Explicit character filtering of ambiguous text entry

Abstract
The present invention relates to a method and apparatus for explicit filtering in ambiguous text entry. The invention provides embodiments including various explicit text entry methodologies, such as 2-key and long pressing. The invention also provides means for matching words in a database using build around methodology, stem locking methodology, word completion methodology, and n-gram searches.
Description
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Technical Field


The invention relates to text input technology. More specifically, the invention relates to text entry solutions to wireless communication devices with limited keypads.


2. Description of the Prior Art


For many years, portable computers have been getting smaller and smaller. The principal size-limiting component in the effort to produce a smaller portable computer has been the keyboard. If standard typewriter-size keys are used, the portable computer must be at least as large as the keyboard. Miniature keyboards have been used on portable computers, but the miniature keyboard keys have been found to be too small to be easily or quickly manipulated by a user. Incorporating a full-size keyboard in a portable computer also hinders true portable use of the computer. Most portable computers cannot be operated without placing the computer on a flat work surface to allow the user to type with both hands. A user cannot easily use a portable computer while standing or moving.


In the latest generation of small portable computers, called Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), companies have attempted to address this problem by incorporating handwriting recognition software in the PDA. A user may directly enter text by writing on a touch-sensitive panel or screen. This handwritten text is then converted by the recognition software into digital data. Unfortunately, in addition to the fact that printing or writing with a pen is in general slower than typing, the accuracy and speed of the handwriting recognition software has to date been less than satisfactory.


Presently, a tremendous growth in the wireless industry has spawned reliable, convenient, and very popular mobile communications devices available to the average consumer, such as cell phones, two-way pagers, PDAs, etc. These handheld wireless communications and computing devices requiring text input are becoming smaller still. Recent advances in two-way paging, cellular telephones, and other portable wireless technologies have led to a demand for small and portable two-way messaging systems, and especially for systems which can both send and receive electronic mail (“e-mail”). Some wireless communications device manufacturers also desire to provide to consumers devices with which the consumer can operate with the same hand that is holding the device.


Disambiguation Background.


Prior development work has considered use of a keyboard that has a reduced number of keys. As suggested by the keypad layout of a touch-tone telephone, many of the reduced keyboards have used a 3-by-4 array of keys. Each key in the array of keys contains multiple characters. There is therefore ambiguity as a user enters a sequence of keys, since each keystroke may indicate one of several letters. Several approaches have been suggested for resolving the ambiguity of the keystroke sequence, referred to as disambiguation.


One suggested approach for unambiguously specifying characters entered on a reduced keyboard requires the user to enter, on average, two or more keystrokes to specify each letter. The keystrokes may be entered either simultaneously (chording) or in sequence (multiple-stroke specification). Neither chording nor multiple-stroke specification has produced a keyboard having adequate simplicity and efficiency of use. Multiple-stroke specification is inefficient, and chording is complicated to learn and use.


Other suggested approaches for determining the correct character sequence that corresponds to an ambiguous keystroke sequence are summarized in the article “Probabilistic Character Disambiguation for Reduced Keyboards Using Small Text Samples,” published in the Journal of the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication by John L. Arnott and Muhammad Y. Javad (hereinafter the “Arnott article”). The Arnott article notes that the majority of disambiguation approaches employ known statistics of character sequences in the relevant language to resolve character ambiguity in a given context.


Another suggested approach based on word-level disambiguation is disclosed in a textbook entitled Principles of Computer Speech, authored by I. H. Witten, and published by Academic Press in 1982 (hereinafter the “Witten approach”). Witten discusses a system for reducing ambiguity from text entered using a telephone touch pad. Witten recognizes that for approximately 92% of the words in a 24,500 word dictionary, no ambiguity will arise when comparing the keystroke sequence with the dictionary. When ambiguities do arise, however, Witten notes that they must be resolved interactively by the system presenting the ambiguity to the user and asking the user to make a selection between the number of ambiguous entries. A user must therefore respond to the system's prediction at the end of each word. Such a response slows the efficiency of the system and increases the number of keystrokes required to enter a given segment of text.


H. A. Gutowitz, Touch-Typable Devices Based on Ambiguous Codes and Methods to Design Such Devices, WO 00/35091 (Jun. 15, 2000) discloses that the design of typable devices, and, in particular, touch-type devices embodying ambiguous codes presents numerous ergonomical problems and proposes some solutions for such problems. Gutowitz teaches methods for the selection of ambiguous codes from the classes of strongly-touch-typable ambiguous codes and substantially optimal ambiguous codes for touch-typable devices such as computers, PDA's, and the like, and other information appliances, given design constraints, such as the size, shape and computational capacity of the device, the typical uses of the device, and conventional constraints such as alphabetic ordering or Qwerty ordering.


Eatoni Ergonomics Inc. provides a system called WordWise, (Copyright 2001 Eatoni Ergonomics Inc.), adapted from a regular keyboard, and where a capital letter is typed on a regular keyboard, and an auxiliary key, such as the shift key, is held down while the key with the intended letter is pressed. The key idea behind WordWise is to choose one letter from each of the groups of letters on each of the keys on the telephone keypad. Such chosen letters are typed by holding down an auxiliary key while pressing the key with the intended letter. WordWise does not use a vocabulary database/dictionary to search for words to resolve ambiguous, unambiguous, or a combination thereof entries.


Zi Corporation teaches a predictive text method, eZiText® (2002 Zi Corporation), but does not teach nor anywhere suggest explicit text filtering in ambiguous mode, nor in combination with 2-key explicit entry, stem-locking, or n-gram searches.


A Need for Improvements to Current Disambiguation Methodologies.


Disambiguating an ambiguous keystroke sequence continues to be a challenging problem. A specific challenge facing disambiguation is providing sufficient feedback to the user about the keystrokes being input. With an ordinary typewriter or word processor, each keystroke represents a unique character which can be displayed to the user as soon as it is entered. But with word-level disambiguation, for example, this is often not possible, because each entry represents multiple characters, and any sequence of entries may match multiple objects, such as, words or word stems, for example. Such ambiguity is especially a problem when, for example, the user makes a spelling or entry error and the user is not certain of such error until the complete sequence is entered and the desired result is not presented. In another example, previous systems utilizing word-level disambiguation fail to provide any feedback until a predetermined selection, such as a specific key selection, is made that is recognizable by the system as a termination selection, e.g. the space key.


Moreover, some alphabets, such as That and Arabic, contain more letters than the alphabet for English, which leads to even greater ambiguity on a reduced number of keys. Efficient input of these languages demands a mechanism for reducing that ambiguity when needed.


Therefore, it would be advantageous to provide a disambiguating system which reduces the apparent ambiguity on the display during entry and improves the user's ability to detect and correct spelling and/or entry errors.


It would also be advantageous to provide a disambiguating system which reduces ambiguity and increases efficiency by providing explicit filtering capabilities such that a list of candidate words, word stems, sequence of symbols, and the like, is narrowed, and the user can subsequently be offered a word completion or sequence completion quicker. More specifically, it would be advantageous to allow locking in a current state of interpretation of a part of or all of previously entered characters including, but not limited to an object and/or word stems, and explicitly entered characters, thereby preventing reinterpretation of previous entries.


It would also be advantageous to build around explicitly entered characters as anchors, for the end of or beginning of new objects, words, or word stems.


It would also be advantageous to offer reasonable guesses for extending objects or words by n-gram analysis of preceding explicitly entered characters.


