Patent Grant
7848972
The present invention relates generally to electronic commerce, and more particularly to methods and systems for providing end-to-end electronic bill presentment and payment systems, processes and functionality.
Some people think dealing with bills is not fun. They consider it a burden which they would love to lift from their shoulders or at least reduce. Billers do not like having to create and send them and bill payers do not like paying them. But billing consumers for goods and services has always been a necessary exercise and transaction cost of engaging in credit-based commerce. Traditional paper-based billing processes seek three major objectives: to (1) deliver bills to the customer base reliably (2) at minimum cost and (3) in a manner that causes quick payment. Although as reliable as the postal system, conventional paper-based billing is expensive and gives the customer a significant float thus depriving the biller of the time value of money. For example, a company with 100,000 accounts which are billed on a monthly basis may spend over two million dollars a year in paper-based billing expenses; a single paper based billing, transaction can cost between one and two dollars. Much of this expense stems from the cost of materials, printing, postage, and manual processing of the paper bills, inserts and envelopes.
The time delay associated with paper based billing can be particularly vexsome to small billers and non-recurrent billers who tend to rely more heavily on cash flow. For larger billers such as a utility whose average billed amount is $75 with a customer population of 100,000, the float assuming a 6 day round trip through the postal system and interest at the rate of 8% is more than $115,000 per year.
Paper-based billing can also deprive billers of an opportunity to build brand. Although many paper billers include various types of marketing inserts with their bills in an attempt to use the billing activity as an additional opportunity to build brand and customer relationships, those materials cannot be targeted as effectively as in an interactive session. For instance, billers do not have significant realistic control over the circumstances under which, or whether, a consumer views particular inserts. In fact, studies have shown that many consumers disregard such inserts altogether.
Electronic bill presentment and payment (EBPP) arose with the advent of the Internet because it addresses three needs of billers. First, it reduces billing cost. Second, it allows more effective marketing through the billing process than paper-based billing. Third, it allows better customer relationship management than with paper-based billing. Instead of preparing and mailing paper bills, EBPP enables businesses to publish, distribute and/or present bills electronically on web pages. Instead of writing checks and applying stamps, consumers have the opportunity to pay bills such as by an electronic credit card charge or direct bank draft. The biller benefits by avoiding the cost of generating and mailing paper bills, and by avoiding the payment float occasioned by two-way mail delay and other delays in paper-based remittance. The customer benefits with the added convenience of conducting transactions online, and the opportunity to pay many or all bills on one site or in one virtual space. The biller has the opportunity to present customized content on the screenface with the bill, without having to foot the extra printing and insertion cost associated with paper inserts. The biller can stay in closer communication with the customer via electronic mail and other electronic techniques, and can communicate interactively.
Nothing is free, however, and there are costs associated with moving from paper-based billing to EBPP. EBPP in any event presents significant hardware, software, security and storage issues, as well as significant human resources issues. Outsourcing these issues is a viable alternative for an organization that does not desire to custom build a proprietary EBPP function or whose size or economic base does not cost justify such an in-house solution, but outsourcing always sacrifices control of the system, of where and how the bills are presented, and over the potential to build brand and customer relationships through the billing process. In short, across the population of various types of conventional EBPP architectures and systems, there is always a tradeoff between complexity and control over the process. In-house systems tend to be complex and expensive, but give maximum real time control over the process. Outsourcing solutions can be less expensive to pursue, but conventionally only by giving up significant real time control.
Real time control over the billing process is of massive importance, because it allows building of brand and customer relationships. For example, special discounts can be applied online in real time if the customer pays in a certain period, and the account immediately adjusted and balanced. Specially targeted inserts can be presented on screen with the bill according to a particular group in which the customer fits, where he or she is geographically located, or according to any other desired demographic data or category. Time sensitive content can be displayed with the bill, such as promotions relating to events which occur on certain days, limited time only sales or marketing efforts, or any other time sensitive information which obviously needs to be added, deleted or supplanted when the relevant time starts or expires.
