Information
-
Patent Grant
-
6820213
-
Patent Number
6,820,213
-
Date Filed
Thursday, April 13, 200024 years ago
-
Date Issued
Tuesday, November 16, 200420 years ago
-
Inventors
-
Original Assignees
-
Examiners
- Beausoliel; Robert
- Chu; Gabriel L.
Agents
- Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault, LLP
-
CPC
-
US Classifications
Field of Search
US
- 714 10
- 714 11
- 714 13
- 714 31
- 714 45
- 714 48
- 714 6
- 714 12
- 714 15
- 714 23
- 714 49
- 711 162
-
International Classifications
-
Abstract
A fault-tolerant computer system includes first and second central processing units (CPUs) producing essentially identical data output streams, a voter delay buffer having a first FIFO buffer and a second FIFO buffer, and an I/O module connected to the CPUs. The I/O module includes a comparator for bitwise comparing the CPU data output streams. The first CPU data output stream is transmitted to peripheral devices if both CPU outputs remain substantially identical. Otherwise, if the comparator indicates differences, queued first and second CPU data are routed to the first and second FIFOs respectively, and subsequent data are retained in respective CPU buffers. While the CPUs continue processing, ongoing diagnostic procedures attempt to identify one or the other of the CPUs as malfunctioning and the remaining CPU as correctly-functioning. If the resulting diagnosis is inconclusive, the CPU having the lower rate of error correction is identified as being correctly-functioning. In either case, the buffered output and the subsequently processed data output stream from the correctly-functioning CPU are thereafter transmitted to the peripheral devices.
Description
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
This Application is related to the following commonly-assigned, co-pending application entitled METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR UPGRADING FAULT-TOLERANT SYSTEMS, identified by Cesari and McKenna File No. 104160-0010.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention is related to fault-tolerant computer systems and, in particular, to a method for efficiently providing reliable operation in a computer system.
2. Background Information
In most data processing applications, reliable performance of a computer system is critical. To provide for a specified level of reliability, the computer system may include at least one redundant, or backup, central processing unit (CPU), where the CPUs perform the same operations and provide the same data output stream. The input/output (I/O) buses of the CPUs are continually monitored and compared to identify any differences in their respective data streams. If signal differences are detected, a voting device applies predetermined criteria to identify one of the CPUs as malfunctioning. In a redundant computer system having two CPUs, for example, the voting device may identify the CPU having a history of greater cumulative error correction as the malfunctioning CPU. However, experience has shown that this method has an unacceptably low accuracy rate.
The accuracy rate improves with the addition of a second redundant CPU to the computer system. All three CPU outputs are monitored and, when differences are detected, the CPU determined to be malfunctioning is the CPU producing an output not in agreement with the other two CPUs. This approach, however, incurs the additional expense and complexity of integrating the third CPU into the computer system.
Another method used in computer systems having only two redundant CPUs is to have each CPU revert to an idle state and/or lose output data while diagnostic procedures are initiated to determine which CPU is malfunctioning. Based on the results of the diagnostic procedure, one CPU may be identified as malfunctioning. One undesirable side effect of this approach is that the operation of the computer system is impacted and may be severely disrupted while the CPUs are in the idle state.
It is therefore an object of the present invention to provide a computer system achieving a high degree of reliability with a redundant CPU.
It is a further object of the present invention to provide such a computer system in which a malfunctioning CPU can be identified without first placing the CPU into an idle state.
It is a still further object of the present invention to provide such a computer system in which computational data is not lost while the malfunctioning CPU is identified.