It would also be advantageous to reduce ambiguity and increase efficiency during the process of disambiguating a linguistic object, such as a word or word stem, for example, by preventing reinterpretation of previous entries.


It would also be advantageous to recognize common delimiters entered ambiguously or explicitly as suggesting a point connecting two separate sets of characters to suggest where the interpretation of keystrokes could be restarted.


SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to a method and apparatus for explicit filtering in ambiguous text entry. The invention provides embodiments including various explicit text entry methodologies, such as 2-key and long pressing. The invention also provides means for matching words in a database using build around methodology, stem locking methodology, word completion methodology, and n-gram searches.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS


FIG. 1 is a hardware block diagram of the explicit character filtering system according of the invention;



FIG. 2 is a picture of a wireless handheld device showing each letter of the English alphabet associated with a key according to the invention;



FIG. 3 is an example chart of European letters and some special symbols shown on the 0-9 keys and their respective Shift keys according to the invention;



FIG. 4 is a sample screenshot of one 2-key matrix input method according to the invention;



FIG. 5 is a flow chart of 2-key explicit entry for the explicit character filtering in ambiguous text entry system of FIG. 1;



FIG. 6 is a flow chart for explicitly filtering in ambiguous mode according to a preferred embodiment of the invention;



FIG. 7 is a flow chart of a method for generating words not stored in the database according to the invention;



FIG. 8 shows an example of explicit entry by long-pressing on a key according to the invention; and



FIG. 9 is a flow chart depicting a build around example according to the invention.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to a method and apparatus for explicit filtering in ambiguous text entry. The invention provides embodiments including various explicit text entry methodologies, such as 2-key and long pressing. The invention also provides means for matching words in a database using build around methodology, stem locking methodology, word completion methodology, and n-gram searches.


More specifically, the present invention relates to a method and apparatus for explicit filtering in an ambiguous text entry mode, for extending and interpreting objects, words, word stems, and the like, and for stem-locking. One specific embodiment of explicit filtering for reducing ambiguity uses a variety of explicit entry means, including a 2-key explicit entry feature, wherein a key depression in combination with a matrix display are used. An extending and interpreting methodology is provided wherein complex phrases are allowed to be typed in. Predetermined sets of characters are “built around” as anchors for the end or beginning of new words or word stems. Reasonable guesses are offered for extending words by “n-gram” analysis of preceding explicit letters. Specifically, three specific embodiments using stem-locking are provided, wherein the first embodiment uses a combination of the n letters of a desired object, such as a word, and a next key. The second embodiment locks in the stem portion of the object and resolves the unlocked portion of the object. The third embodiment uses n-gram searches.


A block diagram of a preferred embodiment of the reduced keyboard disambiguating system hardware is provided in FIG. 1. The keyboard 54 and the display 53 are coupled to a processor 100 through appropriate interfacing circuitry. Optionally, a speaker 102 is also coupled to the processor. The processor 100 receives input from the keyboard, and manages all output to the display and speaker. Processor 100 is coupled to a memory 104. The memory includes a combination of temporary storage media, such as random access memory (RAM), and permanent storage media, such as read-only memory (ROM), floppy disks, hard disks, or CD-ROMs. Memory 104 contains all software routines to govern system operation. Preferably, the memory contains an operating system 106, disambiguating software 108, and associated explicit character filtering in ambiguous text entry software and/or extending and interpreting software 110 that is discussed in additional detail below. The memory also includes a vocabulary database 30. Optionally, the memory may contain one or more application programs 112, 114. Examples of application programs include word processors, software dictionaries, and foreign language translators. Speech synthesis software may also be provided as an application program, allowing the reduced keyboard disambiguating system to function as a communication aid. Therefore, the output, in this case, might be vocally output from the speaker.


It should be appreciated and understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the discussion applies to symbols and sequences of symbols, which, when combined make an object or part of an object. A typical example of a symbol is a character in any language, such as a letter, digit, punctuation mark, or any other symbol from a language. A typical example of an object or part of an object is a word or part of a word. However, the discussion herein equally applies to Japanese kana and Korean jamos. Also, it should be noted that the objects don't have to be linguistic, as the claimed disambiguating system herein can be used to look up icons, phone numbers, or inventory records, as long as a type of symbolic string representation is present. Therefore, it should be appreciated that use of the terms such as letter, word, word stem, and the like are not limited to only those applications, and are used to facilitate ease of reading and understanding the discussion herein.


Explicit Entry


One preferred embodiment of generating an explicit character for the purpose of filtering word choices according to the invention provides a 2-key explicit entry feature. In many languages, such as English, all the letters associated with a key are printed on the key, such as depicted in FIG. 2, where FIG. 2 is a picture of an example wireless handheld device showing each letter of the English alphabet associated with a key according to the invention.


However, other languages, such as French, include many more letters than can visually fit on a key, such as the cell phone key. FIG. 3 is an example chart of European letters and some special symbols shown on the 0-9 keys and their respective Shift keys. For example, if a user presses the 5 key, then a matrix display with the alphanumeric characters j, k, l, and 5 appear. FIG. 4 is a sample screenshot of one 2-key matrix input method according to the invention. After the first key has been pressed, the matrix of choices is displayed on the device panel. It should be appreciated that other labels printed on keys are possible, such as, for example, each key including a subset of predetermined sets of associated letters, such as displaying the first and last character of predetermined sets of associated letters.



FIG. 5 is a flow chart of 2-key explicit entry for the explicit character filtering in ambiguous text entry system of FIG. 1. According to a preferred embodiment of the invention, for a user to explicitly select one of many letters assigned to a key, as in the case of the French language, the user selects, such as by depression, the associated key (5000). The selection, e.g. depression, of the desired key causes the system to presents a second set of letters, such as in matrix form, that corresponds to the selected key (5100). Each block in the matrix includes a letter from the set of letters associated with the just selected/depressed key. FIG. 4 shows an example of what is displayed as a result of depressing the 1 key. All that is required at this point is for the user to select the key number of the matrix block that includes the desired character (5200). This explicit selection process only requires at maximum 2 key selections/depressions for the selection of a letter.


It should be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the 2-key explicit entry method for the purpose of filtering can be extended to any other language. It should also be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that alternate configurations are possible, such as, for example, a scrolling list.


According to an alternate configuration, the user selects a key by way of a long-press to display and cycle through the character sequence on that key. As shown in FIG. 8, some or all of the characters may scroll past in a preview window as long as the key is being pressed. When the key is released, the last highlighted character is accepted.


In yet another configuration, after the character sequence is presented by way of the long-press on the key, the character appears or is highlighted each additional time the key is pressed. The presentation of each explicit character may end when a sufficient time elapses between one key press and the next or when a different key is pressed.


In yet another configuration, after the character sequence is presented by way of the long-press on the key, the character appears or is highlighted each additional time a navigation key is pressed, where a navigation key is, for example, an arrow key or a scrolling wheel.


Following is a list of other explicit entry means for filtering. It should be appreciated that the list is meant by example only, and is not exhaustive:

    • long pressing on a key to enter a number/digit explicitly;
    • changing to a numbers mode and pressing a key to enter a number/digit explicitly (and then returning to ambiguous entry mode for filtering);
    • changing to a multi-tap mode and pressing a key repeatedly to enter a character explicitly (and then returning to ambiguous entry mode for filtering);
    • interpreting ambiguous mode key presses as an explicit character, either by grouping each pair of key presses as a 2-key explicit entry, or by grouping repeated presses of the same key as a multi-tap entry;
    • using multi-switch keys, such as a 5-way rocker, which permits ambiguous entry on a simple press and an explicit character entry on a different kind of press; and
    • by “chording,” which means by pressing more than one key simultaneously, with a primary key indicating an ambiguous set of characters and a secondary key indicating which character in the set to select (e.g., on a video game controller).


