The present invention relates to information security and more specifically relates to systems and methods for detecting and preventing unauthorized disclosure of secure information. Furthermore, the present invention pertains to methods and systems for exact data match filtering for structured data.
With the rapid increase and advances in digital documentation services and document management systems, organizations are increasingly storing important, confidential, and secure information in the form of digital documents. Unauthorized dissemination of this information, either by accident or by wanton means, presents serious security risks to these organizations. Therefore, it is imperative for the organizations to protect such secure information and detect and react to any secure information from being disclosed beyond the perimeters of the organization.
Additionally, the organizations face the challenge of categorizing and maintaining the large corpus of digital information across potentially thousands of data stores, content management systems, end-user desktops, etc. It is therefore important to the organization to be able to store concise and lightweight versions of fingerprints corresponding to the vast amounts of image data. Furthermore, the organizations face the challenge of categorizing and maintaining the large corpus of digital information across potentially thousands of data stores, content management systems, end-user desktops, etc. One solution to this challenge is to generate fingerprints from all of the digital information that the organization seeks to protect. These fingerprints tersely and securely represent the organization's secure data, and can be maintained in a database for later verification against the information that a user desires to disclose. When the user wishes to disclose any information outside of the organization, fingerprints are generated for the user's information, and these fingerprints are compared against the fingerprints stored in the fingerprint database. If the fingerprints of the user's information matches with fingerprints contained in the fingerprint server, suitable security actions are performed.
However, the user has at his disposal myriad options to disclose the information outside of the organization's protected environment. For example, the user could copy the digital information from his computer to a removable storage medium (e.g., a floppy drive, a USB storage device, etc.), or the user could email the information from his computer through the organization's email server, or the user could print out the information by sending a print request through the organization's print server, etc.
Additionally, in many organizations, sensitive data is stored in databases, including account numbers, patient IDs, and other well-formed, or “structured”, data. The amount of this structured data can be enormous and ease of unwanted distribution across the egress points creates security problems for organizations.
The exact data match problem can be thought of as a massive, multi-keyword search problem. Methods for exact keyword match include Wu-Manber and Aho-Corasick. However, these methods are disadvantageous because they do not scale beyond several thousand keywords in space or time.
Full blown databases can be employed for exact data matches, but they do not scale down to Agents residing on Laptops. There are also security concerns with duplicating all the confidential cell data within an organization directly.
A more general approach can be taken where the pattern of each category of structured data is inferred and searched via regular expressions or a more complex entity extraction technique. However, without the actual values being protected, this approach would lead to many false positives.
Introduced here and described below in detail are methods and systems for securing a computer system from transmission of sensitive data. In one embodiment, an organization's digital information is scanned to retrieve “sensitive” candidate entities. These sensitive entities correspond to structured data words (e.g., social security numbers, patient IDs, etc.) that the organization desires to protect from unauthorized disclosure. In some instances, the candidate entities are identified on the basis of word-patterns and/or heuristic rules. The identified candidate entities are optionally converted to a canonical format to enable the data match inspection engine to be impervious to changes in character encoding, digital format, etc. The candidate entities are then stored as registered entities in an entity database. In some instances, the entity database is a lightweight entity database (LWED) that supports a compressed version of the registered entities. The database compression can be achieved by storing the candidate entities in a data structure that supports membership query while introducing a small error of false positives in the membership query (e.g., a Bloom filter). In some instances, the entity database is a global entity database (GED) that is stored in association with a remote server. The GED includes an uncompressed version of the registered entities (or corresponding hash-values of the entities), and also includes metadata information associated with each of the registered entities.
Protect agents are installed across several egress points (laptop, mail server, etc.) to monitor information being disclosed by a user. The protect agents receive digital information (e.g., textual information) that a user wishes to disclose using the egress point, and identifies candidate entities from the textual information. In one embodiment, the protect agent looks up the candidate entities against registered entities stored in the LWED. If the protect agent detects any matching candidate entities, the protect agent initiates an appropriate security action. In some embodiments, the protect agent communicates with a remote GED server (containing the GED). In such embodiments, the protect agent transmits the matching candidate entities to the GED server, where the candidate entities are again matched against the registered entities in the GED. The results of the GED comparison eliminate or reduce any false positives that may have resulted from the comparison of the candidate entities against the LWED. In some instances, the GED also supplies the protect agent with metadata associated with the matching candidate entities. The metadata information is useful in initiating various types of security actions.
One or more embodiments of the present invention are illustrated by way of example and not limitation in the figures of the accompanying drawings, in which like references indicate similar elements.
The present invention may be embodied in several forms and manners. The description provided below and the drawings show exemplary embodiments of the invention. Those of skill in the art will appreciate that the invention may be embodied in other forms and manners not shown below. It is understood that the use of relational terms, if any, such as first, second, top and bottom, and the like are used solely for distinguishing one entity or action from another, without necessarily requiring or implying any such actual relationship or order between such entities or actions. References in this specification to “an embodiment”, “one embodiment”, or the like, mean that the particular feature, structure or characteristic being described is included in at least one embodiment of the present invention. Occurrences of such phrases in this specification do not necessarily all refer to the same embodiment.