It is yet another object of the present invention to provide such a system in which a malfunctioning CPU can be identified with a high degree of reliability. Other objects of the invention will be obvious, in part, and, in part, will become apparent when reading the detailed description to follow.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The present invention comprises a fault-tolerant computer system which includes a pair of CPUs that produce essentially identical data output streams, a voter delay buffer having first and second FIFO buffers, and an I/O module interconnecting the CPUs and the FIFO buffers. The I/O module compares the data output streams from the two CPUs for differences. If both CPU output streams remain identical, the data output of a selected CPU is transmitted to one or more peripheral devices. Otherwise, if the comparator indicates differences, the data output stream from one CPU is rerouted to the first FIFO, and the data output streams from the other CPU is rerouted to the second FIFO. Meanwhile, the CPUs continue processing operations and ongoing diagnostic procedures to identify one of the CPUs as malfunctioning. The FIFOs provide buffering for the data output streams which would otherwise be discarded. Additionally, use of the FIFOs allows the CPUs to continue operation and avoid a disruption to the computer system. If neither CPU is diagnosed as malfunctioning, the I/O module uses data from a priority module to determine which CPU has a higher assigned priority, and identifies the higher-priority CPU as the correctly-functioning CPU. In either case, the computer system then provides the data held in the FIFO associated with the correctly-functioning CPU to the peripheral devices. By thus buffering the data output streams, the present invention allows the computer system to utilize the diagnostic procedures for increasing the probability of correctly identifying a CPU as malfunctioning.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
The invention description below refers to the accompanying drawings, of which:
FIG. 1
is a functional block diagram of a fault-tolerant computer system in accordance with the present invention;
FIG. 2
is a functional block diagram of a CPU in the fault-tolerant computer system of
FIG. 1
; and
FIG. 3
is a flow diagram illustrating the operation of the fault-tolerant computer system of FIG.
1
.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF AN ILLUSTRATIVE EMBODIMENT
There is shown in
FIG. 1
a fault-tolerant computer system
10
in accordance with the present invention. The computer system
10
includes a first CPU
11
and a second CPU
21
. The first CPU
11
and the second CPU
21
are configured to operate in lock-step, or cycle-by-cycle synchronism with one another, as exemplified by a system clock
17
. The first CPU
11
includes a maintenance and diagnostic subsystem
15
, and the second CPU
21
includes a maintenance and diagnostic subsystem
25
. The maintenance and diagnostic subsystems
15
and
25
function to identify and, if possible, correct internal processing errors detected in the operations of the respective CPUs
11
and
21
.
The system also includes an I/O module
40
that controls data transfers between the CPUs
11
and
21
and associated peripheral devices (not shown). The first CPU
11
communicates with the I/O module
40
over a first I/O bus
13
. Data flowing between the first CPU
11
and the peripheral devices are transmitted over the first I/O bus
13
to the I/O module
40
, through the I/O module
40
, and to the peripheral devices via a system I/O bus
19
. Similarly, data flowing between the peripheral devices and the second CPU
21
is transmitted over a second I/O bus
23
connected to the I/O module
40
. It should be understood that the respective data streams on the I/O buses
13
and
23
are essentially identical when both the first CPU
11
and the second CPU
21
are operating error-free.
During normal operation, transient errors may occur within either or both the first CPU
11
and the second CPU
21
. Many of the errors are detected and some corrected internally, such as by using error correction logic or parity protocol logic, before transmission over either the first I/O bus
13
or the second I/O bus
23
. An ongoing maintenance history as to the occurrence of these transient errors in the first CPU
11
is retained in a first priority register
16
. The first priority register
16
is kept updated by the maintenance and diagnostic subsystem
15
. Similarly, transient errors occurring in the second CPU
21
are tracked with a second priority register
26
which is kept updated by the maintenance and diagnostic subsystem
25
. This maintenance information is made available to a priority module
60
via either a first CPU priority line
61
or a second CPU priority line
62
. The priority module
60
includes a software program
63
to assign relative priorities to the two CPUs
11
and
21
based on their relative operational performance parameters. Such statistical data may include, for example, the history of detected transient errors or the length of time a given CPU has been operating in the computer system
10
. These statistical data are used to assign relative priorities to the first CPU
11
and the second CPU
21
. These assigned priorities are provided to the I/O module
40
.
The I/O module
40
includes a comparator
43
which performs a bit-by-bit cycle compare procedure on the data output streams passing into the I/O module
40
on the I/O buses
13
and
23
. The comparator may be, for example, an XOR gate or any other known component for comparing two bit values. If the cycle compare procedure detects a difference between the two data output streams, this may be an indication that one of the CPUs
11
and
21
is malfunctioning. Accordingly, the I/O module
40
responds by issuing a STOP command to both the first CPU
11
and the second CPU
21
over a first command line
41
and a second command line
42
respectively.
When the STOP command is issued, the I/O module
40
stops transmitting output data on the system I/O bus
19
and routes the data output streams on the I/O buses
13
and
23
to a voter delay buffer
50
via a delay buffer line
47
. Specifically, the data received from the first CPU
11
is sent to a first FIFO buffer
51
, and the data received from the second CPU
21
is sent to a second FIFO buffer
52
. This action serves to prevents the peripherals from being sent data which may have been corrupted by the malfunctioning CPU, and also serves to save data which otherwise may have been lost or discarded while the malfunctioning CPU was being identified.
