Patent Grant
10838569
The invention relates to digital data processing and, more particularly, for example, to more to the optimization of user interfaces generated by digital data processing systems.
Computer systems that facilitate business operations based on information specific to an industry or enterprise are well known in the art. These typically rely on rules identifying situations that are expected to arise during enterprise operation and the applicable responses. Such systems have been used in a range of applications, from health care to automotive repair. The rules on which they rely come from experts in the field, from the collective experience of workers on the “front line,” or a combination of these and other sources.
Though many computer systems of this sort incorporate application-specific knowledge directly into source code (using, for example, a sequence of “if . . . then . . . else” statements, or the like), more complex systems store that knowledge separately from the programs that access it. Some use “rules bases” that store application-specific information in tables, database records, database objects, and so forth. An example of a system of this type is disclosed in commonly assigned U.S. Pat. No. 5,826,250, entitled “Rules Bases and Methods of Access Thereof,” the teachings of which are incorporated herein by reference.
These and other rules-based business process management (BPM) applications are commonly used in enterprise computing, for example, where they facilitate a range of business operations, from marketing to manufacturing to distribution to technical support. By way of example, a BPM application can implement data-processing workflows to support the handling of customer service requests received by retail and banking enterprises. By way of further example, BPM applications can be used in health care and insurance enterprises to support the automated routing and resolution of claims.
With increasing frequency, these applications are implemented with architectures that permit their use over the Internet, wide area networks, local area networks, and the like. A common such architecture provides a rules engine that executes on a server, e.g., co-located with the rules base at enterprise headquarters, and that processes requests entered by support personnel via web browsers executing on remotely disposed client devices (e.g., personal computers and personal digital assistants).
Other software applications are evolving similarly. Those that traditionally ran solely on the “desktop,” are now increasingly being executed over the Internet or other networks. Word processing is one example. Though core functions are still supported by software resident on each user's computer, higher-end functionality may be delivered on demand from an enterprise or other server.
Unfortunately, the architectural evolution of BPM and other applications has not been accompanied by commensurate changes in their user interfaces. Customers must increasingly rely on those interfaces for everything from opening inquiries, to making purchases and entering into other transactions, to obtaining customer assistance. Enterprise employees and managers must likewise increasingly rely on them for everything from account inquires, to report generation, to customer and account support. Though the quantity of information pouring into and out of these user interfaces is on the rise, their efficiency and ease of use is not. An object of this invention is to correct that.
More generally, an object of the invention is to provide improved systems and methods for digital data processing.
A more particular object is to provide improved user interface systems and methods.
A yet more particular object is to provide such improved user interface systems and methods for use with rules engines.
A still yet more particular object is to provide such improved user interface systems and methods for use in business process management (BPM) applications.
A yet still further object is to provide such improved user interface systems and methods as are optimized for user interaction.
The foregoing are among the objects attained by the invention, which provides in some aspects methods and systems for user interface optimization. In one such aspect, the invention provides such a method that includes identifying one or more rules for execution by a rules engine in order to generate a user interface. The method further includes executing, on a digital data processing system that comprises one or more digital data processors, a step of determining whether one or more aspects of the user interface generated as a result of execution of at least one of those rules is in conformity with one or more requirements. The system responds to a negative such determination by generating a notification indicative thereof, identifying modifications to generate a conforming user interface from those one or more rules, modifying one or more of those rules to generate a conforming user interface, and/or generating a conforming user interface from (e.g., based directly or indirectly on) those one or more rules. The method further calls for storing to and/or generating as an output from the digital data processing system a result those step(s).
Further aspects of the invention provide methods, e.g., as described above, wherein one or more of the rules comprises any of metadata and one or more programming language statements.
Further aspects of the invention provide methods, e.g., as described above, wherein aspects of the user interface in regard to which the determination of conformity is made pertain to a language syntax of the user interface, including any of grammar, spelling, usage, punctuation, and style; accessibility of the user interface by disabled users; amenability of the user interface to localization/globalization; the need for localizing/globalizing the user interface; security; and/or layout.
Thus, by way of non-limiting example, methods according to related aspects of the invention can make a determination of whether the user interface provides tooltips in conformity with specified accessibility requirements. And, by way of further non-limiting example, such methods can make a determination of whether the user interface obfuscates one or more fields (e.g., input and/or display fields) in accord with specified security requirements.
By way of still further example, methods according to related aspects of the invention can make a determination of whether the user interface meets specified layout requirements in regard to priority of fields, color contrast, whitespace, alignment, field and/or element labels, redundancy, progress indicators, usability, unused area and/or display resolution.
Further aspects of the invention provide methods, e.g., as described above, wherein one or more of the requirements from which the conformity determination is made are defined by one or more further rules (e.g., from a rules base) and/or another user interface generated thereby, one or more transactional data (e.g., from one or more enterprise databases) relating to the user interface or otherwise, a context in which the user interface is any of transmitted, displayed and/or viewed by the user, a collection (e.g., database, rules base or otherwise) defining any of grammar, spelling, usage, punctuation, style of the user interface.
Still further aspects of the invention provide methods, e.g., as described above, wherein one or more of the user requirements are defined in accord with transactional data relating to a field associated with the user interface. According to such aspects, for example, the conforming user interface can include a field that has a modified display characteristic vis-a-vis a non-conforming user interface which would otherwise result from the rule(s) upon which the determination of non-conformance is made.
Related aspects of the invention provide methods, e.g., as described above, wherein the modified display characteristic is based on a requirement defined in accord with transactional data relating to correlation between transactional data associated with that field and transactional data associated with another field. The modified display characteristic can be, for example, position, size, color and/or other attribute.
Further aspects of the invention provide methods, e.g., as described above, wherein a field in a conforming user interface includes a field that is repositioned vis-a-vis the non-conforming user interface which would otherwise result from the rule(s) upon which the determination of non-conformance is made. According to related aspects of the invention, a location of that repositioned field is based on a location of another field in the user interface. Alternatively, or in addition, according to related aspects of the invention, that location can be based on a preferred position for the repositioned field, e.g., as defined in one or more other rules and/or a context in which the user interface is any of transmitted, displayed and/or viewed by a user—all by way of example.
Further aspects of the invention provide methods, e.g., as described above, wherein a field of a conforming user interface is any of added to and removed from the user interface vis-a-vis the non-conforming user interface which would otherwise result from the rule(s) upon which the determination of non-conformance is made.
Yet still further aspects of the invention provide methods, e.g., as described above, wherein a conforming user interface includes a field that that has a modified display characteristic vis-a-vis the non-conforming user interface which would otherwise result from the rule(s) upon which the determination of non-conformance is made.
Other related aspects of the invention provide methods, e.g., as described above, wherein the requirement pertains to an alignment characteristic and wherein the conforming user interface includes an altered alignment characteristic vis-a-vis the non-conforming user interface which would otherwise result from the rule(s) upon which the determination of non-conformance is made.
Still other related aspects provide methods, e.g., as described above, wherein the requirement pertains to a security trait and wherein the conforming user interface includes a feature that obfuscates at least one display or input field vis-a-vis the non-conforming user interface which would otherwise result from the rule(s) upon which the determination of non-conformance is made.
Likewise, for example, wherein the requirement pertains to the display of “breadcrumbs,” tabs or other navigational indicators of user interfaces, the conforming user interface can include a feature reflecting such indicators vis-a-vis the non-conforming user interface which would otherwise result from the rule(s) upon which the determination of non-conformance is made.
These and other aspects of the invention are evident in the drawings and in the description that follows.
A more complete understanding of the invention may be attained by reference to the drawings, in which:
Architecture
The illustrated client digital data processors 14, 16, and 18 are conventional desktop computers, workstations, minicomputers, laptop computers, tablet computers, PDAs or other digital data processing apparatus of the type that are commercially available in the marketplace and that are suitable for operation in the illustrated system as described herein, all as adapted in accord with the teachings hereof. Here, those digital data processors are of the type and configuration used in a corporate or enterprise environment; however, the invention may be practiced in any variety of other computing environments, networked or otherwise.
The digital data processors 14, 16, 18 comprises central processing, memory, storage and input/output units and other constituent components (not shown) of the type conventional in the art that are configured to form application 14a, 16a, 18a respectively, which in the illustrated embodiment comprise software suitable for (i) displaying user interfaces generated by server 12 and transmitted to the respective processors 14, 16, 18 via network 20 and, preferably, for also (ii) generating requests for those interfaces and transmitting them to server 12, again, via network 20.
In the illustrated embodiment, those applications 14a, 16a, 18a comprise web browsers of the type commercially available in the marketplace and operative on the respective devices for, by way of example, retrieving web pages or other markup language streams, presenting those pages and/or streams (visually, aurally, or otherwise), executing scripts, controls and other code on those pages/streams, accepting user input with respect to those pages/streams (e.g., for purposes of completing input fields), issuing HTTP requests with respect to those pages/streams or otherwise (e.g., for submitting to a server information from the completed input fields), and so forth. The web pages or other markup language can be in HTML or other conventional forms, including embedded XML, scripts, controls, and so forth—again, per convention in the art. In other embodiments, applications 14a, 16a, 18a may perform fewer of these functions and may perform other functions, as well or instead.
Thus, by way of non-limiting example, one or more of applications 14a, 16a, 18a may comprise embedded rules engines, e.g., for executing rules transmitted respectively to them by server 12 (e.g., as part of the web pages, markup streams) or otherwise. While in some embodiments, such rules engines are architected and operated similarly to rules engine 22 of server 12, discussed below, in other embodiments they incorporate a subset of the functionality of engine 22, e.g., suited to the processing resources and/or demands of the digital data processors 14, 16, 18 upon which they operate.
While the forgoing functions attributed to applications 14a, 16a, 18a, are described, here, in the context of web pages, it will be appreciated that in other embodiments, one or more of the foregoing functions may be performed on the respective devices 14, 16, 18 other than by “web browser” software.
The central processing, memory, storage and input/output units of client digital data processors 14, 16, 18 may be configured to form and/or may be supplemented by other elements of the type known in the art desirable or necessary to support applications 14a, 16a, 18a, respectively, in accord with the teachings hereof, as well as to support other operations of the digital data processor 12. These can include, by way of non-limiting example, peripheral devices (such as keyboards and monitors), operating systems, database management systems, and network interface cards and software, e.g., for supporting communications with server digital data processor 12 and other devices over network 20.
Although digital data processors 14, 16, 18 are depicted and described in like manner here, it will be appreciated that this is for sake of generality and convenience: in other embodiments, these devices may differ in architecture and operation from that shown and described here and/or from each other, all consistent with the teachings hereof. Moreover, it will be appreciated that although only three closely positioned client devices 14, 16, 18 are shown, other embodiments may have greater or fewer numbers of these devices disposed near and/or far from one another, collocated behind one or more common firewalls or otherwise.
Like client digital data processors 14, 16, 18, the server digital data processor 12 is a digital data processing apparatus of the type commercially available in the marketplace suitable for operation in the illustrated system as described herein, as adapted in accord with the teachings hereof. Though the server 12 is typically implemented in a server-class computer, such as a minicomputer, it may also be implemented in a desktop computer, workstation, laptop computer, tablet computer, PDA or other suitable apparatus (again, as adapted in accord with the teachings hereof).
Server digital data processor 12, too, comprises central processing, memory, storage and input/output units and other constituent components (not shown) of the type conventional in the art that are configured in accord with the teachings hereof to form rules engine 22, rules base 24, transaction database 26, language database 28 and context registry 30, one or more of which may be absent in various embodiments of the invention.
Although only a single server digital data processor 12 is depicted and described here, it will be appreciated that this other embodiments may have greater or fewer numbers of these devices disposed near and/or far from one another, collocated behind one or more common firewalls or otherwise. Those other servers may differ in architecture and operation from that shown and described here and/or from each other, all consistent with the teachings hereof. Still further, although server 12 of the illustrated embodiment is depicted as being remotely disposed from the client digital data processors 14, 16 and 18, in other embodiments, one or more of the client devices may be disposed in vicinity of the server and, indeed, may be co-housed with it.
Rules base 24 comprises a conventional rules bases of the type known in the art (albeit configured in accord with the teachings hereof) for storing digitally encoded rules 25 and other application-related information in tables, database records, database objects, and so forth. Such stored rules 25 are likewise formatted and stored in the conventional manner known in the art (albeit configured in accord with the teachings hereof). Here, rules base 24 is configured and contains rules 25 for use in business process management applications, though in other embodiments it may be configured and used for other applications. A preferred such rules base is of the type described in the aforementioned incorporated-by-reference U.S. Pat. No. 5,826,250, entitled “Rules Bases and Methods of Access Thereof” and U.S. Pat. No. 7,640,222, entitled “Rules Base Systems and Methods with Circumstance Translation,” though, a rules base that is architected and/or operated differently may be used as well.
