The subject matter of the present application may also be related to the following U.S. Patent Applications: “Data Event Logging in Computing Platform,” Ser. No. 09/979,902, filed Nov. 27, 2001; “Data Integrity Monitoring in Trusted Computing Entity,” Ser. No. 09/979,903, filed Nov. 27, 2001; “Information System,” Ser. No. 10/080,476, filed Feb. 22, 2002; “Trusted Computing Environment,” Ser. No. 10/080,477, filed Feb. 22, 2002; “Method of and Apparatus for Investigating Transactions in a Data Processing Environment,” Ser. No. 10/080,478, filed Feb. 22, 2002; “Trusted Platform Evaluation,” Ser. No. 10/194,831, filed Jul. 11, 2002; “Privacy of Data on a Computer Platform,” Ser. No. 10/206,812, filed Jul. 26, 2002; and “Method and Apparatus for Locking an Application Within a Trusted Environment,” Ser. No. 10/208,718, filed Jul. 29, 2002.
The present invention relates to a method of and apparatus for determining status of a data processing environment. The information concerning the status of the environment may include an indication of what devices are operating within the environment, what facilities they offer and whether the devices can be trusted.
The issues of security and ease of use of a computing platform are often in conflict. For commercial applications, a client computing platform typically operates in an environment where its behaviour is vulnerable to modification. Such modification can be made by local or remote entities. This has given rise to concerns, especially in the field of e-commerce, that transactions conducted on a computer might be subject to some form of misdemeanour, such as theft of credit card details. These perceived insecurities may limit the willingness of users to undertake e-commerce transactions on either local or remote computer systems.
The data processing environment (or environment) of a computer platform or other data processing appliance consists of the other computing entities (computer platforms or any other data processing appliance) that are discrete from the computer platform and are in communication with it through one or more data networks. For a computer entity to form part of the environment of a computer platform, the computer platform must be able to interact with the entity but must not be constrained to do so—at some level, interaction must be voluntary. The boundary of an environment will generally be considered in terms of network connections (or other network “distance”) between one point and another—for some purposes, the data processing environment of a computer platform may be considered its local network and no more, whereas for other purposes, the data processing environment of a computer platform may extend much further (for example, across a company intranet). There are existing security applications, such as virus checkers and fire walls which can be installed in computer systems in order to limit their vulnerability to viruses or to malicious users seeking to take control of the machine remotely. However, these security applications execute on computing platforms under the assumption that the platform is operating as intended and that the platform itself will not subvert the processes used by these applications.
Users engaging in communication with a remote or unfamiliar data processing environment may nevertheless be concerned about the security of that environment as a whole rather than just the security of the computing device with which they have made initial contact. Thus users seek reassurance that the computing environment can be trusted.
As used herein, the word “trust” is used to mean that something can be trusted, in the sense that it is working in the way that it is intended and expected to work and is not or has not been tampered with in order to run malicious operations.
According to a first aspect of the present invention, there is provided an apparatus for ascertaining the status of a data processing environment, comprising at least one trusted computing device which is arranged to challenge other devices within a data processing environment, to keep a record of the responses and to make the record available.
It is thus possible to use a trusted computing device to keep an audit of the status of a data processing network. The trusted device can challenge new devices as and when it discovers them within the data processing environment and can also re-challenge known devices every now and again in order to ascertain that they are functioning correctly. In such a challenge, a trusted computing device extracts from the challenged device a response to the challenge. Preferably the challenged device enters into a predefined challenge—response protocol, such as a TCPA challenge—response protocol in order to return trusted integrity and identity information about the challenged device. Thus the response may include information which can be analysed to determine the integrity of the challenged device, such as at least one integrity metric. The trusted device, upon receiving the response, extracts the integrity information from the response and compares it with an authenticated metric for the challenged device. As a result of the comparison, the trusted device can indicate whether the challenged device can be trusted or not. By keeping a record of the time that a device is challenged, the response received from the device and the result of the comparison of the integrity metrics, the trusted computing device can maintain a log of the status of the data processing environment.