In a preferred embodiment, the maintenance and diagnostic subsystems
15
and
25
continually run their respective diagnostic procedures. It should be understood that, even after the STOP command has been issued to the CPUs
11
and
21
, the I/O module
40
continues to forward input data streams sent by the peripheral devices to the CPUs
11
and
21
. The CPUs
11
and
21
continue to process the data while running the diagnostic procedures, in accordance with normal operational procedures. The computer system
10
is thus seen by the peripheral devices as functioning normally.
As shown in
FIG. 2
, the first CPU
11
preferably includes a microprocessor
71
, a chipset
73
, and a bus interface processor
75
. A memory
77
is provided for internal storage of data, as required. The microprocessor
71
receives data from and outputs data to either the memory
77
or the first I/O bus
13
via the chipset
73
. Output data to be transmitted by the bus interface processor
75
is held in a buffer
85
. When the STOP command is transmitted on the first command line
41
to the bus interface processor
75
, the data present in the buffer
85
is retained and not transmitted to the I/O module
40
. Because there is finite propagation delay incurred before the STOP signal reaches the bus interface processor
75
, some possibly corrupted data may be sent from the first CPU
11
before the STOP signal is received. This data is sent to the voter delay buffer
50
, as described above.
As the first CPU
11
continues its processing and diagnostic operations, output data is retained in the buffer
85
. If the buffer
85
becomes fill, the bus interface processor
75
sends a BUSY signal to the chipset
73
, and further processed data is then stored in a chipset buffer
83
. If the chipset buffer
83
becomes full, the data output stream is stored in a microprocessor buffer
81
. The output data stored in the buffers
81
,
83
, and
85
is not output to the peripherals unless the first CPU has been identified as the correctly-functioning CPU, as described in greater detail below. The second CPU
21
(not shown) has an internal configuration similar to that of the first CPU
11
, described above, and functions in a similar manner.
Operations of the computer system
10
can best be described with reference to the flow diagram of FIG.
3
. The data output streams on the I/O buses
13
and
23
are bit-by-bit compared by the comparator
43
, at box
381
, to provide a comparative reading from which it can be determined if there are differences between the monitored data output streams. If there are no such differences detected, the comparator
43
continues to monitor the data output streams. If differences are detected, the STOP command is issued, at box
82
. Subsequently, the data output streams on the I/O buses
13
and
23
are diverted to the voter delay buffer
50
, at step
383
.
The first CPU
11
continues executing its ongoing diagnostic procedure, at box
84
. If the diagnosis indicates that the first CPU
11
is malfunctioning, the first CPU
11
is isolated, at box
385
, and operation of the computer system
10
continues with the second CPU
21
. The data stored in the second FIFO buffer
52
is output over the system I/O bus
19
, at box
86
, and thereafter subsequently processed data from the second CPU
21
is output over the system I/O bus
19
. Contemporaneously with the ongoing diagnosis procedure in the first CPU
11
, at box
84
, the second CPU
21
also continues diagnosis, at box
87
. If, on the other hand, the resulting diagnosis indicates that the second CPU
21
is malfunctioning, the second CPU
21
is isolated, at box
88
, and operation of the computer system
10
continues with the first CPU
11
. The data stored in the first FIFO buffer
51
is output over the system I/O bus
19
, at box
89
, and subsequent processed data from the first CPU
11
is output over the system I/O bus
19
.
If the diagnostic procedures fail to detect problems with either the first CPU
11
or the second CPU
21
, the relative CPU priorities are used as the determinative factor. The relative priorities are read to establish which of the first CPU
11
the second CPU
21
has the higher priority, at box
90
. As discussed above, the relative priorities of the CPUs have been determined by one or more criteria, such as their operational histories or the comparative cumulative record of their internal error corrections. If the second CPU
21
has been assigned the higher priority, for example, the computer system
10
selects the first CPU
11
as the malfunctioning CPU and continues to operate with only the second CPU
21
, at box
91
. Accordingly, the data stored in the second FIFO buffer
52
is output, at box
92
, and so forth. On the other hand, if the first CPU
11
has been assigned the higher priority, the computer system
10
selects the second CPU
21
as the malfunctioning CPU and the operation of the computer system
10
continues with the first CPU
11
, at box
91
. Subsequently, the data stored in the first FIFO buffer
51
is output, at box
92
.
