112794 | Aug 2012 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| H. A. El Zouka, “Secure PC Platform Based on Dual-Bus Architecture,” 2012 IEEE Sixth International Conference on Software Security and Reliability Companion, Gaithersburg, MD, 2012, pp. 111-118, doi: 10.1109/SERE-C.2012.21. (Year: 2012). |
| File History of U.S. Appl. No. 11/329,423. |
| File History of U.S. Appl. No. 12/164,661. |
| File History of U.S. Appl. No. 12/822,928. |
| File History of U.S. Appl. No. 12/829,120. |
| File History of U.S. Appl. No. 13/016,149 from Jul. 23, 2013 to Oct. 14, 2014. |
| File History of U.S. Appl. No. 13/018,089 from Jul. 24, 2013 to Oct. 14, 2014. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 13/783,351. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 14/174,693. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 14/092,707. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 12/364,745. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 12/499,555. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 13/240,842 from Aug. 30, 2013 to Oct. 14, 2014. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 13/283,274. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 13/495,867 from Aug. 7, 2013 to Oct. 14, 2014. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 13/594,614. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 13/599,484 from Aug. 1, 2013 to Oct. 14, 2014. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 13/404,888 from Aug. 30, 2013 to Oct. 14, 2014. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 09/884,041. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 11/196,527. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 09/315,026. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 09/571,558. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 10/684,657. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 10/802,049. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 09/085,755. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 08/980,058. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 09/935,779. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 09/669,730. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 11/338,887. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 09/320,660. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 09/213,875. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 10/663,911. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 13/180,164. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 12/292,769. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 12/292,553. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 13/426,133. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 13/398,403. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 13/768,582. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 14/230,713. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 13/815,814. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 14/328,587. |
| Complete file history for U.S. Appl. No. 14/333,759. |
| Partial file history for U.S. Appl. No. 14/174,693. |
| Partial file history for U.S. Appl. No. 13/815,814. |
| Partial file history for U.S. Appl. No. 14/333,759. |
| Famatech, Redmin v3.0, User Manual, 2007. |
| Connect One. “iChip C02064/C02144 Data Sheet Ver. 1.20”, 2011. |
| Shao, Fengjing et al., “A New Secure Architecture of Network computer Based on Single CPU and Dual Bus”, Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Embedded Computing, 2008. |
| Wang, Tiedong et al. “A Hardware Implement of bus Bridge Based on single CPU and Dual Bus”, 2008 International Symposium on computer Science and Computational Technology, 2008. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion; dated May 4, 2012 for corresponding International Application No. PCT/US2012/025481. |
| Fengjing Shao et al., “a new secure architecture of network computer based on single CPU and Dual Bus” Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Embedded Computing, pp. 309-314 (2008). |