Another means of explicit entry for filtering is when any character assigned to a key is offered to the user through a secondary means, e.g., displayed on the label of a programmable key, or “softkey”, which if chosen would be entered explicitly. The softkey mechanism allows correction of the last keystroke entered, e.g., if the user is extending a word with additional characters or wishes to correct the displayed interpretation before the entire word is entered. The additional character offered would be based on an analysis of the most likely character associated with the preceding keystroke, or based on the words in the current word candidate list. Assuming the most likely character was already displayed in the ambiguous word choice, then the second most likely character would be offered. For instance, if the user wants to type “ram” and enters the key sequence 726, the word “ran” appears. The most likely letter for that position in the word candidate list associated with 726 is “m”, then “m” could be offered on the softkey. When the user presses the softkey, the “m” replaces the “n” in the word “ran”.


Explicit Character Filtering in Ambiguous Mode


Explicit character filtering in ambiguous mode is when a character is explicitly entered during entry of a sequence of ambiguous entries. One embodiment of explicit entry already discussed is the 2-key explicit entry method using a matrix as described above. According to another preferred embodiment of the invention, explicit entry of a character is accomplished by a long depression of the associated key. When one or more characters in a sequence of characters is explicitly entered, only stored words with that explicitly selected character(s) in the corresponding position(s) are retrieved.


One way of retrieving the desired word according to one embodiment of the invention is when an explicit character is entered in ambiguous entry mode, then the disambiguating filtering system continues to match database words against the ambiguous and explicit letters as long as possible, rather than accepting the default word upon the first explicit letter. If there is no match, the last ambiguous word selected is accepted and a new letter is appended to it.


As an example, suppose a user wants to enter the word “home” in English T9. The user long presses the 6 key in the 3rd position to explicitly select “m,” resulting in only “home,” and, in addition, word stems “imme” and “gome” after 4 keystrokes.


Another example is using a mixed alphanumeric word like “cu2night”, which could be stored in a database. If the user long presses on the 2 key, then explicitly enters a “2,” words such as “cub” are thus filtered out from the word candidate list.


Explicit filtering is another way to quickly offer word completions. If “cu2night” was in a database, and “cu” was entered ambiguously followed by “2” explicitly, all ambiguous interpretations of the keystroke sequence “282” will be filtered out, leaving “cu2night” as a more likely choice to be offered through word completion.



FIG. 6 is a flow chart for explicitly filtering in ambiguous mode according to a preferred embodiment of the invention. A character is desired and its associated key is entered either ambiguously or explicitly (6000). The desired word is then interpreted based on the sequence of ambiguously selected keys (i.e. their associated characters) and the explicitly selected characters. The database is searched for words with the characters associated with ambiguously selected entries, e.g. keys, and with the explicitly entered characters, in their respective corresponding positions (6100). The searched words are then presented or displayed in a predetermined prioritized order (6200), such as a most frequently used order. If the desired word is among the set of presented searched words (6300), then the desired word is chosen (6400) and the process ends. Otherwise, the process is not over and steps are repeated from selecting a desired key (6000).


Build Around


In another aspect of the disambiguating filtering system, words from the database can be “built around” explicitly or ambiguously entered characters, or, additionally characters from a predetermined set of characters. According to one interpretation, the matching words, if any, include the explicit character for a particular sequence. However, additional interpretations of the sequence may include: one or more words that match the ambiguous keys that precede and/or end with the explicit character; one or more matching words that begin with the explicit character if any; and one or more words that match the ambiguous keys that follow the explicit character. For example, if the key sequence for “gifts4less” is entered, with the digit “4” entered explicitly, the words “gifts” matches the ambiguous key sequence preceding the explicit character and “less” matches the key sequence following it, even if “gifts4less”, “gifts4”, and “4less” are not found in the database. Similarly, “mobile.com” may be typed as one word automatically constructed from the database entries “mobile” and “.com”, or from the entries “mobile” and “.” and “corn” if there is a key for ambiguous punctuation; in either of those cases the period may not need be explicitly entered.


One embodiment of the build around concept can be described with reference to FIG. 9, a flow chart depicting a build around example. The build around method starts (9000) with a key sequence being entered, e.g., [k1 k2 k3 kd k5 k6 k7 k8]. The k#'s refer to ambiguously entered keys and kd refers to a delimiting key that can be either an explicitly entered character an ambiguously entered punctuation character. The method then determines if the database found a match (9100). If yes, a word is displayed (9200). If the user desires to proceed to the next choice in the list of words found by the database, the user presses a next key to request further lookups by the database (9300). Specifically, the database is multiply searched for matches to key sequences. A key sequence is divided into two sets on either side of a delimiter. An example of various groupings of two sets of sequences divided by a delimiter follows:

    • [k1 k2 k3 kd] [k5 k6 k7 k8];
    • [k1 k2 k3] [kd k5 k6 k7 k8]; and
    • [k1 k2 k3] kd [k5 k6 k7 k8].


If a match is found among any of the groups (9400), then the desired word is chosen and displayed (9500). If the user desires to build around this sequence, the user can press a next key to obtain the next set of results from multiple searches to the database (9600).


If the database did not find an initial match (9100), then the database is multiply searched for matches to key sequences (9700), wherein a key sequence is divided into two sets on either side of a delimiter, description of which and examples of which are presented above.


It should be appreciated that means to search for and display/present the set of possible desired words can vary and still remain within the scope and spirit of the invention.


Stem-Locking


In the preferred embodiment of the invention, stem-locking is locking one or more subsequences or substrings of characters within a sequence. For example, the first n-numbers of sequence of characters of a word can be locked in. The way stem-locking works is that only words with those locked in characters are searched. For instance, suppose a user selects the 4 and then the 6 key of a wireless cell phone using T9 technology. The word “go” is presented in the display. If “go” is locked in, then upon subsequent key selections, only words with “go” in the first two positions are selected.


The locking of letters can be performed in a number of different ways. For example, two such ways are by a “full next locking” mechanism and an “unbounded” methodology by moving a cursor over characters to select. As an example of implementing “full next locking,” a “next” key is used. That is, according to one embodiment of the invention, selecting a “next” key locks in a previously presented series of characters, thereby eliminating the possibility of the system re-interpreting the object by re-interpreting the locked in series of characters. The selected series of characters are now marked as explicitly entered. An example of moving the cursor over characters (unbounded) according to one embodiment of the invention, the cursor is moved to the beginning of a series and by the user selecting a right-arrow key (or a left-arrow key, for example, in the Hebrew language), all the characters that the cursor moved over are locked in.


Another aspect of full next locking is locking a previously presented series of characters when likely word boundaries are identified. Such boundaries can be identified based on certain sequences of interactions, such as, for example, when the user “nexts” and then selects a symbol or punctuation character; or, when the user “nexts” and then enters an explicit number.


It should be appreciated that other methods to “lock” include, but are by no means limited to:

    • pressing a key assigned to the “lock” function, such as an OK or Select key; and
    • pressing an appropriate arrow key to “lock” in a word completion being offered.


