Patent Grant
8195504
Not Applicable.
Computer systems and related technology affect many aspects of society. Indeed, the computer system's ability to process information has transformed the way we live and work. Computer systems now commonly perform a host of tasks (e.g., word processing, scheduling, accounting, etc.) that prior to the advent of the computer system were performed manually. More recently, computer systems have been coupled to one another and to other electronic devices to form both wired and wireless computer networks over which the computer systems and other electronic devices can transfer electronic data. Accordingly, the performance of many business related processes are distributed across a number of different computer systems and/or a number of different computing components.
The ability of an organization to understand the underlying entities in their processes is important to staying competitive in a given field. The need for this understanding is often useful to identify under performing or over performing business units, new competing products, regulatory changes, etc. However, in many organizations, there is no expressly defined link between what part of a business does and how they do it. For example, an airline may know that it has the capability to “check-in” passengers, but may not be able to fully understand how existing information technology, personnel, and processes contribute to the check-in process. Thus, it can be difficult for a business (or other businesses) to understand its capabilities and how they operate. For example, it may be difficult for an airline (or a prospective buyer of the airline) to realize that small improvements in information technology could make check-in significantly more efficient.
Without a common definition for linking what a business does to how they do it, it is also difficult to formulate computer based tools and methods to assist in improving the entities that contribute to a business capability. Thus, organizations can have further difficulties in improving performance based on existing business models. For example, it can be difficult for an organization to isolate entities based on their performance impact and determine how capabilities can benefit from changes in functionality (e.g., more or less man power, new software applications, more efficient processes, etc).
The present invention extends to methods, systems, and computer program products for linking service level expectations to performing entities. Embodiments of the invention include determining what impact a change in an entity's performance has on a business capability's performance. A computer architecture accesses a business capability from the schema-based model for the organization. The business capability models a portion of what work the organization does. The business capability also includes a service level expectation property indicating metrics for measuring the business capabilities performance.
The computer architecture identifies an express schema-based link between the business capability and each of one or more sets of entities. Each set of entities includes one or more entities that interoperate to perform a representative portion of the work for the business capability. Each schema based-link includes property values indicating the contribution of the corresponding set of entities to the service level expectation metrics for the business capability. Property values for each schema-based link are determined from the performance of the one or more entities included in the corresponding set of entities.
A set of entities is selected, from among the one or more sets of entities that represent how a portion of the work for the business capability is performed. For the selected set of entities, at least one designated entity within the set or entities is isolated. A change in the performance of the at least one designated entity is simulated. Property values are determined for the selected set of entities associated with the schema-based link. The property values are determined from the performance of the one or more entities based on the simulated change in performance of the at least one designated entity.
Service level expectation metrics are calculated for the business capability based on property values from express schema-based links for each of the sets of entities that contribute to performance of the business capability, including the selected set of entities. The calculated service level expectation metrics are compared to existing service level expectation metrics to determine the impact that the simulated change in the performance of the at least one designated entity has on the performance of the business capability.
This summary is provided to introduce a selection of concepts in a simplified form that are further described below in the Detailed Description. This Summary is not intended to identify key features or essential features of the claimed subject matter, nor is it intended to be used as an aid in determining the scope of the claimed subject matter.
Additional features and advantages of the invention will be set forth in the description which follows, and in part will be obvious from the description, or may be learned by the practice of the invention. The features and advantages of the invention may be realized and obtained by means of the instruments and combinations particularly pointed out in the appended claims. These and other features of the present invention will become more fully apparent from the following description and appended claims, or may be learned by the practice of the invention as set forth hereinafter.
In order to describe the manner in which the above-recited and other advantages and features of the invention can be obtained, a more particular description of the invention briefly described above will be rendered by reference to specific embodiments thereof which are illustrated in the appended drawings. Understanding that these drawings depict only typical embodiments of the invention and are not therefore to be considered to be limiting of its scope, the invention will be described and explained with additional specificity and detail through the use of the accompanying drawings in which:
The present invention extends to methods, systems, and computer program products for linking service level expectations to performing entities. Embodiments of the invention include determining what impact a change in an entity's performance has on a business capability's performance. A computer architecture accesses a business capability from the schema-based model for the organization. The business capability models a portion of what work the organization does. The business capability also includes a service level expectation property indicating metrics for measuring the business capabilities performance.
