This invention relates generally to storage management. More particularly, information lifecycle management using content analysis is described.
Businesses and other enterprises generate large amounts of information, which must be stored in a cost-effective manner while ensuring acceptable levels of availability, security, and accessibility. Different types of data have different storage requirements. Stored information is currently managed through a set of manual, automatic, or semi-automatic policies, procedures, and practices. These methods are applied in a variety of ways to a variety of data and data storage systems. For example, the methods can be applied to a specific volume, storage array, object, file, folder, database, or file/data types. When an ILM (Information Lifecycle Management) managed system sets the retention period, storage prioritization, deletion date, etc. of a specific file or object, it typically does so based on one or more criteria, such as date of the file's creation, type of file, location of the file, date of the file's last use, etc.
However, such criteria are generally quite coarse and fail to give enough information to accurately characterize the proper treatment of the file or object. Thus, the ability of a system to automatically or autonomously determine ILM settings for specific data is limited. As a result, some files or objects are not handled efficiently or in the desired manner. For example, some files may be discarded or moved to off-line storage when it is desirable to retain them, while other files are retained when it is desirable to discard them or move them to off-line storage.
There is a need, therefore, for an improved method, article of manufacture, and apparatus for managing the lifecycle of files and other objects in a storage system.
The present invention will be readily understood by the following detailed description in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, wherein like reference numerals designate like structural elements, and in which:
A detailed description of one or more embodiments of the invention is provided below along with accompanying figures that illustrate the principles of the invention. While the invention is described in conjunction with such embodiment(s), it should be understood that the invention is not limited to any one embodiment. On the contrary, the scope of the invention is limited only by the claims and the invention encompasses numerous alternatives, modifications, and equivalents. For the purpose of example, numerous specific details are set forth in the following description in order to provide a thorough understanding of the present invention. These details are provided for the purpose of example, and the present invention may be practiced according to the claims without some or all of these specific details. For the purpose of clarity, technical material that is known in the technical fields related to the invention has not been described in detail so that the present invention is not unnecessarily obscured.
It should be appreciated that the present invention can be implemented in numerous ways, including as a process, an apparatus, a system, a device, a method, or a computer readable medium such as a computer readable storage medium or a computer network wherein program instructions are sent over optical or electronic communication links. A general purpose computer system such as an Intel-based processor running Microsoft Windows or Linux may be used, or a specialized appliance could be used. In this specification, these implementations, or any other form that the invention may take, may be referred to as techniques. In general, the order of the steps of disclosed processes may be altered within the scope of the invention.
An embodiment of the invention will be described with reference to an information management system in the form of a storage system configured to store files, but it should be understood that the principles of the invention are not limited to data storage systems. Rather, they are applicable to any system capable of storing and handling various types of objects, in analog, digital, or other form. Although terms such as document, file, object, etc. may be used by way of example, the principles of the invention are not limited to any particular form of representing and storing data or other information; rather, they are equally applicable to any object capable of representing information.
Disclosed herein are a method and system to manage the information lifecycle of an object in a storage system. In particular, the foregoing will be described with respect to
The method, illustrated in
One approach to managing the information lifecycle of a stored file is to set a number of ILM policies, and apply those policies to files that meet the criteria for applying the policies. ILM policies may include quarantine of particular subject matter (such as prohibited material or material relevant to an ongoing investigation) for further review or limited access, workflow, service level (such as bandwidth, performance, latency, etc.), security (such as encryption, level of encryption, access control), information protection level (such as frequency of backup, redundancy of data), availability (such as failover, standby server, etc.), archive, physical location, provisioning (such as adding or configuring storage), and so on.
For example, the date of last use of the data is sometimes used to determine a file's relative importance. Data can be moved to a secondary storage location, to offline storage, or even deleted depending on the date of last use. However, this method may be too coarse because it does not take into account other factors besides the date of last use. Certain accounting files may not be used for a quarter but then are needed at the end of the period for specific reporting purposes. Other files may be used in six month intervals or yearly. When they are used, they need to be immediately available and have a high level of service associated with them, perhaps at least equal to their original service level.