Some embodiments may utilize multiple rules bases, e.g., an enterprise-wide rules base 24 on the server 12 and domain-specific rules bases on one or more of client devices 14, 16, 18, all by way of example. To the extent that multiple rules bases are provided in any given embodiment, they may be of like architecture and operation as one another; though, they be disparate in these regards, as well. Utilization of multiple rules bases may be accomplished in the manner described in copending, commonly assigned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/031,097, entitled “Systems and Methods for Distributed Rules Processing,” filed this same day herewith, the teachings of which are incorporated heron by reference.
Transactional data base 26 comprises a conventional data base of the type known in the art (albeit configured in accord with the teachings hereof) for storing corporate, personal, governmental or other data that may be any of generated, stored, retrieved and otherwise processed (hereinafter, collectively referred to as “processed”) by rules in rules base 24 and/or rules stored/executed elsewhere. The data may of financial data, customer records, personal data, run-time data related to an application, or other type of data and it may be stored in tables, database records, database objects, and so forth.
As above, some embodiments may utilize multiple transactional database bases, e.g., an enterprise-wide data base 26 on the server 12 and branch-office specific data bases on the client devices 14, 16, 18, all by way of example. To the extent that multiple transactional data bases are provided in any given embodiment, they may be of like architecture and operation as one another; though, they be disparate in these regards, as well. Utilization of multiple transactional databases may be accomplished in the manner described in incorporated-by-reference U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/031,097, entitled “Systems and Methods for Distributed Rules Processing,” filed this same day herewith.
Language base 28 encodes information regarding the syntax of the language (or languages) in which user interfaces generated by server 12 are presented on devices 14, 16, 18 and, more particularly, in the illustrated embodiment, by applications 14a, 16a, 18a. That syntax can include one or more of grammar, spelling, usage, punctuation, and/or style. The language base 28 may comprise a language database of the variety commercially available in the marketplace—e.g., in the manner of spelling and grammar dictionaries provided with conventional word processors (which “dictionaries” often include usage-, punctuation- and/or style-related entries). Alternatively, the language syntax information may be embodied in one or more rules 25 of the rules base 24, or otherwise.
Context registry 30 is a store registry that includes information related to the respective contexts or circumstances in which the requested user interfaces (e.g., web pages) are and/or will be communicated to and executed on the respective client devices 14, 16, 18. That context or circumstance can include, by way of non-limiting example, user “properties” or business attributes (e.g., security permissions, disability settings, market segment, behavioral segment, age, locale, and so forth), client device 14, 16, 18 properties (e.g., processor speed, display size, keyboard capabilities, locale, and so forth), and communication channel properties (e.g., the speed and type of connection between server 12 and the respective client devices 14, 16, 18). That context or circumstance can further include, by way of non-limiting example, the language, country and/or other locale settings and preferences of the user of device to which the web page is to be displayed. Still other variations in the possible range of values stored in the context registry 30 are possible.
Illustrated digital data processor 12 also includes rules engine 22 of the type conventionally known in the art (albeit configured in accord with the teachings hereof) for use in processing rules from a rules base in order to process data, e.g., in (and/or for storage to) a transactional database, for example, in connection with events signaled to and/or detected by the engine. In the illustrated embodiment, the rules engine is of the type used for business process management applications, though in other embodiments it may be of the type used for other applications. Preferred such rules engines are of the type described in the aforementioned incorporated-by-reference U.S. Pat. No. 5,826,250, entitled “Rules Bases and Methods of Access Thereof” and U.S. Pat. No. 7,640,222, entitled “Rules Base Systems and Methods with Circumstance Translation” and/or U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/681,269, filed Mar. 2, 2007, entitled “Proactive Performance Management For Multi-User Enterprise Software Systems,” the teachings too of which are incorporated by reference herein-all as adapted in accord with the teachings hereof.
The rules engine 22 may be implemented in a single software program or module, or a combination of multiple software modules/programs. Moreover, it may comprise programming instructions, scripts, rules (e.g., rules stored in rules base 24) and/or a combination of thereof. And, even though the rules engine 22 of the illustrated embodiment is depicted as executing on just server digital data processor 12, in other embodiments, the engine may execute on or across multiple digital data processors (e.g., 12, 14, 16 and 18). Executing the engine over multiple digital data processors may be accomplished in the manner described in incorporated-by-reference U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/031,097, entitled “Systems and Methods for Distributed Rules Processing,” filed by one or more of the same inventors hereof on this same day herewith, the teachings of which are incorporated herein by reference.
Rules
In a preferred embodiment, the rules 25 may comprise meta-information structures. These are structures that can include data elements and/or method elements. The latter can be procedural or declarative. In the former regard, for example, such a structure may be procedural insofar as it comprises one or more of a series or ordered steps (e.g., in a workflow). In the latter regard, such a structure may be declarative, for example, insofar as it sets forth (declares) a relation between variables, values, and so forth (e.g., a loan rate calculation or a decision-making criterion), or it declares the desired computation and/or result without specifying how the computations should be performed or the result achieved. By way of non-limiting example, the declarative portion of a meta-information structure may declare the desired result of retrieval of a specified value without specifying the data source for the value or a particular query language (e.g., SQL, CQL, .QL etc.) to be used for such retrieval. In other cases, the declarative portion of a meta-information structure may comprise declarative programming language statements (e.g., SQL). Still other types of declarative meta-information structures are possible.
While some rules may comprise meta-information structures that are wholly procedural and others may comprise those that are wholly declarative, the illustrated embodiment also contemplates rules 25 that comprise both procedural and declarative meta-information structures, i.e., rules that have meta-information structure portions that are declarative, as well as meta-information structure portions that are procedural (e.g., a rule that includes one portion defining one or more steps of a workflow and another portion that defines a decision-making criterion).
Rules of the illustrated embodiment that comprise meta-information structures may also reference and/or incorporate other such rules, which themselves may, in turn, reference and/or incorporate still other such rules. As a result, editing such rule may affect one or more rules (if any) that incorporate it.
Continuing the above example, a meta-information structure-based rule may include a procedural portion that defines a workflow process, as well as a reference to another meta-information structure-based rule that specifies a decision-making criterion for one of the steps in that workflow. If the meta-information structure containing that decision-making criterion is edited, it may affect the rule that references it and, therefore, affect processing of the workflow that referencing rule defines.
In another example, a rule that includes a meta-information structure for generating a web page may reference another rule with a meta-information structure portion that defines how social security numbers (SSNs) are displayed. If the latter rule is edited, e.g., to cause all SSNs to be partially blurred or blocked on display/entry (i.e., “obfuscated”), this may affect the former rule, i.e., causing the web page generated upon execution of the former rule to display the SSNs in an obfuscated format. Similarly, if several other meta-information-based rules for generating other web pages reference the social security-displaying rule, all of those respective web pages may be similarly affected.
An advantage of rules that comprise meta-information structures over conventional rules is that they provide users with the flexibility to apply any of code-based and model-driven techniques in the development and modification of software applications and/or computing platforms. Particularly, like models in a model-driven environment, meta-information structures comprise data elements that can be used to define any aspect of a complex system at a higher level of abstraction than source code written in programming languages such as Java or C++. On the other hand, users may also embed programming language statements into meta-information structures if they deem that to be the most efficient design for the system being developed or modified. At run-time, the data elements of the meta-information structures along with programming language statements (if any) are automatically converted into executable code by the rules engine.
Thus, in some embodiments, rules may be the primary artifacts that get created, stored (e.g., in a rules base 24) or otherwise manipulated to define and/or modify the overall functionality of rules-based applications that may automate and/or manage various types of work in different business domains at run-time. By way of non-limiting example, a plurality of rules stored in a rules base (e.g., 24) may be configured to define all aspects of a software application. Such a software application may include specialized software that is used within a specific industry or a business function (e.g., human resources, finance, healthcare, telecommunications etc.), or it may include a cross-industry application (e.g., a project management application, issue-tracking application etc.), or any other type of software application. As the software application executes on a digital data processor (e.g. any of 12, 14 and 18), any portion of the plurality rules that define the application may be retrieved from a rules base (e.g. 24) and processed/executed e.g., using a rules engine 22 in response to requests/events signaled to and/or detected by the engine at run-time.
User Interface Generation
Client devices 14, 16, 18 of the illustrated embodiment execute web browsers 14a, 16a, 18a, respectively, that “display” web pages and/or other markup language streams (collectively, “web pages” or, alternatively, “streams,” “markup streams,” “HTML streams,” and so forth, in the discussion that follows, unless otherwise evident therefrom) received from server 12 via network(s) 20. These are typically web pages presented by the server 12 to the respective users of devices 14, 16, 18, e.g., as part of respective online sessions, although, they can be presented on other occasions and for other reasons, as well.
The aforementioned web pages include can include conventional elements, such as display text, headers, links, still and moving images, and other display fields, as well as input fields for entry of data in text, numeric and/or alphanumeric (collectively, “text”) formats, enumeration selection (e.g., dropdown lists, checkboxes, radio buttons, etc.), upload/download file selection, “submit” buttons (e.g., to signify that a page is ready for submission to the server 12), other controls, and so forth. These fields (or elements) may be supplemented and/or replaced by aural presentation fields (e.g., music files) and the like, again, in the conventional manner known in the art.
In the illustrated embodiment those web pages (or, more generally, markup streams) are generated by the server 12 and transmitted to the respective client devices 14, 16, 18 as a result of execution by rules engine 22 of rules 25, typically, in response to signaling from the client digital data processors 14, 16, 18 (e.g., by way of HTTP requests). However, those pages can also be generated by the server and transmitted to client devices as a result of execution of rules in response to other events, e.g., “asynchronously” generated web pages (or portions thereof) signaling completion of previously requested batch jobs, signaling notifications or other messaging from administrative functions in the system 10, other users, and so forth.
In this regard, it will be appreciated that rules base 24 of the illustrated embodiment can comprise multiple types of rules. Some (if not all) of the rules may be “user interface” rules that are directed to generation of web pages (or other mark up streams) via which users of client devices 14, 16, 18 communicate with server 12 and vice versa. Execution of these rules, for example, may directly or indirectly lead to one or more of the following, by way of non-limiting example, (i) establishing of online sessions with the respective client devices 14, 16, 18 and, more particularly, the users of applications 14a, 16a, 18a, executing thereon, (ii) generation of web pages (or, more generally, markup streams) in response to requests from those users (or, as noted above, in response to other events), and/or (iii) accepting and/or processing input from those users, e.g., in response to the web pages, all by way of non-limiting example. Others of the rules in rules base 24 may be directed to other features or tasks attendant to business process management, e.g., collaboration between users, rule/work management, optimization, simulation, batch processing of transactions, exchanging data with other computer systems, report generation, and so forth, all by way of example. Still other rules may execute on the central processing unit or other resources of the server 12 to provide one or more of the “rules engine” function, itself, again, in the conventional manner known in the art. Yet still other rules may define requirements for user interfaces generated by the user interface rules, e.g., in regard to language syntax (including, for example, grammar, spelling, usage, punctuation, and style), accessibility disabled users, amenability to and/or necessity of localization/globalization, security, and/or layout.
Thus, for example, in response to a request for a “loan validation” web page by the web browser 18a of client digital data processor 18, the rules engine 22 retrieves one or more of the rules 25 implicated by that request from the rules base 24 (if it has not already done so). Which of those rules 25 is implicated may be determined by the request itself, the context, the state of currently executing rules for that user, and so forth. A markup language generator 22a contained in rules engine 22 then processes those implicated rules, e.g., in view of that context, to select which input fields, output fields, submit buttons, display elements, etc., to include in the requested web page and how to configure those elements.
Operation of the generator 22a of the illustrated embodiment is shown in
In the illustrated embodiment, such contextual selection and configuration is embedded in the rules themselves and/or forms part of the systematic processing of markup language streams, as discussed in incorporated-by-reference U.S. patent application Ser. Nos. 12/174,624 and 12/035,682. As noted above, as used herein “context” refers to the context in which the requested web page will be communicated to and executed on the client device. That context can include, by way of non-limiting example, user “properties” (e.g., security permissions, disabilities, market segment, behavioral segment (or other business-related attributes), age, locale, and so forth), client device 18 properties (e.g., processor speed, display size, keyboard capabilities, disability settings, and so forth), and communication channel properties (e.g., the speed and type of connection between devices 12 and 18).
Based on the aforesaid selection and configuration, the engine 22 constructs a markup language stream, e.g., in HTML or other conventional format or protocol. That stream is transmitted by the server 12, per convention, to the requesting client digital data processor, e.g., 18, for response by the user, e.g., completion of any input fields on the web page.