Such points (i.e., computer hardware) through which information can be transferred outside of the organization's protected environment are called egress points. Examples of transferring data at egress points include copying the information from the computer to a CD disk 112 or any other optical storage medium, copying the information to a floppy drive 113 or any other tape medium, copying the information to a USB key 114 or other flash based storage medium, transferring the information by printing the information using a printer 115, copying information to the clipboard 115a of the local operating system, etc. An egress point can also be the network card of the remote computer when it is used to transmit the information onto the network to a network address outside the secure perimeter of the organization's system. In such an event, all the information that is transmitted through the computer 111 needs to be monitored to ensure that secure or sensitive information does not get transferred.
The information to be monitored may include digital textual data, image data, multimedia data etc. Such digital information can be monitored by using, for example, fingerprinting technology to be enable registration and inspection of a large corpus of data. Examples of such fingerprinting technology are described in detail in related applications U.S. application Ser. No. 12/177,043, entitled “METHODS AND SYSTEMS TO FINGERPRINT TEXTUAL INFORMATION USING WORD RUNS,” filed Jul. 21, 2008, and U.S. application Ser. No. 12/209,082, entitled “METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PROTECT AGENTS USING DISTRIBUTED LIGHTWEIGHT FINGERPRINTS,” filed Sep. 11, 2008, both of which are incorporated by reference in their entireties herein. The fingerprinting technology described in the above applications uses various techniques to protect the large corpus an organization's confidential information. In one example, the fingerprinting technology detects sentences, or even paragraphs, in original or derivative forms, and prevents such textual information from being disclosed. However, such fingerprinting technology may not be an effective tool for protection of “exact data words.” An “exact data word,” as described herein, refers to any combination of characters (e.g., alphabets, numbers, symbols, etc.) that form a structured word. Such exact data words may exist, for example, in the form of patient IDs in a hospital database, social-security numbers, or employees' date-of-birth information, phone numbers, etc. In some instances, such exact data words have a well-structured format or pattern (e.g., social security numbers have a pattern that includes seven numerical characters and two “-” symbols separating groups of the numerical characters). These exact data words may be spread across various documents that constitute the organization's digital information (e.g., in textual data, embedded in images, etc.). When such exact data words are confidential they need to be protected from unauthorized disclosure. To achieve this, the following sections describe techniques for identifying such exact data words, and preventing the exact data words from unauthorized disclosure through any of the egress points.
Returning to
In addition to being installed in every computer system (110, 116, 117, 118) in the network, the protect agents are also installed on other vulnerable egress points across the organization. One example of such a vulnerable egress point includes one or more email server systems 118 connected to the network. The email server 119 handles and routes the emails sent out and received by the organization. The protect agent 120 installed on the email server 119 monitors the emails desired to be sent out of the organization through the email server. Another example of a vulnerable egress point could be a print server 121 connected to the organization's network. A protect agent 123 connected to the print server 122 monitors print jobs sent by the users to the printers connected to the network.
Additional examples of vulnerable egress points include network appliance systems 126. Here, a protect agent 128 is installed in each network appliance 127 to ensure that information disclosed through a particular network appliance 127 is monitored. Examples of using network appliances 126 to transfer data include sharing of data over a network share medium, data transferred at the socket or TCP layer of the network, etc. It is understood that in addition to these examples, the egress points also include other porous environments through which information can be disclosed by the user beyond the secure environment of the organization.
In one embodiment, the there is a computer system secured against unauthorized external communications of data items from an egress point, said system comprising:
a central server;
at least one remote devices connected to the central server by a data network where the remote devices are authorized to communicate with the central server using the data network connection, said remote device comprised of a local data scanning component, where the data scanning component is configured to inspect an outgoing message stored on the remote device to determine if the outgoing message is addressed to a location accessed through the egress point and in dependence on such determination and prior to transmission of the outgoing message, scan the data comprising the message using a first at least one security rules stored locally on the remote device and in the case of triggering said at least one security rules, transmit a portion of the outgoing message data to the central server;
where the central server is further comprised of a security component that is adapted to receive the transmitted portion of the outgoing message, determine a security action by scanning the received portion of the outgoing message using a second at least one security rule stored on the central server and transmit a command encoding the determined security action to the remote device, where the remote device is further configured to execute the determined security action on the outgoing message prior to its transmission through the egress point.
In another embodiment, the at least one security rule is a data structure encoding a logical test whether a predetermined set of words are present within the outgoing message.
In yet another embodiment, the at least one security rule is a data structure encoding a logical test whether a subset of a predetermined set of words are present within the outgoing message, said subset being selected by utilizing a heuristic engine that applies a heuristic word selection rule.