Other information may be used in order to characterize the data, such as the file's owner, date of creation, file type, file size, and so on. These are useful in better characterizing the data but alone do not provide sufficient information in order to create automatic or autonomous ILM systems. For example, knowing that the owner of a file is in the accounting department and that the file is an Excel spreadsheet could be used to make service level decisions or determine whether the file should be deleted at a particular time. However, the system cannot determine from this information whether the file is an important revenue-tracking spreadsheet used as a basis for financial statements subject to regulatory compliance procedures (which might be subject to Sarbanes-Oxley and SEC retention requirements), or a spreadsheet used to keep track of people who will be attending a holiday party (which is of minimal importance and can be deleted soon). Outside of the specific content of data, there are few characteristics about the data that can be used to correctly set an appropriate ILM policy.
A factor that must be considered is the requirement to retain data in response to corporate, industry, and governmental laws and regulations. This makes it more critical to accurately characterize the ILM policies that need to be applied to the data, and because of the legal implications, there is a tendency to be over-inclusive. As has been illustrated, knowing the particular owner of a file, its type, date of creation, and date of last use may not be sufficient to make a useful decision with regard to compliance retention or disposal. The result is needless retention of large amounts of data, which also becomes problematic when there is a need to quickly locate and retrieve relevant data.
The content of the data gives a better indication of how the data should be handled from an ILM standpoint. Through the analysis of the data content, more information can be derived and ILM policies can be appropriately created and applied. For example, quarterly and yearly reports may be identified by keywords/phrases within the documents which indicate that they are quarterly/yearly reports. Additional analysis can reveal what type of report, the reporting period, author, etc. This information may be combined with file metadata such as the file's owner, date of creation, and file type to set an appropriate and meaningful ILM policy.
Content can also be used to determine the appropriate retention/deletion policy. For example, if an object contains certain keywords/phrases relating to a patient's diagnosis and/or contains personal health information, then the object may need to be retained as long as the patient's medical records. On the other hand, if the object does not contain such content, it may be found not to require long term retention, and an appropriate ELM policy can be set, such as deletion in a short time period. By evaluating the object's content directly, the correct retention period may be programmatically determined with more accuracy.
The type of data contained by an object may be determined from metadata accompanying the object, which could comprise information provided by the application that created the object, information from the user who created the object, and/or filesystem information. Pattern matching to known file patterns may also be used to determine the file type. The information about the type of data contained by the object can be used to analyze its contents, thereby deriving information to set an appropriate ILM policy.
For example, simply knowing or determining that a file is a video file is useful but not as meaningful in terms of determining the appropriate ILM policy. Knowing who or what is depicted in the video, and other relevant information regarding the subject matter and/or content of the video itself, provides meaningful data that can be used in combination with file metadata to set an appropriate ILM policy.
Content evaluation may be performed on various file types, such as video, audio, graphics (e.g. bitmaps), text, and encrypted data. Content analysis on a video file (or any file that contains video) would involve evaluation of the video images themselves to determine who, where, and what images are depicted. Based on this information, which is derived from the analysis done on the video images, ILM policies are set. An audio file or the audio portion of a file or data set may be analyzed to determine the identity of the speaker and what was said. In addition to analysis of speech data, other forms of audio analysis can be used, such as determining if the audio is music and what type of music. Other sounds include sounds associated with events and places such as explosions, glass breaking, gun shots, screams, automobile traffic, boat/ship/airplane sounds, cash registers opening/closing/tallying, etc.
Graphics and bitmaps like video images, graphic files, and graphic data sets can be evaluated for their content such as who and what are depicted as well as where and how. Text and other forms of document rendition can be analyzed for the presence or absence of certain keywords and phrases. In evaluating data, it can be determined whether the data is encrypted. In cases of encrypted data, different policies could be applied to data encrypted by the host system and files encrypted by unknown systems.
For example, the data may be in the form of an audio object or comprise an audio portion in an object. An auditory processing system (either integrated into the information management system or separate from it) could be used to identify words and/or sounds, using a lexicon and searching for matches. In an embodiment, the auditory processing system could compare the content to a list of elements specified in a lexicon that comprises a group of data elements consisting of auditory elements or representations of audio elements (keywords) associated to text or other data elements. Upon detection of content that matches lexicon content, metadata may be generated and associated with the content. Such metadata may be the text equivalent of the auditory content or it may be a pointer to other data held within the lexicon. The search for keywords and sound matches could specify:
The information management system can be configured to retain audio objects until a specified disposition date, which may be determined by keywords identified in the audio object or policies invoked by the audio object. For example, after the system receives the audio object, it might retain the audio object for 90 days, but if the audio object contains certain triggering keywords or sounds, or triggers certain policies, the audio object might be retained for seven years.