In the illustrated embodiment, the engine 22 constructs and forwards the markup stream to the browser 18a of device 18 substantially concurrently with its request for the corresponding web page, i.e., during the same online session on which that request was made and/or within the conventional time periods expected for response to a web page, though these are not requirements of the invention. The browser 18a of device 18 likewise substantially concurrently executes that stream for display to the user, e.g., within that same online session and/or within the conventional time periods expected for execution of a web page though, again, this is not a requirement of the invention.
Rules engine 22 responds similarly to requests from the web browser (or other application) 16a of client digital data processor 16, as well as to those from web browser (or other application 14a) of digital data processor 14.
In view of the foregoing, and by way of non-limiting example, it will be appreciated that the illustrated embodiment facilitates access to web applications and generation of web pages by disabled and non-disabled users alike. For example, the rules engine 22 can generate markup language streams representing the same substantive web page (e.g., a loan validation page) albeit with different user-accessibility features in response requests for that same page by client devices with different disability settings, e.g., settings reflecting that the respective users of the client devices have limited hand use, mobility, vision impairments or, conversely, no impairments at all. An appreciation of the operation of the illustrated system in these regards may be attained by reference to aforementioned incorporated-by-reference U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/035,682, filed Feb. 22, 2008, entitled “User Interface Methods and Apparatus for Rules Processing.”
By way of a still further non-limiting example, the rules engine 22 of the illustrated embodiment can provide access to web applications and web pages that are differentiated in accord with models that represent user (customer) behaviors, attributes and goals. Server 12 can thereby deliver otherwise substantively similar web pages that differ to fit the needs of the particular model to which each user fits. Such contextual selection and configuration of user interface elements allow the server 12 to deliver such solutions without the need for coding of multiple web pages, e.g., for each model to which users may belong. An appreciation of the operation of the illustrated system in these regards may be attained by reference to aforementioned incorporated-by-reference U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/396,415, filed Mar. 30, 2006, entitled “User Interface Methods and Apparatus for Rules Processing.”
By way of yet a still further non-limiting example, the rules engine 22 of the illustrated embodiment can facilitate globalization of user interfaces. Thus, server 12 can generate markup language streams representing the same substantive web pages (e.g., loan validation page 19), albeit in different languages for delivery to customers in different countries. It can effect such globalization (or “localization”) not only with respect to the language, for example, of text fields, but also formatting of numeric and other fields (e.g., to reflect different currency formats). An appreciation of the operation of the illustrated system in these regards may be attained by reference to aforementioned incorporated-by-reference U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/174,624, filed Jul. 16, 2008, entitled “Methods and Apparatus for Implementing Multilingual Software Applications.”
User Interface Optimization
In addition to utilizing rules to generate web pages making up user interfaces as described above, the server 12 optimizes those interfaces and, more particularly, those web pages. Referring back to
In the illustrated embodiment, that analyzer 22b is coupled to the generator 22a and operates in an “online” mode (e.g., at production time) to analyze “user interface” rules that are selected for execution from rules 25 of rules base 24 and/or to analyze the HTML stream generated from those rules by the generator, to determine if they are in conformity with one or more requirements. In other embodiments, the analyzer 22b may operate, instead or in addition, in an “offline” mode (e.g., at design time), wherein it determines whether one or more user interface rules that are, for example, being designed, tested or otherwise optimized, are in conformity with those requirements. In the offline mode, the user interface rules being analyzed may not necessarily be executed by the engine 22 to generate a user interface at the time of analysis. Instead, the analyzer 22b may simply retrieve one or more of the user interface rules from the rules base 24 and introspect their underlying data structure (e.g., scripts, code, logic, instructions, meta-data etc.) to determine conformity with the requirements. For sake of simplicity and without loss of generality, in the discussion that follows a user interface rule that is being analyzed by the analyzer 22b is referred to as a “rule being executed” or a “selected rule,” regardless of whether the analyzer 22b is processing that rule in online or offline mode.
It will be appreciated that in both online and offline modes, the analyzer 22b may work in conjunction with the rules engine 22 to any of manage, track and implement analysis by the analyzer. The operation of the rules engine and/or analyzer in these regards may be governed by workflow(s) and other business process management (BPM) features (e.g., user collaboration, work management etc.) that may be defined by some of the rules 25 in rules base 24. For example, as was previously mentioned, a plurality of rules in rules base 24 may define a project management and/or issue tracking application that is executed by engine 22 at run-time. The analyzer 22b may communicate the results of the analysis in either offline or online mode to any of such applications that may, in turn, use the results data to generate and/or process one or more user interface optimization tasks associated with the results. An advantage of using such rules-based applications in conjunction with the analyzer 22b to manage and/or implement the results of the analysis may be that all user interface optimization tasks may be performed in one single unified environment using a common underlying rules-based data structure rather having to learn and/or convert data formats between different tools/technologies for various stages of the optimization tasks. Furthermore, performing all user interface optimization tasks in a unified environment may obviate the need for complex integration between digital data processing system 12 and disparate tools/applications using, for example, enterprise application integration (EAI)/middleware or other integration technologies that enable linkages between systems and/or applications. The communication between analyzer 22b and other applications is further discussed in connection with
The requirements are defined, in the illustrated embodiment, by some of the rules 25 contained in rules base 24, though, in other embodiments, they may be defined in one or more other collections, such as a data base. Those requirement-defining rules set forth requirements for aspects of the user interface. In one embodiment, such aspects include language syntax (including, for example, grammar, spelling, usage, punctuation, and/or style), accessibility to disabled users, amenability to and/or necessity of localization/globalization, security, and/or layout. In other embodiments, the requirements may relate to only some of these aspects or for other additional aspects. In some other embodiments, the requirements can be defined relative to other of the rules 25 (and, particularly, for example, other user interface rules) in the rules base 24, to data in the transactional database 26, syntax information in the language database 28, and/or context information maintained in context registry 30.
Operation of the analyzer in these regards is illustrated in
In embodiments where the analyzer 22b is configured to operate at the level of granularity of individual web pages/UIs, users of client devices (e.g., 14, 16 and 18) may be given an option to execute the analyzer 22b by pressing a button (e.g., entitled “Optimize My Form”) on the web page that is to be analyzed. This button may be presented to some or all users of the client devices e.g., as determined by the relevant context (e.g., user role and/or security/privilege settings) at time of web page generation. By way of non-limiting example, the button may be displayed on the web page for a user of the client device that requested that page if the relevant context at the time of web page generation specifies user's role as a developer/administrator as opposed to an end user of the application that the web page is associated with. Such context-based generation of web pages and/or elements included therein is discussed in incorporated-by-reference U.S. patent application Ser. Nos. 11/396,415 and 12/035,682.
Upon execution or “launch” of the analyzer 22b (e.g., by pressing a button or otherwise), the user may then be shown a list of options (e.g. list of aspects) which enables the user to select all or some of the aspect of the web page/UI to be analyzed. The list of options may be displayed in a portion of the user interface/web page being analyzed or it may be displayed in a separate user interface (e.g., a pop-up window). Once the user makes the selections and the analysis is complete, the analyzer 22b may likewise present the results of the analysis in the user interface/web page being analyzed or in a separate user interface. The possibilities with regard to the outcome of the analysis are discussed in further detail below.
In other embodiments, the analyzer 22b may be implemented as a software wizard or otherwise such that users of client devices (e.g., 14, 16 and 18) are able to make a plurality of selections related to, for example, the desired level of granularity of the analysis (i.e., analyze one or more user interfaces, rules and/or portions thereof), the aspects to be analyzed, the priority (e.g., user interfaces associated with certain applications analyzed before user interfaces for other applications) and/or timing (e.g., certain user interfaces and/or portions thereof analyzed automatically upon triggering of an event or at pre-determined intervals) of the analysis tasks.
By way of non-limiting example, the analyzer 22b may be launched for multiple user interfaces and/or corresponding rules that pertain to one or more applications wherein the user selects a certain combination of aspects (e.g., security, accessibility, format etc.) to be analyzed for each of the user interfaces. Alternatively, the user may simply select an aspect of a single field or a section of a user interface to be analyzed. Where certain selections are not made by a user, the analyzer 22b may perform the analysis based on default settings (e.g., analyzer 22b configured to analyze all aspects of all the user interfaces for an application once every three months unless a user selects otherwise). Still other ways of configuring and/or implementing the analyzer 22b are possible. Regardless of the various embodiments of the analyzer 22b, the discussion that follows provides a description of the operation of analyzer 22b related to different aspects of the rule being executed.
In step 60, the analyzer 22b analyzes language syntax aspects of the rule being executed (combined with any referenced rules depending upon the level of granularity of the analysis) and/or the markup language stream generated therefrom. In the illustrated embodiment, it performs this task by comparing the display text specified in that rule and/or markup stream against the language database 28 to identify grammar, spelling, usage, punctuation, and/or style errors. Such comparison can be formed using techniques normally employed in the word processing arts to identify syntax errors in word processing documents.
If the analyzer detects syntax non-conformance as a result of the analysis in step 60, it performs one or more of the following steps:
Though the discussion above focuses on the analyzer's use of the language database 28 for syntax analysis, in other embodiments, the analyzer may instead or in addition access the rules base 24, the transactional data base 26, and/or the context registry 30 for like comparisons and/or for further information that may inform analysis of conformance of the user interface rule and/or stream with the language syntax requirements. Thus, by way of non-limiting example, reference to requirement-defining rules among rules 25 in the rules base 24 may inform the analyzer that the spelling requirements are to be relaxed for certain display text fields of the interface, thereby allowing, for example, the use of contractions, abbreviations and the like. And, by way of further example, reference to the context registry 30 may inform the analyzer of specific users' preferred languages, thus, affecting the analyzer's choice of access to the language database 28 for the appropriate language.
In step 62, the analyzer 22b analyzes the user interface rule being executed (combined with any referenced rules depending upon the level of granularity of the analysis) and/or the markup language stream generated therefrom in regard to accessibility to disabled users. In the illustrated embodiment, it performs this task by analyzing the various defining characteristics (e.g., type, content, size, and/or location) of display fields, input fields and other elements specified in the rule and/or markup language stream to determine if they need to be reconfigured or modified to be more suitably rendered for disabled users. In a preferred embodiment, requirements in this regard are defined by some of the rules 25 in the rules base 24 and ensure that the resulting user interface can be generated with proper user-accessibility features, e.g., in accord with the teachings of aforementioned incorporated-by-reference U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/035,682, filed Feb. 22, 2008, entitled “User Interface Methods and Apparatus for Rules Processing.”
By way of non-limiting example, a requirements-defining rule among rules 25 can specify that tooltip texts must be provided with all controls (e.g., input elements and control elements), as well as for all non-text display fields, in the user interface defined by a user interface rule being executed and/or corresponding markup stream. By way of further non-limiting example, such a requirement defining rule may prohibit the use of multiple icons on a user interface such that the initial focus is placed on the first input field when the user interface is first displayed as opposed to an icon. Still further, the same or one or more other requirement defining rules may require that all user interface elements utilize color schemes that will allow accessibility features (e.g., of the type specified in the aforementioned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/035,682) to function properly.
If the analyzer detects accessibility non-conformance as result of the analysis in step 62, it performs one or more of the following steps:
Though the discussion above focuses on the analyzer's use of the requirement defining rules in the rules base 24 for accessibility analysis, in other embodiments, the analyzer may instead or in addition access the transactional data base 26, the language database 28, the context registry 30, and/or other rules in the rules base 24 for information that may inform analysis of conformance of the user interface rule and/or stream with the accessibility requirements. Thus, by way of non-limiting example, reference to the transactional database 26 and the context registry 30 may inform the analyzer 22b that certain groups of disabled users consistently enter incorrect data in certain required input fields, thus, causing the analyzer to vary the conformity requirements (e.g., embodied in requirement defining rules among rules 25) for interfaces generated on behalf of those groups of users, e.g., so that the misused fields are highlighted, placed on separate web pages, varied in format, and so forth.
By way of further non-limiting example, one or more other rules in the rules base 24 may embody use cases for an application with which the user interface rule being executed and/or stream is associated. Such use cases may suggest that the application will be used by U.S. government users. Reference to these other use case rules in conjunction with rules that embody federal accessibility standards for user interface elements associated with U.S. government applications will allow the analyzer to determine conformance of the rule being executed and/or stream with the federal accessibility standards.
In step 64, the analyzer 22b analyzes the user interface rule being executed (combined with any referenced rules depending upon the level of granularity of the analysis) and/or the markup language stream generated therefrom in regard to its amenability to and/or necessity of localization (a/k/a globalization). In the illustrated embodiment, it performs this task by analyzing the various defining characteristics (e.g., type, content, size, and/or location) of display fields, input fields and other elements specified in the rule and/or markup language stream to ensure that they can be suitably localized and/or to perform that localization, depending upon the demands of a particular application. In a preferred embodiment, requirements in this regard are defined by some of the rules 25 in the rules base 24. These ensure that the resulting user interface can be generated for the appropriate locales e.g., in accord with the teachings of aforementioned incorporated-by-reference U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/174,624, filed Jul. 16, 2008, entitled “Methods and Apparatus for Implementing Multilingual Software Applications.”