Stem locking approaches, such as those discussed above, can be related to “build around” as described herein above. That is, once a sequence has been locked in, it can be “built around.”


Japanese Kana Example


Another example of the disambiguating filtering methodology is in the Japanese language. Sub-phrases in kana (phonetic) character form can be converted to kanji (Yomikata), and those converted sub-phrases may in turn filter interpretations of the remaining ambiguous kana preceding or following the converted sub-phrases, excluding interpretations that can't be used to construct valid phrases.


In another embodiment of the invention, a hierarchy of locks mechanism is used. For example, a right arrow key can lock in all characters to the left of the cursor. Therefore, in this implementation, a right-arrow key locks in a first-choice stem, while a “next” key locks in a not-first-choice stem.


Another implementation is using a “select” key instead of a right-arrow key in combination with a “next” key. For example, the “select” key can be used at the end of each ambiguous key sequence for either selecting and accepting the default choice (the select key is pressed once) or for selecting an alternative choice (the select key is pressed more than once until the desired choice appears or is highlighted). In this case, the “select” key is used to stem lock either the first or alternate choices, rather than using the right-arrow key for the first choice and the “next” key for other choices (or vice-versa, as the choice of keys is arbitrary, yet predetermined).


Word Extension and Completion


Another aspect of the invention is the system automatically starting a new word at a lock position. For example, the user enters “car” and locks it, and then enters the keys for “pet”. “Carpet” is shown because it is a complete word in the database. The word “carset” is also shown because it is “car”+“set”, which is another example of the “build around” concept, where an ambiguous sequence may follow an explicit character entry, causing one interpretation to be the beginning of a new ambiguous word.


Alternatively, when one or more previously-accepted characters precedes (is adjacent to, without spaces) the current and active ambiguous key sequence. The system uses the preceding characters to match words and phrases (e.g., in the user database) that begin with those characters and that match an ambiguous key sequence following those characters. Optionally, one or more word completions is offered. An example follows. A user enters and locks in (accepts) the characters, “con.” Then, the user types ambiguous keys for “stan” and is offered “constantinople” as a word completion. In this example, the user could have used a left-/right-arrow key to accept “con” to be used to filter and to suggest word completions that begin with the accepted chars and are immediately adjacent to an ambiguous key sequence. Hebrew and other languages go the other direction, hence right-side-only is not assumed.



FIG. 7 is a flow chart of a method for generating words not stored in the database according to the invention. That is, in an equally preferred alternate embodiment, if a series of entries is locked in (7000) and subsequent ambiguous characters entered (7100) and a corresponding stored word is not found in the database (7200), then searches are performed for likely combinations based on the previous n locked in characters (7300). In one preferred embodiment of the invention, an n-gram is used to find stored words. This is contrary to using the entire set of locked in letters. For example, suppose a user has entered and explicitly selected the word “flight”, but the user, however, wants to enter the word “flightplan” which is not in the database. In this embodiment of the invention, the user then explicitly locks in the letter “p” and “I” after “flight”. The system then searches for words using the last explicitly entered bigram (p and l). Thus, words that are not stored in the database are generated.


Although the invention is described herein with reference to the preferred embodiment, one skilled in the art will readily appreciate that other applications may be substituted for those set forth herein without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention.


Accordingly, the invention should only be limited by the Claims included below.

Claims
  • 1. An apparatus for explicit character filtering of ambiguous key input sequences, said apparatus comprising: a processor;a keyboard configured to accept a plurality of key inputs including explicit key inputs and ambiguous key inputs;wherein responsive to receiving an explicit key input, a single, unambiguous intended character is received;wherein an ambiguous key input indicates an intended character of a plurality of potentially intended characters, but the intended character is not known;a memory coupled to said processor, wherein said memory comprises:an object database storing objects associated with sequences of key inputs;the processor further configured to receive a first sequence of key inputs comprising a plurality of characters some of which are entered by explicit key input and some of which are entered by ambiguous key input and generate, based on the first sequence of key inputs, a first set of search character sequences, wherein each character of each search character sequence of the first set of search character sequences corresponds to either an explicit key input or an ambiguous key input in the first sequence of key inputs and is selected from the plurality of intended or potentially intended characters associated with the corresponding respective explicit key input or ambiguous key input;the processor further configured to search said database, based on the first set of search character sequences, for objects to identify a first set of potential desired objects found in said database and receive a selection of a first desired object from the first set of potential desired objects found in said database.
  • 2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein a desired object further comprises the one or more characters received by explicit key input.
  • 3. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the processor generates the desired object by concatenating characters in the following order: the characters of the first desired object, the one or more characters received by explicit key input, and the characters of the second desired object.
  • 4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said plurality of potentially intended characters comprise letters, digits, punctuation marks, Japanese kana, Korean jamos, and icons.
  • 5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein objects comprise words, part of words, word stems, icons, phone numbers, inventory records, and sequences of characters.
  • 6. The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising speech synthesis software and a speaker as a communication aid.
  • 7. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein explicit key input is received by any combination of: 2-key explicit entry comprising two keys entered in sequence, wherein the combination of the two keys entered in sequence identifies a single unambiguous intended character;long pressing a key to display and cycle through a character sequence;long pressing on a key to enter a number/digit explicitly;changing to a numbers mode and pressing a key to enter a number/digit explicitly;changing to a multi-tap mode and pressing a key repeatedly to enter a character explicitly;interpreting ambiguous mode key presses as an explicit character, either by grouping each pair of key presses as a 2-key explicit entry, or by grouping repeated presses of the same key as a multi-tap entry;using multi-switch keys, thereby permitting ambiguous entry on a simple press and an explicit character entry on a different kind of press;chording by pressing more than one key simultaneously, with a primary key indicating an ambiguous set of characters and a secondary key indicating which character in the set to select; andusing a softkey as a secondary means for offering any character assigned to a key based on analysis of most likely character associated with a preceding keystroke or based on words in a current word candidate list.
  • 8. The apparatus of claim 7, wherein explicit key input by 2-key explicit entry comprises use of at least one of: a matrix display;a label including a subset of predetermined sets of associated characters; anda scrolling list.
  • 9. The apparatus of claim 7, wherein long pressing a key to display and cycle through a character sequence further comprises, after a character sequence is displayed, either of: a next character in said character sequence is highlighted each additional time said key is pressed, ending after a sufficient time elapses between one key press and the next or when a different key is pressed; ora next character in said character sequence is highlighted each time a navigation key is pressed.
  • 10. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein a selection of a desired object from a set of potential desired objects found in said database is received subsequent to displaying the set of potential desired objects in a pre-determined order.
  • 11. A method for generating a desired object, said method comprising: receiving a first sequence of key inputs, some of which are explicit key inputs and some of which are ambiguous key inputs and;generating, based on the first sequence of key inputs, a first set of character sequences;wherein each character of each character sequence of the first set of character sequences corresponds to either an explicit key input or an ambiguous key input in the first sequence of key inputs and is selected from the plurality of intended or potentially intended characters associated with the corresponding respective explicit key input or ambiguous key input; andsearching a database, based on the first set of search character sequences, for objects to identify a first set of potential desired objects found in said database and receiving a selection of a first desired object from the first set of potential desired objects found in said database.
  • 12. The method of claim 11, wherein a desired object further comprises the one or more characters received by explicit key input.
  • 13. The method of claim 12, further comprising generating the desired object by concatenating characters in the following order: the characters of the first desired object, the one or more characters received by explicit key input, and the characters of the second desired object.
  • 14. The method of claim 11, wherein said plurality of potentially intended characters comprise letters, digits, punctuation marks, Japanese kana, Korean jamos, and icons.
  • 15. The method of claim 11, wherein objects comprise words, part of words, word stems, icons, phone numbers, inventory records, and sequences of characters.
  • 16. The method of claim 11, wherein explicit key input is received by any combination of: 2-key explicit entry comprising two keys entered in sequence, wherein the combination of the two keys entered in sequence identifies a single unambiguous intended character;long pressing a key to display and cycle through a character sequence;long pressing on a key to enter a number/digit explicitly;changing to a numbers mode and pressing a key to enter a number/digit explicitly;changing to a multi-tap mode and pressing a key repeatedly to enter a character explicitly;interpreting ambiguous mode key presses as an explicit character, either by grouping each pair of key presses as a 2-key explicit entry, or by grouping repeated presses of the same key as a multi-tap entry;using multi-switch keys, thereby permitting ambiguous entry on a simple press and an explicit character entry on a different kind of press;chording by pressing more than one key simultaneously, with a primary key indicating an ambiguous set of characters and a secondary key indicating which character in the set to select; andusing a softkey as a secondary means for offering any character assigned to a key based on analysis of most likely character associated with a preceding keystroke or based on words in a current word candidate list.
  • 17. The method of claim 16, wherein explicit key input by 2-key explicit entry comprises use of at least one of: a matrix display;a label including a subset of predetermined sets of associated characters;anda scrolling list.
  • 18. The method of claim 16, wherein long pressing a key to display and cycle through a character sequence further comprises, after a character sequence is displayed, either of: a next character in said character sequence is highlighted each additional time said key is pressed, ending after a sufficient time elapses between one key press and the next or when a different key is pressed; ora next character in said character sequence is highlighted each time a navigation key is pressed.
  • 19. The method of claim 11, wherein a selection of a first desired object from a set of potential desired objects found in said database is received subsequent to displaying the set of potential desired objects in a pre-determined order.
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/725,334 filed Mar. 16, 2010, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,381,137 which is a Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/176,933 filed 20 Jun. 2002, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,712,053, which is a Continuation-in-Part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/454,406, filed Dec. 3, 1999, entitled “REDUCED KEYBOARD TEXT INPUT SYSTEM FOR THE JAPANESE LANGUAGE”, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,646,573. The disclosure of all of these related application are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.