Metadata relating to the audio object may also be used by the system to determine the disposition and disposition date. If an audio object were determined to be a recording of a phone call (such as by examining the metadata) involving a corporate insider, and words such as “buy stock” were detected in the recording, the audio object might be given a longer retention period. In an embodiment, the detection of keywords and triggering of corporate policies could be determined by an auditory processing system, which would provide an audio object with metadata indicating keywords detected and policies triggered. The metadata may be used to select appropriate ILM policies. These tasks may be performed by either the information management system or auditory processing system.
The disposition(s) and disposition date(s) may be stored with the audio object or separately from the audio object. Upon reaching the disposition date (or expiration date), the stored audio object and associated metadata may be partially or completely destroyed. Other types of processing and disposition may be invoked upon reaching the expiration date, such as hierarchical storage management functions (e.g., moving the data from disk drive media to optical or tape media), bit rate, encryption, application of digital rights management services, service level agreements, and other services associated with information lifecycle management. This processing may be performed by the information management system or other system.
Metadata may be generated to describe the object's content. The metadata may be transient data that is derived each time an evaluation is required, or may be fixed data that, once derived, remains in some form storage for repeated use without requiring further analysis of the content. The metadata may be generated in several ways, which may be used together. Metadata may be associated with an object, stored with the object or separately from the object and referenced by an index, hash, address, link, etc. The metadata may comprise file metadata (e.g. file type, user/creator, data, size, last used, creation date, application), transport metadata, and storage metadata.
In an embodiment, metadata may be generated at the application layer. In this case, data about the content (metadata) is created through the application that uses and/or creates the content itself. The creation of the metadata can be done manually, by the user, or automatically through various programmatic methods, or some combination of manual and automatic methods. For example, a video editing application typically enables users to create, edit, modify/alter, or otherwise manipulate video files (which typically also contain an embedded audio portion). In an embodiment, the video editing application may be configured to accommodate metadata about the video and audio content. In this case as an example, the following information could be captured as metadata of the underlying video file:
Time and Date Data
User Data
Application and OS Data
File Data
Content Data
This information can be captured by the application through a variety of means and through a combination of a variety of means. The information can be manually entered by an individual, programmatically derived, or some combination of these. In one embodiment, data relating to the file, OS, application, system data, date/time, etc. may be derived by the application. Content data may also be derived by the application. For example, transcriptions of audio portions containing speech may be rendered through the use of automatic speech recognition applications. Such applications provide programmatic renditions of speech into text.
Similarly, video recognition applications and other video analysis applications can also provide data that describes the content and can be used as metadata. Keyword analysis may be applied to text-based content.
In an embodiment, the user may also directly provide these descriptive data elements. A user can manually transcribe the speech portion of the video as well as scene descriptions, scene changes, etc. Information describing various aspects of the content may thus captured and made available for use in an information management system. In a medical context, a user might identify an object as being a surgical report, pathology report, x-ray of a patient's arm, or otherwise relevant to an individual's healthcare. The descriptive data elements may be freely entered, or selected from a list provided by the application.
Metadata in the above example may be incorporated into the video file itself as part of a video plus metadata file, into its own file (or files or records) separate from the video file itself, or both in the file and separately.
In an embodiment, metadata may be derived while the subject data is in transport. This is done through programmatic analysis (such as described herein) of the data while the data is being communicated from one system to another. Such analysis requires access to all of the data contained within the complete data packet. This may be accomplished in a manner similar to packet sniffing and can be performed in real-time at wire-speed (non-blocking) or at speeds that are slower than the original transmission speed. In an embodiment using this approach, a proxy may be configured to interact with the transmitter and intended recipient and control the proper flow of data.
For example, video files can be copied and/or moved from one system to another electronically via a network. Video files may also be streamed from one system to another for immediate viewing. During the transport of these files (such as for copying, moving, or streaming) analysis can be performed and metadata can be derived.
Additional transport related metadata can also be derived such as: Source Address, Destination Address, Source MAC (Media Access Control), Destination MAC, protocol used, route taken, and so on. In addition, metadata created by applications may also be discovered during transport. This information can also be used for ILM purposes.