The integrity information would normally include a cryptographic representation of at least one platform component. This may, for example, include the BIOS, operating system or an application. Preferably the integrity information is of the form described in the TCPA specification (www.trustedpc.org) and has been measured and stored in the form described in the TCPA specification.
Advantageously other devices within the data processing environment can also issue challenges. The responses to those challenges and conclusions concerning trustworthiness can be recorded by the at least one trusted computing device. An indication of which devices acted as challenger and challengee can also be recorded, together with an indication of whether the challenger is itself established as trustworthy.
Preferably the challenges to known devices are made on a periodic basis in order to maintain an up to date record of the integrity of the data processing environment. However, additional challenges may also be made when a device attempts to perform an operation within the environment which requires that device to be trusted. Thus attempts to read, create or modify sensitive data, whether this data be user data, application data or system data (as defined by a system administrator) may require re-authentication of the trustworthiness of the device before it is enabled to have such access.
Advantageously the record held by the trusted device includes historical data representing the status of the network. Such data may be of use during investigations of system performance in order to indicate when a data processing environment could be regarded as trustworthy and/or what devices or processes may have entered or been executed in that environment. This information may be of use to administrators or investigators when seeking data concerning fraudulent transactions or attempts to subvert the operation of one or more components within the system.
In order to maintain a record of the devices within the computing environment, the trusted computing device needs to ascertain what devices are there. It can do this by sending query messages into the environment. The queries may be specific, that is directed to a known device in order to ascertain that it is still there and functioning. However, the queries may also be more general. Thus, for example, the trusted computing device could issue a query to a class of devices, for example printers, to identify what printers are available within the data processing environment. Such a query could then be repeated for a different class of device in order to build up a picture of the data processing environment. Alternatively, the trusted computing device could issue a general query asking devices to respond by identifying themselves, and optionally their functionality and/or integrity metrics. Advantageously the query also includes a generation identifier such that the age of the query can be ascertained by devices receiving the query. In this context, age can be measured in either or both the temporal sense or the number of retransmissions that the message has undergone. It is particularly desirable to limit the number of retransmissions that the query message may undergo as in extreme cases the message could propagate out of a local computing environment via, for example, a communications link to the internet and then computing devices receiving that query message could then attempt to respond. If this were the case, the trusted computing device could be overwhelmed by responses from computers which do not really constitute part of the data processing environment but which nevertheless have managed to receive the query message.
The trusted computing device can also listen to data communications on a network or between devices local to it in order to ascertain what devices are operating. The need to listen for devices entering and leaving the data processing network is likely to become more prevalent with the general increase in the number of portable computing devices and the ease at which these can enter or leave data processing environments as a result of the increase in wireless communication links to join computing devices, for example Blue Tooth.
When a user with a portable computing device or a remote user using a telecommunications link wishes to interact with a data processing environment, the user may seek to challenge the integrity of that environment. The functionality of the user's computing device and/or the communications bandwidth between the user's device and the data processing network may limit the ability of the user to make individual challenges to each device in the data processing environment. However, the user may still seek confirmation that the data processing environment is secure, or at least an indication of the trust which he should place in that data processing environment (for a user may still decide to use a data processing environment even if that data processing environment is not deemed to be trustworthy—this is the user's choice depending on the type of transaction that the user wishes to undertake and the urgency ascribed to that transaction). With the present invention, a user does not need to make individual challenges to each device, but instead can seek this data from the trusted computing device. The user can trust the data from the trusted computing device because the user can challenge the trusted computing device and analyse the response to the challenge, comparing the integrity metrics received from the trusted computing device with those which are certificated as being the correct metrics, thereby enabling the user to determine whether the trusted computing device is itself trustworthy. The user can also determine what facilities are available in the computing environment.
According to a second aspect of the present invention, there is provided a computing device including a communications device and a data processor wherein the data processor is arranged to establish communication with a trusted computing device via the communication device, to receive at least part of the record of responses and to establish from an internal rules base whether the data processing environment is trustworthy enough to enable a class of transaction or task to be carried out in that environment.