The computer architecture identifies an express schema-based link between the business capability and each of one or more sets of entities. Each set of entities includes one or more entities that interoperate to perform a representative portion of the work for the business capability. Each schema based-link includes property values indicating the contribution of the corresponding set of entities to the service level expectation metrics for the business capability. Property values for each schema-based link are determined from the performance of the one or more entities included in the corresponding set of entities.
A set of entities is selected, from among the one or more sets of entities that represent how a portion of the work for the business capability is performed. For the selected set of entities, at least one designated entity within the set or entities is isolated. A change in the performance of the at least one designated entity is simulated. Property values are determined for the selected set of entities associated with the schema-based link. The property values are determined from the performance of the one or more entities based on the simulated change in performance of the at least one designated entity.
Service level expectation metrics are calculated for the business capability based on property values from express schema-based links for each of the sets of entities that contribute to performance of the business capability, including the selected set of entities. The calculated service level expectation metrics are compared to existing service level expectation metrics to determine the impact that the simulated change in the performance of the at least one designated entity has on the performance of the business capability.
Embodiments of the present invention may comprise or utilize a special purpose or general-purpose computer including computer hardware, as discussed in greater detail below. Embodiments within the scope of the present invention also include physical and other computer-readable media for carrying or storing computer-executable instructions and/or data structures. Such computer-readable media can be any available media that can be accessed by a general purpose or special purpose computer system. Computer-readable media that store computer-executable instructions are physical storage media. Computer-readable media that carry computer-executable instructions are transmission media. Thus, by way of example, and not limitation, embodiments of the invention can comprise at least two distinctly different kinds of computer-readable media: physical storage media and transmission media.
Physical storage media includes RAM, ROM, EEPROM, CD-ROM or other optical disk storage, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium which can be used to store desired program code means in the form of computer-executable instructions or data structures and which can be accessed by a general purpose or special purpose computer.
A “network” is defined as one or more data links that enable the transport of electronic data between computer systems and/or modules and/or other electronic devices. When information is transferred or provided over a network or another communications connection (either hardwired, wireless, or a combination of hardwired or wireless) to a computer, the computer properly views the connection as a transmission medium. Transmissions media can include a network and/or data links which can be used to carry or desired program code means in the form of computer-executable instructions or data structures and which can be accessed by a general purpose or special purpose computer. Combinations of the above should also be included within the scope of computer-readable media.
Further, it should be understood, that upon reaching various computer system components, program code means in the form of computer-executable instructions or data structures can be transferred automatically from transmission media to physical storage media (or vice versa). For example, computer-executable instructions or data structures received over a network or data link can be buffered in RAM within a network interface module (e.g., a “NIC”), and then eventually transferred to computer system RAM and/or to less volatile physical storage media at a computer system. Thus, it should be understood that physical storage media can be included in computer system components that also (or even primarily) utilize transmission media.
Computer-executable instructions comprise, for example, instructions and data which cause a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or special purpose processing device to perform a certain function or group of functions. The computer executable instructions may be, for example, binaries, intermediate format instructions such as assembly language, or even source code. Although the subject matter has been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological acts, it is to be understood that the subject matter defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the described features or acts described above. Rather, the described features and acts are disclosed as example forms of implementing the claims.
Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the invention may be practiced in network computing environments with many types of computer system configurations, including, personal computers, desktop computers, laptop computers, message processors, hand-held devices, multi-processor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, mobile telephones, PDAs, pagers, routers, switches, and the like. The invention may also be practiced in distributed system environments where local and remote computer systems, which are linked (either by hardwired data links, wireless data links, or by a combination of hardwired and wireless data links) through a network, both perform tasks. In a distributed system environment, program modules may be located in both local and remote memory storage devices.