In an embodiment, metadata may be derived while the subject data resides on storage media. This is done through programmatic analysis (such as described herein) of the data while the data is held in some form of storage. For example, video files reside on hard disk drives, optical storage media such as DVDs, tape, and so on. While resident on these storage systems, these files can undergo programmatic and/or manual analysis from which metadata can be derived. Additional storage related metadata may also be derived such as: logical unit (LUN), Volume, Folder, Path, Block, Sector, and so on.
In addition, metadata created by applications can also be discovered in stored data. This information can also be used for ILM purposes.
As described herein, a file or data set may have its content analyzed for the determination of an appropriate policy. In one embodiment, a policy may be selected and applied based on the analysis of the content of a file/data set in context to the content and/or analysis of the content of multiple files and data sets. Multiple documents/files/objects may contain information related to the same topic but have filenames, titles, subject headers, etc. that do not reflect this relationship. By examining and analyzing these objects, it is possible to group them and apply appropriate policies based on this analysis.
For example, in a medical enterprise there may be multiple documents related to a specific patient's condition, treatment, etc. Physicians, technicians, nurses, orderlies, equipment/service installers (such as for TV, telephones, etc.) may each have management and activity reports which could reference a patient. In some cases, the report may contain references to multiple patients and a variety of topics. In these cases it cannot be determined whether the object is relevant to a patient's healthcare. By examining the content, references to specific patients can be found and their relevance to certain policies can be determined. For example, a keyword-driven search or natural language analysis may be utilized. Thus, multiple documents/files/objects may be associated to a patient healthcare policy or other policy.
In one embodiment, the information management system may examine the content within an object to determine which, if any, other objects should be examined for relevant data. These examinations can cross multiple data types—from text documents to email to voicemail to video recordings to images and so on. For example, a text document may refer to a patient's diagnostic X-Ray and perhaps also the date and location it was taken. Based on this reference, the system could locate the video surveillance recordings taken during the referenced diagnostic session. The video recording's content could then be analyzed to determine if the video contains information relevant to the patient; e.g. is the patient present in the recording, the identity of others present, what diagnostic procedures were performed, etc. This information could be used to find the x-rays, radiologist's findings, etc.
Found documents may be analyzed in a similar manner. For example, the document might refer to a surgery and x-rays, leading to a search for x-rays and a post-operative report. The post-operative report may refer to a biopsy, which could then cause the system to search for the pathology report. The x-rays may have a link to the radiologist's report. If relevant, some or all of the objects may be associated as part of an information group of multiple files and/or documents to which specific policies are applied.
In one embodiment, an object may contain data about other objects that are related to the first object, such as in the form of links, filenames, or other resource locators. This data may be manually entered by the user, such as by embedding the data within the object, adding the data to the object's metadata, selecting from a list of objects, selecting a template of objects typically associated with the object, etc.
In one embodiment, the data may be derived programmatically (e.g. by the application), which could for example use information about objects typically associated with the object, or observe which objects are accessed while a user is editing or otherwise accessing the object. This information could be stored in the object's metadata. Any combination of the foregoing may be used. For example, if the user selects from a list identifying the patient as being treated on an outpatient basis for a bacterial infection, the user or the application could then identify objects for the patient's lab report, cell culture, prescriptions, etc. A surgical patient could have objects for diagnostic procedures, surgical supplies used, operating room, x-rays, prescriptions, post-operative report, etc.
All or some of these objects may be associated as part of an information group of multiple objects to which policies are applied, automatically or after evaluation of their content to determine relevance.
In one embodiment, illustrated in
Another DPS policy might be:
The DPS 100 may thus have a set of policies and act as a policy manager/scheduler, as shown in
The DPS 100 may thus be used to generate metadata that may be used to drive the IM system.
For example, an object may be determined to contain patient health care data (based on the DPS analysis of the object) and thus subject to HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) regulations requiring a 6-year retention span. The actual determination of which IM policy or policies to apply and their duration may be done by the DPS 100. In this example, the DPS 100 applies a DPS-HIPAA policy. The DPS-HIPAA policy specifies what constitutes a HIPAA file (e.g. keywords, x-ray images, etc.). The DPS's HIPAA policy also specifies that files meeting the criteria must have a retention policy of 6 years.