If the analyzer detects localization non-conformance as result of the analysis in step 64, it performs one or more of the following steps:
Though the discussion above focuses on the analyzer's use of the requirement defining rules in the rules base 24 for localization analysis, in other embodiments, the analyzer may instead or in addition access the transactional data base 26, the language database 28, the context registry 30 and/or other rules in the rules base 24 for information that may inform analysis of conformance of the user interface rule and/or stream with the localization requirements. Thus, by way of non-limiting example, reference to the transactional database 26 and/or the context registry 30 may inform the analyzer 22b that users in a geographic region of a country consistently enter monetary values, use spellings, etc., that differ from the recognized norm of that country, thus, causing the analyzer to vary the localization requirements for interfaces generated on behalf of those users, e.g., to ensure proper conversion and/or checking of values they enter and/or to display prompts that best match the expected form of input by those users.
By way of further non-limiting example, one or more other rules in the rules base 24 may embody use cases for an application with which the user interface rule being executed and/or stream is associated. Such use cases may suggest that the application may be used in five different countries including Germany. Reference to these other use case rules in conjunction with a requirement defining rule that mandates higher maximum lengths for user interface elements to be localized in German will allow the analyzer 22b to accurately determine conformance of the rule being executed and/or stream with the appropriate localization requirements (i.e., including Germany). On the contrary, analysis results output by the analyzer 22b without referencing the other use case rules could be markedly different if the maximum lengths for user interface elements are in compliance with the applicable requirements for all other locales.
In certain embodiments, a user interface rule being analyzed for localization may be designed such that all display elements included therein are translated from a base locale (e.g., American English or ‘en_US’) to other locales based upon corresponding translated values of the display elements that are included in other referenced rules (e.g., stored in rules base 24) that are configured for each such other locale (e.g., de_DE or German-speaking German locale). In such embodiments, a requirement-defining rule may specify that the display elements included in the user interface rule being analyzed need to be localized for the de_DE locale and the analyzer may determine non-conformance by searching for the referenced rule (e.g., in the rules base 24) that includes the corresponding translated values for the de_DE locale. If the search is unsuccessful, the analyzer may simply generate notification(s) of localization non-conformance according to steps (a) and/or (b) listed above. If the search is successful, the analyzer may still detect non-conformance in step 64, for example, due to an improper link/reference between the user interface rule being analyzed and the referenced rule for the de_DE locale. In this case, the analyzer may modify the user interface rule to fix reference/link according to step (c) and/or modify the markup according to step (d) by executing the referenced rule along with the user interface rule.
In step 66, the analyzer 22b analyzes the user interface rule being executed (combined with any referenced rules depending upon the level of granularity of the analysis) and/or the markup language stream generated therefrom in regard to security, e.g., whether one or more elements of the user interface require special treatment in connection with their display and/or entry via the client applications 14a, 16a, 18a. In the illustrated embodiment, it performs this task by analyzing defining characteristics (e.g., the ID.'s, formats and/or content) of display fields, input fields and other elements specified in the user interface to determine if they necessitate application of security requirements defined by one or more requirement defining rules among rules 25 in the rules base 24.
By way of non-limiting example, a requirements-defining rule 25 can specify that all fields in the user interface defined by a user interface rule being executed and/or corresponding markup stream containing social security numbers, passwords, financial account numbers or other such confidential information must be partially or fully obscured (a/k/a “obfuscated”) upon display by and/or entry via an application 14a, 16a, 18a on a client device.
If the analyzer detects security non-conformance as result of the analysis in step 66, it performs one or more of the following steps:
Though the discussion above focuses on the analyzer's use of requirement defining rules in the rules base 24 for security analysis, in other embodiments, the analyzer may instead or in addition access the transactional data base 26, the language database 28, the context registry 30 and/or other rules in the rules base 24 for information that may inform analysis of conformance of the user interface rule and/or stream with the security requirements. Thus, by way of non-limiting example, reference to the transactional database 26 may inform the analyzer 22b that certain groups of users commonly enter social security numbers as user i.d.'s when setting up accounts, thus, causing the analyzer to vary the display format, prompting or validation requirements for interfaces generated on behalf of those users, e.g., warning them not to use such i.d.'s, blocking their acceptance as proper user names, or obfuscating them upon entry where the user i.d.'s of other groups of users are not obfuscated.
In step 68, the analyzer 22b analyzes the user interface rule being executed (combined with any referenced rules depending upon the level of granularity of the analysis) and/or the markup language stream generated therefrom in regard to formatting and layout (collectively, “layout”). In the illustrated embodiment, it performs this task by analyzing the defining characteristics (e.g., i.d.'s, formats, locations, etc.) of display fields, input fields and other elements specified in the rule and/or markup language stream to determine whether they meet formatting requirements defined by some of the rules 25 in the rules base 24.
By way of non-limiting example, a requirements-defining rule among rules 25 can specify that all fields that appear on user interfaces generated by one set of rules for presentation by applications 14a, 16a, 18a run by an enterprise's employees that also appear on a user interface generated (e.g., by another set of user interface rules) for presentation by like applications run by an enterprise's CEO must appear at the top of any web pages generated for the employees (hence, ensuring that what is important to the CEO is of priority to the employees). Similarly, a requirement defining rule may specify that any field that is included (or not included) in a user interface presented/displayed to managers within a company should also be included (or not included) on user interfaces that are used by the direct reports of those managers within that company.
By way of further non-limiting example, a requirements-defining rule among rules 25 can specify arrangement of field types in the user interface defined by a user interface rule being executed and/or corresponding markup stream, e.g., prohibiting ordering of field types that would cause the user to have to jump excessively between input devices (e.g., a drop-down control atop a text field atop another drop-down control). Such a requirements-defining rule 25 can help avoid interfaces that degrade performance by forcing the user to go from mouse to keyboard and back again, excessively.
By way of still further non-limiting example, a requirements-defining rule among rules 25 can specify color contrast of field in a user interface defined by a user interface rule being executed and/or corresponding markup stream, e.g., ensuring that colors of web page backgrounds, fields, images and so forth meet specified branding and/or aesthetic requirements.
By way of still further non-limiting example, a requirements-defining rule among rules 25 can specify whitespace in a user interface defined by a user interface rule being executed and/or corresponding markup stream, e.g., ensuring consistency across columns, sections, and other regions of the user interface. Such a requirements-defining rule 25 can likewise define a quantity of unused area on web pages in the user interface, e.g., ensuring that such web pages are not, on the one hand, overloaded with text or images and, on the other hand, overly devoid of such elements.
By way of yet still further non-limiting example, a requirements-defining rule among rules 25 can specify alignment in a user interface defined by a user interface rule being executed and/or corresponding markup stream, e.g., again, ensuring consistency across columns, sections, and other regions of the user interface, as well as ensuring proper visual hierarchy through indenting.
By way of still yet further non-limiting example, a requirements-defining rule among rules 25 can specify labeling requirements in a user interface defined by a user interface rule being executed and/or corresponding markup stream, e.g., ensuring that buttons, columns and other elements of the user interface bear consistent and appropriate labels.
By way of yet still further non-limiting example, a requirements-defining rule among rules 25 can avoid redundancy in a user interface defined by a user interface rule being executed and/or corresponding markup stream, e.g., checking for columns, buttons and other fields with the same name.
By way of further non-limiting example, a requirements-defining rule among rules 25 can require tooltips on certain or all input and non-text display elements in a user interface defined by a user interface rule being executed and/or corresponding markup stream, e.g., ensuring ease of navigation.
By way of yet still further non-limiting example, a requirements-defining rule among rules 25 can require breadcrumbs, tabs and other navigational aids in a user interface defined by a user interface rule being executed and/or corresponding markup stream, e.g., ensuring that users of the interface know where they are in a sequence of web pages or process.
By way of yet still further non-limiting example, a requirements-defining rule among rules 25 can require accord between the actual or likely resolution of user display (e.g., on device 14a, 16a, 18a) and width or length of columns and other elements in a user interface defined by a user interface rule being executed and/or corresponding markup stream, e.g., ensuring that there are not too many columns in a grid or list view, too many columns in a section, etc., that would cause or necessitate horizontal and vertical scrolling.
If the analyzer detects layout non-conformance as result of the analysis in step 68, it performs one or more of the following steps:
Though the discussion above focuses on the analyzer's use of the requirement defining rules in rules base 24 for layout analysis, in other embodiments, the analyzer may instead or in addition access the transactional data base 26, the language database 28, the context registry 30, and/or other rules in the rules base 24 for information that may inform analysis of conformance of the user interface rule and/or stream with the layout requirements.
Thus, by way of non-limiting example, reference to the transactional database 26 and context registry 30 may inform the analyzer 22b that a given input field is used a high percentage of times by a certain group of users, thus, causing the analyzer 22b to update the rule(s) being executed and/or stream to impose the layout requirements for that field to effect its higher placement on any web pages on which it appears for those group of users. While such a positioning requirement for that field could potentially be imposed directly by a layout requirement-defining rule placed in the rules base 24 at development time, the field's frequent usage might not be apparent until production time, when actual users of applications 14a, 16a, 18a begin entering data into that field.
Similarly, reference to the transactional database 26 may inform the analyzer 22b that there is a correlation between two fields (e.g., a required and non-required field) on a user interface such that a particular field (e.g., a non-required field) is populated 85% of the time when another field (e.g., a required field) is populated. This may cause the analyzer 22b to update the rule(s) being executed and/or stream generated therefrom to impose the layout requirements for those two fields to be positioned next to each other on a user interface. While such a positioning requirement for those fields could potentially be imposed directly by a layout requirement-defining rule placed in the rules base 24 at development time, the correlation between the two fields' usage might not be apparent until production time, when actual users of applications 14a, 16a, 18a begin entering data into those fields.
By way of non-limiting example, reference to and/or introspection of one or more other rules in a rules base 24 may inform the analyzer 22b that a given input field (or display field) appears on a report that is defined by those rules and is viewed daily by the CEO. This again may cause the analyzer 22b to update the rule(s) being executed and/or stream to impose the layout requirements for that field to effect its higher placement on any user web pages on which it appears. Again, while such a positioning requirement for that field could potentially be imposed directly by a layout requirement-defining rule placed in the rules base 24 at development time, the field's appearance on the CEO's daily report might not be evident to the designers of the rule(s) being executed during their development.
Similarly, reference to and/or introspection of one or more other workflow and/or decisioning rules in rules base 24 may inform the analyzer 22b that the value for a given input field is used as part of a decision-making criteria in a workflow defined by the other rules. This again may cause the analyzer 22b to update the rule(s) being executed and/or stream to impose the layout requirements for that field to effect its marking/editing as a required field on any user web pages on which it appears. Again, while such a formatting requirement for that field could potentially be imposed directly by a layout requirement-defining rule placed in the rules base 24 at development time, the use of the field's value in the workflow and/or decision making might not be evident to the designers of the rule(s) being executed during their development.
It will be appreciated that even though the discussion above focuses on the analyzer's use of any of rules 25, rules base 24, transactional data base 26, the language database 28 and the context registry 30 for information that may inform analysis for aspects in steps 60-68 of the rule being executed and/or stream, in other embodiments, the analyzer 22b may instead or in addition access log files or other data (e.g., stored on digital data processors on any of 12, 14, 16 and 18) related to the results of previous analyses performed by the analyzer 22b. By way of non-limiting example, if a particular field was previously deemed to be a high priority and/or a required field in a particular context, the analyzer may log and/or store that result in any of steps 68 a(i), a(ii) and (b). Thus, the analyzer 22b can simply refer to that previously stored/logged result and the context registry 30 for any subsequent analyses of rule(s) being executed and/or stream that include that field.
It will also be appreciated that the occurrence of any of the alternatives (a)-(d) after the analysis in any of steps 60-68, will depend upon a variety of factors. By way of non-limiting example, step (d) may be performed without step (c) in situations where a user is testing and/or developing a user interface in the off-line mode discussed above. In this scenario, a user may only want to modify the markup language stream and examine the result (e.g., in a web browser) before modifying the rule that is being analyzed. Step (d) can thus be performed iteratively (e.g., sometimes in combination with steps (a) and/or (b)) without step (c) to allow a developer to make changes to the markup stream, examine the result(s) of those changes, make further changes to the markup, examine the new changes, etc. After the user/developer has fined-tuned the changes through this iterative process, the user/developer may then decide to make and store the rule change(s), which reflect the fine-tuned markup, via step (c).
