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 Thai 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.
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.
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
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
However, other languages, such as French, include many more letters than can visually fit on a key, such as the cell phone key.
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
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:
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.
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 “com” 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
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:
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 “scan” 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.
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.
This application 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, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,646,573 entitled “REDUCED KEYBOARD TEXT INPUT SYSTEM FOR THE JAPANESE LANGUAGE”. The disclosure of this application is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
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 |
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, IV et al. | 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 |
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 |
5388061 | Hankes | Feb 1995 | A |
5392338 | Danish et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
5535421 | Weinreich | Jul 1996 | A |
5559512 | Jasinski et al. | Sep 1996 | 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 | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6219731 | Gutowitz | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6223059 | Haestrup | Apr 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 |
6421672 | McAllister et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6424743 | Ebrahimi | Jul 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 |
6864809 | O'Dell et al. | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6885317 | Gutowitz | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6912581 | Johnson et al. | Jun 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 et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7057607 | Mayoraz et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7061403 | Fux | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7075520 | Williams | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7095403 | Lyustin et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7098896 | Kushler et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
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 |
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 |
7389235 | Dvorak | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7395203 | Wu et al. | 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 |
20010040517 | Kisaichi et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020019731 | Masui et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020038207 | Mori et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020072395 | Miramontes | 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 |
20030104839 | Kraft et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030119561 | Hatch et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030144830 | Williams | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030179930 | O'Dell | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030193478 | Ng | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20040049388 | Roth et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040052355 | Awada et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040067762 | Balle | Apr 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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0313975 | May 1989 | EP |
0319193 | Jun 1989 | EP |
0464726 | Jan 1992 | EP |
0540147 | May 1993 | EP |
0651315 | May 1995 | EP |
0660216 | Jun 1995 | EP |
0732646 | Sep 1996 | EP |
0751469 | Jan 1997 | EP |
1031913 | Aug 2000 | EP |
1035712 | Sep 2000 | EP |
1296216 | Mar 2003 | EP |
1320023 | Jun 2003 | EP |
1324573 | Jul 2003 | EP |
1347361 | Sep 2003 | EP |
1347362 | Sep 2003 | EP |
2298166 | Aug 1996 | GB |
2383459 | Jun 2003 | GB |
A 1990-117218 | May 1990 | JP |
1993265682 | Oct 1993 | JP |
A 1993-265682 | Oct 1993 | JP |
8006939 | Jan 1996 | JP |
1997114817 | May 1997 | JP |
A 1997-114817 | May 1997 | JP |
1997212503 | Aug 1997 | JP |
A 1997-212503 | Aug 1997 | JP |
A 2002-351862 | Dec 2002 | JP |
WO8200442 | Feb 1982 | WO |
WO9007149 | Jun 1990 | WO |
WO9627947 | Sep 1996 | WO |
WO9704580 | Feb 1997 | WO |
WO9705541 | Feb 1997 | WO |
0035091 | Jun 2000 | WO |
03058420 | Jul 2003 | WO |
WO03058420 | Jul 2003 | WO |
WO03060451 | Jul 2003 | WO |
WO2004111871 | Jun 2004 | WO |
WO2004111812 | Dec 2004 | WO |
WO2006026908 | Aug 2005 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Ajioka, Y. Anzai, Y. “Prediction of Nexet Alphabets and Words of Four Sentences by Adaptive Injunctions” IJCNN-91-Seattle: Int'l Joint Conference on Neural Networks (Cat. No. 91CH3049-4) p. 897, vol. 2; IEEE, NY, NY 1991 USA. |