In one common approach to EBPP, for example, which is often referred to as the custom development method, billers create a proprietary electronic billing system and link it to a third-party for payment processing. Because custom development is mostly an internal EBPP solution, it gives billers the advantage of tight control over the billing system. However, this type of solution is expensive. Not only is it a technology risk because billers lose the flexibility to adapt to other EBPP standards, but it also requires a substantial commitment of manpower, infrastructure and consultant resources for planning, development and implementation. Among other things, merely obtaining a license to run the relational database application for managing billing information is often viewed as prohibitive, especially for smaller billers. Furthermore, such systems innately discourage consumer use or popularity, since the consumer is required to log onto and initiate a session on a separate site, with different passwords and different logon procedures, for each different bill the consumer wishes to pay.
One example of the custom development or “in-house” approach to EBPP is the direct rendering approach. In the direct rendering approach, billers merely present electronic representations of the paper bills to consumers. For example, the paper bills may be electronically “redrawn” via electronic scanning and then digitally presented to consumers in any standard electronic format such as an HTML web page or a PDF file. However, because the information contained in the paper bills is not extracted from the document, billers are unable to perform any useful processing of the electronic bill or apply any marketing or business rules other than merely electronically presenting the bill and accepting payment. For instance, the biller is not able to query a database and obtain a report of all bills with a balance over $40.00. Since images are stored rather than data, for the bills to be formatted differently for another type of platform such as for a personal digital assistant or cellphone rather than for a personal computer, they must be electronically rerendered. Bills cannot be grouped according to demographic or other target marketed parameters for customized advertising, promotional or brand building content or graphics. Customer service based on accessing a database of the information in response to customer inquires is precluded. Reports cannot be prepared for the biller to show aging or other information about status of bills. The direct rendering is perhaps the most static of EBPP systems.
A second approach to EBPP is the front-end rendering approach. In front-end rendering, parsing rules are applied to a billing stream at the time the billing stream is loaded. The rules transform the data into a generic format for processing and storage, such as using XML, but only in a snapshot fashion at parsing time and without the ability to change bills or otherwise operate on the data stored in the database. Thus, although the front-end rendering approach does enable billers to perform certain load time decisions and rules, it tends to create a static rather than dynamic set of data with concomitant limitations. It tends to focus on parsing and presentment of bills, with less emphasis on the processing aspect. It tends to be fast, even if not dynamic. Because this EBPP paradigm merely shoots a snapshot at processing time, billers cannot make modifications to the electronic bill at the time of presentment, for example. It cannot create and use various report and view formats via which to view and operate on the billing data stored in the database. It cannot create and set permissions for access to and processing of such data. In addition to loss of control of this sort and other sorts, the front-end rendering approach is expensive due to substantial implementation costs and because it requires the use of multiple application program interfaces to handle the electronic billing data. A central reason for loss of control of data once the biller stream has been parsed is that the biller-side data has not been decoupled sufficiently from the presentment-side data.
A third conventional EBPP approach, which is referred to as the consolidator approach trades control of the billing interface and branding opportunity for a reduction in cost, risk, and internal staffing by outsourcing the EBPP to a third party consolidator. Here, the electronic payment processor takes on a lock box function of holding and moving cash during billing and payment. The payment processor performs an aggregation function by presenting multiple billers' statements at a single, consolidating web site. Not only does interposition of the consolidator and its interface between billers and consumers interrupt any existing relationship and potential to build brand, but it also precludes exploitation of new biller opportunities to interact with consumers.
In addition to the problems already mentioned, existing EBPP systems and processes have various other disadvantages. For example, they remain an expensive option for most billers who lack sufficient economies of scale necessary to overcome the high fixed cost of implementation. These EBPP methods, which primarily focus on reducing biller costs, also often fail to address the issue of consumer convenience adequately, much less to provide effective incentives for consumer adoption.