In yet another embodiment, the heuristic selection rule includes one or more of:
skipping over a first word from the plurality of words when the first word matches a first stop word of a plurality of stop words;
skipping over a second word from the plurality of words when the second word has a word-length that is shorter than a first word-length of a shortest registered entity of the plurality of compressed registered entities; or skipping over a third word from the plurality of words when the third word has a word-length that is longer than a second word-length of the longest registered entity of the plurality of compressed registered entities.
In yet another embodiment, the local scanning component is further configured to convert a portion of the outgoing message into a canonical format prior to running the scan, wherein the canonical format causes the local scanning component to be impervious to differences in digital format and character encoding.
In yet another embodiment, the at least one locally stored security rule correspond to at least one corresponding entity words that are to be secured from unauthorized transmission.
In yet another embodiment, the security action includes one or more of:
preventing the portion of the outgoing message from being disclosed through the first egress point;
logging transmission of the portion of the outgoing message as a security violation;
requiring a password from a user to allow the portion of the outgoing message to be disclosed;
blocking access by a user who transmitted the portion of the outgoing message to a user of the remote device;
sending out a security alert; or integration of the portion of the outgoing message with rights management information.
In yet another embodiment, the local data scanning component is further configured to scan the outgoing message using the local security rules to identify at least one word of a predetermined set of words where the portion of the outgoing message transmitted to the central server is the set of at least one identified words; wherein the security component of the central server is further configured to reduce a possibility that the identified one or more matching candidate entities are false positives, and wherein the central server is further configured to automatically generate an acknowledgement message encoding whether each of the at least one words matches at least one corresponding security rule stored on the central server, transmit the acknowledgement message to the remote device; and wherein the remote device is further configured to perform the security action on the outgoing message before the outgoing message is transmitted through the egress point.
In yet another embodiment, the at least one security rule stored on the central server encodes a logical condition dependent on one or more of: an entity type associated with the portion; a location of the portion within a particular document; a data type associated with the portion or an origin information of a particular document.
In yet another embodiment, the security action includes one or more of:
preventing the portion from being transmitted through the first egress point;
logging transmission of the portion as a security violation;
requiring a password from a user to allow the portion to be disclosed;
blocking access by a user who transmitted the portion to a user of the remote device;
sending out a security alert; or
integration of the portion with rights management information.
In one embodiment, a lightweight entity database (LWED) 118 is provided locally at the site at which each of the protect agents is installed (e.g., the remote computer, for example, the user's desktop/laptop computer, smartphone, one of the network appliances, etc.). As will be explained in detail below, in one embodiment, the LWED is a compressed database that includes registered entities. An entity, as described herein, refers to an exact data word. A registration process scans the organization's digital information to extract entities (i.e., exact data words that need to be protected against unauthorized disclosure) and registers them in a database. The entities registered into such a database are referred to as “registered entities.” As will be described in detail below, the database may be a global database (GED), or an LWED (which is, for example, a compressed version of the GED).
In one embodiment, at least one redundant copy of the LWED is stored locally at the site of each protect agent 116 such that the protect agent can access or communicate with the LWED even when the protect agent is not connected to any network. For example, a protect agent 116 implemented on a user's laptop computer monitors the activity at all egress points of the user's laptop computer (e.g., 112, 113, 114, etc.) and prevents unauthorized disclosure of information from the laptop computer through the egress points, even if the laptop computer is not connected to any network (e.g., the organization's local network, the public Internet, etc.).
In one illustrative embodiment, the computer systems and all other systems representing egress points (the egress point systems) are centrally connected to a network 125. In one embodiment, the network includes a local network. This includes a network that is managed and maintained locally by the organization. In another embodiment, the network could also be the internet. In the case of the Internet, each of the egress point systems could be directly and individually connected to the internet, or could be connected to a local network or a cluster of local networks, with each of the local networks communicating with each other through the internet. Other combinations of the egress point systems within the local network and the internet are possible and such combinations will be apparent to a person of skill in the art.
In one embodiment where the egress point systems are connected to the network, one or more entity servers (e.g., 131, 132, 133, 134, 135) are connected to the network. The entity server (e.g., 131) is coupled to the GED (that holds the uncompressed version of the registered entities). In one example, each of the entity servers (131, 132, 133, 134, 135) is connected directly to the network. In another example, each of the entity servers (131, 132, 133, 134, 135) is connected to an entity server router 130.
The functions of the entity server router 130 may include, for example, routing requests from a protect agent 116 to the least busy entity server, collecting performance statistics of the entity servers (131, 132, 133, 134, 135) to determine the load on each entity server (such that a request from a protect agent can be routed to the least busy entity server, synchronization and version control of the GED at each entity server, etc.).
In one embodiment, the entity servers (131, 132, 133, 134, 135) could be located at different geographical locations (not shown in
In the case of the public internet, the entity servers (e.g., 131) function as hosted entity servers. A hosted entity server is publicly accessible over the internet. One advantage of using a hosted entity server is that an organization does not have to deploy and manage one or more server appliances within its networks (for the purpose of holding a GED). Some small organizations may not even have infrastructure to maintain a network and host an entity server, but may still require their secure information to be protected. In such cases, the support and manageability of the entity server can be done by even a third party provider that provides the service of a hosted entity server.