In one embodiment, the DPS 100 can have knowledge of the appropriate IM policies of the IM system. In one embodiment, the DPS 100 may be separate from the IM system and have no knowledge of IM policies. The DPS 100 may be configured to simply pass the desired retention period requirement to the IM Policy Manager 16 which would in turn select the appropriate IM policy to meet the requirement.
The DPS 100 may use the IM Policy Manager 16, which keeps the associations of the IM policies to the relevant object. The IM Policy Manager 16 may be invoked and controlled manually or programmatically (such as by the DPS 100). In one embodiment, the IM Policy Manager 16 does not determine which policies are to apply, nor does it set the duration directly. The IM Policy Manager 16 can break or revoke associations between policies and the objects to which they are associated. The DPS 100 may also be configured to disassociate or terminate policy and object relationships by issuing a command to the IM Policy Manager 16 to terminate a policy.
Once an IM policy or policies are selected, they are applied to the object for the term as specified by the DPS policy or policies and required by the DPS 100. Termination and/or changes of the application of the IM policies can also be done by the IM policies themselves (which may be self-limiting), by the IM Policy Manager 16, or by the DPS 100.
Although the methods and systems herein have been described with respect to an illustrative embodiment, it should be appreciated that the methods and systems disclosed are independent of the precise architecture of the information management system, dynamic policy selector, content analysis engine, storage system, etc. used for processing data. Functions and capabilities may be distributed among various systems in a variety of ways, and the principles of the invention are independent of the exact tasks performed by each system. They are applicable to tape storage, optical devices, hard disk drives, and all other types of data storage.
For the sake of clarity, the processes and methods herein have been illustrated with a specific flow, but it should be understood that other sequences may be possible and that some may be performed in parallel, without departing from the spirit of the invention. Additionally, steps may be subdivided or combined. As disclosed herein, software written in accordance with the present invention may be stored in some form of computer-readable medium, such as memory or CD-ROM, or transmitted over a network, and executed by a processor.
All references cited herein are intended to be incorporated by reference. Although the present invention has been described above in terms of specific embodiments, it is anticipated that alterations and modifications to this invention will no doubt become apparent to those skilled in the art and may be practiced within the scope and equivalents of the appended claims. More than one computer may be used, such as by using multiple computers in a parallel or load-sharing arrangement or distributing tasks across multiple computers such that, as a whole, they perform the functions of the components identified herein; i.e. they take the place of a single computer. Various functions described above may be performed by a single process or groups of processes, on a single computer or distributed over several computers. Processes may invoke other processes to handle certain tasks. A single storage device may be used, or several may be used to take the place of a single storage device. The present embodiments are to be considered as illustrative and not restrictive, and the invention is not to be limited to the details given herein. It is therefore intended that the disclosure and following claims be interpreted as covering all such alterations and modifications as fall within the true spirit and scope of the invention.
This application is a continuation of and claims priority to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/884,345 for METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR INFORMATION LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT, filed Jul. 1, 2004 now U.S. Pat. No. 7,499,531, which is incorporated herein by reference for all purposes.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4719571 | Rissanen et al. | Jan 1988 | A |
4817036 | Millett et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
4831438 | Bellman et al. | May 1989 | A |
4942526 | Okajima et al. | Jul 1990 | A |
5027104 | Reid | Jun 1991 | A |
5053868 | Higgins et al. | Oct 1991 | A |
5086385 | Launey et al. | Feb 1992 | A |
5251131 | Massand et al. | Oct 1993 | A |
5325445 | Herbert | Jun 1994 | A |
5418946 | Mori | May 1995 | A |
5442781 | Yamagata | Aug 1995 | A |
5454037 | Pacella | Sep 1995 | A |
5463773 | Sakakibara et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
5644766 | Coy et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5696964 | Cox et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5727199 | Chen et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5758079 | Ludwig et al. | May 1998 | A |
5793419 | Fraley | Aug 1998 | A |
5867494 | Krishnaswamy et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5905988 | Schwartz et al. | May 1999 | A |
5946050 | Wolff | Aug 1999 | A |
5956727 | Cheng et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5987454 | Hobbs | Nov 1999 | A |
6026399 | Kohavi et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6029160 | Cabrera et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6029164 | Birrell et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6038561 | Snyder et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6044375 | Shmueli et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6044376 | Kurtzman, II | Mar 2000 | A |
6064963 | Gainsboro | May 2000 | A |
6064964 | Yamamoto et al. | May 2000 | A |
6067095 | Danieli | May 2000 | A |
6115455 | Picard | Sep 2000 | A |
6137864 | Yaker | Oct 2000 | A |
6192111 | Wu | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6192342 | Akst | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6233313 | Farris et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6243676 | Witteman | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6246933 | Bague | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6278772 | Bowater et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6278992 | Curtis et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6289382 | Bowman-Amuah | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6311159 | Van Tichelen et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6327343 | Epstein et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6345252 | Beigi et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6377663 | Thurber | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6404856 | Wilcox et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6438594 | Bowman-Amuah | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6522727 | Jones | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6539077 | Ranalli et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6539354 | Sutton et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6542500 | Gerszberg et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6542602 | Elazar | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6549949 | Bowman-Amuah | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6553365 | Summerlin et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6577333 | Tai et al. | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6633835 | Moran et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6661879 | Schwartz et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6662178 | Lee | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6665376 | Brown | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6697796 | Kermani | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6721706 | Strubbe et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6728679 | Strubbe et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6731307 | Strubbe et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6732090 | Shanahan et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6732109 | Lindberg et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6748360 | Pitman et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6772125 | Harradine et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6781962 | Williams et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6784899 | Barrus et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6785370 | Glowny et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6795808 | Strubbe et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6807574 | Partovi et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6816085 | Haynes et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6820075 | Shanahan et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6862566 | Wakita et al. | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6889232 | Pudipeddi et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6930599 | Naidoo et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6934756 | Maes | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6937986 | Denenberg et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6961763 | Wang et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6961954 | Maybury et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6968364 | Wong et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
7007048 | Murray et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7027565 | Tateishi et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7039585 | Wilmot et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7058565 | Gusler et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7069291 | Graves et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7117158 | Weldon et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7133511 | Buntin et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7177800 | Wallers | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7191133 | Pettay | Mar 2007 | B1 |
7260190 | Fellenstein et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7302394 | Baray et al. | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7356474 | Kumhyr | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7440558 | Heilmann et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7444287 | Claudatos et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7457396 | Claudatos et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7499531 | Claudatos et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
20010036821 | Gainsboro et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010038624 | Greenberg et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010055372 | Glowny et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020002460 | Pertrushin | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020032564 | Ehsani et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020105598 | Tai et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020107694 | Lerg | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020110264 | Sharoni et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020122113 | Foote | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020143797 | Zhang et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020168058 | Gailbraith | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030018531 | Mahaffy et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030033287 | Shanahan et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030033294 | Walker et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030058277 | Bowman-Amuah | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030074404 | Parker et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030078973 | Przekop et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030088573 | Stickler | May 2003 | A1 |
20030093260 | Dagtas et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030097365 | Stickler | May 2003 | A1 |
20030112259 | Kinjo | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030120390 | Hopkins | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030158839 | Faybishenko et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030182308 | Ernst et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030182387 | Geshwind | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030191911 | Kleinschnitz et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030193994 | Stickler | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030208493 | Hall et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030225801 | Devarakonda et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030227540 | Monroe | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030236788 | Kanellos et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040002868 | Geppert et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040003132 | Stanley et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040006506 | Hoang | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040008828 | Coles et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040010415 | Seo et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040010519 | Sinn et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040024762 | Agarwal et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040030741 | Wolton et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040054531 | Asano | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040083101 | Brown et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040083244 | Muecklich et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040085203 | Junqua | May 2004 | A1 |
20040111639 | Schwartz et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040127286 | Fujimoto | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040128276 | Scanlon et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040143602 | Ruiz et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040167890 | Eyal | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040186726 | Grosvenor | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040199494 | Bhagg | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040199566 | Carlson et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040203577 | Forman et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040221261 | Blevins | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040235520 | Cadiz et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040243736 | Hattrup et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040247086 | Menard et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040249790 | Komamura | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040263636 | Cutler et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050015286 | Rudnik et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050069095 | Fellenstein et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050131559 | Kahn et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20060010150 | Shaath et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060095502 | Lewis et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
Entry |
---|
U.S. Appl. No. 10/378,025, filed Sep. 25, 2003, Thomas A. Summerlin et al. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20060004847 A1 | Jan 2006 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 10884345 | Jul 2004 | US |
Child | 11001201 | US |