Embodiments of the can include a variety of components that are connected to one another over (or be part of) a network, such as, for example, a Local Area Network (“LAN”), a Wide Area Network (“WAN”), and even the Internet. Accordingly, each of the depicted components as well as any other connected components, can create message related data and exchange message related data (e.g., Internet Protocol (“IP”) datagrams and other higher layer protocols that utilize IP datagrams, such as, Transmission Control Protocol (“TCP”), Hypertext Transfer Protocol (“HTTP”), Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (“SMTP”), etc.) over the network.
Generally, a business capability indicates “what” work is performed, such as, for example, “Purchase Goods”. Entities that contribute to the performance of a capability indicate “how” work is performed, such as, for example, an employee uses an software application to generate a request for proposal (“RFP”) and sends the RFP to prospective sellers, a Web service receives bids from prospective sellers, employees and automated analysis tools interact to evaluate received bids and identify a small subset of the best bids, a management committee then conducts a review process over small subset, a final selected bid is approved by the CEO, the final selected bid is then forwarded to purchasing, purchasing uses a Web service to purchase goods from the winning organization.
Thus, entities that indicate how work is performed can be distributed across a number of different layers within an organization. Generally, a business capability indicates “what” work is performed and entities within various business layers indicate “how” work is performed. Entities can be spread across a variety of different business layers including a technology layer, a process layer, a people layer, a compliance/regulation layer, a project layer, other organization and/or industry defined layers, etc. Entities from different layers can blend together in different ways to formulate a variety of different representations of “how” work is performed.
Multiple different implementations of “how” work is performed can each contribute to “what” work is performed. For example, for an airline, a first combination of entities from various business layers can be blended together to represent online check in, a second different combination of entities from various business layers can be blended kiosk check in, and a third different combination of entities from various business layers can be blended counter check in, for airline flights. Each of online check in, kiosk check in, and counter check in can contribute to a business capability for checking in passengers.
Generally, capability instances 121, 122, and 123 indicate “how” work is performed for business capability 101. Each of capability instances 121, 122, and 123 can blend together zero or more entities from each of the layers in business layers 101 to form an implementation of business capability 101. For example, referring back to the airline example, business capability 101 can be checking in passengers. In this example, capability instance 121 can be online check in, capability instance 122 can be kiosk check in, and capability instance 123 can be counter check in.
n some embodiments, business models and data format definitions for business capabilities are generally described as indicated in Table 1.
Depicted in
Depicted in
Depicted in
Depicted in
Depicted in
Depicted in
Depicted in
Depicted in
Depicted in
Depicted in
It should be understood that schema 200 is merely one example of a business capability modeling schema. It would be apparent to one skilled in the art, after having reviewed this description, that embodiments of the present invention can be used with a wide variety of other business capability modeling schemas, in addition to schema 200. Further, modeling business capabilities does not require that capability attributes for all the data formats in schema 200 be accessible. For example, a capability and connecter can be used to model a business capability based on capability data format 214 and connector data format 223, without accessing capability attributes corresponding to other data formats. Thus, schema 200 defines data formats for business capability attributes that are accessed, but does not require that all data formats be populated to generate a business capability model.
Accordingly, in some embodiments, the business capabilities for an organization are included together in a collection of business capabilities modeled in accordance with a schema. A collection of business capabilities can be represented as a (e.g., structured or schematized) business capability model. An organization can formulate business capability attributes representing current performance of their collection of business capabilities. A modeling application (not shown) can receive the business capability attributes (e.g., from a business capability business layer) and model the business capability attributes into a business capability model. A business capability model can be represented in a variety of different ways depicting various levels of detail (e.g., up to the level of detail of the business capability attributes). A business capability model can be configured visually for output at a user-interface and/or can be retained as data for further processing.
Levels of detail can be used to represent (potentially interconnected) sub-capabilities that contribute to the performance other capabilities.