| Tiedong Wang et al., “A Hardware implement of Bus Bridge Based on Single CPU and Dual Bus”, 2008 International Symposium on Computer Science and Computational Technology, pp. 17-20 (2008). |
| Famatech “Radmin V3.0, User Manuel”, Jun. 3, 2007 (203 pages). |
| Connect One, iChip CO2064/CO2128/CO2144, 2011 (64 pages). |
| O. M. Woodward et al., “The Omniguide Antenna; An Omnidirectional Waveguide Array for UHF-TV Broadcasts”, IRE International Convention Records, pp. 37-39. Mar. 1955. |
| Litzkow, et al., “Condor—A Hunter of Idle Workstations”, 1988 IEEE, pp. 104-111. |
| Theimer, et al., “Finding Idle Machines in a Workstation-Based Distributed System”, IEEE Transactons on Software Engineering, Nov. 1989. vol. 15, No. 11, pp. 1444-1458. |
| Brown et al., Special Edition Using Netscape TM 2 Second Edition, Que Corporation, 1995, Ch. 1-2. |
| Gilder, “Angst and Awe on the Internet by George Gilder”, Forbes ASAP, Dec. 4, 1995. |
| Tandiary, et al., “Batrun: Utilizing Idle Workstations for Large-scale Computing”, Summer 1996, pp. 41-48. |
| Brisbin, “Shopping for Internet Access”, MacUser, Dec. 1994, v.10, p. 133(2). |
| Gilder, “The Bandwidth Tidal Wave”, Forbes ASAP, Dec. 5, 1994. |
| N/A, “Special Report—Wonder Chips”, Business Week, Jul. 4, 1994. |
| N/A, “Supercomputers Divide and Conquer”, The Economist, Dec. 14, 1996. |
| N/A, “Cyber View World Widgets”, Scientific American, May 1997, p. 48. |
| Gibbs, “Bandwidth, Unlimited”, Scientific American, Jan. 1997, p. 41. |
| Markoff, “A New Standard to Govern PC's with Multiple Chips, Work Stations Mimicking Supercomputers”, The New York Times, Oct. 28, 1997. |
| N/A, “Aliens on your desktop”, The Economist, Apr. 18, 1998, p. 78. |
| Hare et al., “Master the Complexities of Network Security”, Internet Firewalls and Network Security, Second Edition, pp. 325-350 and 516, 1996. |
| Fox et al., Petaops and Exaops: Supercomputing on the Web, “IEEE Internet Computing”, vol. 1 No. 2 Mar.-Apr. 1997, pp. 38-46. |
| Dincer et al., Building a World-Wide Virtual Machine Based on Web and HPCC Technologies, “Student Technical Papers”, http://www.supercomp.org/sc96/proceedings/SC96PROC/DINCER/INDEX.HTM, pp. 1-18 (1996). |
| Hobbs et al., A Remote Process Creation and Execution Facility Supporting Parallel Execution on Distributed Systems, “IEEE 1996”, pp. 92-99. |
| Boku et al., The Architecture of Massively Parallel Processor CP-PACS, “IEEE 1997”, pp. 31-40. |
| Choi et al., A Diagnostic Network for Massively Parallel Processing Systems, “IEEE 1994”, pp. 348-353. |
| Bellovin et al., Network Firewalls, “IEEE Communications Magazine 1994”, pp. 50-57. |
| Weiyi et al., “Java-to-Go—Itinerative Computing Using Java”, Sep. 10, 1996 http://ptolemy.eecs.berkeley.edu/dgm/javatools/java-to-go/. |
| Sullivan et al., “A New Major SETI Project Based on Project Serendip Data and 100,000 Personal Computers”. http://setiathome.ss/berkeley.edu/woody-paper.htm/; (1997). |
| “Ein-Chip-Firewall”, Elektroniknet Top News, XP-002164257; Mar. 31, 1999. |
| “Means for Implementing Optical Interconnections for Parallel Processors”, IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, Apr. 1991, vol. 33, No. 11, pp. 56-58, XP 000110310. |
| Alexandrov et al., “SuperWeb: Research Issues in Java-Based Global Computing”, Concurrency, vol. 9, No. 6, Jun. 1997, pp. 535-553. |
| Baratloo et al., “Charlotte: Metacomputing on the Web”, 9th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Computing Systems (PDCS), 1996, pp. 1-8. |
| Bevinakoppa et al., “Digital Image Compression on a Network of Transputers”, Proc. of 5th Australian Transputer & OCCAM User Group Conference, IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 25-32; Nov. 4, 1992. |
| Blumofe, R. et al., “Scheduling Large-Scale Parallel Computations on Networks of Workstations”, Proc. of the 3rd IEEE Int'l Sump on High Performance Distributed Computing, pp. 96-105, Aug. 1994. |
| Fields, Scott, “Hunting for Wasted Computing Power—New Software for Computing Networks Plus Idle PC's to Work”, 1993 University of Wisconsin—Madison. Internet: http://www.cs.wise.edu/condor/doc/Wiseidea.html. |