Furthermore, conventional EBPP approaches often require redundant resources supported by multiple entities and consequently waste processing and transport resources. For example, using existing EBPP methods, if a consumer desires to pay AT&T bills electronically at a website such as Yahoo.com., the following occurs. First, the consumer requests that Yahoo.com receive the AT&T bill and send it to the consumer. Then, assuming AT&T partners with an electronic payment facilitator such as CheckFree, Yahoo.com makes a request to CheckFree. Finally, CheckFree initiates the request to AT&T. Because each of these entities is independent, each requires its own resident database and other support functionality. Such conventional EBPP approaches leave open significant opportunity to increase efficiency and effectiveness by reducing throughput, redundancy and concurrency tasks and issues.
The present invention provides end-to-end electronic bill presentment and payment systems and processes which seek to be the Switzerland of EBPP sources. Such systems and processes speak in a lingua franca to enable any and all billers to interface with any and all banks and other financial institutions, payment facilitators, consumers, web portals and/or bill presenters and other entities in order to accomplish bill presentment and payment.
Core to systems and processes according to the present invention are databases which store billing data and their metadata or attributes according to a lingua franca that is easily, efficiently and accurately understood and traded on anywhere on the Internet or any other data network. Systems and processes according to the present invention seek to transform billing data from any biller, customer or financial institution into a lingua franca or a form that allows quick conversion into the lingua franca. In some ways, systems and processes according to the present invention treat data similar to how packages are treated in the FEDEX system. There, all packages go via air to Memphis where they are collected and sorted in the middle of the night according to highly automated processes, and then launched on the correct aircraft for direction to their destination. Although intuition suggests that FEDEX should send an Atlanta shipper's package directed to an Atlanta address directly to that address rather than to Memphis and back overnight, studies showed that efficiency was served by instead always applying a highly automated and efficient common collection, storage and distribution process in Memphis, even if it did require package travel over greater geographic distance. Similarly, systems and processes according to the present invention transform data and its attributes into a form that can be stored in a common document storage model before operating on it. That model allows efficient and accurate access, processing, and distribution via a lingua franca such as XML, for access and use by the billers, financial institutions, other EBPP processors, and of course the customers. In some ways, the common document model/storage models according to the present invention can be compared to Memphis in the FEDEX system or the hub and spoke architecture that airlines use for efficient “processing” of passengers to their destinations.
Systems and processes according to the present invention thus use common document models and storage models which are generic in some ways and not confined to a particular industry, biller, or type of customer. The models accommodate a range of billers, bill types, record types, presentation types, presentation media types, biller output data streams, and data interchange protocols and processes.
According to a preferred embodiment of the present invention, a data stream from a biller, which may be a print stream, data interchange stream or any other sequence of data, is the subject of a rules application process. The rules application process uses a special rules development language that allows a quasi-skilled specialist in minimum time to generate a translator that parses the biller's data stream into a common document model tree. In the tree, which may be based on XML or successors to it, the data and their attributes are mapped into nodes which fit the common document model for storage in the database. Because of the generic and universal nature in which the billing data and its attributes are stored, the database can be coupled to presentment processors, such as via XML, that may include style sheets and other applications that transform the stored data into whatever desired form and format to support bill presentment wherever and whenever desired.