According to a third aspect of the present invention, there is provided a computing device including a communications device and a data processor, wherein the computing device uses the communication device to establish communication with at least one device within a data processing system, and in which the data processor is arranged to identify challenges from at least one trusted computing device, to apply response rules to the challenge and, if a response is indicated, to respond to the challenge in accordance with the rules.
Advantageously, when the computing device receives a challenge from the trusted device it examines a generation identifier in order to see whether the message is still valid. The generation identifier may be a skip number. Thus, each time the challenge is retransmitted the skip number is modified, and every time a device receives a challenge, it checks the skip number to see if the challenge is valid. For convenience, the trusted computing device may set the skip number to an integer value greater than zero, and the skip number may be decremented at each retransmission. Any device receiving a challenge with a skip number of zero ignores the challenge and does not retransmit the challenge. This prevents the challenge from propagating too widely.
According to a fourth aspect of the present invention, there is provided a method of ascertaining the status of the data processing environment, the method comprising the steps of using a trusted computing device to challenge other devices within a data processing environment, keeping a record of the responses made to the challenges and making the record available.
Preferably the trusted computing device will itself respond to a challenge such that the integrity of the trusted computing device can be verified by the device which challenged it.
According to a further aspect of the present invention, there is provided a method of conducting a transaction in a data processing environment comprising a user device and at least a trusted computing device each having respective communications capabilities, wherein the trusted computing device keeps a record of computing devices that it has identified within the data processing environment, and wherein the user device is arranged to establish communications with the trusted computing device, to receive therefrom at least a portion of the record of computing devices within the data processing environment, and to analyse the record to establish what facilities the user device may access.
Preferably the user device further analyses the record in accordance with a set of security rules contained therein to determine what level of trust the user device can place on the integrity of the data processing environment.
It is thus possible to provide a trusted record of the status and trustworthiness of devices within a data processing network such that a computing device can be spared the task of challenging each device in the computer network in order to ascertain its trustworthiness, but instead can obtain a record of the challenges from a trusted computing device.
The present invention will further be described, by way of example, with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which:
Many of the concepts underlying trusted computing have already been published. In particular, a specification concerning the functionality of a trusted computing environment has been published by the “trusted computing platform alliance” on their web site at www.trustedpc.org. A trusted computing device of this general type is described in the applicant's co-pending International Patent Application Publication No. PCT/GB00/00528 entitled “Trusted Computing Platform”, filed on 15 Feb. 2000, the contents of which are incorporated by reference herein.
In essence, it is desirable to ensure that a computer is trustworthy. In broad terms, this can be achieved by attaching to or embedding in a computer a trusted physical device whose function in relation to that computer is to obtain measurements of data from the computer which provides an integrity metric of the computer platform. The identity of the computing platform and the integrity metric are compared with expected values that are provided by a trusted party whose role it is to vouch for the trustworthiness of the platform. If the identities and metrics match, then there is a strong implication that the platform is operating correctly. The trusted physical device is normally provided as a tamper evident component such that attempts to interfere with its operation will result in its performance being modified when it is next used.
A trusted platform is illustrated in
As shown in
A user's device 40, for example in the form of a personal digital assistant can establish communications with the trusted computing device 2 via the communications device 18 of the trusted computing device 2 and also a communications port 42 of the personal digital assistant. The personal digital assistant 40 also includes a central processing unit 44 and a memory 46 holding a set of security rules which the processor 44 uses to decide whether or not it should regard the data processing environment as trustworthy or not.