While the invention has been described with reference to particular embodiments, it will be understood that the present invention is by no means limited to the particular constructions and methods herein disclosed and/or shown in the drawings, but also comprises any modifications or equivalents within the scope of the claims.
Claims
- 1. A fault-tolerant computer system suitable for exchanging data with peripheral devices, said computer system comprising:a first central processing unit (CPU) having at least one first CPU buffer, a second CPU having at least one second CPU buffer, said second CPU being operationally coupled to said first CPU, such that the output of said second CPU is essentially identical to the output of said first CPU; a voter delay buffer having a first FIFO buffer and a second FIFO buffer; an I/O module connected to receive data output streams from said first CPU and said second CPU, said I/O module having, a comparator for comparing said first CPU data output stream to said second CPU data output stream so as to produce a comparison reading; transmission means responsive to said comparator, for sending said first CPU data output stream to the peripheral devices, if said comparison reading indicates no difference between said first CPU data output stream and said second CPU data output stream; and routing means responsive to said comparator, for routing said first CPU data output stream to said first FIFO buffer if said comparison reading indicates a difference between said first CPU data output stream and said second CPU data output stream, and for routing said second CPU data output stream to said second FIFO buffer if said comparison reading indicates a difference between said first CPU data output stream and said second CPU data output stream, wherein said first FIFO buffer buffers said first CPU data output stream and said second FIFO buffer buffers said second CPU data output stream; a priority module for receiving first error correction information from said first CPU and second error correction information from said second CPU; and priority logic for assigning relative priorities to said CPUs, said assigned relative priorities being determined as a function of said first and second error correction information.
- 2. The computer system of claim 1 wherein said priority logic assigns a higher priority to selected one of said first and second CPUs if the indicated error rate in said correction information corresponding to said selected CPU is less than the indicated error rate in said correction information corresponding to the other one of said first and second CPUs.
- 3. The computer system of claim 1 wherein said priority logic assigns a higher priority to a selected one of said first and second CPUs if said selected CPU has been operating in said computer system for a greater length of time than the length of time the other one of said first and second CPUs has been operating in said computer system.
- 4. The computer system of claim 1 wherein said transmission means is further responsive to said priority logic such thatthe contents of said first FIFO buffer is transmitted to the peripheral devices if said first CPU has been assigned a higher said relative priority, or the contents of said second FIFO buffer is transmitted to the peripheral devices if said second CPU has been assigned a higher said relative priority.
- 5. The computer system of claim 1 wherein said transmission means is further responsive to said priority logic such thatthe contents of said first CPU buffer is transmitted to the peripheral devices if said first CPU has been assigned a higher said relative priority, or the contents of said second CPU buffer is transmitted to the peripheral devices if said second CPU has been assigned a higher said relative priority.
- 6. The computer system of claim 1 further comprising a first diagnostic logic resident in said first CPU and a second diagnostic logic in said second CPU.
- 7. The computer system of claim 6 wherein said I/O module further comprises identification means responsive to said first diagnostic logic and said second diagnostic logic, for identifying one of said first and second CPUs as malfunctioning.
- 8. The computer system of claim 7 wherein said transmission means is further responsive to said identification means such thatthe contents of said first FIFO buffer is transmitted to the peripheral devices if said second CPU is identified as malfunctioning, or the contents of said second FIFO buffer is transmitted to the peripheral devices if said first CPU is identified as malfunctioning.
- 9. The computer system of claim 7 wherein said transmission means is further responsive to said identification means such thatthe contents of said first CPU buffer is transmitted to the peripheral devices if said second CPU is identified as malfunctioning, or the contents of said second CPU buffer is transmitted to the peripheral devices if said first CPU is identified as malfunctioning.
- 10. A method for reliably exchanging data between peripheral devices and a computer system having a first CPU with a buffer operating in lock-step with a second CPU with a buffer, said method comprising the steps of:comparing a data output stream from the first CPU with a contemporaneous data output stream from the second CPU to obtain a bit-by-bit comparative reading; transmitting said first CPU data output stream to the peripheral devices if said comparative reading indicates no difference between said first CPU data output stream and said second CPU data output stream; transmitting said first CPU data output stream to a first FIFO buffer if said comparative reading indicates a difference between said first CPU data output stream and said second CPU data output stream, and transmitting said second CPU data output stream to a second FIFO buffer if said comparative reading indicates a difference between said first CPU data output stream and said second CPU data output stream; buffering each bit of said first CPU data output stream in said first FIFO buffer; buffering each bit of said second CPU data output stream in said second FIFO buffer; executing contemporaneous respective diagnostic procedures in the first CPU and the second CPU; retaining at least a second portion of said first CPU data output stream in the first CPU buffer if said diagnostic procedures indicate the fist CPU to be malfunctioning: and retaining at least a second portion of said second CPU data output stream in the second CPU buffer if said diagnostic procedures indicate the second CPU to be malfunctioning.