Such systems can provide billers a complete end-to-end solution for electronic bill presentment and payment. The biller's data may be transformed efficiently and effectively using the rules definition language into data and its attributes that can be stored in a manner that allow the biller new opportunities not available in conventional EBPP systems. These stem from the fact that the biller can access the billing data and attributes stored in databases according to the present invention in order (1) to operate on it; (2) to query it for information; (3) to control how it will be presented to customers and with what other information such as brand building or customer relationship building information; and (4) to access, use and perhaps change it while communicating with customers such as via a help desk or customer service lines. Thus, according to the present invention, the biller may have “offloaded” the data to an outsource for EBPP, but without losing the opportunity to access and operate on the billing data, and to control in real time the data that will be presented to customers in the form of bills as well as the look and feel according to which the bills are presented, to obtain reports about bill status, to help effectuate the payment process, to categorize or group bills or customers for various purposes such as adding demographically or other based content, and for other purposes. Because of the universality of its structure, the billers can control from a billing console functionality how the bills and billing data will be presented on any desired platform using any desired applications, formats and protocols, via presentment engines that include style sheets, translators, processors or other techniques which allow efficient and ready transformation into a state ready for use by such platforms, applications, formats and protocols. For example, for a single biller, the database can simultaneously present bills for different customers from a single batch of bills in various spoken languages, on HTML based browsers, on OFX supported applications, or in any other way desired by any biller or customer.
EBPP systems and processes according to the present invention for the first time promote EBPP aggregation. From the biller's point of view, these systems and processes allow many types of billers to have their bills processed, presented and paid using a single source using the common document model/storage model. Each of such billers is incentivized to use this source, because with it, they can outsource their billing problems but still maintain control over their billing data and how it is presented. Thus, value propositions for the biller from systems and processes according to the present invention include:
a. end to end electronic billing services which can be outsourced relatively inexpensively without loss of control over bill processing, presentment or payment;
b. establish a base for entering the electronic commerce field;
c. leverage brand building, customer relationship building and marketing opportunities offered by these EBPP systems, by unlimited ability to control the way the bill looks, what is contained in it and why, and how and according to what terms it can be paid;
d. use existing payment relationships with minimum interruption or inconvenience to financial institutions or customers;
e. deliver bills wherever the customer wants;
f. establish an online presence;
g. unpack the biller's own information, support HTML presentation so that for the first time, biller's own employees may access it and use it to service customers;
h. promote quick payment;
i. avoid the costs and human resources requirements of doing these things in house;
j. cost reduction over paper based billing;
k. pay as you use; avoid capital costs of in house billing system;
l. leverage marketing and EBPP expertise and talent of EBPP processor who operates across a range of industries and customers and is thus current with latest trends;
From the customer's point of view, because of the common document model /storage model, such systems and processes can present and enable payment of bills ubiquitously—customers can have their bills presented and paid on web portals, on their home financial application, via electronic mail, or wherever else they desire. Because billers are incentivized to use the systems and processes, customers can pay all or most all of their bills in one place, but in a manner where each bill is presented to the customer in a way that is specially tailored to the customer with graphics, advertising, and other information that has been demographically proven to connect with that particular customer. Value propositions for the customer from EBPP systems according to the present invention include:
a. bills delivered to place, site, space, application, of choice;
b. pay all or most bills in one place;
c. convenience over collecting and paying paper bills;
d. leverage convenience for institutional customers; for example, a university with thousands of electric meters can now receive one bill with the meters netted up, to effectuate a single payment bill thus avoiding the significant costs of preparing and paying thousands of bills;
e. reminders if desired;
f. ability to receive relevant and demographically tailored and targeted information of value from the biller;
g. cost and convenience over buying stamps and depositing paid bills in the mail.
Financial institutions connected to such systems find that they can leverage off the time value of money because quick payment means more accrued debt on which interest accrues. In short, every entity in the connected environment has incentive to use systems and processes according to the present invention, chiefly because they can be connected and transact in a way where each retains maximum control, gets maximum useful information, and transacts with minimum inefficiency and overhead.
Financial institutions 14 which may connect, interact and/or transact with systems and processes according to the present invention include banks, credit organizations, brokerages, insurance companies, and any other organization which can have a need or desire to interact with systems and processes according to the present invention to help effectuate electronic bill presentment and/or payment, or to enhance or build their own online presence for marketing and any other desired purpose.
Payment facilitators 16 can include other EBPP facilitators or organizations, credit card companies, credit unions, banks, or any other organization which can have a need or desire to interact with systems and processes according to the present invention to help effectuate electronic bill presentment and/or payment, or to enhance or build their own online presence for marketing and any other desired purpose.