Other factors that may influence the occurrence of any of the alternatives (a)-(d) after the analysis in any of steps 60-68 include security privileges/permissions related to viewing notifications, making modifications and/or access to other workflows/applications that are in communication with the analyzer 22b. For example, the security permissions/privileges of a user may only allow that user to see whether there are any notifications of non-conformance via step (a) and/or identified modifications via step (b); but not to implement some or all of such identified modifications through steps (c) and/or (d). Alternatively, a user may have permission to make markup modifications pursuant to step (d) but not to authorize rule changes via step (c)—or vice versa.
In another embodiment, a user may have the appropriate security privileges/permissions to perform any of steps (c) and (d) but may still be unable to do so due to various reasons. For example, the rule and/or markup being analyzed may be (at least) temporarily not modifiable due to it being reviewed, executed, modified or otherwise used by another user at the time that the user is attempting to perform any of modification steps (c) and (d). In some such cases, a task list of modifications pursuant to the notifications in step (b) may be created and placed in a queue for implementation when the rule becomes available for modification (or some time afterwards).
As previously mentioned, such task list generation and/or performance of any of steps (a)-(d) may be performed by the analyzer 22b in conjunction with another application(s) (e.g. issue tracking or project management application) that is in communication with the analyzer 22b. By way of non-limiting example, such an application(s) may comprise workflows/processes (e.g. defined by some of the rules 25) that would allow for routing, reviewing, authorizing, implementing and otherwise managing any of the modification tasks generated in the application as a result of steps (c) and/or (d). Still other variations in the type of functionality of such applications in conjunction with the analyzer 22b are possible.
Described herein are methods and systems meeting the objects set forth above, among others. It will be appreciated that the illustrated embodiments and those otherwise discussed herein are merely examples of the invention and that other embodiments, incorporating changes thereto, fall within the scope of the invention, of which we claim:
This application is a Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/558,084 filed on Dec. 2, 2014. Application Ser. No. 14/558,084 is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/031,109, filed Feb. 18, 2011, entitled “Methods and Apparatus for User Interface Optimization” which is a continuation in part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/174,624, filed Jul. 16, 2008, entitled “Methods and Apparatus for Implementing Multilingual Software Applications,” which claims the benefit of priority of U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 61/063,269, filed Jan. 31, 2008, entitled “Digital Data Processing Methods and Apparatus for Business Process Management.” This application is also a continuation in part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/035,682, filed Feb. 22, 2008, entitled “User Interface Methods and Apparatus for Rules Processing,” which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/396,415, filed Mar. 30, 2006, entitled “User Interface Methods and Apparatus for Rules Processing.” The teachings of all of the forgoing are incorporated herein by reference.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4047059 | Rosenthal | Sep 1977 | A |
| 4344142 | Diehr, II et al. | Aug 1982 | A |
| 4602168 | Single | Jul 1986 | A |
| 4607232 | Gill, Jr. | Aug 1986 | A |
| 4659944 | Miller, Sr. et al. | Apr 1987 | A |
| 4701130 | Whitney et al. | Oct 1987 | A |
| 4866634 | Reboh et al. | Sep 1989 | A |
| 4884217 | Skeirik et al. | Nov 1989 | A |
| 4895518 | Arnold et al. | Jan 1990 | A |
| 4930071 | Tou et al. | May 1990 | A |
| 4953106 | Gansner et al. | Aug 1990 | A |
| 5062060 | Kolnick | Oct 1991 | A |
| 5077491 | Heck et al. | Dec 1991 | A |
| 5093794 | Howie et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
| 5119465 | Jack et al. | Jun 1992 | A |
| 5129043 | Yue | Jul 1992 | A |
| 5136184 | Deevy | Aug 1992 | A |
| 5136523 | Landers | Aug 1992 | A |
| 5140671 | Hayes et al. | Aug 1992 | A |
| 5193056 | Boes | Mar 1993 | A |
| 5199068 | Cox | Mar 1993 | A |
| 5204939 | Yamazaki et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
| 5228116 | Harris et al. | Jul 1993 | A |
| 5259766 | Sack et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
| 5262941 | Saladin et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
| 5267175 | Hooper | Nov 1993 | A |
| 5267865 | Lee et al. | Dec 1993 | A |
| 5270920 | Pearse et al. | Dec 1993 | A |
| 5276359 | Chiang | Jan 1994 | A |
| 5276885 | Milnes et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
| 5291394 | Chapman | Mar 1994 | A |
| 5291583 | Bapat | Mar 1994 | A |
| 5295256 | Bapat | Mar 1994 | A |
| 5297279 | Bannon et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
| 5301270 | Steinberg et al. | Apr 1994 | A |
| 5310349 | Daniels et al. | May 1994 | A |
| 5311422 | Loftin et al. | May 1994 | A |
| 5326270 | Ostby et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5333254 | Robertson | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5337407 | Bates et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
| 5339390 | Robertson et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
| 5374932 | Wyschogrod et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
| 5379366 | Noyes | Jan 1995 | A |
| 5379387 | Carlstedt et al. | Jan 1995 | A |
| 5381332 | Wood | Jan 1995 | A |
| 5386559 | Eisenberg et al. | Jan 1995 | A |
| 5395243 | Lubin et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
| 5412756 | Bauman et al. | May 1995 | A |
| 5421011 | Camillone et al. | May 1995 | A |
| 5421730 | Lasker, III et al. | Jun 1995 | A |
| 5446397 | Yotsuyanagi | Aug 1995 | A |
| 5446885 | Moore et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
| 5450480 | Man et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
| 5463682 | Fisher et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
| 5473732 | Chang | Dec 1995 | A |
| 5477170 | Yotsuyanagi | Dec 1995 | A |
| 5481647 | Brody et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
| 5499293 | Behram et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
| 5504879 | Eisenberg et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
| 5512849 | Wong | Apr 1996 | A |
| 5519618 | Kastner et al. | May 1996 | A |
| 5537590 | Amado | Jul 1996 | A |
| 5542024 | Balint et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
| 5542078 | Martel et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
| 5548506 | Srinivasan | Aug 1996 | A |
| 5561740 | Barrett et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
| 5579223 | Raman | Nov 1996 | A |
| 5579486 | Oprescu et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
| 5586311 | Davies et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
| 5596752 | Knudsen et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
| 5597312 | Bloom et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
| 5608789 | Fisher et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
| 5611076 | Durflinger et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
| 5627979 | Chang et al. | May 1997 | A |
| 5630127 | Moore et al. | May 1997 | A |
| 5649192 | Stucky | Jul 1997 | A |
| 5655118 | Heindel et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
| 5664206 | Murow et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
| 5675753 | Hansen et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
| 5678039 | Hinks et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
| 5689663 | Williams | Nov 1997 | A |
| 5715450 | Ambrose et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
| 5732192 | Malin et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
| 5754740 | Fukuoka et al. | May 1998 | A |
| 5761063 | Jannette et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5761673 | Bookman et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5765140 | Knudson et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5768480 | Crawford, Jr. et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5788504 | Rice et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5795155 | Morrel-Samuels | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5809212 | Shasha | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5815415 | Bentley et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5819243 | Rich et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5819257 | Monge et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5822780 | Schutzman | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5825260 | Ludwig et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5826077 | Blakeley et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5826239 | Du et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5826250 | Trefler | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5826252 | Wolters, Jr. et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5829983 | Koyama et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5831607 | Brooks | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5832483 | Barker | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5841435 | Dauerer et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5841673 | Kobayashi et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5864865 | Lakis | Jan 1999 | A |
| 5873096 | Lim et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5875334 | Chow et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5875441 | Nakatsuyama et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5880614 | Zinke et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5880742 | Rao et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5886546 | Hwang | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5890146 | Wavish et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5890166 | Eisenberg et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5892512 | Donnelly et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
| 5907490 | Oliver | May 1999 | A |
| 5907837 | Ferrel et al. | May 1999 | A |
| 5909213 | Martin | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5910748 | Reffay et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5911138 | Li et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5918222 | Fukui et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5920717 | Noda | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5930795 | Chen et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5945852 | Kosiec | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5974441 | Rogers et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5974443 | Jeske | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5978566 | Plank et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5983267 | Shklar et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5983369 | Bakoglu et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5987415 | Breese et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5990742 | Suzuki | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5995948 | Whitford et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5995958 | Xu | Nov 1999 | A |
| 6008673 | Glass et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6008808 | Almeida et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6012098 | Bayeh et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6020768 | Lim | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6023704 | Gerard et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6023714 | Hill et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6023717 | Argyroudis | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6028457 | Tihanyi | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6037890 | Glass et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6044373 | Gladney et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6044466 | Anand et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6078982 | Du et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6085188 | Bachmann et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6085198 | Skinner et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6091226 | Amano | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6092036 | Hamann | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6092083 | Brodersen et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6094652 | Faisal | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6098172 | Coss et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6105035 | Monge et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6108004 | Medl | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6122632 | Botts et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6125363 | Buzzeo et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6130679 | Chen et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6137797 | Bass et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6144997 | Lamming et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6151595 | Pirolli et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6151624 | Teare et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6154738 | Call | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6167441 | Himmel | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6177932 | Galdes et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6185516 | Hardin et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6185534 | Breese et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6192371 | Schultz | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6194919 | Park | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6212502 | Ball et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6216135 | Brodersen et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6233332 | Anderson et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6233617 | Rothwein et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6240417 | Eastwick et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6243713 | Nelson et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6246320 | Monroe | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6262729 | Marcos | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6275073 | Tokuhiro | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6275790 | Yamamoto et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6281896 | Alimpich et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6282547 | Hirsch | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6300947 | Kanevsky | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6304259 | DeStefano | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6308163 | Du et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6310951 | Wineberg et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6311324 | Smith et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6313834 | Lau et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6314415 | Mukherjee | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6324693 | Brodersen et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6330554 | Altschuler et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6338074 | Poindexter et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| 6341277 | Coden et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| 6341293 | Hennessey | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| 6344862 | Williams et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6349238 | Gabbita et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6351734 | Lautzenheiser et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6356286 | Lawrence | Mar 2002 | B1 |
| 6356897 | Gusack | Mar 2002 | B1 |
| 6359633 | Balasubramaniam et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