- 11. The method of claim 10 further comprising the steps of:transmitting the contents of said second FIFO to the peripheral devices if said diagnostic procedures indicate the first CPU to be malfunctioning; and transmitting the contents of said first FIFO to the peripheral devices if said diagnostic procedures indicate the second CPU to be malfunctioning.
- 12. The method of claim 11 further comprising the steps of:isolating the first CPU if said diagnostic procedures indicate the first CPU to be malfunctioning; and isolating the second CPU if said diagnostic procedures indicate the second CPU to be malfunctioning.
- 13. The method of claim 10 further comprising the steps of:accessing a first error correction history for the first CPU; accessing a first error correction history for the second CPU; if said error correction histories indicate that the second CPU has a higher error correction rate than the first CPU, assigning a higher priority to the first CPU; and if said error correction histories indicate that the first CPU has a higher error correction rate than the second CPU, assigning a higher priority to the second CPU.
- 14. The method of claim 13 further comprising the steps of:transmitting the contents of said first FIFO to the peripheral devices if the first CPU has been assigned a higher priority; and transmitting the contents of said second FIFO to the peripheral devices if the second CPU has been assigned a higher priority.
- 15. The method of claim 10 further comprising the steps of:transmitting the contents of said first CPU buffer to the peripheral devices if said diagnostic procedures indicate the second CPU to be malfunctioning; and transmitting the contents of said second CPU buffer to the peripheral devices if said diagnostic procedures indicate the first CPU to be malfunctioning.
US Referenced Citations (227)
Number |
Name |
Date |
Kind |
3192362 |
Cheney |
Jun 1965 |
A |
3533065 |
McGilvray |
Oct 1970 |
A |
3533082 |
Schnabel |
Oct 1970 |
A |
3544973 |
Borck et al. |
Dec 1970 |
A |
3548176 |
Shutler |
Dec 1970 |
A |
3593307 |
Gouge, Jr. |
Jul 1971 |
A |
3641505 |
Artz et al. |
Feb 1972 |
A |
3665173 |
Bouricius et al. |
May 1972 |
A |
3681578 |
Stevens |
Aug 1972 |
A |
3688274 |
Cormier et al. |
Aug 1972 |
A |
3710324 |
Cohen et al. |
Jan 1973 |
A |
3736566 |
Anderson et al. |
May 1973 |
A |
3783250 |
Fletcher et al. |
Jan 1974 |
A |
3795901 |
Boehm et al. |
Mar 1974 |
A |
3805039 |
Stiffler |
Apr 1974 |
A |
3820079 |
Bergh et al. |
Jun 1974 |
A |
3840861 |
Amdahl et al. |
Oct 1974 |
A |
3879712 |
Edge et al. |
Apr 1975 |
A |
3991407 |
Jordan, Jr. et al. |
Nov 1976 |
A |
3997896 |
Cassarino, Jr. et al. |
Dec 1976 |
A |
4015246 |
Hopkins, Jr. et al. |
Mar 1977 |
A |
4030074 |
Giorcelli |
Jun 1977 |
A |
4032893 |
Moran |
Jun 1977 |
A |
4059736 |