A provider offering a hosted registered entity service can also support multi-tenancy services, whereby the provider shares the hosted entity server's resources across different organizations. In one embodiment, this would allow GEDs for multiple organizations to reside on the same server.
It is emphasized that the network 125 and entity servers 140 depicted in
Now refer to
The processor(s) 1201 is/are the central processing unit (CPU) of egress point (e.g., 111) or the entity server (e.g., 131) and, thus, control the overall operation of the egress point (e.g., 111) or the entity server (e.g., 131). In certain embodiments, the processor(s) 1201 accomplish this by executing software or firmware stored in memory 1202. The processor(s) 1201 may be, or may include, one or more programmable general-purpose or special-purpose microprocessors, digital signal processors (DSPs), programmable controllers, application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), programmable logic devices (PLDs), trusted platform modules (TPMs), or the like, or a combination of such devices.
The memory 1202 is or includes the main memory of the egress point (e.g., 111) or the entity server (e.g., 131). The memory 1202 represents any form of random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), flash memory, or the like, or a combination of such devices. In use, the memory 1202 may contain, among other things, code 1207 embodying the protect agent 116.
Also connected to the processor(s) 1201 through the interconnect 1203 are a network adapter 1204 and a storage adapter 1205. The network adapter 1204 provides the egress point (e.g., 111) or the entity server (e.g., 131) with the ability to communicate with remote devices over the interconnect 1203 and may be, for example, an Ethernet adapter or Fiber Channel adapter.
Detailed information on how the protect agents at each egress point secure the entities from unauthorized disclosure is provided with reference to
In some instances, as indicated in step 205, the candidate entities are optionally normalized to a canonical format. This can be done by converting the candidate entities into one of several raw text formats (e.g., UTF-16 format). By doing this, the protect agent (at a later inspection stage) will be impervious to differences in character encodings, data formats, case folding, etc. in the candidate entities identified during the inspection stage.
The process 200 then proceeds to register the candidate entities within the LWED and/or the GED. At step 207, the process 200 registers the candidate entities into the LWED. Since the LWED is stored at each egress point, the overall size of the database is controlled using one or more techniques. In one embodiment, the candidate entities are converted to hash values before being registered into the LWED. One example of generating a value hash is to compute a hash based function over every character of a word and generating an integer value corresponding to that word. In another embodiment, the candidate entities are compressed by storing them in a data structure that supports membership query while introducing a small probability of false positives in the membership query. An example of such a data structure is a Bloom filter, where a large bit vector and multiple hash functions are used to determine whether a candidate entity being inspected may potentially be present in the LWED. The Bloom filter is implemented using a sequence of software instructions as indicated by an algorithm, and such software is physically stored at a physical memory location at the site of the protect agent. The implementation of the Bloom filter itself is widely known in the art and a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to reproduce the functions of a Bloom filter to generate the LWED as indicated in this embodiment.
The process 200 also optionally includes the generation of a GED which may be stored, for example, in a remote server (e.g., 131 of
The receiving module 302 is configured to receive the data a user desires to disclose through the egress point 110. This data includes, for example, digital text information. The candidate ID module 304 of the protect agent 116 receives the digital information, and identifies candidate entities from the digital information. Detailed information on identifying candidate entities is provided with reference to
The comparison module 306 receives the candidate entities from the candidate ID module 304 and compares the candidate entities with registered entities stored in an entity database. In some instances, the entity database is the LWED stored locally at the site of the egress point 110. The comparison module 206 detects the presence of candidate entities that match any of the registered entities. In some instances, the comparison module 306 directly supplies the list of matching entities to the security action module 310 for further action. In some instances, the comparison module 306 may communicate with a remote server (containing the GED) using a communication module 308 to compare the matching entities (received from the comparison against the LWED) against the registered entities stored in the GED. In this manner, the comparison module 306 can eliminate or at least reduce any false positives that may result from the comparison against the LWED. Additionally, by sending only those candidate entities identified as matching entities to the GED, the server holding the GED has to process only a limited number of candidate entities (as opposed to processing all the candidate entities identified in a textual information). This results in reduced latency time in receiving the final matching results from the GED server. Additionally, in such instances, the GED supplies the comparison module 306 with metadata information associated with the matching entities for further processing.
In some instances, the comparison module 306 may directly communicate with the remote server (i.e., the GED) in lieu of comparing the candidate entities with the LWED. In some instances, the comparison module 306 may utilize the entity type recorded by the candidate ID module 304 to compare the candidate entity only against a subset of registered entities (instead of the entire database of registered entities) that are tagged (e.g., according to their metadata information in the GED) under a similar entity type. This comparison, according to entity type of the candidate entity, further helps in reducing latency/processing time of the comparison process.