| 6366299 | Lanning et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6369819 | Pitkow et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6370537 | Gilbert et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6380910 | Moustakas et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6380947 | Stead | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6381738 | Choi et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6389460 | Stewart et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6389510 | Chen et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6393605 | Loomans | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6396885 | Ding et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6405211 | Sokol et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6405251 | Bullard et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6415259 | Wolfinger et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6415283 | Conklin | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6418448 | Sarkar | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6421571 | Spriggs et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6426723 | Smith et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6429870 | Chen et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6430571 | Doan et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6430574 | Stead | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6437799 | Shinomi et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6446065 | Nishioka et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6446089 | Brodersen et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6446200 | Ball et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6446256 | Hyman et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6448964 | Isaacs et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6453038 | McFarlane et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6463346 | Flockhart et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6463440 | Hind et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6469715 | Carter et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6469716 | Carter et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6473467 | Wallace et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6473748 | Archer | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6493331 | Walton et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6493399 | Xia et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6493731 | Jones et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6493754 | Rosborough et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6496812 | Campaigne et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6496833 | Goldberg et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6502239 | Zgarba et al. | Dec 2002 | B2 |
| 6509898 | Chi et al. | Jan 2003 | B2 |
| 6513018 | Culhane | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6526440 | Bharat | Feb 2003 | B1 |
| 6526457 | Birze | Feb 2003 | B1 |
| 6529217 | Maguire, III et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
| 6529899 | Kraft et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
| 6529900 | Patterson et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
| 6530079 | Choi et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
| 6532474 | Iwamoto et al. | Mar 2003 | B2 |
| 6539374 | Jung | Mar 2003 | B2 |
| 6542912 | Meltzer et al. | Apr 2003 | B2 |
| 6546381 | Subramanian et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
| 6546406 | DeRose et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
| 6549904 | Ortega et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
| 6556226 | Gould et al. | Apr 2003 | B2 |
| 6556983 | Altschuler et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
| 6556985 | Karch | Apr 2003 | B1 |
| 6559864 | Olin | May 2003 | B1 |
| 6560592 | Reid et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
| 6560649 | Mullen et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
| 6567419 | Yarlagadda | May 2003 | B1 |
| 6571222 | Matsumoto et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
| 6577769 | Kenyon et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
| 6583800 | Ridgley et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
| 6584464 | Warthen | Jun 2003 | B1 |
| 6584569 | Reshef et al. | Jun 2003 | B2 |
| 6594662 | Sieffert et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
| 6597381 | Eskridge et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
| 6597775 | Lawyer et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
| 6598043 | Baclawski | Jul 2003 | B1 |
| 6606613 | Altschuler et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
| 6625657 | Bullard | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6629138 | Lambert et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6636850 | Lepien | Oct 2003 | B2 |
| 6636901 | Sudhakaran et al. | Oct 2003 | B2 |
| 6643638 | Xu | Nov 2003 | B1 |
| 6643652 | Helgeson et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
| 6661889 | Flockhart et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6661908 | Suchard et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6678679 | Bradford | Jan 2004 | B1 |
| 6678773 | Marietta et al. | Jan 2004 | B2 |
| 6678882 | Hurley et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
| 6684261 | Orton et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
| 6690788 | Bauer et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
| 6691067 | Ding et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
| 6691230 | Bardon | Feb 2004 | B1 |
| 6701314 | Conover et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 6711565 | Subramaniam et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 6721747 | Lipkin | Apr 2004 | B2 |
| 6728702 | Subramaniam et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
| 6728852 | Stoutamire | Apr 2004 | B1 |
| 6732095 | Warshavsky et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
| 6732111 | Brodersen et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
| 6748422 | Morin et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
| 6750858 | Rosenstein | Jun 2004 | B1 |
| 6751663 | Farrell et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
| 6754475 | Harrison et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
| 6756994 | Tlaskal | Jun 2004 | B1 |
| 6763351 | Subramaniam et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
| 6771706 | Ling et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
| 6772148 | Baclawski | Aug 2004 | B2 |
| 6772350 | Belani et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
| 6778971 | Altschuler et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
| 6782091 | Dunning, III | Aug 2004 | B1 |
| 6785341 | Walton et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
| 6788114 | Krenzke et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
| 6792420 | Stephen Chen et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
| RE38633 | Srinivasan | Oct 2004 | E |
| 6804330 | Jones et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
| 6807632 | Carpentier et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
| 6810429 | Walsh et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
| 6820082 | Cook et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
| 6829655 | Huang et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
| 6831668 | Cras et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
| 6836275 | Arquie et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
| 6839682 | Blume et al. | Jan 2005 | B1 |
| 6847982 | Parker et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
| 6851089 | Erickson et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
| 6856575 | Jones | Feb 2005 | B2 |
| 6856992 | Britton et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
| 6859787 | Fisher et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
| 6865546 | Song | Mar 2005 | B1 |
| 6865566 | Serrano-Morales et al. | Mar 2005 | B2 |
| 6865575 | Smith et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
| 6867789 | Allen et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
| 6918222 | Lat et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
| 6920615 | Campbell et al. | Jul 2005 | B1 |
| 6925457 | Britton et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
| 6925609 | Lucke | Aug 2005 | B1 |
| 6927728 | Vook et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
| 6934702 | Faybishenko et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
| 6940917 | Menon et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
| 6944644 | Gideon | Sep 2005 | B2 |
| 6954737 | Kalantar et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
| 6956845 | Baker et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
| 6959432 | Crocker | Oct 2005 | B2 |
| 6961725 | Yuan et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
| 6965889 | Serrano-Morales et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
| 6966033 | Gasser et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
| 6976144 | Trefler et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
| 6978719 | Sebata et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
| 6985912 | Mullins et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
| 6991153 | Silverbrook et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
| 7020869 | Abrari et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
| 7020882 | Lewallen | Mar 2006 | B1 |
| 7028225 | Maso et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
| 7031901 | Abu El Ata | Apr 2006 | B2 |
| 7035808 | Ford | Apr 2006 | B1 |
| 7058367 | Luo et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
| 7058637 | Britton et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7064766 | Beda et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7073177 | Foote et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
| 7076558 | Dunn | Jul 2006 | B1 |
| 7089193 | Newbold | Aug 2006 | B2 |
| 7103173 | Rodenbusch et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
| 7124145 | Surasinghe | Oct 2006 | B2 |
| 7139999 | Bowman-Amuah | Nov 2006 | B2 |
| 7143116 | Okitsu et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
| 7171145 | Takeuchi et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7171415 | Kan et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7174514 | Subramaniam et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
| 7178109 | Hewson et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
| 7194380 | Barrow et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
| 7194690 | Guillermo et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
| 7289793 | Norwood et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
| RE39918 | Slemmer | Nov 2007 | E |
| 7302417 | Iyer | Nov 2007 | B2 |
| 7318020 | Kim | Jan 2008 | B1 |
| 7318066 | Kaufman et al. | Jan 2008 | B2 |
| 7334039 | Majkut et al. | Feb 2008 | B1 |
| 7343295 | Pomerance | Mar 2008 | B2 |
| 7353229 | Vilcauskas, Jr. et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
| 7353254 | Kusuda | Apr 2008 | B2 |
| 7398391 | Carpentier et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
| 7406475 | Dome et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
| 7412388 | Dalal et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
| 7415731 | Carpentier et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
| 7505827 | Boddy et al. | Mar 2009 | B1 |
| 7526481 | Cusson et al. | Apr 2009 | B1 |
| 7536294 | Stanz et al. | May 2009 | B1 |
| 7555645 | Vissapragada | Jun 2009 | B2 |
| 7574494 | Mayemick et al. | Aug 2009 | B1 |
| 7596504 | Hughes et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
| 7603625 | Guillermo et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
| 7640222 | Trefler | Dec 2009 | B2 |
| 7647417 | Taneja | Jan 2010 | B1 |
| 7665063 | Hofmann et al. | Feb 2010 | B1 |
| 7685013 | Gendler | Mar 2010 | B2 |
| 7689447 | Aboujaoude et al. | Mar 2010 | B1 |
| 7711919 | Trefler et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
| 7779395 | Chotin et al. | Aug 2010 | B1 |
| 7783596 | Smolen et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
| 7787609 | Flockhart et al. | Aug 2010 | B1 |
| 7791559 | Piasecki | Sep 2010 | B2 |
| 7818506 | Shepstone et al. | Oct 2010 | B1 |
| 7844594 | Holt et al. | Nov 2010 | B1 |
| 7870244 | Chong et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
| 7889896 | Roehrig et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
| 7937690 | Casey | May 2011 | B2 |
| 7971180 | Kreamer et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
| 7974714 | Hoffberg | Jul 2011 | B2 |
| 7983895 | McEntee et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
| 8001519 | Conallen et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
| 8037329 | Leech et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
| 8073802 | Trefler | Dec 2011 | B2 |
| 8250525 | Khatutsky | Aug 2012 | B2 |
| 8335704 | Trefler et al. | Dec 2012 | B2 |
| 8386960 | Eismann et al. | Feb 2013 | B1 |
| 8468492 | Frenkel | Jun 2013 | B1 |
| 8479157 | Trefler et al. | Jul 2013 | B2 |
| 8516193 | Clinton et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
| 8739044 | Varadarajan | May 2014 | B1 |
| 8744999 | Clarke et al. | Jun 2014 | B2 |
| 8843435 | Trefler et al. | Sep 2014 | B1 |
| 8850362 | Khoshnevisan | Sep 2014 | B1 |
| 8863008 | Chan et al. | Oct 2014 | B2 |
| 8880487 | Clinton et al. | Nov 2014 | B1 |
| 8903933 | Bellini, III et al. | Dec 2014 | B1 |
| 8924335 | Trefler et al. | Dec 2014 | B1 |
| 8959480 | Trefler et al. | Feb 2015 | B2 |
| 9026733 | Clinton et al. | May 2015 | B1 |
| 9189361 | Khatutsky | Nov 2015 | B2 |
| 9195936 | Chase | Nov 2015 | B1 |
| 9253129 | Bassemir et al. | Feb 2016 | B2 |
| 9270743 | Frenkel | Feb 2016 | B2 |
| 9495340 | Powell et al. | Nov 2016 | B2 |
| 9658735 | Trefler et al. | May 2017 | B2 |
| 9678719 | Frenkel | Jun 2017 | B1 |
| 20010013799 | Wang | Aug 2001 | A1 |
| 20010035777 | Wang et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
| 20010047355 | Anwar | Nov 2001 | A1 |
| 20010049682 | Vincent et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
| 20010052108 | Bowman-Amuah | Dec 2001 | A1 |
| 20010054064 | Kannan | Dec 2001 | A1 |
| 20020010855 | Reshef et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
| 20020013804 | Gideon | Jan 2002 | A1 |
| 20020029161 | Brodersen et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
| 20020042831 | Capone et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
| 20020049603 | Mehra et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
| 20020049715 | Serrano-Morales et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
| 20020049788 | Lipkin et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
| 20020054152 | Palaniappan et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020059566 | Delcambre et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020065912 | Catchpole et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020070972 | Windl et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020073337 | Ioele et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020083063 | Egolf | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020091677 | Sridhar | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020091678 | Miller et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020091710 | Dunham et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020091835 | Lentini et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020093537 | Bocioned et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020107684 | Gao | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020118688 | Jagannathan | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020120598 | Shadmon et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020120627 | Mankoff | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020120762 | Cheng et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020133502 | Rosenthal et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020177232 | Melker et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020178232 | Ferguson | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020181692 | Flockhart et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20020184610 | Chong et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20020186826 | Hsu et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20020198935 | Crandall, Sr. et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20030001894 | Boykin et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030004934 | Qian | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030004951 | Chokshi | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030009239 | Lombardo et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030014399 | Hansen et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030037145 | Fagan | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030050834 | Caplan | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030050927 | Hussam | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030050929 | Bookman et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030061209 | Raboczi et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030065544 | Elzinga et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030066031 | Laane | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030074352 | Raboczi et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030074369 | Scheutze et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030084401 | Abel et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030093279 | Malah et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030098991 | Laverty et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030109951 | Hsiung et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030115281 | McHenry et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030135358 | Lissauer et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030152212 | Burok et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
| 20030154380 | Richmond et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