Consumers 18 can be individuals, businesses, educational institutions, or any other entity that pays bills.
Presenters 20 can be web portals, financial applications on a consumer's 18 system, web sites specifically supported for the purpose of EBPP, the site of biller 12, or any other desired interface where a bill can be presented.
Platform 10 may take the form of a network of desired platforms, computers, or other functionality, located in one or more geographical locations, running any desired operating systems and applications. In the preferred embodiment, platform 10 is implemented on a Solaris operating system using an Oracle database and CORBA firmware and is configured in a scaleable and fault tolerant environment. Platform 10 may be connected to billers 12, financial institutions 14, payment facilitators 16, presenters 20 and any other desired entity via public or private packet-switched or other data networks including the Internet, circuit switched networks such as the public switched telephone network, wireless networks, or any other desired communications infrastructure 21.
Referring to
Input processing engines 22 may be adapted to support any of these standards, in order to transform biller data 23 into a form and format suitable for processing by rules based parsing engine 24. Input processing engine 22 may be implemented using an Oracle Parallel Server running on a clustered Sun platform, for example, or according to any other desired implementation. The main concept is to modularize the preprocessing of biller data 23; if a new form of biller data 23 is encountered or must be dealt with for transformation into a form and format usable by rules based engine 24, then a new input processing engine is built to handle that data in a modular way. The preprocessing of AFP, for example, is different than preprocessing of metacode, so it makes more sense to have a separate engine 22 for each, so that the output of each is ready for processing by rules based parsing engine 24. Preprocessing of various types of biller data 23 is done in the same sort of conventional way that print streams or other financial or EDI data streams are processed or converted for various purposes. It may be that some biller data 23 does not need to be preprocessed, in which case there may be no need for an input processing engine for that data 23.
Rules based parsing engine 24 allows a wide variety of biller data 23 types and formats to be operated on or parsed by rules in order to fit a common document or data model which can store and process both data and its attributes. In other words, it is important for the common data or document model to know not only an account number being stored, but also that it is an account number and not a bill number or date. The parsing engine 24 helps progress data 23 toward a form or format according to which both the data and its attributes can be known, stored and processed. It does not matter if rules engine 24 outputs a tight set of data and tags or other corresponding attributes, or if that is done later; the parsing engine 24's main task is to accept a wide variety of data 23 from various billers and put it into a form and format where it is at least easier to generate and correlate the attributes for various data in a form that can be used by the common document or data model.
The rules used in parsing engine 24 are in turn preferably written using a uniform rules definition language. That URDL 25 seeks to allow a technician to take a new form of biller data 23 and write rules to parse that data 23 without extenuating work or investment of time. For example, URDL 25 currently in use allows technicians to write a set of rules for new data presented by a new biller in several days, without the need for people who are more deeply immersed in the whys and wherefores of financial data interchange. URDL 25 instead seeks to institutionalize that financial data interchange knowledge by writing a language using certain syllogisms, algorithms, inferences and conclusions to be formed upon encountering various data types, certain realities about what the common document model/data model needs to have in the form of data and attributes, and allowing a technician merely to apply what is written in the language in a more mechanistic fashion to cause proper parsing to happen. The language is written using conventional knowledge about various print streams and electronic data interchange formats, knowledge about the common document model/data model, and techniques often applied to simplify preparation of various forms of data and its attributes to fit desired situations, such as text to be presented attractively in HTML, or data to be transacted on usefully in the form of XML data. Parsing engines 24 based on URDL 25 are thus advantageous because they can allow parsing of billing streams without the need to develop new application program interfaces or other functionality that requires overemployment of skill or time. Parsing engine 24 may also be implemented using an Oracle Parallel Server running on a clustered Sun platform.