Perucca et al. |
Nov 1977 |
A |
4099234 |
Woods et al. |
Jul 1978 |
A |
4176258 |
Jackson |
Nov 1979 |
A |
4228496 |
Katzman et al. |
Oct 1980 |
A |
4245344 |
Richter |
Jan 1981 |
A |
4263649 |
Lapp, Jr. |
Apr 1981 |
A |
4275440 |
Adams, Jr. et al. |
Jun 1981 |
A |
4309754 |
Dinwiddie, Jr. |
Jan 1982 |
A |
4323966 |
Whiteside et al. |
Apr 1982 |
A |
4356550 |
Katzman et al. |
Oct 1982 |
A |
4358823 |
McDonald et al. |
Nov 1982 |
A |
4366535 |
Cedolin et al. |
Dec 1982 |
A |
4369494 |
Bienvenu et al. |
Jan 1983 |
A |
4375683 |
Wensley |
Mar 1983 |
A |
4434463 |
Quinquis et al. |
Feb 1984 |
A |
4449182 |
Rubinson et al. |
May 1984 |
A |
4453215 |
Reid |
Jun 1984 |
A |
4467436 |
Chance et al. |
Aug 1984 |
A |
4484273 |
Stiffler et al. |
Nov 1984 |
A |
4486826 |
Wolff et al. |
Dec 1984 |
A |
4503496 |
Holzner et al. |
Mar 1985 |
A |
4503535 |
Budde et al. |
Mar 1985 |
A |
4507784 |
Procter |
Mar 1985 |
A |
4543628 |
Pomfret |
Sep 1985 |
A |
4562575 |
Townsend |
Dec 1985 |
A |
4583224 |
Ishii et al. |
Apr 1986 |
A |
4589066 |
Lam et al. |
May 1986 |
A |
4590554 |
Glazer et al. |
May 1986 |
A |
4597084 |
Dynneson et al. |
Jun 1986 |
A |
4608631 |
Stiffler et al. |
Aug 1986 |
A |
4610013 |
Long et al. |
Sep 1986 |
A |
4622667 |
Yount |
Nov 1986 |
A |
4628447 |
Cartret et al. |
Dec 1986 |
A |
4630193 |
Kris |
Dec 1986 |
A |
4633394 |
Georgiou et al. |
Dec 1986 |
A |
4633467 |
Abel et al. |
Dec 1986 |
A |
4644498 |
Bedard et al. |
Feb 1987 |
A |
4648031 |
Jenner |
Mar 1987 |
A |
4654846 |
Goodwin et al. |
Mar 1987 |
A |
4654857 |
Samson et al. |
Mar 1987 |
A |
4669056 |
Waldecker et al. |
May 1987 |
A |
4669079 |
Blum |
May 1987 |
A |
4686677 |
Flora |
Aug 1987 |
A |
4700292 |
Campanini |
Oct 1987 |
A |
4703420 |
Irwin |
Oct 1987 |
A |
4736377 |
Bradley et al. |
Apr 1988 |
A |
4739498 |
Eichhorn |
Apr 1988 |
A |
4750177 |
Hendrie et al. |
Jun 1988 |
A |
4799140 |
Dietz et al. |
Jan 1989 |
A |
4805091 |
Thiel et al. |
Feb 1989 |
A |
4809169 |
Sfarti et al. |
Feb 1989 |
A |
4816990 |
Williams |
Mar 1989 |
A |
4827409 |
Dickson |
May 1989 |
A |
4866604 |
Reid |
Sep 1989 |
A |
4872106 |
Slater |
Oct 1989 |
A |
4905181 |
Gregory |
Feb 1990 |
A |
4907232 |
Harper et al. |
Mar 1990 |
A |
4914580 |
Jensen et al. |
Apr 1990 |
A |
4916695 |
Ossfeldt |
Apr 1990 |
A |
4926315 |
Long et al. |
May 1990 |
A |
4931922 |
Baty et al. |
Jun 1990 |
A |
4939643 |
Long et al. |
Jul 1990 |
A |
4974144 |
Long et al. |
Nov 1990 |
A |
4974150 |
Long et al. |
Nov 1990 |
A |
4985830 |
Atac et al. |
Jan 1991 |
A |
4994960 |
Tuchler et al. |
Feb 1991 |
A |
5005174 |
Bruckert et al. |
Apr 1991 |
A |
5020024 |
Williams |
May 1991 |
A |
5083258 |
Yamasaki |
Jan 1992 |
A |
5089958 |
Horton et al. |
Feb 1992 |
A |
5099485 |
Bruckert et al. |
Mar 1992 |
A |
5117486 |
Clark et al. |
May 1992 |
A |
5136498 |