| 20030191626 | Al-Onaizan et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030198337 | Lenard | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030200254 | Wei | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030200371 | Abujbara | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030202617 | Casper | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030222680 | Jaussi | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20030229529 | Mui et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20030229544 | Veres et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20040003043 | Rajamony et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040021686 | Barberis | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040024603 | Mahoney et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040034651 | Gupta et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040049479 | Dorne et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040049509 | Keller et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040049580 | Boyd et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040054610 | Amstutz et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040064552 | Chong et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040068517 | Scott | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040088199 | Childress et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040103014 | Teegan et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040117759 | Rippert et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040122652 | Andrews et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040133416 | Fukuoka et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040133876 | Sproule | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040139021 | Reed et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040145607 | Alderson | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040147138 | Vaartstra | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040148152 | Horikawa | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040148586 | Gilboa | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040162812 | Lane et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040162822 | Papanyan et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040167765 | Abu El Ata | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040205672 | Bates et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040220792 | Gallanis et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040236566 | Simske | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040243587 | Nuyens et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20040268221 | Wang | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20040268299 | Lei et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050027563 | Fackler et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050027871 | Bradley et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050039191 | Hewson et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050044198 | Okitsu et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050050000 | Kwok et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050055330 | Britton et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050059566 | Brown et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050060372 | DeBettencourt et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050071211 | Flockhart et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050096959 | Kumar et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050104628 | Tanzawa et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050125683 | Matsuyama et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050132048 | Kogan et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050138162 | Byrnes | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050144023 | Aboujaoude et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050165823 | Ondrusek et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050198021 | Wilcox et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050216235 | Butt et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050222889 | Lai et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050228875 | Monitzer et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050234882 | Bennett et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050267770 | Banavar et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20050288920 | Green et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20060004845 | Kristiansen et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060015388 | Flockhart et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060020783 | Fisher | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060041861 | Trefler et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060053125 | Scott | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060063138 | Loff et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060064486 | Baron et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060064667 | Freitas | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060075360 | Bixler | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060080082 | Ravindra et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060080401 | Gill et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060092467 | Dumitrescu et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060100847 | McEntee et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060101386 | Gerken et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060101393 | Gerken et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060106846 | Schulz et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060139312 | Sinclair et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060149751 | Jade et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060167655 | Barrow et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060173724 | Trefler et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060173871 | Taniguchi et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060206303 | Kohlmeier et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060206305 | Kimura et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060209085 | Wong et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060218166 | Myers et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060271559 | Stavrakos et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060271920 | Abouelsaadat | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060288348 | Kawamoto et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20070005623 | Self et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070010991 | Lei et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070028225 | Whittaker et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070038765 | Dunn | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070055938 | Herring et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070061789 | Kaneko et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070094199 | Deshpande et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
| 20070100782 | Reed et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070118497 | Katoh | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070130130 | Chan et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070136068 | Horvitz | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070143163 | Weiss et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070143851 | Nicodemus et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070203756 | Sears et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070208553 | Hastings et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070226031 | Manson et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070233902 | Trefler et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070239646 | Trefler | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070245300 | Chan et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070260584 | Marti et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070294644 | Yost | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20080002823 | Fama et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080046462 | Kaufman et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080077384 | Agapi et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080085502 | Allen et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080109467 | Brookins et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080120593 | Keren et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080134088 | Tse | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080163253 | Massmann et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080184230 | Leech et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080189679 | Rodriguez et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080195377 | Kato et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080196003 | Gerken et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080208785 | Trefler et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080216055 | Khatutsky | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080216060 | Vargas | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080263510 | Nerome et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080297482 | Weiss | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20090007084 | Conallen et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090018998 | Patten, Jr. et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090075634 | Sinclair et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090083697 | Zhang et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090132232 | Trefler | May 2009 | A1 |
| 20090132996 | Eldridge et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
| 20090138844 | Halberstadt et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
| 20090150541 | Georgis | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090158213 | Ryu | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090158407 | Nicodemus et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090164494 | Dodin | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090171938 | Levin et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090199123 | Albertson et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090228786 | Danton et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090271708 | Peters et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090276206 | Fitzpatrick et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
| 20090282384 | Keppler | Nov 2009 | A1 |
| 20090319948 | Stannard et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20100011338 | Lewis | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100083135 | Zawacki et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100088266 | Trefler | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100107137 | Trefler et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100149109 | Elias | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100217737 | Shama | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20110016422 | Miyazawa et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110066486 | Bassin et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110072373 | Yuki | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110148791 | Luu | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110214067 | Tanaka | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110239113 | Hung et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110252305 | Tschani et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110264251 | Copello et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20120041921 | Canaday et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
| 20120050530 | Raman et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120102420 | Fukahori | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120198367 | Bornheimer | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120272186 | Kraut | Oct 2012 | A1 |
| 20120290939 | Yu et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120293558 | Dilts | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120306773 | Yeung | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| 20130007267 | Khatutsky | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20130031455 | Griffiths et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20130047165 | Goetz et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130067392 | Leonard et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
| 20130120319 | Givon | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130120434 | Kim | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130135294 | An | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130159904 | Kelappan et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130167245 | Birtwhistle et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130179816 | Seo et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
| 20130231970 | Trefler et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
| 20130254833 | Nicodemus et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
| 20130290249 | Merriman et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130335339 | Maunder | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20140019400 | Trefler et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140082539 | Tjissen | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140089819 | Andler et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140125577 | Hoang et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
| 20140137019 | Paulsen et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
| 20140258860 | Subramanian | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140277164 | Ramsay et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140313135 | Pisters et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140325410 | Jung et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20150058772 | Bator et al. | Feb 2015 | A1 |
| 20150074606 | Melen | Mar 2015 | A1 |
| 20150089406 | Trefler et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
| 20150127736 | Clinton et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
| 20160041961 | Romney | Feb 2016 | A1 |
| 20160062963 | Umapathy | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160070560 | Chase | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160085809 | de Castro Alves et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160098298 | Trefler et al. | Apr 2016 | A1 |
| 20160105370 | Mellor et al. | Apr 2016 | A1 |
| 20170013073 | Mendez et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
| 20170109032 | MeLinand et al. | Apr 2017 | A1 |
| 20170242582 | Yaremko | Aug 2017 | A1 |
| 20170255341 | Trefler et al. | Sep 2017 | A1 |
| 20170351425 | D'angelo et al. | Dec 2017 | A1 |
| 20170357703 | Theimer et al. | Dec 2017 | A1 |
| 20180011678 | Shipper et al. | Jan 2018 | A1 |
| 20180024901 | Tankersley et al. | Jan 2018 | A1 |
| 20180067580 | Bonnery et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 19911098 | Dec 1999 | DE |
| 0 549 208 | Jun 1993 | EP |
| 0 669 717 | Aug 1995 | EP |
| 0 996 916 | May 2000 | EP |
| 1 015 997 | Jul 2000 | EP |
| 1 019 807 | Jul 2000 | EP |
| 1 073 955 | Feb 2001 | EP |
| 1 073 992 | Feb 2001 | EP |
| 1 135 723 | Sep 2001 | EP |
| 1 163 604 | Dec 2001 | EP |
| 1 183 636 | Mar 2002 | EP |
| 1 196 882 | Apr 2002 | EP |
| 1 203 310 | May 2002 | EP |
| 1 208 482 | May 2002 | EP |
| 1 212 668 | Jun 2002 | EP |
| 1 240 592 | Sep 2002 | EP |
| 1 277 102 | Jan 2003 | EP |
| 1 277 119 | Jan 2003 | EP |
| 1 277 120 | Jan 2003 | EP |
| 1 277 153 | Jan 2003 | EP |
| 1 277 155 | Jan 2003 | EP |
| 1 277 329 | Jan 2003 | EP |
| 1 374 083 | Jan 2004 | EP |
| 1 382 030 | Jan 2004 | EP |
| 1 386 241 | Feb 2004 | EP |
| 1 393 172 | Mar 2004 | EP |
| 1 393 188 | Mar 2004 | EP |
| 1 402 336 | Mar 2004 | EP |
| 1 407 384 | Apr 2004 | EP |
| 1 430 396 | Jun 2004 | EP |
| 1 438 649 | Jul 2004 | EP |
| 1 438 654 | Jul 2004 | EP |
| 1 438 672 | Jul 2004 | EP |
| 1 483 685 | Dec 2004 | EP |
| 1 490 747 | Dec 2004 | EP |
| 1 490 809 | Dec 2004 | EP |
| 1 492 232 | Dec 2004 | EP |
| 1 782 183 | May 2007 | EP |
| 1 830 312 | Sep 2007 | EP |
| 1 840 803 | Oct 2007 | EP |
| 2 115 581 | Nov 2009 | EP |
| 2555157 | Apr 2018 | GB |
| 9838564 | Sep 1998 | WO |
| 9840807 | Sep 1998 | WO |
| 9905632 | Feb 1999 | WO |
| 9945465 | Sep 1999 | WO |
| 9950784 | Oct 1999 | WO |
| 0033187 | Jun 2000 | WO |
| 0033217 | Jun 2000 | WO |
| 0033226 | Jun 2000 | WO |
| 0033235 | Jun 2000 | WO |
| 0033238 | Jun 2000 | WO |
| 0052553 | Sep 2000 | WO |
| 0052603 | Sep 2000 | WO |
| 0067194 | Nov 2000 | WO |
| 0140958 | Jun 2001 | WO |
| 0175610 | Oct 2001 | WO |
| 0175614 | Oct 2001 | WO |
| 0175747 | Oct 2001 | WO |
| 0175748 | Oct 2001 | WO |
| 0176206 | Oct 2001 | WO |
| 0177787 | Oct 2001 | WO |
| 0179994 | Oct 2001 | WO |
| 02021254 | Mar 2002 | WO |
| 2002019131 | Mar 2002 | WO |
| 02044947 | Jun 2002 | WO |
| 02056249 | Jul 2002 | WO |
| 02080006 | Oct 2002 | WO |
| 02080015 | Oct 2002 | WO |
| 02082300 | Oct 2002 | WO |
| 02084925 | Oct 2002 | WO |
| 02088869 | Nov 2002 | WO |
| 02091346 | Nov 2002 | WO |
| 02101517 | Dec 2002 | WO |
| 02103576 | Dec 2002 | WO |