| Brecht et al., “ParaWeb: Towards World-Wide Supercomputing”, Proceedings of the Seventh AcM SIGOPS European Workshop, Sep. 1996, 8 pgs. |
| Capello et al., “Market-Based Massively Parallel Internet Computing”, Proceedings Third Working Conference on Massively Parallel Programming Models, 1998, pp. 118-129. |
| Celenk, M. et al., “Parallel Task Execution in LANs and Performance Analysis”, Proc. of the 1995 IEEE 14th Annual Int'l Phoenix Conf. on Computers and Communications, pp. 423-429, Mar. 1995. |
| Chen, C. et al., “The DBC: Processing Scientific Data Over the Internet”, Proc. of the 16th Int'l Conf. on Distributed Computing Systems, pp. 673-679, May 1996. |
| Clark, H. et al., “DAWGS—A Distributed Computer Server Utilizing Idle Workstations”, Proc. of the 5th Distributed Memory Computing Conf., IEEE, pp. 732-741, Apr. 1990. |
| Fogg, C., “Survey of Software and Hardware VLC Architectures”, SPIE, vol. 2186, Image and Video Compression (1994), pp. 29-37. |
| Fox et al., “Towards Web/Java based High Performance Distributed Computing—an Evolving Virtual Machine”, as presented at 5th IEEE Int'l Symposium on High Performance Distributed Computing, Aug. 6-9, 1996, 86 pages. |
| Fox, E., “Advances in Interactive Digital Multimedia Systems”, Computer, Oct. 1991, pp. 9-21. |
| Gemmell, et al., “Multimedia Storage Servers: a Tutorial”, Computer, May 1995, pp. 40-49. |
| Hayes, “Computing Science: Collective Wisdom”, American Scientist, Mar.-Apr. 1998, pp. 1-8. |
| Kim, B., “ATM Network: Goals and Challenges”, Communications of the ACM, Feb. 1995, vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 39-44, 109. |
| Kremien, O., “Buying and Selling Computational Power Over the Network”, Proc. of the 4th Int'l Conf. on Computer Communications and Networks, IEEE, pp. 616-619, Sep. 1995. |
| Lindley, C., “JPEG-Like Image Compression, Part 2”, Dr. Dobb's Journal, Aug. 1995, pp. 62-66, 102-105. |
| Lindley, C., “JPEG-Like Image Compression, Part 1”, Dr. Dobb's Journal, Jul. 1995, pp. 50-58, 101-102. |
| Morris, J. et al., “Fault Tolerant Networks of Workstations”, Proc. of the 3rd Int'l. Conf. on High Performance Computing, IEEE, pp. 271-276, Dec. 1996. |
| Nass, R., “Hardware-software combo could simplify MPEG real-time video compression”, Electronic Design, May 3, 1993, p. 36. |
| Nowatzyk et al., “Are Crossbars Really Dead? The Case for Optical Multiprocessor Interconnect Systems”, Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer Architecture, ACM, vol. 22, Jun. 1995, pp. 106-115, XP 000687800. |
| Ozer, “Digital Video: Shot by Shot”, PC Magazine, Apr. 11, 1995, pp. 104-107, 110. |
| Ozer, J., “Why MPEG is Hot”, PC Magazine, Apr. 11, 1995, pp. 130-131. |
| Plotkin, “The Digital Compression Facility—A Solution to Today's Compression Needs”, 1994 IEEE, pp. 445-449. |
| Qiao et al., “Time-Division Optical Communications in Multiprocessor Arrays”, ACM, 1991, pp. 644-653, XP 000337522. |
| Rincon et al., “The Changing Landscape of System-on-a-chip Design”, MicroNews, Third Quarter 1999, www.chips.ibm.com/micronews/vol5_no3/rincon.html, pp. 1-10, vol. 5, No. 3. |
| Sachs, M. et al., “LAN and I/O Convergence: A Survey of the Issues”, Computer, Dec. 1994, pp. 24-32. |
| Sakano, et al., “A Three-Dimensional Mesh Multiprocessor System Using Board-to-Board Free-Space Optical Interconnects: COSINE˜III”, IEEE, 1993, pp. 278-283, XP 000463415. |
| Schroeder, E., “New Offerings Buoy MPEG as Video Standard”, Desktop Computing, PC Week, May 8, 1995, pp. 1 and 29. |
| Shen et al., “A Parallel Implementation of an MPEG1 Encoder: Faster than Real-Time!”, Proc. of SPIE Conf. on Digital Video Compression, San Jose, CA, Feb. 1995. |
| McHenry et al., “An FPGA-Based Coprocessor for ATM Firewalls”, Field-Programmable Custom Computing Machines 1997, Apr. 16-18, 1997, pp. 30-39, XP-002157218. |
| Shiuan, J. et al., “Client-Server Based Ray-Tracer Using ASTRA: An Asynchronous RPC Mechanism”, Computer Communications, vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 445-455, May 1996. |