In use, the trusted computing device 2 challenges the devices 30 to 36 in its computing environment 38 and keeps a record of their responses, including integrity metrics, which enables it to work out whether the devices 30 to 36 can be trusted, that is that they are behaving in an expected manner and have not been subverted by external or malicious processes. The trusted device 2 keeps a record of the results of the challenges in its memory 8 and on the mass storage device 16 (see
When the user's device wishes to use the facilities available of the computing network 39, it establishes communication with the trusted computing device 2, and challenges it in order to assure itself that the trusted computing device is a trusted computing device and not some rogue device masquerading or spoofing as a trusted computing device. Once the user device 40 has completed the challenge and compared the integrity metric retrieved from the trusted computing device with an expected integrity metric as certified with a trusted authority, the user device 40 may then query the trusted computing device 2 in order to obtain a list of the devices available in the local computing area, the functions that they can perform and whether or not they are trustworthy. Having received this data, the user device 40 then applies the security rules held in the memory 46 in order to determine whether, in accordance with those rules which themselves are defined either by the device owner, administrator or some other person given the rights to modify those rules, whether the local computing environment is trustworthy. If so, the user is informed. Alternatively, the user may be informed if the computing environment is not trustworthy. The user may also be informed which classes of transactions should or should not be undertaken in this environment.
Not all computing environments are as well defined as that shown in
As indicated above, the arrangements of
The status of the computing environment can be held by the trusted computing device, and consequently displayed by the user devices, in any manner convenient and appropriate for retaining such data. The status information may be provided in the form of a list of computing entities within the computing environment, together with a trust status for each of the computing entities. Most simply, these statuses could be “trusted” (indicating that the computing entity concerned is verified to have the status of a trusted computing device) or “untrusted” (where no such verification has occurred). The “untrusted” status could be broken down further into “not trusted” (where verification has failed) and “untested” (where verification has either not yet occurred or has not taken place sufficiently recently). A further possibility is for there to be multiple levels of trust available for a computing entity, such that the computing entity is able or permitted to perform different functions at the different levels of trust—more and different integrity metrics may be required to determine that a computing entity is at a higher trust level. Such an arrangement is further described in the applicant's copending International Patent Application Publication No. WO 01/27722, the contents of which are incorporated by reference to the fullest extent permitted by law. In this case, the trusted device 2 should be adapted to determine when these different trust levels are attained, and to indicate these trust levels appropriately when indicating the status of the computing environment.
In a modification of the flow chart showing in
Devices receiving the challenge shown in
It is thus possible to provide a measure of the integrity and facilities available within a local, and possibly varying data processing network.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
0104673.9 | Feb 2001 | GB | national |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4747040 | Blanset et al. | May 1988 | A |
4799156 | Shavit et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
4926476 | Covey | May 1990 | A |
4933969 | Marshall et al. | Jun 1990 | A |
4962533 | Kruger et al. | Oct 1990 | A |
4984272 | McIlroy et al. | Jan 1991 | A |
5029206 | Marino et al. | Jul 1991 | A |
5032979 | Hecht et al. | Jul 1991 | A |
5038281 | Peters | Aug 1991 | A |
5136711 | Hugard et al. | Aug 1992 | A |
5144660 | Rose | Sep 1992 | A |
5261104 | Bertram et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5278973 | O'Brien et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5283828 | Saunders et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5325529 | Brown et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5341422 | Blackledge et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5359659 | Rosenthal | Oct 1994 | A |
5361359 | Tajalli et al. | Nov 1994 | A |
5379342 | Arnold et al. | Jan 1995 | A |
5404532 | Allen et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5410707 | Bell | Apr 1995 | A |
5414860 | Canova et al. | May 1995 | A |
5421006 | Jablon et al. | May 1995 | A |
5440723 | Arnold et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5444850 | Chang | Aug 1995 | A |
5448045 | Clark | Sep 1995 | A |
5454110 | Kannan et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5473692 | Davis | Dec 1995 | A |
5483649 | Kuznetsov et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
5491750 | Bellare et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
5495569 | Kotzur | Feb 1996 | A |
5497490 | Harada et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5497494 | Combs et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5504814 | Miyahara | Apr 1996 | A |
5504910 | Wisor et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5511184 | Lin | Apr 1996 | A |
5530758 | Marino et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5535411 | Speed et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5548763 | Combs et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
5555373 | Dayan et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5572590 | Chess | Nov 1996 | A |