Turning now to
Procurement 301.3C is further detailed to include source and supplier contract management 301.3C1, purchasing 301.3C2, and receiving of indirect/capital goods and services 301.3C3. Thus, contract management 301.3C1, purchasing 301.3C2, and receiving of indirect/capital goods and services 301.3C3 contribute to the performance of procurement 301.3C (and, as a result, a also contribute to the performance of fulfill demand 301.3 and performance of enterprise 301).
Purchasing 301.3C2 is further detailed to include request resources 301.3C2A, acquire/purchase resources 301.3C2B, and manage supplies 301.3C2C. Thus, request resources 301.3C2A, acquire/purchase resources 301.3C2B, and manage supplies 301.3C2C contribute to the performance of purchasing 301.3C2 (and as a result also contribute to the performance of procurement 301.3C, fulfill demand 301.3, and performance of enterprise 301). Requisition processing 380 is a further sub-capability of request resources request resources 301.3C2A.
Business capability models can also represent data that flows into and data that flows out of the modeled business capabilities. For example,
Purchase order request capability 311 includes ports 373 and 374 (e.g., modeled based on the structured port data format) that can send purchase order requisition 313A and direct order purchase order 314 respectively (e.g., to other business capabilities). Purchase order request capability 501 can include logic that determines, based on one or more of receive employee data 312, product data 316 and produce request 317, whether purchase order requisition 513A and/or direct order purchase order 314 is to be sent.
Thus, embodiments of the present invention can also utilize models of a network of business capabilities. A first business capability is modeled based upon formatted business capability attributes. A second business capability is modeled based upon the formatted business capability attributes. A connection between the first business capability and the second capability is modeled based upon the formatted business capability attributes.
Requisition 323 receives purchase order requisition 313A at port 312. Requisition 323 sends purchase order requisition 313A out of port 322 to purchase order submission capability 333. Thus, requisition 323 transfers purchase order requisition 313A from purchase order request capability 311 to purchase order submission capability 333. Accordingly, a connector can be viewed as a business capability wherein the capability of the connector is to transfer data between other capabilities.
Purchase order submission capability 333 receives purchase order requisition 313A at port 332. Purchase order submission capability 333 includes other ports, including ports 336, 338, 339, and 341. Each of the ports 336, 338, 339, and 341 can be used to send data to and/or receive data from other capabilities or connectors. More specifically, purchase order submission capability 332 sends purchase order 313B out of port 341 to requisition 343 (a connector). Although similar to purchase order requisition 313A, purchase order requisition 313B can differ from purchase order 313A as a result of processing at purchase order submission capability 332.
Requisition 343 receives purchase order requisition 313B at port 342. Requisition 343 sends purchase order requisition 313B out of port 344 to purchase order review capability 363. Purchase order review capability 563 receives purchase order requisition 313B at port 361. Purchase order review capability 363 includes other ports, including ports 362, 364, and 366. Each of the ports 362, 364, and 366 can be used to send data to and/or receive data from other capabilities or connectors.
Although one-way ports and connectors have been depicted in
A network of business capabilities can also be represented in a manner that abstracts the data exchanged between various business capabilities and connectors in the business capability network. Further, in some embodiments and as previously described, a network of more granular business capabilities (or those at higher levels of detail) can be used to model a more coarse business capability (or those at lower levels of detail).
The network of business capabilities in
Although particular models have been described with respect to
It should be understood that schemas for one or more business layers that contribute to business capabilities can include data definitions indicating how the business layers and their entities contribute to business capabilities. Thus, a business capability schema can include data definitions representing links to business layers and/or entities. For example, an entity/layer link schema definitions for contributions from people, process, and technology layers of a business capability.
For example, applications 522 include entities 522A and 522B, which can be for example, a deployed application and a software developer. Legacy information technology 532 includes entities 523A and 523B, which can be for example, a mainframe computer system and a maintenance contractor. Projects 524 includes entity 524A and entity 524B, which can be for example, a workflow and a workflow management team. Personnel 526 includes entities 526A and 526B, which can be a customer service representative and a customer.