| Szabo, B. et al., “Design Considerations for JPEG Video and Synchronized Audio in a Unix Workstation Environment”, USENIX—Summer '91, pp. 353-368. |
| Vetter, R., “ATM Concepts, Architectures, and Protocols”, Communications of the ACM, Feb. 1995; vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 30-38, 109. |
| Vetter, R. et al., “Issues and Challenges in ATM Networks”, Communications of the ACM, Feb. 1995; vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 28-29. |
| Waldspurger et al., “Spawn: A Distributed Computational Economy”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 18, No. 2, Feb. 1992, pp. 103-117 XP002124500. |
| Yoshida, J., “MPEG-2 Encoders Make Show of Force at NAB”, Electronic Engineering Times, Apr. 10, 1995. |
| Yu, Y. et al., “Software Implementation of MPEG-II Video Encoding Using Socket Programming in LAN”, SPIE vol. 2187, pp. 229-240, 1994. |
| Waltz et al., “Make 'em pay: Billing Net Usage”, MacWeek, vol. 6 (No. 27), p. 24 (2) (Dialog full text), (Jul. 27, 1992). |
| “The Economics of Network Billing: Network Billing and Monitoring Systems can Improve Efficiency and Cut Costs”, IBM System User, vol. 14 (No. 11), p. 53 (1) (Dialog Fulltext), (Nov. 1993). |
| “Let Your Computer Make Money While You Sleep”, Newsbytes, p. 1 (Dialog Fulltext), (Aug. 16, 1996). |
| Regenold et al., “A Single-Chip Multiprocessor DSP Solution for Communication Applications”, ASIC Conference and Exhibit 1994, pp. 437-440. |
| Geppert, L. Solid State [Trend/Development], IEEE Spectrum, v. 33, iss. 1, 1996, pp. 51-55. |
| Li, Yao, “Free-space Optical Bus-based WDMA Interconnects for Parallel Computation”, LEOS '92 Conference Proceedings, Lasers and Electron-Optics Society Annual Meeting, p. 588-589, Nov. 16-19, 1992. |
| Dickinson et al., “An Integrated Free Space Optical Bus”, 1989 IEEE International Conference on Computer Design, VLSI in Computers and Processors, p. 62-65, Oct. 2-4, 1989. |
| Natarajan et al., “Bi-Directional Optical Backplane Bus for General Purpose Multi-Processor”, Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 13, No. 6, p. 1031-1040, Jun. 6, 1995. |
| Zhao et al., “General Purpose Bidirectional Optical Backplane: High Performance Bus for Multiprocessor Systems”, Massively Parallel Processing Using Optical Interconnections, 2nd International Conference, p. 188-195, Oct. 23-24, 1995. |
| Wu et al., “Microprocessor Control Signal Transmission Through Optical Fiber”, Conference Record of 1992, IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual Meeting, p. 1747-1750, Oct. 4-9, 1992. |
| Fox et al., “Towards Web/Java based High Performance Distributed Computing—an Evolving Virtual Machine”, www.npac.syr.edu/projects/webspace/doc/hpdc5/paper, Jun. 10, 1996, 11 pages. |
| None, “PC Vision: Intel unveils plans to bring PCs to Vehicles”; Edge: Work-Group Computing Report, Edge Publishing, p. 1-2 (Oct. 28, 1996). |
| The American Heritage College Dictionary 4th Ed.—definition of “firewall” (2007). |
| White, “Covert Distributed Processing with Computer Viruses”, Advances in Cryptology, Crypto 89, Springer LNCS, v. 435, pp. 616-619. |
| Foster et al., “The Grid: Blueprint for a New Computing Infrastructure”, Morgan Kaufman Publishers, Inc., 1998. |
| Hwang et al., “Scalable Parallel Computing”, WCB McGraw-Hill, 1998. |
| Wilkinson, et al., “Parallel Programming”, Prentice Hall, 1998. |
| Patterson et al., “Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach” (2nd Edition), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., 1996. |
| Culler et al., “Parallel Computer Architecture”, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., 1998. |
| Hennessy et al., “Computer Organization and Design”, Morgan Kauffrnann Publishers, Inc., 1998. |
| Slater, “The Microprocessor Today”, IEEE Micro 1996, pp. 32-44. |
| Steinert-Threlkeld; “New Breed of Chip TI develops a super circuit”; The Sun Baltimore; May 4, 1992. |
| Dallas Morning News; “LSI holds big plans for tiny chips Versatility of ‘system on a chip’ creates niche in microelectronics;” Mar. 4, 1996. |