“Latest Philips Wireless Handset Ships With T9 Text Input in China”, Business Wire, Nov. 9, 1999, pp. 1-2 (downloaded from: www.businesswire.com/webbox/bw.110999/193130342.htm). |
Arnott, J.L., et al; Probabilistic Character Disambiguation for Reduced Keyboards Using Small Text Samples; Dept. Math & comp. Sci.; Univ of Dundee, Dundee, Tayside, Scotland; AAC Augmentative and Alternative Communication ; vol. 8, Sep. 1992; Copyright 1992 by ISAAC. |
Butts, L., Cockburn, A., “An Evaluation of Mobile Phone Text Input Methods”, University of Canterbury, Dept of Computer Science, Christchurch, New Zealand AUIC2002, Melbourne Australia, Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology, vol. 7; Copyright 2001, Australian Computer Society. |
Cockburn, A., Siresena, “Evaluating Mobile Text Entry with Fastap™ Keyboard”; 2003; People and Computers XVII (vol. 2): British Computer Society Conference on Human Computer Interaction. Bath, England. pp. 77-80. |
Coppola, P. et al, Mobe: a framework for context-aware mobile applications. In: Proc. of Workshop on Context Awareness for Proactive Systems (CAPS2005), Helsinki University Press, 2005; ISBN:952-10-2518-2. |
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, pp. 68-78. |
Dey, A.K. and Abowd, G. D. (1999). Towards a better understanding of context and context-awareness. GVU Technical Report GIT-GVU-99-2, GVU Center, 1999. |
Foulds, R., et al. “Lexical Prediction Techniques Applied to Reduce Motor Requirements for Augmentative Communication,” RESNA 10th Annula Conference, San Jose, California, 1987, pp. 115-117. |
Foulds, R., et al., “Statistical Disambiguation of Multi-Character Keys Applied to Reduce Motor Requirements for Augmentative and Alternative Communication,” AAC Augmentative and Alternative Communication (1987), pp. 192-195. |
Gavalda, M. “Epiphenomenal Grammar Acquisition with GSG”; May 2000; 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 (ANLP/NAACL-2000), Seattle, Washington. |
http://pitecan.com/OpenPOBox/info/index.html; Jul. 23, 2001. |
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Fall—2003/ling001/reading—writing.html. What is writing? Linguistics 001. Lecture 19. Reading and Writing 2003. |
http://www.pinyin.info/readings/texts/ideographic—myth.html. The Ideographic Myth. 1984. |
IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, “Speed Keyboard for Data Processor,” vol. 23, 3 pages, Jul. 1980. IBM Corp., 1993. |
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, pp. 365-371 [ACM 1-58113-327-8/01/0003]. |
James, Christina, et al., “Bringing Text Input Beyond the Desktop”, CHI 2000, Seattle, WA, Apr. 1-6, 2000, pp. 49-50. |
Kamphuis, H., et al., “Katdas; A Small Number of Keys Direct Access System,” RESNA 12th Annual Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1989, pp. 278-279. |
King, M.T., “JustType-Efficient Communication with Eight Keys,” Proceedings of the RESNA '95 Annual Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1995, 3 pages. |
Kreifeldt, J.G., et al., “Reduced Keyboard Designs Using Disambiguation,” Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting, 1989, pp. 441-444. |
Kronlid, F., Nilsson, V. “TreePredict, Improving Text Entry on PDA's”; 2001; Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI2001), ACM press, pp. 441-442. |
Kushler, Cliff, “AAC Using a Reduced Keyboard”, downloaded from: www.dinf.ne.jp/doc/english/Us—Eu/conf/csun—98/csun98—140.htm, Web Posted Mar. 3, 1998, pp. 1-4. |
Lesher, Gregory W. et al.; “Optimal Character Arrangements for Ambiguous Keyboards”; Dec. 1998; IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 415-423. |
Levine, S.H., “An Adaptive Approach to Optimal Keyboard Design for Nonvocal Communication,” IEEE, 1985, pp. 334-337. |
Levine, S.H., et al., “Adaptive Technique for Customized Interface Design With Application to Nonvocal Communication,” RESNA 9th Annual Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1986, pp. 399-401. |
Levine, S.H., et al., “Computer Disambiguation of Multi-Character Key Text Entry: An Adaptive Design Approach,” IEEE, 1986, pp. 298-301. |
Levine, S.H., et al., “Multi-Character Key Text Entry Using Computer Disambiguation,” RESNA 10th Annual Conference, San Jose, California, 1987, pp. 177-178. |
MacKenzie, et al; “Text Entry for Mobile Computing: Models and Methods, Theory and Practice” ;Sep. 6 2002; retrieved from website www.yorku.ca/mack/hci3.html. |
MacKenzie, I. Scott, et al., “LetterWise: Prefix-based Disambiguation for Mobile Text Input”, UIST '01, Orlando, FL, Nov. 11-14, 2001, pp. 111-120 [ACM 1-58113-438-x/01/11]. |
Making Multi-tap Intelligent; retrieved Feb. 7, 2006 from website: http://www.zicorp.com/ezitap.htm. |
Martin, T.Azvine, B., “Learning User Models for an Intelligent Telephone Assistant”; Proceedings Joint 9th IFSA World Congress and 20th NAFIPS Intnl. Conf. (Cat. No. 01TH8569) Part vol. 2, p. 669-74 vol. 2; IEEE 2001, Piscataway, NJ, USA. |
Masui, “POBox: An efficient Text Input Method for Handheld and Ubiquitous Computers”; Sep. 1999; In Proc. of the International Symposium on Handheld and Ubiquitious Computing (HUC '99), pp. 289-300. |