Applications 522, legacy information technology 523, projects 524, and personnel 526 as well as included entities can be modeled in accordance with schema 400. Business capability 501 can be modeled in accordance with schema 200. Thus, links 511, 512, 513, 514, and 515 can be evaluated to determine impacts on SLE 502.
Aggregator 503 is configured to receive one or more links from entities and/or layers and aggregate the links into a link indicating a contribution to SLE 502. Thus, aggregator 503 can include one or more components to transform, normalize, regulate, etc., received links relative to one another to properly evaluate the contribution of each received link to SLE 502.
Method 700 includes an act of accessing a business capability from the schema-based model for the organization, the business capability modeling a portion of what work the organization does, the business capability including a service level expectation property indicating metrics for measuring the business capabilities performance (act 701). For example, computer system 511 can access model 504 and from model 504 can access business capability 501. Business capability 501 can model a portion of what an organization does. Business capability 501 includes SLE 502 for measuring the performance of business capability 501.
Method 700 includes an act of identifying an express schema-based link between the business capability and each of one or more sets of entities, each set of entities including one or more entities that interoperate to perform a representative portion of the work for the business capability, each schema based-link including property values indicative of the contribution of the corresponding set of entities to the service level expectation metrics for the business capability, property values for each schema-based link determined from the performance of the one or more entities included in the corresponding set of entities (act 702). For example, computer system 511 can identify links 512, 513, 514, and 515 to applications 522, legacy information technology 523, projects 524, and personal 526 respectively. Each of applications 522, legacy information technology 523, projects 524, and personal 526 can include a blend of entities from different business layers that interoperate to perform a portion of what business capability 501 does.
Each of links 512, 513, 514, and 515 can include property values, defined in accordance with schema 400, indicative of the contribution of their corresponding set of entities to SLE 502. For example, link 512 can include properties indicative of the contribution of entity 522A, entity 522B, etc., to SLE 502. The property values can be determined from the performance of the one or more entities in the set. For example, the property values of link 512 can be determined from the performance of entity 522A, entity 522B, etc.
Method 700 includes an act of selecting a set of entities, from among the one or more sets of entities, that represent how a portion of the work for the business capability is performed (act 703). For example, computer system 511 can select legacy information technology 523. Method 700 includes an act of isolating at least one designated entity within the set of entities (act 704). For example, computer system 511 can isolate entity 523A. However, multiple entities can also be isolated, such as, for example, entity 523A and entity 523B together.
Method 700 includes an act of simulating a change in the performance of the at least one designated entity (act 705). For example, computer system 511 can simulate a change (increase or decrease) in the performance of entity 523A. However, changes to multiple entities can be simulated, such as, for example, simulated a change to entity 523A and entity 523B together.
Method 700 includes an act of determining property values for the schema-based link for the selected set of entities, the property values determined from the performance of the one or more entities based on the simulated change in performance of the at least one designated entity (act 706). For example, computer system 511 can determine property values for link 513 based on the simulated change in performance of entity 523A.
Method 700 includes an act of calculating the service level expectation metrics for the business capability based on property values from express schema-based links for each of the sets of entities that contribute to performance of the business capability, including the selected set of entities (act 707). For example, computer system 511 can calculate metrics for SLE 502 from links 512, 513, 514 and 515. Aggregator 503 can then aggregate links 512, 513 (representing an impact of the simulated change to entity 523A), 514 and 515 into link 511. Link 511 can then be used to populate metrics for SLE 502.
Method 700 includes an act of comparing the calculated service level expectation metrics to existing service level expectation metrics to determine the impact that simulating a change in the performance of the at least one designated entity has on the performance of the business capability (act 708). For example, computer system 511 can compare SLE 502 (metrics representing impact of simulated change to entity 523A) to existing SLE 592 (e.g., prior baseline metric values) to determine performance change 593. From the comparison computer system 511 can determine the impact of the simulated change to entity 523A on business capability. If large simulated change in entity 523A had limited impact on SLE 502 in can be determined that in entity 523A is relatively insignificant to business capability 501. Thus, further investment to improve entity 523A may not be worthwhile. On the other hand, if a small simulated change in entity 523A had a significant impact on SLE 502 in can be determined that in entity 523A is relatively significant to business capability 501. Thus, further investment to improve entity 523A may be worthwhile.