As an example of what parsing engine 24 does, it may be adapted to parse relevant biller data 23 from each data record in a billing data stream based on instruction sets created to: identify individual data records within the input billing streams; locate, extract, and validate the relevant billing data within each data record; and assign meaningful attributes to the relevant billing data. Parsing engine 24 may output the relevant billing data and corresponding meaningful attributes ultimately for storage in database 26 (after further processing) and for further processing by presentation processor 28 and payment processor 30.
In
Platform 10 can enable billers 12 to exercise substantial management and administrative control over the electronic bill presentment and payment process. Platform 10 may provide billers 12 with an interface to database 26 and presentation processors 42 and 44, which may enable billers 12 to manage the administrative functions of electronic billing. The biller interface may enable billers 12, including employees and agents of billers 12, to perform a variety of administrative, customer service, management, and quality control functions. For instance, the biller interface may enable billers 12 to perform the following functions: view current and previous consumers bills, view payment history, view consumer emails, modify consumer enrollment, verify consumer identity, confirm consumer enrollment, perform consumer account maintenance, associate accounts to a consumer, make payment adjustments, change employee access permissions to the biller interface, send news and messages to consumers, associate accounts to news, perform online consumer statistics, create payment settlement and periodic reports, select manual billing, view selected bills, perform quality feedback updates, print quality assurance reports, and release bills for publishing.
System embodiment 10 may also enable billers 12 to perform a variety of marketing functions via the biller interface. For example, the biller interface may enable billers 12 to create virtual groups. Virtual groups are market segments of the class of consumers 18 identified by billers 12 based on specific marketing rules. Billers 12 may use virtual groups to send emails to a portion of consumers 18 or to send marketing promotions to specific groups of consumers 18. Alternatively, the biller interface may enable billers 12 to use virtual groups to send any intelligent messaging to consumers 18.
In the preferred embodiment, billers 12 may also use the biller interface to configure and modify a customized electronic bill presentment and payment solution by controlling a number of parameters, such as general parameters, enrollment parameters, parsing and loading parameters, bill presentment parameters, payment parameters, and reporting parameters.
In the preferred embodiment, the biller interface to platform 10 also enables billers 12 to manage an electronic bill presentment and payment quality assurance program.
As shown in
The preferred embodiment of the biller interface also enables billers 12 to manage electronic bill presentment and payment marketing functions. For instance, as shown in
As shown in
System embodiment 10 also supports consumers 18 receiving electronic bills at any location of choice using any interface, such as, for instance, a conventional web browser, other online device, any wireless device, or any other device which may communicate with system embodiment 10 in any manner. Any such device is a candidate to support presentation of or transaction with platform 10 by consumers 18. Consumers 18 can also define the format of the electronic billing information. For example, the billing data may be supplied to consumers 18 in a variety of standard accounting formats. System embodiment 10 also enables consumers 18 to pay electronic bills via credit card, ACH, or electronic funds transfer or using any other mode or medium of payment or reconciliation.
a. control parsing rules in the input processing engine 102 to accommodate virtual groups according to virtual group functionality 112;
b. interact with customers while seeing their billing records, using customer service and interaction management functionality 120;
c. control how bills or reminders are sent to customers using e-mail, using functionality 118;
d. control appearance and other characteristics of bill presentment in real time using presentment and distribution relationship management functionality 114;
e. get reports and otherwise control the billing process (including for example, obtaining parsing reports, getting account receivable information or feeds, stopping or starting print or enrollment, and other tasks) using biller interaction management 104;
f. support its own website for presentment and payment of bills; and of course
g. get paid via payment functionality 110.
From a customer's point of view, his or her bills can be supported anywhere, and customers are allowed additional communications with billers via e-mail interaction management 118 and interfaces 122.
Financial institutions (or any other entity, such as payment facilitators or other EBPP operations) are connected and can transact with their customers (who also happen to be biller's customers) more efficiently and effectively through various gateways and other interfaces. Indeed, financial institutions may if desired, fit within the category of billers, and be connected the in the same or similar manner, to accomplish the same sorts of enhanced contact with their customers to conduct electronic commerce, which may include presentment and payment of bills.