5619571 | Sandstrom et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5680452 | Shanton | Oct 1997 | A |
5680547 | Chang | Oct 1997 | A |
5692124 | Holden et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5694590 | Thuraisingham et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5701343 | Takashima et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5706431 | Otto | Jan 1998 | A |
5768382 | Schneier et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5771354 | Crawford | Jun 1998 | A |
5774717 | Porcaro | Jun 1998 | A |
5787175 | Carter | Jul 1998 | A |
5809145 | Slik et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5815665 | Teper et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5815702 | Kannan et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5819261 | Takahashi et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5841868 | Helbig | Nov 1998 | A |
5841869 | Merkling et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5844986 | Davis | Dec 1998 | A |
5845068 | Winiger | Dec 1998 | A |
5867646 | Benson et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5887163 | Nguyen et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5889989 | Robertazzi et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5890142 | Tanimura et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5892900 | Ginter et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5892902 | Clark | Apr 1999 | A |
5903732 | Reed et al. | May 1999 | A |
5917360 | Yasutake | Jun 1999 | A |
5922074 | Richard et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5933498 | Schneck et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5937066 | Gennaro et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5937159 | Meyers | Aug 1999 | A |
5940513 | Aucsmith et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5958016 | Chang et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5960177 | Tanno | Sep 1999 | A |
5966732 | Assaf | Oct 1999 | A |
5987605 | Hill et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5987608 | Roskind | Nov 1999 | A |
6006332 | Rabne et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6012080 | Ozden et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6021510 | Nachenberg | Feb 2000 | A |
6023765 | Kuhn | Feb 2000 | A |
6038667 | Helbig | Mar 2000 | A |
6067559 | Allard et al. | May 2000 | A |
6078948 | Podgorny et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6079016 | Park | Jun 2000 | A |
6081830 | Schindler | Jun 2000 | A |
6081894 | Mann | Jun 2000 | A |
6091956 | Hollenberg | Jul 2000 | A |
6098133 | Summers et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6100738 | Illegems | Aug 2000 | A |
6115819 | Anderson | Sep 2000 | A |
6125114 | Blanc et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6138239 | Veil | Oct 2000 | A |
6148342 | Ho | Nov 2000 | A |
6154838 | Le et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6157719 | Wasilewski et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6175917 | Arrow et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6185678 | Arbaugh et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6203101 | Chou et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6211583 | Humphreys | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6253193 | Ginter et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6253324 | Field et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6253349 | Maeda et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6266774 | Sampath et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6272631 | Thomlinson et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6275848 | Arnold | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6289462 | McNabb et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6292900 | Ngo et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6304970 | Bizzaro et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6327533 | Chou | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6327579 | Crawford | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6327652 | England et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6330669 | McKeeth | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6330670 | England et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6334118 | Benson | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6367012 | Atkinson et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6374250 | Ajtai et al. | Apr 2002 | B2 |
6389536 | Nakatsuyama | May 2002 | B1 |
6393412 | Deep | May 2002 | B1 |
6393556 | Arora | May 2002 | B1 |
6405318 | Rowland | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6414635 | Stewart et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6446203 | Aguilar et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6449716 | Rickey | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6477702 | Yellin et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6487601 | Hubacher et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6496847 | Bugnion et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6505300 | Chan et al. | Jan 2003 | B2 |
6507909 | Zurko et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6510418 | Case et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6513156 | Bak et al. | Jan 2003 | B2 |