McLaughlin et al. |
Aug 1992 |
A |
5136704 |
Danielsen et al. |
Aug 1992 |
A |
5138257 |
Katsura |
Aug 1992 |
A |
5155809 |
Baker et al. |
Oct 1992 |
A |
5157663 |
Major et al. |
Oct 1992 |
A |
5179663 |
Iimura |
Jan 1993 |
A |
5193162 |
Bordsen et al. |
Mar 1993 |
A |
5193180 |
Hastings |
Mar 1993 |
A |
5220668 |
Bullis |
Jun 1993 |
A |
5226152 |
Klug et al. |
Jul 1993 |
A |
5231640 |
Hanson et al. |
Jul 1993 |
A |
5243704 |
Baty et al. |
Sep 1993 |
A |
5247522 |
Reiff |
Sep 1993 |
A |
5249187 |
Bruckert et al. |
Sep 1993 |
A |
5251303 |
Fogg, Jr. et al. |
Oct 1993 |
A |
5263034 |
Guenthner et al. |
Nov 1993 |
A |
5270699 |
Signaigo et al. |
Dec 1993 |
A |
5271023 |
Norman |
Dec 1993 |
A |
5283870 |
Joyce et al. |
Feb 1994 |
A |
5295258 |
Jewett et al. |
Mar 1994 |
A |
5313627 |
Amini et al. |
May 1994 |
A |
5317726 |
Horst |
May 1994 |
A |
5321706 |
Holm et al. |
Jun 1994 |
A |
5333265 |
Orimo et al. |
Jul 1994 |
A |
5357612 |
Alaiwan |
Oct 1994 |
A |
5361267 |
Godiwala et al. |
Nov 1994 |
A |
5379381 |
Lamb |
Jan 1995 |
A |
5384906 |
Horst |
Jan 1995 |
A |
5388242 |
Jewett |
Feb 1995 |
A |
5392302 |
Kemp et al. |
Feb 1995 |
A |
5404361 |
Casorso et al. |
Apr 1995 |
A |
5423024 |
Cheung |
Jun 1995 |
A |
5428766 |
Seaman |
Jun 1995 |
A |
5430866 |
Lawrence et al. |
Jul 1995 |
A |
5463755 |
Dumarot et al. |
Oct 1995 |
A |
5465328 |
Dievendorff et al. |
Nov 1995 |
A |
5465340 |
Creedon et al. |
Nov 1995 |
A |
5537535 |
Maruyama et al. |
Jul 1996 |
A |
5550986 |
DuLac |
Aug 1996 |
A |
5555372 |
Tetreault et al. |
Sep 1996 |
A |
5574865 |
Hashemi |
Nov 1996 |
A |
5581750 |
Haderle et al. |
Dec 1996 |
A |
5583987 |
Kobayashi et al. |
Dec 1996 |
A |
5584030 |
Husak et al. |
Dec 1996 |
A |
5586253 |
Green et al. |
Dec 1996 |
A |
5600784 |
Bissett et al. |
Feb 1997 |
A |
5613162 |
Kabenjian |
Mar 1997 |
A |
5615403 |
Bissett et al. |
Mar 1997 |
A |
5621885 |
Del Vigna, Jr. |
Apr 1997 |
A |
5627965 |
Liddell et al. |
May 1997 |
A |
5630046 |
Loise |
May 1997 |
A |
5630056 |
Horvath et al. |
May 1997 |
A |
5659681 |
Ojima |
Aug 1997 |
A |
5671443 |
Stauffer et al. |
Sep 1997 |
A |
5682513 |
Candelaria et al. |
Oct 1997 |
A |
5694541 |
Service et al. |
Dec 1997 |
A |
5696905 |
Reimer et al. |
Dec 1997 |
A |
5701410 |
BeMent et al. |
Dec 1997 |
A |
5701457 |
Fujiwara |
Dec 1997 |
A |
5721918 |
Nilsson et al. |
Feb 1998 |
A |
5724581 |
Kozakura |
Mar 1998 |
A |
5737601 |
Jain et al. |
Apr 1998 |
A |
5748873 |
Ohguro et al. |
May 1998 |
A |
5751955 |
Sonnier et al. |
May 1998 |
A |
5758065 |
Reams et al. |
May 1998 |
A |
5781910 |
Gostanian et al. |
Jul 1998 |
A |
5787485 |
Fitzgerald, V et al. |
Jul 1998 |
A |
5790397 |
Bissett et al. |
Aug 1998 |
A |
5790775 |
Marks et al. |
Aug 1998 |
A |
5802265 |
Bressoud et al. |
Sep 1998 |
A |
5809256 |
Najemy |
Sep 1998 |
A |
5812748 |