The results of the comparison are provided to the security action module 310, which proceeds to initiate an appropriate security action. In some instances, the security action module 310 utilizes metadata retrieved from, for example, the GED, to initiate various types of security actions. Examples of such security actions include preventing the information from being transmitted out through the associated egress point, sending out a security alert to a system administrator, revoking the user's access to the particular information, alerting the user of the security violation, etc. The security actions may also include integration with third party software to offer security solutions (e.g., integration with Microsoft Windows®. RMS to apply rights management to the information being disclosed). It is understood that these examples of security actions are provided for illustrative purposes only, and that other security actions known to people skilled in the art are equally applicable here.
At step 316, the process 300 looks up the candidate entities against registered entities in an entity database. As described above, the entity database may be an AWED and/or the GED. At 318, the process 300 determines whether the candidate entities match against one of the registered entities in the entity database. If the process 300 determines that at least one of the candidate entities matches against the registered entities, the process 300 proceeds to step 320 to perform a security action. As discussed above, the process 300 may use metadata information retrieved from the entity database to initiate appropriate security actions.
Step 408 represents identification scheme 2, where the process employs one or more heuristic rules to exclude or skip over non-entity words. In a first example, the heuristic rule may define stop words that can be skipped over. Examples of stop words include words that commonly occur in the language (e.g., prepositions, etc.), common words considered non-confidential by the organization (e.g., address information, disclaimer language included by default in patient admittance forms, etc.). In a second example, the heuristic rule may require any words shorter than the shortest word in the entity database (or longer than the longest word in the entity database) to be excluded from consideration as a candidate entity. Other similar heuristic rules, as appreciated by a person of ordinary skill in the art, can also be employed in implementing the identification scheme 2 described herein. As indicated in step 414, the words that are not excluded by the heuristic rule are submitted as candidate entities.
Step 410 represents identification scheme 3, where every word (e.g., every set of characters demarcated by one or more spaces) in the received textual information is treated as a candidate entity. It is understood that a person of ordinary skill in the art may combine one or more of these identification schemes, or add other identification schemes that are readily apparent to such a person, to improve the efficiency of the candidate entity identification process.
If the egress point is connected to the network, then the process 500 transmits the matching candidate entities to the remote server holding the GED. The GED server compares the received candidate entities against the registered entities in the GED. This allows the process 500 to eliminate or reduce the number of false positives that may have been identified by the comparison against LWED. Additionally, by sending only those candidate entities identified as matching entities to the GED, the GED server has to process only a limited number of candidate entities (as opposed to processing all the candidate entities identified in a textual information). This results in reduced latency time in receiving the final matching results from the GED server. Additionally, the GED server may also return metadata information associated with the matching candidate entities. The process 500 then proceeds to step 512 to initiate one or more security actions.
It is emphasized, however, that in some embodiments, the process 500 may operate by matching the candidate entities exclusively against the LWED (i.e., by initiating the security action subsequent to comparison of the candidate entities against the registered entities in the LWED). In other embodiments, the process 500 may operate by matching the candidate entities exclusively against the GED (i.e., by directly comparing the candidate entities against the GED instead of the LWED).
The techniques introduced above can be implemented by programmable circuitry programmed or configured by software and/or firmware, or entirely by special-purpose circuitry, or in a combination of such forms. Such special-purpose circuitry (if any) can be in the form of, for example, one or more application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), programmable logic devices (PLDs), field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), etc.
Software or firmware for implementing the techniques introduced here may be stored on a machine-readable storage medium and may be executed by one or more general-purpose or special-purpose programmable microprocessors. A “machine-readable medium”, as the term is used herein, includes any mechanism that can store information in a form accessible by a machine (a machine may be, for example, a computer, network device, cellular phone, personal digital assistant (PDA), manufacturing tool, any device with one or more processors, etc.). For example, a machine-accessible medium includes recordable/non-recordable media (e.g., read-only memory (ROM); random access memory (RAM); magnetic disk storage media; optical storage media; flash memory devices; etc.), etc.
The term “logic”, as used herein, can include, for example, special-purpose hardwired circuitry, software and/or firmware in conjunction with programmable circuitry, or a combination thereof.
Although the present invention has been described with reference to specific exemplary embodiments, it will be recognized that the invention is not limited to the embodiments described, but can be practiced with modification and alteration within the spirit and scope of the appended claims. Accordingly, the specification and drawings are to be regarded in an illustrative sense rather than a restrictive sense.