US Referenced Citations (249)
Number Name Date Kind
3967273 Knowlton Jun 1976 A
4164025 Dubnowski et al. Aug 1979 A
4191854 Coles Mar 1980 A
4339806 Yoshida Jul 1982 A
4360892 Endfield Nov 1982 A
4396992 Hayashi et al. Aug 1983 A
4427848 Tsakanikas Jan 1984 A
4442506 Endfield Apr 1984 A
4464070 Hanft et al. Aug 1984 A
4481508 Kamei et al. Nov 1984 A
4544276 Horodeck Oct 1985 A
4586160 Amano et al. Apr 1986 A
4649563 Riskin Mar 1987 A
4661916 Baker et al. Apr 1987 A
4669901 Feng Jun 1987 A
4674112 Kondraske et al. Jun 1987 A
4677659 Dargan Jun 1987 A
4679951 King et al. Jul 1987 A
4744050 Hirosawa et al. May 1988 A
4754474 Feinson Jun 1988 A
RE32773 Goldwasser et al. Oct 1988 E
4791556 Vilkaitis Dec 1988 A
4807181 Duncan Feb 1989 A
4817129 Riskin Mar 1989 A
4866759 Riskin Sep 1989 A
4872196 Royer et al. Oct 1989 A
4891786 Goldwasser Jan 1990 A
4969097 Levin Nov 1990 A
5018201 Sugawara May 1991 A
5031206 Riskin Jul 1991 A
5041967 Ephrath et al. Aug 1991 A
5067103 Lapeyre Nov 1991 A
5109352 O'Dell Apr 1992 A
5128672 Kaehler Jul 1992 A
5131045 Roth Jul 1992 A
5133012 Nitta Jul 1992 A
5163084 Kim et al. Nov 1992 A
5200988 Riskin Apr 1993 A
5210689 Baker et al. May 1993 A
5218538 Zhang Jun 1993 A
5229936 Decker et al. Jul 1993 A
5255310 Kim et al. Oct 1993 A
5258748 Jones Nov 1993 A
5288158 Matias Feb 1994 A
5289394 Lapeyre Feb 1994 A
5303299 Hunt et al. Apr 1994 A
5305205 Weber et al. Apr 1994 A
5339358 Danish et al. Aug 1994 A
5371851 Pieper et al. Dec 1994 A
5373290 Lempel et al. Dec 1994 A
5388061 Hankes Feb 1995 A
5392338 Danish et al. Feb 1995 A
5406480 Kanno Apr 1995 A
5535421 Weinreich Jul 1996 A
5559512 Jasinski et al. Sep 1996 A
5586198 Lakritz Dec 1996 A
5623261 Rose Apr 1997 A
5642522 Zaenen et al. Jun 1997 A
5664896 Blumberg Sep 1997 A
5680511 Baker et al. Oct 1997 A
5748512 Vargas May 1998 A
5786776 Kisaichi et al. Jul 1998 A
5797098 Schroeder et al. Aug 1998 A
5805911 Miller Sep 1998 A
5818437 Grover et al. Oct 1998 A
5825353 Will Oct 1998 A
5828991 Skiena et al. Oct 1998 A
5847697 Sugimoto Dec 1998 A
5855000 Waibel et al. Dec 1998 A
5896321 Miller et al. Apr 1999 A
5917890 Brotman et al. Jun 1999 A
5917941 Webb et al. Jun 1999 A
5926566 Wang et al. Jul 1999 A
5936556 Sakita Aug 1999 A
5937380 Segan Aug 1999 A
5937422 Nelson et al. Aug 1999 A
5945928 Kushler et al. Aug 1999 A
5952942 Balakrishnan et al. Sep 1999 A
5953541 King et al. Sep 1999 A
5960385 Skiena et al. Sep 1999 A
5963671 Comerford et al. Oct 1999 A
5999950 Krueger et al. Dec 1999 A
6005498 Yang et al. Dec 1999 A
6009444 Chen Dec 1999 A
6011554 King et al. Jan 2000 A
6041323 Kubota Mar 2000 A
6044347 Abella et al. Mar 2000 A
6054941 Chen Apr 2000 A
6073101 Maes Jun 2000 A
6098086 Krueger et al. Aug 2000 A
6104317 Panagrossi Aug 2000 A
6120297 Morse, III et al. Sep 2000 A
6130628 Schneider-hufschmidt et al. Oct 2000 A
6169538 Nowlan et al. Jan 2001 B1
6172625 Jin et al. Jan 2001 B1
6178401 Franz et al. Jan 2001 B1
6204848 Nowlan et al. Mar 2001 B1
6208966 Bulfer et al. Mar 2001 B1
6219731 Gutowitz Apr 2001 B1
6223059 Haestrup Apr 2001 B1
6246761 Cuddy Jun 2001 B1
6286064 King et al. Sep 2001 B1
6304844 Pan et al. Oct 2001 B1
6307548 Flinchem et al. Oct 2001 B1
6307549 King et al. Oct 2001 B1
6346894 Connolly et al. Feb 2002 B1
6362752 Guo et al. Mar 2002 B1
6363347 Rozak Mar 2002 B1
6377965 Hachamovitch et al. Apr 2002 B1
6392640 Will May 2002 B1
6407679 Evans et al. Jun 2002 B1
6421672 McAllister et al. Jul 2002 B1
6424743 Ebrahimi Jul 2002 B1
6453281 Walters et al. Sep 2002 B1
6466232 Newell et al. Oct 2002 B1
6502118 Chatterjee Dec 2002 B1
6542170 Williams et al. Apr 2003 B1
6559778 Hillmering May 2003 B1
6567075 Baker et al. May 2003 B1
6574597 Mohri et al. Jun 2003 B1
6584179 Fortier et al. Jun 2003 B1
6633846 Bennett et al. Oct 2003 B1
6636162 Kushler et al. Oct 2003 B1
6646573 Kushler et al. Nov 2003 B1
6665640 Bennett et al. Dec 2003 B1
6684185 Junqua et al. Jan 2004 B1
6686852 Guo Feb 2004 B1
6711290 Sparr et al. Mar 2004 B2
6728348 Denenberg et al. Apr 2004 B2
6734881 Will May 2004 B1
6738952 Yamamuro May 2004 B1
6751605 Gunji et al. Jun 2004 B2
6757544 Rangarajan et al. Jun 2004 B2
6801190 Robinson et al. Oct 2004 B1
6801659 O'Dell Oct 2004 B1
6807529 Johnson et al. Oct 2004 B2
6848080 Lee et al. Jan 2005 B1
6864809 O'Dell et al. Mar 2005 B2
6885317 Gutowitz Apr 2005 B1
6912581 Johnson et al. Jun 2005 B2
6920420 Lin Jul 2005 B2
6934564 Laukkanen et al. Aug 2005 B2
6947771 Guo et al. Sep 2005 B2
6955602 Williams Oct 2005 B2
6956968 O'Dell et al. Oct 2005 B1
6973332 Mirkin et al. Dec 2005 B2
6982658 Guo Jan 2006 B2
6985933 Singhal et al. Jan 2006 B1
7006820 Parker et al. Feb 2006 B1
7013258 Su et al. Mar 2006 B1
7020849 Chen Mar 2006 B1
7027976 Sites Apr 2006 B1
7030863 Longe Apr 2006 B2
7057607 Mayoraz et al. Jun 2006 B2
7061403 Fux Jun 2006 B2
7075520 Williams Jul 2006 B2
7095403 Lyustin Aug 2006 B2
7098896 Kushler et al. Aug 2006 B2
7107204 Liu et al. Sep 2006 B1
7139430 Sparr et al. Nov 2006 B2
7152213 Pu et al. Dec 2006 B2
7224292 Lazaridis et al. May 2007 B2
7256769 Pun et al. Aug 2007 B2
7257528 Ritchie et al. Aug 2007 B1
7263238 Singh Aug 2007 B2
7272564 Phillips et al. Sep 2007 B2
7313277 Morwing et al. Dec 2007 B2