| 0219131 | Jan 2003 | WO |
| 03021393 | Mar 2003 | WO |
| 03029923 | Apr 2003 | WO |
| 03029955 | Apr 2003 | WO |
| 03030005 | Apr 2003 | WO |
| 03030013 | Apr 2003 | WO |
| 03030014 | Apr 2003 | WO |
| 03058504 | Jul 2003 | WO |
| 03069500 | Aug 2003 | WO |
| 03071380 | Aug 2003 | WO |
| 03071388 | Aug 2003 | WO |
| 03073319 | Sep 2003 | WO |
| 03077139 | Sep 2003 | WO |
| 03085503 | Oct 2003 | WO |
| 03085580 | Oct 2003 | WO |
| 2004001613 | Dec 2003 | WO |
| 2004003684 | Jan 2004 | WO |
| 2004003766 | Jan 2004 | WO |
| 2004003885 | Jan 2004 | WO |
| 2004046882 | Jun 2004 | WO |
| 2004061815 | Jul 2004 | WO |
| 2004086197 | Oct 2004 | WO |
| 2004086198 | Oct 2004 | WO |
| 2004095207 | Nov 2004 | WO |
| 2004095208 | Nov 2004 | WO |
| 2004114147 | Dec 2004 | WO |
| 2005001627 | Jan 2005 | WO |
| 2005003888 | Jan 2005 | WO |
| 2005010645 | Feb 2005 | WO |
| 2005117549 | Dec 2005 | WO |
| 2006081536 | Aug 2006 | WO |
| 2007033922 | Mar 2007 | WO |
| 2008109441 | Sep 2008 | WO |
| 2009097384 | Aug 2009 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| [No Author Listed] About the Integrated Work Manager (IWM). Pegasystems, Inc., Apr. 30, 2009, 3 pages, <http://pdn-dev/DevNet/PRPCv5/KB/TMP9ad01zurnf.asp>. |
| [No Author Listed] FreeBSD Project “EDQUOTA(8)” in Free BSD System Manager's Manual. FreeBSD 8.2 Jun. 6, 1993. pp. 1-2. Retrieved from freebsd.org on Oct. 27, 2011. |
| [No Author Listed] How SmartForms for Blaze Advisor works, Fair Issac White Paper, http://www.FAIRISAAC.COM/, Oct. 31, 2005, 8 pages (website no longer active). |
| [No Author Listed] How to Configure and Customize the Universal Worklist. SAP Netweaver '04 and SAP Enterprise Portal 6.0. SAP AG. Version 1, May 2004, 65 pages. <http://www.erpgenie.com/sap/netweaver/ep/Configuring%20the%20UWL.pdf>. |
| [No Author Listed] How to configure the IWM/IAC gateway. Pegasystems, Inc., Apr. 30, 2009, 4 pages, <http://pdn-dev/DevNet/PRPCv5/KB/TMP9cf8fzurq4.asp>. |
| [No Author Listed] How to install the Integrated Work Manager (IWM). Pegasystems, Inc., Apr. 30, 2009, 6 pages, <http://pdn-dev/DevNet/PRPCv5/KB/TMP9br1ezurp8.asp>. |
| [No Author Listed] HP Integrated Lights-Out 2, User Guide, Part No. 394326-004, HP, Aug. 2006, 189 pages. |
| [No Author Listed] Integrating with External Systems, PegaRULES Process Commander 5.2. Process Commander 5.2 reference. Pegasystems Inc, Cambridge, MA, 2006, 103 pages <http://pdn.pega.com/ProductSupport/Products/PegaRULESProcessCommander/documents/PrPC/V5/502/iwes/PRPC52_Integrating_with_External_Systems.pdf>. |
| [No Author Listed] IP Prior Art Database, Options when returning work items in workflow management systems. IBM, IPCOM000027980D, 2004, 3 pages. |
| [No Author Listed] IP Prior Art Database, Staff Queries and Assignments in Workflow Systems. IBM, IPCOM000142382D, 2006, 4 pages. |
| [No Author Listed] IP Prior Art Database, Using work items to manage user interactions with adaptive business services. IBM TDB, IPCOM000015953D, 2003, 4 pages. |
| [No Author Listed] Localizing an Application, PegaRULES Process Commander. Process Commander 4.2 reference. Pegasystems Inc., Cambdrige, MA, 2006, 92 pages <http://pdn.pega.com/DevNet/PRPCv4/TechnologyPapers/documents/Localization0402.pdf>. |
| [No Author Listed] Oracle Universal Work Queue: Implementation Guide. Release 11i for Windows NT. Oracle Corporation. Jul. 2001, 136 pages. <http://docs.oracle.com/cd/A85964_01/acrobat/ieu115ug.pdf>. |
| [No Author Listed] Solaris 9 resource manager software. A technical white paper. Sun Microsystems, Inc., Palo Alto CA, 2002, 37 pages. XP-002291080. Retrieved Aug. 3, 2004 from <http://wwws.sun.com/software/whitepapers/solaris9/srm.pdf>. |
| Bertino, E., and P. Foscoli, Index Organizations for Object-Oriented Database Systems, IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 7(2):193-209 (Apr. 1995). |
| Bierbaum, A., et al., VR juggler: A virtual platform for virtual reality application development. Proceedings of the Virtual Reality 2001 Conference, IEEE, 2001, 8 pages, <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber-913774>. |
| Breiman, L., Bagging predictors, Machine Learning, vol. 24, No. 2, Aug. 31, 1996, pp. 123-140, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands. |
| Brusilovsky, P., and De Bra, P., Editors, “Second Workshop on Adaptive Hypertext and Hypermedia Proceedings,” Jun. 20-24, 1998. Ninth ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, Hypertext'98. pp. 1-2. |
| Burleson, D., Adding behaviors to relational databases, DBMS, 8(10): 68(5) (Sep. 1995). |
| Busse, Ralph et al., Declarative and Procedural Object Oriented Views, IEEE, 1998, pp. 570-578, retrieved Mar. 22, 2007. |
| Buyya et al., Economic Models for Resource Management and Scheduling in Grid Computing, Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 2002, vol. 14, pp. 1507-1542. |
| Ceri, S., et al., WIDE—A distributed architecture for workflow management. Proceedings. Seventh International Workshop on Research Issues in Data Engineering, IEEE, 1997, pp. 76-79, 1997. |
| Chan, T.W., and W. Hwang, Towards Integrating Logic, Object, Frame, and Production, Proc. Fourth Int'l. Conf. on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, IEEE, pp. 463-469, Jun. 1992. |
| Cheng, Cheng-Chung; Smith, Stephen F.; A Constraint Satisfaction Approach to Makespan Scheduling, AIPS 1996 Proceedings, pp. 45-52 (1996). |
| Cheng, C.C. and Smith, Applying Constraint Satisfaction Techniques to Job Shop Scheduling, Annals of Operations Research, 70: 327-357 (1997). |
| Cochrane, Roberta et al., Integrating Triggers and Declarative Constraints in SQL Database Systems, pp. 567-578, Proceedings of the 22nd VLDB Conference Mumbai (Bombay), India, 1996, retrieved Mar. 22, 2007. |
| Damerau, F.J., Problems and some solutions in customization of natural language database front ends. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, vol. 3, No. 2, Apr. 1, 1985, pp. 165-184. |
| Danforth, S., Integrating Object and Relational Technologies, Proc. Sixteenth Annual Int'l. Computer Software and Applications Conf., IEEE Comput. Soc. Press, pp. 225-226, Sep. 1992 (Abstract). |
| Deelman, E., et al., Pegasus: A framework for mapping complex scientific workflows onto distributed systems, submitted to Scientific Programming, Jan. 2005. Pre journal publication copy of article, 22 pages. |
| Deelman, E., et al., Pegasus: A framework for mapping complex scientific workflows onto distributed systems. Scientific Programming, 13, pp. 219-237, 2005. |
| Deelman, E., et al., Workflows and e-science: An overview of workflow system features and capabilities. Future Generation Computer Systems, May 2009, vol. 25, issue 5, pp. 528-540. |
| Devarakonda et al., Predictability of process resource usage: A measurement-based study on UNIX. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 1989;15(12):1579-1586. |
| DeMichiel, L.G., et al., Polyglot: Extensions to Relational Databases for Sharable Types and Functions in a Multi-Language Environment, Proc. Ninth Int'l. Conf. on Data Engineering, IEEE, pp. 651-660, Apr. 1993. |
| Eisenstein, et al., Adaptation in Automated User-Interface Design. IUI, 2000, pp. 74-81. |
| Communication for European Patent Application No. 05755530.2, dated Sep. 6, 2007 (2 pages). |
| European Search Report for Application No. 05755530.2, dated Mar. 26, 2012 (3 Pages). |
| European Office Action dated Aug. 31, 2012 for Application No. 05755530.2 (4 Pages). |
| Communication for European Patent Application No. 07250844.3 enclosing European Search Report, dated Jul. 11, 2007 (6 pages). |
| Communication for European Patent Application No. 07250844.3, dated Mar. 28, 2008 (1 page). |
| European Office Action dated Jul. 9, 2012 for Application No. 07250844.3 (8 Pages). |
| Communication for European Patent Application No. 07250848.4, dated Aug. 13, 2007 (EESR enclosed) (6 pages). |
| Communication for European Patent Application No. 07250848.4, dated May 29, 2008 (1 page). |
| Communication for European Patent Application No. 08731127.0, dated Oct. 13, 2009 (2 pages). |
| Extended European Search Report dated Oct. 29, 2012 for Application No. 08731127.0 (8 Pages). |
| Extended European Search Report for Application No. 15189385.6, dated Dec. 17, 2015 (9 pages). |
| Fayad, M.E., et al., Object-oriented application frameworks. Communications of the ACM, Oct. 1997, vol. 40, Issue 10, pp. 32-38, <http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=262798>. |
| Gajos et al. SUPPLE: Automatically Generating User Interfaces. IUI 2004, 8 pages. |
| Hague, Darren, Universal Worklist with SAP Netweaver Portal. Galileo Press, 2008, pp. 11-31. <http://www.sap-hefte.de/download/dateien/1461/146_leseprobe.pdf>. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/GB2004/000677, dated Aug. 2, 2004 (15 pages). |
| International Search Report for Application No. PCT/US2004/020783, dated Nov. 8, 2005 (2 pages). |
| [NoAuthorListed] XPath Tutorial, Mar. 18, 2005, 7 pages (Year: 2005). |
| Summons to Attend Oral Proceedings pursuant to rule 115(1) EPC, issued May 2, 2018 for Application No. 08731127.0 (8 pages). |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for Application No. PCT/US2004/020783, dated Feb. 13, 2006 (6 pages). |
| International Search Report for PCT/US05/018599, dated May 15, 2007 (1 page). |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for PCT/US2005/018599, dated Jun. 5, 2007 (10 pages). |
| International Search Report & Written Opinion for PCT/US06/03160, dated Jul. 21, 2008 (16 pages). |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for PCT/US06/03160, dated Apr. 9, 2009 (14 pages). |
| International Search Report for PCT/US08/55503, dated Jul. 28, 2008 (1 page). |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for PCT/US2008/055503, dated Sep. 17, 2009 (4 pages). |
| International Search Report & Written Opinion for PCT/US09/32341, dated Mar. 11, 2009 (14 pages). |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for PCT/US2009/032341, dated Aug. 12, 2010 (8 pages). |
| Johnson et al., Sharing and resuing rules—a feature comparison of five expert system shells. IEEE Expert, IEEE Services Center, New York, NY, vol. 9, No. 3, Jun. 1, 1994, pp. 3-17. |
| Jones et al., A user-centered approach to functions in excel. International Conference on Functional Programming, Uppsala, Jun. 30, 2003, pp. 1-12. |
| Kappel, G., et al., TriGSflow active object-oriented workflow management. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 1995, pp. 727-736. |
| Kim, W., Object-Oriented Databases: Definition and Research Directions, IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 2(3) pp. 327-341, Sep. 1990. |
| Kuhn, H.W., The Hungarian Method for the Assignment Problem, Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 2 (1955), pp. 83-97. |
| Kuno, H.A., and E.A. Rundensteiner, Augmented Inherited Multi-Index Structure for Maintenance of Materialized Path Query Views, Proc. Sixth Int'l. Workshop on Research Issues in Data Engineering, pp. 128-137, Feb. 1996. |
| LaRue, J., Leveraging Integration and Workflow. Integrated Solutions, Accounting Today, SourceMedia, Aug. 2006, pp. 18-19. |
| Lippert, Eric, Fabulous Adventures in Coding: Metaprogramming, Toast and the Future of Development Tools, Microsoft.com Blog, MSDN Home, published Mar. 4, 2004, 6 pgs. |
| Mandal, et al., Integrating existing scientific workflow systems: The kepler/pegasus example. USC Information Sciences Institute, 2007, 8 pages. |
| Manghi, Paolo, et. al., Hybrid Applications Over XML: Integrating the Procedural and Declarative Approaches, 2002 ACM, pp. 1-6. Retrieved Mar. 22, 2007. |
| Manolescu, D.A., et al., Dynamic object model and adaptive workflow. Proceedings of Metadata and Active Object-Model Pattern Mining Workshop co-located with OOPSLA, 1999, vol. 99, 19 pages. |
| Markiewicz, M.E., et al., Object oriented framework development. ACM, 2001, 13 pages, <http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=372771>. |
| Markowitz, V.M., and A. Shoshani, Object Queries over Relational Databases: Language, Implementation, and Applications, IEEE Xplore, pp. 71-80, Apr. 1993. |
| Marmel, Elaine, Microsoft Office Project 2007 Bible, ISBN 0470009926, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2007, 961 pages. |
| Maryanski, F., et al., The Data Model Compiler: A Tool for Generating Object-Oriented Database Systems, 1986 Int'l. Workshop on Object-Oriented Database Systems, IEEE, 73-84 (1986). |
| McConnell, Steven C., Brooks' Law Repealed, IEEE Software, pp. 6-9, Nov./Dec. 1999. |
| Mecca, G., et al., Cut and Paste, ACM, pp. 1-25 and Appendix I-IV (Jun. 1999). Retrieved Mar. 22, 2007. |
| Mitchell, T.M., Machine Learning, Chapter 3, 1997, McGraw-Hill, pp. 52-80. |
| Mitchell, T.M., Machine Learning, Chapter 6, 1997, McGraw-Hill, pp. 154-200. |
| Morizet-Mahoudeaux, P., A Hierarchy of Network-Based Knowledge Systems, IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man, and Cybemetics, vol. 21(5), pp. 1184-1191, Sep./Oct. 1991. |
| Pientka, B., et al., Programming with proofs and explicit contexts. International Symposium on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming, ACM, 2008, pp. 163-173, <http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1390000/1389469/p163-pientka.pdf?>. |
| Reinersten, Don, Is It Always a Bad Idea to Add Resources to a Late Project?, Oct. 30, 2000. Electronic Design. vol. 48, Issue 22, p. 70. |
| Riccuiti, M., Oracle 8.0 on the way with objects: upgrade will also build in multidimensional engine. InfoWorld. Sep. 25, 1995;17(39):16. |
| Richner, T., et al., Recovering high-level views of object-oriented applications from static and dynamic information. IEEE, 1999, 10 pages, <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=792487>. |
| Saiz, Francisco, et al. Rule-Based Web Page Generation, Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Adaptive Hypertext and Hypermedia, Hypertext'98, Jun. 20-24, 1998, 9 pages. |
| Salvini, S., and M.H. Williams, Knowledge Management for Expert Systems, IEEE Colloquium on ‘Knowledge Engineering’, 3 pages, May 1990. |
| Schiefelbein, Mark, A Backbase Ajax Front-end for J2EE Applications, Internet Article, dev2dev <http://dev2dev.bea.com/1pt/a/433>, Aug. 29, 2005, 16 pages. |
| Schulze, W., Filling the workflow management facility into the object management architecture. Business Object Design and Implementation II. Springer London, 1998, pp. 109-117. |
| Sellis, T., et al., Coupling Production Systems and Database Systems: A Homogeneous Approach, IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 5(2), pp. 240-256, Apr. 1993. |
| Shyy Y.M., and S.Y.W. Su, Refinement Preservation for Rule Selection in Active Object-Oriented Database Systems, Proc. Fourth Int'l. Workshop on Research Issues in Data Engineering, pp. 115-123, Feb. 1994. |
| Simpson, Alan, et al., Access 97 for Windows 95/NT; 1997 SYBEX; 16 pages; USPTO STIC-EIC 2100/2400. |
| Singh, G., et al., Workflow task clustering for best effort systems with pegasus, Pegasus, 2008, 8 pages. |
| Smedley, T.J. et al., “Expanding the Utility of Spreadsheets Through the Integration of Visual Programming and User Interface Objects,” School of Computer Science, Technical University of Nova Scotia, ACM, 1996; pp. 148-155. |
| Srinivasan, V., et al., Object persistence in object-oriented applications. IBM Systems Journal, 1997, vol. 36, issue 1, pp. 66-87, <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber-5387186>. |
| Stonebraker, M., The Integration of Rule Systems and Database Systems, IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 4(5), pp. 415-423, Oct. 1992. |
| Sun, et al., “Supporting Inheritance in Relational Database Systems,” IEEE, pp. 511-518, Jun. 1992. |
| Surjanto, B., XML content management based on object-relational database technology. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering, IEEE, 2000, Jun. 19-21, 2000, vol. 1, pp. 70-79. |
| Thuraisingham, “From Rules to Frames and Frames to Rules,” AI Expert, pp. 31-39, Oct. 1989. |
| Vranes, S., et al., Integrating Multiple Paradigms within the Blackboard Framework, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 21, No. 3, Mar. 1995, pp. 244-262. |
| Yang, Bibo; Geunes, Joseph; O'Brien, William J.; Resource-Constrained Project Scheduling: Past Work and New Directions, Apr. 2001, 28 pages, Research Report 2001-6, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Florida. |
| XPath Tutorial, Mar. 18, 2005, 7 pages (Year: 2005). |
| Europoean Search Report for Application No. 19191686.5-1224/3611616, dated Jan. 22, 2020 (8 pages). |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20170255341 A1 | Sep 2017 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 61063269 | Jan 2008 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 14558084 | Dec 2014 | US |
| Child | 15602880 | US | |
| Parent | 13031109 | Feb 2011 | US |
| Child | 14558084 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 12174624 | Jul 2008 | US |
| Child | 13031109 | US | |
| Parent | 12035682 | Feb 2008 | US |
| Child | 12174624 | US | |
| Parent | 11396415 | Mar 2006 | US |
| Child | 12035682 | US | |
| Parent | 12035682 | Feb 2008 | US |
| Child | 13031109 | US |