This diagram is merely logical; any of these functionalities can reside within other functionalities, and not all of them need to be included to carry out various purposes or results obtained by the present invention. Furthermore, the connections to the functionalities and between them are logical; billers may be connected via bus or to only one biller interaction functionality in order to carry out some or all of the control that systems and processes according to the present invention could allow.
As mentioned above, an agent may also search for customer account information based on customer name.
The preferred embodiment of agent console 156 also enables efficient payment of multiple policies associated with one individual, company or other insured entity. For example, as shown in
As shown in
In addition to the customer management services mentioned above, an agent may create new policies.
An agent may also, at any time, create and view customer notes. The agent may use the customer notes for managing customer service. For example, as shown in
In addition to the customer management services described above, the preferred embodiment of agent console 156 also enables an agent to efficiently manage the agency relationship with the company.
The preferred embodiment of agent console 156 also enables an agent to perform a number of reporting functions related to customer receipt information and payments made to the company. As shown in
The foregoing is provided in order to disclose the invention in accordance with the patent laws, and more particularly to disclose preferred embodiments of systems and processes according to the present invention. Modifications, adaptations, and changes may be made to what is disclosed without departing from the scope or spirit of the invention, which is to provide EBPP systems and process which use a common document model/common data model into which biller data from a wide range of billers fits, in order to allow billers to outsource the billing responsibility to an EBPP organization while retaining control over and access to their data and the billing process, and accommodating the interest of customers, financial institutions and other parties as well.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3653480 | Yamamoto et al. | Apr 1972 | A |
| 3833885 | Gentile et al. | Sep 1974 | A |
| 4277837 | Stuckert | Jul 1981 | A |
| 4315101 | Atalla | Feb 1982 | A |
| 4317957 | Sendrow | Mar 1982 | A |
| 4322613 | Oldenkamp | Mar 1982 | A |
| 4420751 | Paganini et al. | Dec 1983 | A |
| 4454414 | Benton | Jun 1984 | A |
| 4460960 | Anderson et al. | Jul 1984 | A |
| 4544834 | Newport et al. | Oct 1985 | A |
| 4634845 | Hale et al. | Jan 1987 | A |
| 4649563 | Riskin | Mar 1987 | A |
| 4678895 | Tateisi et al. | Jul 1987 | A |
| 4689478 | Hale et al. | Aug 1987 | A |
| 4695880 | Johnson et al. | Sep 1987 | A |
| 4711993 | Kosednar et al. | Dec 1987 | A |
| 4713761 | Sharpe et al. | Dec 1987 | A |
| 4727243 | Savar | Feb 1988 | A |
| 4734858 | Schlafly | Mar 1988 | A |
| 4799156 | Shavit et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
| 4823264 | Deming | Apr 1989 | A |
| 4859837 | Halpern | Aug 1989 | A |
| 4870260 | Niepolomski et al. | Sep 1989 | A |
| 4922646 | Basgal | May 1990 | A |
| 4947028 | Gorog | Aug 1990 | A |
| 4987538 | Johnson et al. | Jan 1991 | A |
| 5007084 | Materna et al. | Apr 1991 | A |
| 5025373 | Keyser, Jr. et al. | Jun 1991 | A |
| 5097115 | Ogasawara et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
| 5121945 | Thomson et al. | Jun 1992 | A |
| 5168151 | Nara | Dec 1992 | A |
| 5179584 | Tsumura | Jan 1993 | A |
| 4947028 | Gorog | Jun 1993 | A |
| 5220501 | Lawlor et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
| 5231571 | D'Agostino | Jul 1993 | A |
| 5265033 | Vajk et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
| 5283829 | Anderson | Feb 1994 | A |
| 5287270 | Hardy et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
| 5317137 | Wilkins | May 1994 | A |
| 5325290 | Cauffman et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
| 5326959 | Perazza | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5336870 | Hughes et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
| 5341429 | Stringer et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
| 5347632 | Filepp et al. | Sep 1994 | A |
| 5383113 | Kight et al. | Jan 1995 | A |
| 5420405 | Chasek | May 1995 | A |
| 5424938 | Wagner et al. | Jun 1995 | A |