Matias, E., et al., “Half-QWERTY: Typing With One Hand Using Your Two-Handed Skills,” Conference Companion, CHI '94 (Apr. 24-28, 1994), pp. 51-52. |
Minneman, S.L., “A Simplified Touch-Tone Telecommunication Aid for Deaf and Hearing Impaired Individuals,” RESNA 8th Annual Conference, Memphis Tennessee, 1985, pp. 209-211. |
Motorola Lexicus Technologies & SOK's iTAP page; Sep. 6, 2002, retrieved from: www.motorola.com/lexicus/html/itap—FAQ.html. |
News Release from Zi Corporation, “Zi Claims Second Patent Victory Against Tegic Communications, a unit of AOL Time Warner”, Mar. 14, 2002, pp. 1-2 (downloaded from: www.zicorp.com/pressreleases/031402.html. |
Oommen, B. John, et al.; “String Taxonomy Using Learning Automata”; Apr. 1997; IEEE Transactions on Systems, Mand and Cybernetics—Part B: Cybernetics, vol. 27 No. 20 pp. 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) pp. 1233-1243. |
Oviatt,S. “Mutual Disambiguation of Recognition Errors in a Multimodal Architecture.” Chi 99. May 15-29, 1999. |
Press Release from Tegic Communications, “America Online, Inc. Acquires Tegic Communications”, Dec. 1, 1999, pp. 1-3 (downloaded from: www.tegic.com/pressreleases/pr—aolacquisition.html). |
Rosa, J. “Next Word Prediction in a Connectional Distributed Representation System”; 2002 IEEEE Intnl Conference on Systems, man and Cybernetics; Conf. Proceedings (Cat. No. 02CH37349) Part vol. 3, p. 6, Yasmine Hammamet, Tunisia, Oct. 2002. |
Rosa, J., “A Biologically Motivated Connectionist System for Predicting the Next Word In Natural Language Sentences”, 2002 IEEEE Intnl Conference on Systems, man and Cybernetics; Conf. Proceedings (Cat. No.: 02CH37349) Part vol. 4, p. 6, Yasmine Hammamet, Tunisia, Oct. 2002. |
Schmidt, A. et al; Advanced Interaction in Context, In Proceedings of First International Symposium of Handheld and Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 89-101, Karlsruhe, Germany, Sep. 1999. |
Shieber, S., Baker, E., “Abbreviated Text Input”, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA shieber@deas.harvard.edu ellie@eecs.harvard.edu; IUI'03, Jan. 12-15, 2003, ACM 1-58113-586-6/03/0001. |
Siewiorek, D.P., et al, SenSay: A context-aware mobile phone. In proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Wearable Computers, pp. 248-249, IEEE Press, 2003. |
Silfverberg, Miika, et al., “Predicting Text Entry Speed on Mobile Phones”, CHI 2000, The Hague, Amsterdam, Apr. 1-6, 2000, pp. 9-16 [ACM 1-58113-216-6/00/04]. |
Smith, Sidney L., et al., “Alphabetic Data Entry Via the Touch-Tone Pad: A Comment,” Human Factors, 13(2), Apr. 1971, pp. 189-190. |
Sugimoto, M., et al., “SHK: Single Hand Key Card for Mobile Devices,” CHI 1996 (Apr. 13-18, 1996), pp. 7-8. |
Sugimoto, Masakatsu, “Single-Hand Input Scheme for English and Japanese Text”, Fujitsu Sci. Tech.J., vol. 33 No. 2, Dec. 1997, pp. 189-195. |
Suhm B., et al. “Multimodal Error Correction for Speech User Interfaces” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, vol. 8. Mar. 2001. |
Summary Judgment Orders, Zi Corporation, Inc. v. Tegic Communications, Inc., Mar. 13, 2002, pp. 1-7 (downloaded from: www.zicorp.com/pressreleases/031402.html). |
Swiffin, A.L., et al., “Adaptive and Predictive Techniques in a Communications Prosthesis,” AAC Augmentative and Alternative Communication, (1987), pp. 181-191. |
Swiffin, A.L., et al., “PAL: An Effort Efficient Portable Communication Aid and Keyboard Emulator,” RESNA 8th Annual Conference, Memphis, Tennessee, 1985, pp. 197, 199. |
Tapless ppd Gen3.0; retrieved Feb. 7, 2006 from website: http://www.tapless.biz/. |
Tygran, Amalyan, “T9 or Text Predicative Input in Mobile Telephones”, Business Wire, Jul. 23, 2001, pp. 1-5 (downloaded from: web.archive.org/wweb/20010723054055/http://www.digit-life.com/articles/mobilet9/). |
Welcome to the Nuance corporate Website; retrieved on Feb. 7, 2006 from website: http://www.nuance.com/. |
Witten, I.H., Principles of Computer Speech, New York: Academic Press, (1982), pp. 246-253. |
WordLogic for Handheld Computers—http://web.archive.org/web/20051030092534/www.wordlogic.com/products-predictive-keyboard-handheld-prediction.asp ; Oct. 30, 2005; retrieved from webarchive.org. |
Xu, Jinxi, et al., “Corpus-Based Stemming Using Cooccurrence of Word Variants”, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 16 No. 1, Jan. 1998, pp. 61-81 [ACM 1046-8188/98/0100-0061]. |
Yang, Y., Pedersen, J., “A Comparative Study on Feature Selection in Text Categorization”; 1997; Proceedings of ICML'1997, pp. 412-420. |
Zernik, U., “Language Acquisition: Coping with Lexical Gaps”, Aug. 22-27, 1998; Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Budapest, Hungary. pp. 796-800. |
“POBox Server”, http://pitecan.com/OpenPOBox/info/index.html, Jul. 23, 2001, Total of 1 page. |
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. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20100174529 A1 | Jul 2010 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 10176933 | Jun 2002 | US |
Child | 12725334 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 09454406 | Dec 1999 | US |
Child | 10176933 | US |