| Mokhoff; “System-on-a-chip comes to wireless arena;” Electronic Engineering Times; Feb. 12, 1996. |
| Cindi; “System on a Chip stars at ISSCC;” Electronic News; Feb 19, 1996. |
| Ang; “System-on-a-chip to define next-generation set-top box”; Electronic Engineering Times; Dec. 15, 1995. |
| Marc; “New family of microprocessor cores from LSI Logic extends customers' system-on-a-chip design capability” Nov. 7, 1994. |
| Wall Street Journal; “Technology Brief—Advance Micro Devices Inc.: Company unveils Microchip for Hand-Held Computers”; Oct. 18, 1993. |
| Gelsinger, Patrick et al. “Microprocessors circa 2000,” IEEE Spectrum, Oct. 1989 pp. 43-47. |
| Yu, Albert. “The Future of Microprocessors,” IEEE Micro, Dec. 1996, pp. 46-53. |
| McWilliams. “Dell to Phase Out Computers Using Intel's Itanium,” The Wall Street Journal, Online, Sep. 15, 2005. |
| David Pescovitz, “Power of the PC”, Scientific American, pp. 27-28 (Apr. 2000). |
| Stephen H. Wildstrom, “The Problem with Firewalls”, Business Week, pp. 25 (Mar. 20, 2000). |
| J. McH., “Build Your Own Supercomputer”, Forbes, pp. 228 (Nov. 15, 1999). |
| Wilkinson, Barry et al., “Parallel Programming: Techniques and Applications Using Networked Workstations and Parallel Computers”, Chapter 4, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1999. |
| Baker, Lou et. al., “Parallel Programming”, Chapter 4, McGraw Hill Companies, Inc., 1996. |
| Kayssi, A.; Harik, L.; Ferzli, R.; Fawaz, M; “FPGA-based Internet Protocol Firewall Chip”; Electronics, Circuits and Systems, 2000. ICECS 2000. The 7th IEEE International Conference on vol. 1, Dec. 17-20, 2000 pp. 316-319 vol. 1.[retrieved from IEEE database Jun. 9, 2008]. |
| English language abstract of EP 0 647 052, published Apr. 5, 1995. |
| Newton's Telecom Dictionary, “Mobile IP”, p. 459, Mar. 1998. |
| Holographic Quantum Computer, http://www.unitelnw.com/holo1/index (May 1999). |
| Jonathan Fahey, “Screen Grab”, Forbes, pp. 52-53, Mar. 5, 2001. |
| Ronald Grover et al., “TV Guy”, Business Week, pp. 66-76, Mar. 12, 2001. |
| “Distributed Computing”, Red Herring, No. 87, pp. 166-202, Dec. 18, 2000. |
| Om Malik, “Distributed Computing Redefines Computer Networks, Underpinning Innovation, Company Formation, and Investments”, Red Herring, No. 86, pp. 95-96 and 105, Dec. 4, 2000. |
| Alan Zeichick, “P2P Nework Expalined”, Red Herring, No. 86, pp. 204 and 206, Dec. 4, 2000. |
| “Napster is Clouding Grove's Crystal Ball”; Fortune, pp. 271-272, May 29, 2000. |
| Gordon Force, Sr., “Portable Data Encryption Approaches”, WESTCON/'95, Conference Record: Microelectronics Communications Technology Producing Quality Production Mobile and Portable Power emerging Technologies, Nov. 7-9, 1995, pp. 413-419. |
| A.D. Romig, Jr., “High Performance Microsystem Packaging: A Perspective”, Microelectron Reliab., vol. 37, No. 10/11, pp. 1771-1781 (1997). |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20210185005 A1 | Jun 2021 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 61573007 | Aug 2011 | US | |
| 61573006 | Aug 2011 | US | |
| 61457983 | Jul 2011 | US | |
| 61457976 | Jul 2011 | US | |
| 61457297 | Feb 2011 | US | |
| 61457184 | Jan 2011 | US | |
| 61344018 | May 2010 | US | |
| 61282861 | Apr 2010 | US | |
| 61282503 | Feb 2010 | US | |
| 61282478 | Feb 2010 | US | |
| 61282378 | Jan 2010 | US | |
| 61282337 | Jan 2010 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 16456897 | Jun 2019 | US |
| Child | 17187279 | US | |
| Parent | 16051054 | Jul 2018 | US |
| Child | 16456897 | US | |
| Parent | 14174693 | Feb 2014 | US |
| Child | 16051054 | US | |
| Parent | 13815814 | Mar 2013 | US |
| Child | 14174693 | US | |
| Parent | 13398403 | Feb 2012 | US |
| Child | 13815814 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | PCT/US2011/025257 | Feb 2011 | US |
| Child | 13398403 | US | |
| Parent | PCT/US2011/023028 | Jan 2011 | US |
| Child | PCT/US2011/025257 | US | |
| Parent | 13016527 | Jan 2011 | US |
| Child | PCT/US2011/023028 | US | |
| Parent | 13014201 | Jan 2011 | US |
| Child | 13016527 | US |