Ohran et al. |
Sep 1998 |
A |
5815647 |
Buckland et al. |
Sep 1998 |
A |
5828903 |
Sethuram et al. |
Oct 1998 |
A |
5838899 |
Leavitt et al. |
Nov 1998 |
A |
5838900 |
Horvath et al. |
Nov 1998 |
A |
5838993 |
Riley et al. |
Nov 1998 |
A |
5845060 |
Vrba et al. |
Dec 1998 |
A |
5862145 |
Grossman et al. |
Jan 1999 |
A |
5870301 |
Yakushiji et al. |
Feb 1999 |
A |
5875308 |
Egan et al. |
Feb 1999 |
A |
5875351 |
Riley |
Feb 1999 |
A |
5881251 |
Fung et al. |
Mar 1999 |
A |
5890003 |
Cutts, Jr. et al. |
Mar 1999 |
A |
5892928 |
Wallach et al. |
Apr 1999 |
A |
5894560 |
Carmichael et al. |
Apr 1999 |
A |
5896523 |
Bissett et al. |
Apr 1999 |
A |
5903717 |
Wardrop |
May 1999 |
A |
5918229 |
Davis et al. |
Jun 1999 |
A |
5928339 |
Nishikawa |
Jul 1999 |
A |
5933838 |
Lomet |
Aug 1999 |
A |
5944800 |
Mattheis et al. |
Aug 1999 |
A |
5953538 |
Duncan et al. |
Sep 1999 |
A |
5956474 |
Bissett et al. |
Sep 1999 |
A |
5956476 |
Ranson et al. |
Sep 1999 |
A |
5968185 |
Bressoud et al. |
Oct 1999 |
A |
5978866 |
Nain |
Nov 1999 |
A |
5982672 |
Moon et al. |
Nov 1999 |
A |
5983289 |
Ishikawa et al. |
Nov 1999 |
A |
5983371 |
Lord et al. |
Nov 1999 |
A |
5991900 |
Garnett |
Nov 1999 |
A |
5996035 |
Allen et al. |
Nov 1999 |
A |
6000043 |
Abramson |
Dec 1999 |
A |
6009535 |
Halligan et al. |
Dec 1999 |
A |
6012120 |
Duncan et al. |
Jan 2000 |
A |
6021456 |
Herdeg et al. |
Feb 2000 |
A |
6026458 |
Rasums |
Feb 2000 |
A |
6032271 |
Goodrum et al. |
Feb 2000 |
A |
6038685 |
Bissett et al. |
Mar 2000 |
A |
6041375 |
Bass et al. |
Mar 2000 |
A |
6047343 |
Olarig |
Apr 2000 |
A |
6049894 |
Gates |
Apr 2000 |
A |
6055584 |
Bridges et al. |
Apr 2000 |
A |
6062480 |
Evoy |
May 2000 |
A |
6065017 |
Barker |
May 2000 |
A |
6065135 |
Marshall et al. |
May 2000 |
A |
6067550 |
Lomet |
May 2000 |
A |
6073196 |
Goodrum et al. |
Jun 2000 |
A |
6085200 |
Hill et al. |
Jul 2000 |
A |
6098137 |
Goodrum et al. |
Aug 2000 |
A |
6115829 |
Slegel et al. |
Sep 2000 |
A |
6119128 |
Courter et al. |
Sep 2000 |
A |
6125417 |
Bailis et al. |
Sep 2000 |
A |
6141718 |
Garnett et al. |
Oct 2000 |
A |
6141769 |
Petivan et al. |
Oct 2000 |
A |
6148348 |
Garnett et al. |
Nov 2000 |
A |
6199171 |
Bossen et al. |
Mar 2001 |
B1 |
6233702 |
Horst et al. |
May 2001 |
B1 |
6357024 |
Dutton et al. |
Mar 2002 |
B1 |
6374365 |
Lahmann |
Apr 2002 |
B1 |
6393582 |
Klecka et al. |
May 2002 |
B1 |
6604177 |
Kondo et al. |
Aug 2003 |
B1 |
Foreign Referenced Citations (12)
Number |
Date |
Country |
1200155 |
Sep 1965 |
DE |
0 301 499 |
Feb 1989 |
EP |
0 428 330 |
May 1991 |
EP |
0 475 005 |
Nov 1995 |
EP |
0 293 860 |
Feb 1996 |
EP |
0 742 507 |
Nov 1996 |
EP |
0 390 567 |
Jun 1999 |
EP |
0 974 912 |
Jan 2000 |
EP |
1 200 155 |
Jul 1970 |
GB |
2 060 229 |
Apr 1981 |
GB |
2 268 817 |
Jan 1994 |
GB |
WO 9966406 |
Dec 1999 |
WO |