Technology 622, process 623, and people 624 as well as included entities can be modeled in accordance with schema 400. Business capability 601 can be modeled in accordance with schema 200. Thus, links 611, 612, 613, and 614 can be evaluated to determine impacts on SLE 602.
Aggregator 603 is configured to receive one or more links from entities and/or layers and aggregate the links into a link indicating a contribution to SLE 602. Thus, aggregator 603 can include one or more components to transform, normalize, regulate, etc., received links relative to one another to properly evaluate the contribution of each received link to SLE 602.
Simulated changes to the performance of particular entities within a layer can be made to determine the impact to the layer and to SLE 602. Computer system 611 can compare SLE 602 (metrics representing a simulated change) to existing SLE 692 (e.g., prior baseline metric values) to determine how changes to a particular layer impact SLE 602. Computer system 611 can compare SLE 602 to existing SLE 592 (e.g., prior baseline metric values) to determine performance change 693.
In some embodiments, different combinations of layers are turned off to determine the impact of remaining layers on SLE metrics. For example, SLE 602 can be calculated solely from link 612 to determine the contribution of technology 622 on SLE 602.
Accordingly, embodiments of the invention facilitate an express, measured relationship between each entity and the performance of a corresponding business capability. Thus, when an entity or layer changes, the impact to the performance can be asserted, and later validated through the specific measures.
Further, since there can be multiple instances of the same capability and capabilities can be decomposed in sub-capabilities it is possible to weight different portions of contribution to an SLE. For example, referring once more to the airline check in example, a business capability can define “what” work is done as “Preparing To Fly”. Sub-capabilities to “Perparing To Fly” can include authenticate passengers, issue permission to board (boarding pass), and “check luggage”.
So the SLE, of that set of sub-capabilities can be weighted such that completing the work in a timeframe that doesn't delay the flight contributes to 55% of the SLE, customer satisfaction contributes 25% of the SLE, and employee satisfaction contributes 20% to the SLE. Thus, the addition of the kiosks and online check in improve overall throughput, and by giving the customer control, their satisfaction goes up, and by taking pressure off the employees, their satisfaction should improve. Accordingly, then keeping track of each implementation of the capability, when any one of those three components to the SLE gets out of line with expectations (flight delays, customer dissatisfaction, and employee dissatisfaction), includes determining which can be changed.
For example, airlines can't change the regulation for passenger authentication and in the US the standard “did you pack your own bags” FAA questions). Further, airlines can't control the experience or knowledge of the online user or the kiosk user. Within those constraints, depending on which part of the three components is out of line with expectations, that would inform the airline whether they change the number of kiosks, provide incentives in increase online check ins, or change the experience at the counter.
Beyond that, when a basic requirement changes, the change can have varied levels of impact on the different implementations of a capability. For example, introducing a separate fee for checked luggage may make kiosk check in significantly more inefficient. On the other hand, counter check in may be only minimally impacted since gate agents are often already receiving forms of payment for other items. Online check in may be impacted even less when passengers know how many bags they will have before flying.