7349576 Holtsberg Mar 2008 B2
7386454 Gopinath et al. Jun 2008 B2
7387457 Jawerth et al. Jun 2008 B2
7389235 Dvorak Jun 2008 B2
7395203 He Jul 2008 B2
7437001 Morwing et al. Oct 2008 B2
7466859 Chang et al. Dec 2008 B2
7598890 Park et al. Oct 2009 B2
7626574 Kim Dec 2009 B2
7679534 Kay et al. Mar 2010 B2
7712053 Bradford et al. May 2010 B2
7881936 Longe et al. Feb 2011 B2
8036878 Assadollahi Oct 2011 B2
8095364 Longe et al. Jan 2012 B2
8103499 Lai et al. Jan 2012 B2
8381137 Bradford et al. Feb 2013 B2
20010040517 Kisaichi et al. Nov 2001 A1
20020019731 Masui et al. Feb 2002 A1
20020038207 Mori et al. Mar 2002 A1
20020054135 Noguchi et al. May 2002 A1
20020072395 Miramontes et al. Jun 2002 A1
20020097227 Chu et al. Jul 2002 A1
20020119788 Parupudi et al. Aug 2002 A1
20020126097 Savolainen Sep 2002 A1
20020135499 Guo Sep 2002 A1
20020145587 Watanabe Oct 2002 A1
20020152075 Kung et al. Oct 2002 A1
20020188448 Goodman et al. Dec 2002 A1
20020196163 Bradford et al. Dec 2002 A1
20030011574 Goodman Jan 2003 A1
20030023420 Goodman Jan 2003 A1
20030023426 Pun et al. Jan 2003 A1
20030036411 Kraft Feb 2003 A1
20030054830 Williams et al. Mar 2003 A1
20030078038 Kurosawa et al. Apr 2003 A1
20030088398 Guo et al. May 2003 A1
20030095102 Kraft et al. May 2003 A1
20030101060 Bickley May 2003 A1
20030104839 Kraft et al. Jun 2003 A1
20030119561 Hatch et al. Jun 2003 A1
20030144830 Williams Jul 2003 A1
20030179930 O'Dell et al. Sep 2003 A1
20030193478 Ng et al. Oct 2003 A1
20030212563 Ju et al. Nov 2003 A1
20040049388 Roth et al. Mar 2004 A1
20040052355 Awada et al. Mar 2004 A1
20040067762 Balle Apr 2004 A1
20040104896 Suraqui Jun 2004 A1
20040127197 Roskind Jul 2004 A1
20040127198 Roskind et al. Jul 2004 A1
20040135774 La Monica Jul 2004 A1
20040153963 Simpson et al. Aug 2004 A1
20040153975 Williams et al. Aug 2004 A1
20040155869 Robinson et al. Aug 2004 A1
20040163032 Guo et al. Aug 2004 A1
20040169635 Ghassabian Sep 2004 A1
20040201607 Mulvey et al. Oct 2004 A1
20040203656 Andrew et al. Oct 2004 A1
20040243257 Theimer Dec 2004 A1
20040259598 Wagner et al. Dec 2004 A1
20050017954 Kay et al. Jan 2005 A1
20050114770 Sacher et al. May 2005 A1
20060007162 Kato Jan 2006 A1
20060010206 Apacible et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060028450 Suraqui Feb 2006 A1
20060088356 Jawerth et al. Apr 2006 A1
20060129928 Qiu Jun 2006 A1
20060136408 Weir et al. Jun 2006 A1
20060155536 Williams et al. Jul 2006 A1
20060158436 Lapointe et al. Jul 2006 A1
20060173807 Weir et al. Aug 2006 A1
20060190822 Basson et al. Aug 2006 A1
20060193519 Sternby Aug 2006 A1
20060236239 Simpson et al. Oct 2006 A1
20060239560 Sternby Oct 2006 A1
20060265208 Assadollahi Nov 2006 A1
20070094718 Simpson Apr 2007 A1
20070203879 Templeton-Steadman et al. Aug 2007 A1
20070276814 Williams Nov 2007 A1
20070285397 Lapointe et al. Dec 2007 A1
20080130996 Sternby Jun 2008 A1
20080235003 Lai et al. Sep 2008 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (53)
Number Date Country
0313975 May 1989 EP
0319193 Jun 1989 EP
0464726 Jan 1992 EP
0540147 May 1993 EP
0660216 Dec 1994 EP
0651315 May 1995 EP
0732646 Sep 1996 EP
0751469 Jan 1997 EP
1031913 Aug 2000 EP
1035712 Sep 2000 EP
1256875 Nov 2002 EP
1296216 Mar 2003 EP
1320023 Jun 2003 EP
1324573 Jul 2003 EP
1341156 Sep 2003 EP
1347361 Sep 2003 EP
1347362 Sep 2003 EP
1522920 Apr 2005 EP
2298166 Aug 1996 GB
2383459 Jun 2003 GB
61-282965 Dec 1986 JP
03-141460 Jun 1991 JP
1990117218 Jan 1992 JP
1993265682 Oct 1993 JP
8006939 Jan 1996 JP
1997114817 May 1997 JP
1997212503 Aug 1997 JP
11-312046 Nov 1999 JP
2000-508093 Jun 2000 JP
2001-509290 Jul 2001 JP
2001-224075 Aug 2001 JP
2001-251395 Sep 2001 JP
2002-014956 Jan 2002 JP
2002-141996 May 2002 JP
2002351862 Dec 2002 JP
2003-196273 Jul 2003 JP
2003-116179 Aug 2003 JP
476033 Feb 2002 TW
559783 Nov 2003 TW
WO-8200442 Feb 1982 WO
WO-9007149 Jun 1990 WO
WO-9627947 Sep 1996 WO
WO-97005541 Feb 1997 WO
WO-9704580 Feb 1997 WO
WO 9833111 Jul 1998 WO
WO-0035091 Jun 2000 WO
WO-0358420 Jul 2003 WO
WO-03060451 Jul 2003 WO
WO-2004003721 Jan 2004 WO
WO-2004111812 Dec 2004 WO
WO-2004111871 Dec 2004 WO
WO-2004110040 Dec 2004 WO
WO-2006026908 Mar 2006 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (64)
Entry
“America Online, Inc. Acquires Tegic Communications”, www.tegic.com/pressreleases/pr—aolacquisition.html, Press Release from Tegic Communications, Dec. 1, 1999, 1-3.
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/830,227 Non-Final Office Action mailed Jul. 12, 2011”, 19.
“http://pitecan.com/OpenPOBoxlinfo/index.html”, Jul. 23, 2001.
“Latest Philips Wireless Handset Ships With T9 Text Input in China”, Business Wire, www.businesswire.com/webbox/bw.110999/193130342.htm, Nov. 9, 1999, Total of 2 pages.
“Making Multi-tap Intelligent”, http://www.zicorp.com/ezitap.htm, retrieved Feb. 7, 2006, 2005, Total of 1 page.
“Motorola Lexicus Technologies & SOK's iTAP page”, www.motorola.com/lexicus/html/itap—FAQ.html, retrieved Sep. 6, 2002, 2002, Total of 1 page.
“POBox Server”, http://pitecan.com/OpenPOBox/info/index.html, Jul. 23, 2001, Total of 1 page.
“Speed Keyboard for Data Processor”, IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 23, Jul. 1980, Total of 3 pages.