The application claims priority as a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/745,656 filed on Jun. 22, 2015, and as a continuation to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/621,429 filed on Nov. 18, 2009, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,092,636 which issued on Jul. 28, 2015, which is a non-provisional continuation of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/115,633, entitled, “METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR EXACT DATA MATCH FILTERING,” filed on Nov. 18, 2008, all of which are herein incorporated by reference in their entireties. This application is also related to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/177,043, entitled “METHODS AND SYSTEMS TO FINGERPRINT TEXTUAL INFORMATION USING WORD RUNS,” filed Jul. 21, 2008, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,286,171 on Oct. 9, 2012 and to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/209,082, entitled “METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PROTECT AGENTS USING DISTRIBUTED LIGHTWEIGHT FINGERPRINTS,” filed Sep. 11, 2008, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,555,080 on Oct. 8, 2013, both of which are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4479195 | Herr et al. | Oct 1984 | A |
4949300 | Christenson et al. | Aug 1990 | A |
5008853 | Bly et al. | Apr 1991 | A |
5072412 | Henderson, Jr. et al. | Dec 1991 | A |
5220657 | Bly et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
5245553 | Tanenbaum | Sep 1993 | A |
5247615 | Mori et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
5293619 | Dean | Mar 1994 | A |
5379374 | Ishizaki et al. | Jan 1995 | A |
5446842 | Schaeffer et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5608872 | Schwartz et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5617539 | Ludwig et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5619649 | Kovnat et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5634062 | Shimizu et al. | May 1997 | A |
5671428 | Muranaga et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5699427 | Chow et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
RE35861 | Queen | Jul 1998 | E |
5787175 | Carter | Jul 1998 | A |
5787444 | Gerken et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5801702 | Dolan et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5806078 | Hug et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5819300 | Kohno et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5832494 | Egger et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5890177 | Moody et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5897636 | Kaeser | Apr 1999 | A |
5898836 | Freivald et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
6003060 | Aznar et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6012087 | Freivald et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6029175 | Chow et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6038561 | Snyder | Mar 2000 | A |
6049804 | Burgess et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6067551 | Brown et al. | May 2000 | A |
6088702 | Plantz et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6128635 | Ikeno | Oct 2000 | A |
6145084 | Zuili et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6189019 | Blumer et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6212534 | Lo et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6219818 | Freivald et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6243091 | Berstis | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6263350 | Wollrath et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6263364 | Najork et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6269370 | Kirsch | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6285999 | Page | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6301368 | Bolle et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6317777 | Skarbo et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6321265 | Najork et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6327611 | Everingham | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6336123 | Inoue et al. | Jan 2002 | B2 |
6351755 | Najork et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6356937 | Montville et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6377984 | Najork et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6404446 | Bates et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6418433 | Chakrabarti et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6418453 | Kraft et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6424966 | Meyerzon et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6449624 | Hammack et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6505237 | Beyda et al. | Jan 2003 | B2 |
6513050 | Williams et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6547829 | Meyerzon et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6556982 | McGaffey et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6560620 | Ching | May 2003 | B1 |
6584466 | Serbinis et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6591289 | Britton | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6594662 | Sieffert et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6596030 | Ball et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6614789 | Yazdani et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6658626 | Aiken | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6662212 | Chandhok et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6738762 | Chen et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6745024 | DeJaco et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6832202 | Schuyler et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6918082 | Gross | Jul 2005 | B1 |
7035427 | Rhoads | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7085735 | Hall et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7107518 | Ramaley et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7113615 | Rhoads et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7152019 | Tarantola et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7181492 | Wen et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7194761 | Champagne | Mar 2007 | B1 |
7212955 | Kirshenbau et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7233686 | Hamid | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7240207 | Weare | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7299504 | Tiller et al. | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7321864 | Gendler | Jan 2008 | B1 |
7356704 | Rinkevich et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7434164 | Salesin et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7454778 | Pearson et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7496841 | Hadfield et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7564997 | Hamid | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7570964 | Maes | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7613770 | Li | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7624447 | Horowitz et al. | Nov 2009 | B1 |
7627613 | Dulitz et al. | Dec 2009 | B1 |
7640308 | Antonoff et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7673324 | Tirosh et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7680785 | Najork | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7685298 | Day | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7694336 | Rinkevich et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7707153 | Petito et al. | Apr 2010 | B1 |
7720256 | Desprez et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7730175 | Roesch et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7788235 | Yeo | Aug 2010 | B1 |
7796309 | Sadovsky et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7797724 | Calvin | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7818678 | Massand | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7844116 | Monga | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7857201 | Silverbrook et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7877790 | Vishik et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7890752 | Bardsley et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7895166 | Foygel et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7903822 | Hair et al. | Mar 2011 | B1 |
7941844 | Anno | May 2011 | B2 |
7958101 | Teugels et al. | Jun 2011 | B1 |
8005277 | Tulyakov et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8042112 | Zhu et al. | Oct 2011 | B1 |
8117225 | Zilka | Feb 2012 | B1 |
8145724 | Hawks et al. | Mar 2012 | B1 |
8181036 | Nachenberg | May 2012 | B1 |
8196030 | Wang et al. | Jun 2012 | B1 |
8201254 | Wilhelm et al. | Jun 2012 | B1 |
8209538 | Craigie | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8233723 | Sundaresan | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8286085 | Denise | Oct 2012 | B1 |
8286171 | More et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8301994 | Shah | Oct 2012 | B1 |
8316237 | Felsher et al. | Nov 2012 | B1 |
8406456 | More | Mar 2013 | B2 |
8473847 | Glover | Jun 2013 | B2 |
8478995 | Alculumbre | Jul 2013 | B2 |
8555080 | More et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8572388 | Boemker et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8620872 | Killalea | Dec 2013 | B1 |
8635295 | Mulder | Jan 2014 | B2 |
8732127 | Rotterdam et al. | May 2014 | B1 |
8776190 | Cavage et al. | Jul 2014 | B1 |
8797603 | Dougherty et al. | Aug 2014 | B1 |
8839100 | Donald | Sep 2014 | B1 |
9092636 | More et al. | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9098500 | Asokan et al. | Aug 2015 | B1 |