The present invention may be embodied in other specific forms without departing from its spirit or essential characteristics. The described embodiments are to be considered in all respects only as illustrative and not restrictive. The scope of the invention is, therefore, indicated by the appended claims rather than by the foregoing description. All changes which come within the meaning and range of equivalency of the claims are to be embraced within their scope.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5233513 | Doyle | Aug 1993 | A |
| 5799286 | Morgan | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5953707 | Huang | Sep 1999 | A |
| 6151582 | Huang | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6321205 | Eder | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6345239 | Bowman-Amuah | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6560569 | Abu El Ata | May 2003 | B1 |
| 6601233 | Underwood | Jul 2003 | B1 |
| 6609120 | Honarvar | Aug 2003 | B1 |
| 6772216 | Ankireddipally | Aug 2004 | B1 |
| 6778971 | Altschuler | Aug 2004 | B1 |
| 6873979 | Fishman | Mar 2005 | B2 |
| 6898783 | Gupta | May 2005 | B1 |
| 6961756 | Dilsaver | Nov 2005 | B1 |
| 6965886 | Govrin | Nov 2005 | B2 |
| 7043454 | Powell | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7120896 | Budhiraja | Oct 2006 | B2 |
| 7162427 | Myrick et al. | Jan 2007 | B1 |
| 7243120 | Massey | Jul 2007 | B2 |
| 7246144 | Walsh | Jul 2007 | B2 |
| 7251613 | Flores | Jul 2007 | B2 |
| 7281235 | Datta et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
| 7308414 | Parker | Dec 2007 | B2 |
| 7308417 | Nathan | Dec 2007 | B1 |
| 7461038 | Kropaczek et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
| 7506302 | Bahrami | Mar 2009 | B2 |
| 7580913 | Chandra et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
| 7703071 | Kuester | Apr 2010 | B2 |
| 20010053991 | Bonabeau | Dec 2001 | A1 |
| 20020013720 | Ozono | Jan 2002 | A1 |
| 20020049573 | El Ata | Apr 2002 | A1 |
| 20020059264 | Fleming | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020095393 | McHaney | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020103869 | Goatly | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020133368 | Strutt et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020138484 | Bialek et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020186238 | Sylor | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20020198722 | Yuschik | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20020198727 | Ann | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20020198800 | Shamrakov | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20030033182 | Stok | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030046123 | Chen | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030065690 | Kelley | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030084053 | Govrin | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030216955 | Miller | Nov 2003 | A1 |
| 20040034496 | Correll | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040034615 | Thompson | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040054690 | Hillerbrand | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040068431 | Smith | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040138933 | LaComb | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040143470 | Myrick | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040153436 | Pope | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040172319 | Eder | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040177326 | Bibko | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040181538 | Lo | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040230404 | Messmer | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040236618 | Smith | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040243595 | Cui | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050021348 | Chan et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050021433 | Hyler | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050027752 | Gelbard | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050033716 | Ambroz | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050043977 | Ahem | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050049882 | Sawka | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050065805 | Moharram | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050071737 | Adendorff | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050075914 | Bayne | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050086189 | Noble | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050091093 | Bhaskaran | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050108022 | Bhattacharya et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050149558 | Zhuk | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050197969 | McElroy | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050216320 | Hattaway | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050222893 | Kasravi | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20060005157 | Saxena | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060064335 | Goldszmidt et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060074833 | Gardner | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060111921 | Chang | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060116919 | Homann | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060116922 | Homann et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060149764 | Burchfield | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060167665 | Ata | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060167704 | Nicholls et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060178928 | Carney | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060206374 | Asthana et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060224425 | Homann | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060229922 | Levy | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060229926 | Homann | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060235732 | Miller et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060241954 | Jeng | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060241956 | Levy | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060242176 | Tsyganskiy | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060247943 | Kapoor | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060277156 | Merican | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20060293911 | Wittmann | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20070016886 | O'Neil | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070021992 | Konakalla | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070022404 | Zhang | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070043724 | Senan | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070067195 | Fahner | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070078702 | Tandon | Apr 2007 | A1 |
| 20070094288 | Enenkiel | Apr 2007 | A1 |
| 20070124184 | Schmit | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070143174 | Tien | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070162496 | Pulfer | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070174109 | Cohn | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070174840 | Sharma | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070203589 | Flinn | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070203718 | Merrifield | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070203766 | Adler et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070226163 | Robles | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070234277 | Lei | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070250361 | Hazy | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20080120573 | Gilbert | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080270448 | Brennan et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20090112655 | Stuhec | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090158237 | Zhang et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 0042553 | Jul 2000 | WO |
| WO016352 | Jan 2001 | WO |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20100063871 A1 | Mar 2010 | US |