“Tapless ppd Gen3.0”, http://www.tapless.biz, retrieved from website Feb. 7, 2006, 2006, Total of 1 page.
“Welcome to the Nuance Corporate Website”, http://www.nuance.com/, Retrieved on Feb. 7, 2006 from website, 2006, Total of 2 pages.
“What is writing?”, http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Fall—2003/ling001/reading—writing.html, Linguistics 001. Lecture 19, Reading and Writing, 2003, Total of 13 pages.
“WordLogic for Handheld Computers”, Retrieved from webarchive.org, http://web.archive.org/web/20051030092534/www.wordlogic.com/products-predictive-keyboard-handheld-prediction.asp, Oct. 30, 2005, Total of 1 page.
“Zi Claims Second Patent Victory Against Tegic Communications, a unit of AOL Time Warner”, www.zicorp.com/pressreleases/031402.html, News Release from Zi Corporation, Mar. 14, 2002, 1-2.
“Zi Corporation, Inc. v. Tegic Communications, Inc.”, www.zicorp.com/pressreleases/031402.html, Summary Judgment Orders, Mar. 13, 2002, 1-7.
Ajioka, Y. , “Prediction of Nexet Alphabets and Words of Four Sentences by Adaptive Injunctions”, IJCNN-91-Seattle: Int'l Joint Conference on Neural Networks, Anzai, Y (Additional Author), Cat. No. 91CH3049-4, vol. 2; IEEE, NY, NY USA, 1991, 897.
Arnott, John , “Probabilistic Character Disambiguation for Reduced Keyboards Using Small Text Samples”, AAC Augmentative and Alternative Communication, vol. 8, No. 3, Dept. Math & comp. Sci.; Univ of Dundee, Dundee, Tayside, Scotland, Sep. 1992, 215-223.
Butts, L. , “An Evaluation of Mobile Phone Text Input Methods”, Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology, Cockburn, A. (Additional Author), vol. 7, University of Canterbury, Dept of Computer Science, Christchurch, New Zealand AUIC2002, Melbourne Australia, Australian Computer Society, 2001, Total of 6 pages.
Cockburn, A. , “Evaluating Mobile Text Entry with Fastap™ Keyboard”, People and Computers XVII (vol. 2): British Computer Society Conference on Human Computer Interaction, Siresena (Additional Author), Bath, England, 2003, 77-820.
Coppola, P. et al., “Mobe: a framework for context-aware mobile applications”, In: Proc. Of Workshop on Context Awareness for Proactive Systems, Helsinki University Press, ISBN:952-10-2518-2, 2005, 55-65.
Defrancis, John , “The Ideographic Myth”, The Chinese Language: Face and Fantasy, University of Hawi'i Press, Link to chapter: http://www.pinyin.info/readings/texts/ideographic—myth.html, 1984, Total of 13 pages.
Demasco, Patrick W. et al., “Generating Text From Compressed Input: An Intelligent Interface for People with Sever Motor Impairments”, Communications of the ACM, vol. 35 No. 5, May 1992, 68-78.
Dey, A.K. , “Towards a better understanding of context and context-awareness”, GVU Technical Report, Abowd, G. D. (Additional Author), GVU Center, GIT-GVU-99-2, Atlanta GA, USA, 1999, Total of 12 pages.
Foulds, Richard et al., “Lexical Prediction Techniques Applied to Reduce Motor Requirements for Augmentative Communication”, RESNA 10th Annual Conference, San Jose, California, 1987, 115-117.
Foulds, Richard et al., “Statistical Disambiguation of Multi-Character Keys Applied to Reduce Motor Requirements for Augmentative and Alternative Communication”, AAC Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 1987, 192-195.
Gavalda, M. , “Epiphenomenal Grammar Acquisition with GSG”, Proceedings of the Workshop on Conversational Systems of the 6th Conf. on Applied Natural Language Processing and the 1st Conf. of the N. American Chapter of the Assoc. for Computational Linguistics, Seattle, Washington, (ANLP/NAACL-2000), May 2000, Total of 6 pages.
James, Christina et al., “Bringing Text Input Beyond the Desktop”, CHI 2000, Seattle, WA, Apr. 1-6, 2000, Apr. 2000, 49-50.
James, Christina L. et al., “Text Input for Mobile Devices: Comparing Model Prediction to Actual Performance”, SIGCHI '01, Seattle, WA, Mar. 31-Apr. 4, 2001, ACM 1-58113-327-8/01/0003, 2001, 365-371.
Kamphuis, Harry et al., “Katdas; A Small Number of Keys Direct Access System”, RESNA 12th Annual Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1989, 278-279.
King, Martin T. et al., “JustType-Efficient Communication with Eight Keys”, Proceedings of the RESNA '95 Annual Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1995, Total of 3 pages.
Kreifeldt, J.G. et al., “Reduced Keyboard Designs Using Disambiguation”, Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting, 1989, 441-444.
Kronlid, F et al., “TreePredict, Improving Text Entry on PDA's”, Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CH12001, ACM press, 2001, 441-442.
Kushler, Cliff , “AAC Using A Reduced Keyboard”, www.dinf.ne.jp/doc/english/Us—Eu/conf/csun—98/csun98—140.htm, CSUN 98 Papers, Web Posted Mar. 3, 1998, 1998, Total of 4 pages.
Lesher, Gregory W. et al., “Optimal Character Arrangements for Ambiguous Keyboards”, IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 6, No. 4, Dec. 1998, 415-423.
Levine, Stephen H. et al., “Adaptive Technique for Customized Interface Design With Application to Nonvocal Communication”, RESNA 9th Annual Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1986, 399-401.
Levine, Stephen H. , “An Adaptive Approach to Optimal Keyboard Design for Nonvocal Communication”, IEEE, 1985, 334-337.