| 5465206 | Hilt et al. | Nov 1995 | A |
| 5473143 | Vak et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
| 5483445 | Pickering | Jan 1996 | A |
| 5504677 | Pollin | Apr 1996 | A |
| 5544086 | Davis et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
| 5557518 | Rosen | Sep 1996 | A |
| 5572004 | Raimann | Nov 1996 | A |
| 5594910 | Filepp et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
| 5636346 | Saxe | Jun 1997 | A |
| 5649117 | Landry | Jul 1997 | A |
| 5652786 | Rogers | Jul 1997 | A |
| 5655089 | Bucci | Aug 1997 | A |
| 5671285 | Newman | Sep 1997 | A |
| 5699528 | Hogan | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5710889 | Clark et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
| 5717868 | James | Feb 1998 | A |
| 5727249 | Pollin | Mar 1998 | A |
| 5729693 | Holda-Fleck | Mar 1998 | A |
| 5745886 | Rosen | Apr 1998 | A |
| 5787403 | Randle | Jul 1998 | A |
| 5815665 | Teper et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5832460 | Bednar et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5845267 | Ronen | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5848400 | Chang | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5884290 | Clark et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5890140 | Clark et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5903721 | Sixtus | May 1999 | A |
| 5903732 | Reed et al. | May 1999 | A |
| 5905976 | Mjolsnes et al. | May 1999 | A |
| 5920847 | Kolling et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5930759 | Moore et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5943656 | Crooks et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5956695 | Carrithers et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5956700 | Landry | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5963925 | Kolling et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5978780 | Watson | Nov 1999 | A |
| 6029151 | Nikander | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6032133 | Hilt et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6044362 | Neely | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6052457 | Abdelaal et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6058380 | Anderson et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6065012 | Balsara et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6070150 | Remington et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6072870 | Nguyen et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6078907 | Lamm | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6085177 | Semple et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6097834 | Krouse et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6098053 | Slater | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6119106 | Mersky et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6119107 | Polk | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6119109 | Muratani et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6122625 | Rosen | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6128603 | Dent et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6173272 | Thomas et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6289322 | Kitchen et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
| 6292789 | Schutzer | Sep 2001 | B1 |
| 6304857 | Heindel et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6381584 | Ogram | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6385595 | Kolling et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 7072858 | Litzow et al. | Jul 2006 | B1 |
| 7146332 | Owen, Jr. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
| 7263503 | Phibbs, Jr. | Aug 2007 | B1 |
| 7280979 | Katz et al. | Oct 2007 | B1 |
| 7308427 | Hood | Dec 2007 | B1 |
| 7321869 | Phibbs, Jr. | Jan 2008 | B1 |
| 7349874 | Hood | Mar 2008 | B1 |
| 7349875 | Hood et al. | Mar 2008 | B1 |
| 7364068 | Strubbe et al. | Apr 2008 | B1 |
| 20020026394 | Savage et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
| 20020194125 | Shimada | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| WO9905628 | Feb 1999 | WO |
| WO9907102 | Feb 1999 | WO |
| WO9910823 | Mar 1999 | WO |
| WO9913421 | Mar 1999 | WO |
| WO9915999 | Apr 1999 | WO |
| WO 9918529 | Apr 1999 | WO |
| WO9942944 | Aug 1999 | WO |
| WO9958339 | Nov 1999 | WO |
| WO0042551 | Jul 2000 | WO |
| WO0048085 | Aug 2000 | WO |
| WO0177938 | Oct 2001 | WO |
| WO 0214985 | Feb 2002 | WO |