6519623 | Mancisidor | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6529143 | Mikkola et al. | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6529728 | Pfeffer et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6530024 | Proctor | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6539425 | Stevens et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6604089 | Van Horn et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6609199 | DeTreville | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6609248 | Srivastava et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6622018 | Erekson | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6650902 | Richton | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6654800 | Rieger, III | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6671716 | Diedrichsen et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6678827 | Rothermel et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6678833 | Grawrock | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6681304 | Vogt et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6684196 | Mini et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6694434 | McGee et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6697944 | Jones et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6701440 | Kim et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6732276 | Cofler et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6751680 | Langerman et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6757710 | Reed | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6757824 | England | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6757830 | Tarbotton et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6772331 | Hind et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6775779 | England et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6778968 | Gulati | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6785015 | Smith et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6799270 | Bull et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6837229 | Mizutani | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6853988 | Dickinson et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6868406 | Ogg et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6889325 | Sipman et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6892307 | Wood et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6931545 | Ta et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6948069 | Teppler | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6948073 | England et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6965816 | Walker | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6988250 | Proudler et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
7051343 | Bracha et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7058807 | Grawrock et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7076655 | Griffin et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7076804 | Kershenbaum et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7159210 | Griffin et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7181608 | Fallon et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7194623 | Proudler et al. | Mar 2007 | B1 |
7302698 | Proudler et al. | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7376974 | Proudler et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7457951 | Proudler et al. | Nov 2008 | B1 |
7529919 | Lampson et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7669238 | Fee et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7865876 | Griffin et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7877799 | Proudler | Jan 2011 | B2 |
20010037450 | Metlitski et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010051515 | Rygaard | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020012432 | England et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020023212 | Proudler | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020089528 | Hay et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020120575 | Pearson et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020120876 | Pearson et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020184488 | Amini et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020184520 | Bush et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030009685 | Choo et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030014466 | Berger et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030018892 | Tello | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030037237 | Abgrall et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030041250 | Proudler | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030084436 | Berger et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030145235 | Choo | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030191957 | Hypponen et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030221124 | Curran et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20040073617 | Milliken et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20050256799 | Warsaw et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2187855 | Jun 1997 | CA |
0 304 033 | Feb 1989 | EP |
0421409 | Apr 1991 | EP |
0510224 | Oct 1992 | EP |
0 580 350 | Jan 1994 | EP |
0 825 511 | Feb 1998 | EP |
0 849 657 | Jun 1998 | EP |
0849680 | Jun 1998 | EP |
0 465 016 | Dec 1998 | EP |
0893751 | Jan 1999 | EP |
0 895 148 | Feb 1999 | EP |
0926605 | Jun 1999 | EP |
0992958 | Apr 2000 | EP |
1 030 237 | Aug 2000 | EP |
1 056 014 | Nov 2000 | EP |
1049036 | Nov 2000 | EP |
1055990 | Nov 2000 | EP |
1056010 | Nov 2000 | EP |
1076279 | Feb 2001 | EP |
1085396 | Mar 2001 | EP |
1107137 | Jun 2001 | EP |
2317476 | Mar 1998 | GB |
2 336 918 | Nov 1999 | GB |
2 353 885 | Mar 2001 | GB |
2361153 | Oct 2001 | GB |
9214493 | Aug 1997 | JP |
10083382 | Mar 1998 | JP |
10293704 | Oct 1998 | JP |
10510647 | Oct 1998 | JP |
10293705 | Nov 1998 | JP |
11003248 | Jan 1999 | JP |
2001-0016655 | Jan 2001 | JP |
2001-0076655 | Jan 2001 | JP |
9325024 | Dec 1993 | WO |
9411967 | May 1994 | WO |
9524696 | Sep 1995 | WO |
9527249 | Oct 1995 | WO |
9729416 | Aug 1997 | WO |
9826529 | Jun 1998 | WO |
9836517 | Aug 1998 | WO |
PCTUS9844402 | Aug 1998 | WO |
9840809 | Sep 1998 | WO |
9845778 | Oct 1998 | WO |
PCTUS9815082 | Feb 1999 | WO |
0031644 | Jun 2000 | WO |
0048062 | Aug 2000 | WO |
0048063 | Aug 2000 | WO |
0054125 | Sep 2000 | WO |
0054126 | Sep 2000 | WO |
PCTUS0052900 | Sep 2000 | WO |
PCTUS0058859 | Oct 2000 | WO |
0073913 | Dec 2000 | WO |
PCTUS0073904 | Dec 2000 | WO |
PCTUS0113198 | Feb 2001 | WO |
0123980 | Apr 2001 | WO |
PCTUS0127722 | Apr 2001 | WO |
PCTUS0165334 | Sep 2001 | WO |
PCTUS0165366 | Sep 2001 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20020120575 A1 | Aug 2002 | US |