Levine, Stephen H. et al., “Computer Disambiguation of Multi-Character Key Text Entry: An Adaptive Design Approach”, IEEE, 1986, 298-301.
Levine, Stephen H. et al., “Multi-Character Key Text Entry Using Computer Disambiguation”, RESNA 10th Annual Conference, San Jose, California, 1987, 177-178.
Mackenzie, et al., “Text Entry for Mobile Computing: Models and Methods, Theory and Practice”, www.yorku.ca/mack/hci3.html, Retrieved Sep. 6, 2002, 2002, Total of 26 pages.
Mackenzie, I. Scott et al., “LetterWise: Prefix-based Disambiguation for Mobile Text Input”, UIST '01, Orlando, FL, Nov. 11-14, 2001, ACM 1-58113-438-x/01/11, 2001, 111-120.
Martin, T. et al., “Learning User Models for an Intelligent Telephone Assistant”, Proceedings Joint 9th IFSA World Congress and 20th NAFIPS Intnl. Conf., IEEE, vol. 2, Piscataway, NJ, USA, Cat. No. 01TH8569, 2001, 669-674.
Masui, T. , “POBox: An Efficient Text Input Method for Handheld and Ubiquitous Computers”, Sony Computer Science Laboratories, Apr. 1998, Total of 12 pages.
Matias, Edgar , “Half-QWERTY: Typing With One Hand Using Your Two-Handed Skills”, Conference Companion, CFI '94, Apr. 24-28, 1994, Apr. 1994, 51-52.
Minneman, Scott L. , “A Simplified Touch-Tone Telecommunication Aid for Deaf and Hearing Impaired Individuals”, RESNA 8th Annual Conference, Memphis Tennessee, 209-211, 1985.
Oommen, B. John et al., “String Taxonomy Using Learning Automata”, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Mand and Cybernetics—Part B: Cybernetics, vol. 27 No. 20, Apr. 1997, 354-365.
Oommen, B.J. et al., “Correction to ‘An Adaptive Learning Solution to the Keyboard Optimization Problem’”, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, vol. 22, No. 5, Oct. 1992, 1233-1243.
Oviatt, Sharon , “Mutual Disambiguation of Recognition Errors in a Multimodal Architecture”, CHI 99, May 15-29, May 1999, 576-583.
Rosa, J. , “A Biologically Motivated Connectionist System for Predicting the Next Word in Natural Language Sentence”, IEEEE Intnl Conference on Systems, man and Cybernetics; Conf. Proceedings, Cat. No. 02CH37349, Part vol. 4, p. 6, Yasmine Hammamet, Tunisia, 2002, Total of 2 pages.
Rosa, J. , “Next Word Prediction in a Connectional Distributed Representation System”, IEEEE Intnl Conference on Systems, man and Cybernetics; Conf. Proceedings, Cat. No. 02CH37349, Part vol. 3, p. 6, Yasmine Hammamet, Tunisia, 2002, Total of 2 pages.
Schmidt, A. et al., “Advanced Interaction in Context”, In Proceedings of First International Symposium of Handheld and Ubiquitous Computing, Karlsruhe, Germany, Sep. 1999, 89-101.
Shieber, S. , “Abbreviated Text Input”, Abbreviated Text Input, Baker, E. (Additional Author), Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA shieber@deas.harvard.edu, ellie@eecs.harvard.edu, ACM 1-58113-586-6/03/0001, 2003, 293-296.
Siewiorek, D.P. et al., “SenSay: A context-aware mobile phone”, In proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Wearable Computers, IEEE Press, 2003, 248-249.
Silfverberg, Miika et al., “Predicting Text Entry Speed on Mobile Phones”, CHI 2000, The Hague, Amsterdam, Apr. 1-6, 2000, ACM 1-58113-216-6/00/04, Apr. 2000, 916.
Smith, Sidney L. et al, “Alphabetic Data Entry Via the Touch-Tone Pad: A Comment”, Human Factors, vol. 13 No. 2, Apr. 1971, 189-190.
Sugimoto, Masakatsu et al., “SHK: Single Hand Key Card for Mobile Devices”, CHI 1996, Apr. 13-18, 1996, Apr. 1996, 7-8.
Sugimoto, Masakatsu , “Single-Hand Input Scheme for English and Japanese Text”, Fujitsu Sci. Tech.J., vol. 33 No. 2, Dec. 1997, 189-195.
Suhm, B. et al., “Multimodal Error Correction for Speech User Interfaces”, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, vol. 8, Mar. 2001, 60-98.
Swiffin, Andrew L. et al., “Adaptive and Predictive Techniques in a Communications Prosthesis”, AAC Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 1987, 181-191.
Swiffin, Andrew L. et al., “PAL: An Effort Efficient Portable Communication Aid and Keyboard Emulator”, RESNA 8th Annual Conference, Memphis, Tennessee, 1985, 197 & 199.
Tygran, Amalyan , “T9 or Text Predicative Input in Mobile Telephones”, Business Wire, web.archive.org/wweb/20010723054055/http://www.digit-life.com/articles/mobilet9/, Jul. 23, 2001, 1-5.
Witten, I.H. , “Principles of Computer Speech”, New York: Academic Press, 1982, 246-253.
Xu, Jinxi et al., “Corpus-Based Stemming Using Cooccurrence of Word Variants”, CM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 16 No. 1, ACM 1046-8188/98/0100-0061, Jan. 1989, 61-81.
Yang, Y et al., “A Comparative Study on Feature Selection in Text Categorization”, Proceedings of ICML 1997, 1997, 412-420.
Zernik, U. , “Language Acquisition: Coping with Lexical Gaps”, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Budapest, Hungary, 1998, 796-800.
“Novice-to-Novice: Keyboards, Consoles, and VT Cruising”, Linux Journal, vol. 1996, Issue 31es, Nov. 1996, 9 pages.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20130194191 A1 Aug 2013 US
Continuations (2)
Number Date Country
Parent 12725334 Mar 2010 US
Child 13748501 US
Parent 10176933 Jun 2002 US
Child 12725334 US
Continuation in Parts (1)
Number Date Country
Parent 09454406 Dec 1999 US
Child 10176933 US