9311624 | Diament et al. | Apr 2016 | B2 |
9342621 | Raphel | May 2016 | B1 |
9652485 | Bhargava et al. | May 2017 | B1 |
20010018739 | Anderson et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010042073 | Saether et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020010682 | Johnson | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020016959 | Barton et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020019827 | Shiman et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020023158 | Polizzi et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020052928 | Stern et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020063154 | Hoyos et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020065827 | Christie et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020065848 | Walker et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020073188 | Rawson, III | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020087515 | Swannack et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020099602 | Moskowitz et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020120648 | Ball et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020129062 | Luparello | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020136222 | Robohm | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020138744 | Schleicher et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020159239 | Amie et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020164058 | Aggarwal | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030009518 | Harrow et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030009528 | Sharif et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030037010 | Schmelzer | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030046572 | Newman et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030051054 | Redlich et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030061260 | Rajkumar | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030061350 | Masuoka et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030078880 | Alley et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030084279 | Campagna | May 2003 | A1 |
20030093755 | O'Carroll | May 2003 | A1 |
20030097454 | Yamakawa et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030112273 | Hadfield | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030115273 | Delia et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030131005 | Berry | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030147267 | Huttunen | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030158839 | Faybishenko et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030191799 | Araujo et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030196087 | Stringer et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030223624 | Hamid | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030233419 | Beringer | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030237047 | Borson | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040002049 | Beavers et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040031052 | Wannamaker et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040122659 | Hourihane et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040128321 | Hamer | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040148567 | Jeon et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040186851 | Jhingan et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040187076 | Ki | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040225645 | Rowney | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040261016 | Glass et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050021980 | Kanai | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050038893 | Graham | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050055306 | Miller et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050055337 | Bebo et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050071755 | Harrington et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050108293 | Lipman et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050138350 | Hariharan | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050138540 | Baltus et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050204008 | Shinbrood | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050251738 | Hirano et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050251748 | Gusmorino et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050256893 | Perry | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050268327 | Starikov | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050278421 | Simpson et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060005247 | Zhang | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060013393 | Ferchichi et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060021031 | Leahy et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060047765 | Mizoi et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060050937 | Hamid | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060059196 | Sato et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060064717 | Shibata et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060067578 | Fuse | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060069740 | Ando | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060098850 | Hamid | May 2006 | A1 |
20060112120 | Rohall | May 2006 | A1 |
20060129627 | Phillips | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060158676 | Hamada | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060171588 | Chellapilla et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060184505 | Kedem | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060190493 | Kawai et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060218004 | Dworkin et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060218643 | DeYoung | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060224589 | Rowney | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060236246 | Bono et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060253445 | Huang | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060261112 | Todd et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060271947 | Lienhart et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060272024 | Huang | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060277229 | Yoshida et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060294468 | Sareen et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060294469 | Sareen et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070005589 | Gollapudi | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070011211 | Reeves et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070025265 | Porras et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070027830 | Simons et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070038704 | Brown et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070094510 | Ross et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070100991 | Daniels et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070101154 | Bardsley et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070101413 | Vishik et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070112930 | Foo et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070150443 | Bergholz et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070179967 | Zhang | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070192728 | Finley et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070220061 | Tirosh | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070220068 | Thompson et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070253608 | Tulyakov et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070261099 | Broussard et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070261112 | Todd et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070294318 | Arora et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070294612 | Drucker et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070299880 | Kawabe et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080022003 | Alve | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080028017 | Garbow et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080033913 | Winburn | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080034282 | Zernik | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080034327 | Cisler et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080065668 | Spence et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080080515 | Tombroff et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080082529 | Mantena et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080091465 | Fuschino et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080091735 | Fukushima et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080162527 | Pizano et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080177782 | Poston et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080209001 | Boyle et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080215667 | Rothbarth et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080219495 | Hulten et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080235760 | Broussard et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080263363 | Jueneman et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080275694 | Varone | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080288597 | Christensen et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080301193 | Massand | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080306894 | Rajkumar et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080310624 | Celikkan | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080320316 | Waldspurger et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090025087 | Peirson et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090030997 | Malik | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090034804 | Cho et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090049132 | Gutovski | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090052778 | Edgecomb et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090064326 | Goldstein | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090083073 | Mehta et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090083384 | Bhogal et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090129002 | Wu et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090164427 | Shields et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090177754 | Brezina et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090178137 | Branson | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090183257 | Prahalad | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090187567 | Rolle | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090216843 | Willner et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090222450 | Zigelman | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090234863 | Evans | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090241187 | Troyansky | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090271620 | Sudhakar | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090319480 | Saito | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100011077 | Shkolnikov et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100011428 | Atwood et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100017404 | Banerjee et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100017850 | More et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100049807 | Thompson | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100058053 | Wood et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100064004 | Ravi et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100064372 | More et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100070448 | Omoigui | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100076985 | Egnor | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100083230 | Ramakrishnan | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100114985 | Chaudhary et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100114991 | Chaudhary et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100131604 | Portilla | May 2010 | A1 |
20100146382 | Abe et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100174678 | Massand | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100174761 | Longobardi et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100186062 | Banti et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100217987 | Shevade | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100235763 | Massand | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100241943 | Massand | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100257352 | Errico | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100274765 | Murphy et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100287246 | Klos et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100299727 | More et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100318530 | Massand | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20100332428 | McHenry et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110029625 | Cheng et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110035655 | Heineken | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110041165 | Bowen | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110106892 | Nelson et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110107106 | Morii et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110125806 | Park | May 2011 | A1 |
20110141521 | Qiao | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110145229 | Vailaya et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110197121 | Kletter | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110225646 | Crawford | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110252098 | Kumar | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110252310 | Rahaman et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110264907 | Betz et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110314384 | Lindgren et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120011361 | Guerrero et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120016867 | Clemm et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120030563 | Lemonik et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120036157 | Rolle | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120079267 | Lee | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120079596 | Thomas et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120110092 | Keohane et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120117096 | Massand | May 2012 | A1 |
20120117644 | Soeder | May 2012 | A1 |
20120131635 | Huapaya | May 2012 | A1 |
20120133989 | Glover | May 2012 | A1 |
20120136862 | Glover | May 2012 | A1 |
20120136951 | Mulder | May 2012 | A1 |
20120151316 | Massand | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120173881 | Trotter | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120185511 | Mansfield et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120246115 | King et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120260188 | Park et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120265817 | Vidalenc et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120317239 | Mulder | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130007070 | Pitschke | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130060799 | Massand | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130074195 | Johnston et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130097421 | Lim | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130212707 | Donahue et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130227043 | Murakami | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130227397 | Tvorun et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20140032489 | Hebbar et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140115436 | Beaver et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140136497 | Georgiev et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140181223 | Homsany et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140280336 | Glover | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140281872 | Glover | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20150026464 | Hanner et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150172058 | Follis | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20160350270 | Nakazawa | Dec 2016 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
10177650 | Jun 1998 | JP |
2004265267 | Sep 2004 | JP |
2007299364 | Nov 2007 | JP |
1020010078840 | Aug 2001 | KR |
20040047413 | Jun 2004 | KR |
1020040047413 | Jun 2004 | KR |
1020060048686 | May 2006 | KR |
0049518 | May 2007 | KR |
200070049518 | May 2007 | KR |
102008002960 | Apr 2008 | KR |
1020080029602 | Apr 2008 | KR |
WO0060504 | Oct 2000 | WO |
2001052473 | Jul 2001 | WO |
2002101577 | Dec 2002 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Final Office Action dated Apr. 16, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,043, filed Jul. 21, 2008. |
Final Office Action dated Apr. 17, 2007 for U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010 filed Dec. 17, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,496,841. |
Final Office Action dated Apr. 17, 2007 for U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 7, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,496,841. |
Final Office Action dated Apr. 17, 2007 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,496,841 |
Final Office Action dated Aug. 12, 2011 for U.S. Appl. No. 12/209,096, filed Sep. 11, 2008. |
Final Office Action dated Aug. 12, 2011 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/209,096, filed Sep. 11, 2008. |
Final Office Action dated Aug. 16, 2013 in co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/306,798 of Glover, R.W., filed Nov. 29, 2011. |
Final Office Action dated Feb. 1, 2013 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/621,429 of More, S., filed Nov. 18, 2009. |
Final Office Action dated Jan. 18, 2013 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/844,818 by Glover, R., filed Jul. 27, 2010. |
Final Office Action dated Jan. 18, 2013 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/844,818 of Glover, R., filed Jul. 27, 2010. |
Final Office Action dated May 10, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/209,082, filed Sep. 11, 2008. |
Final Office Action dated May 10, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/209,082. |
Final Office Action dated Oct. 21, 2013, in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/659,793 by More, S., filed Oct. 24, 2012. |
International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/IB2002/005821, dated Jan. 30, 2004, 6 pages. |
International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/2009/064919, dated Jul. 1, 2010, 3 pages. |
International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/IB2002/005821, dated Jan. 3, 2004, 6 pages. |
International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/051313, dated Mar. 3, 2010, 3 pages. |
International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/056651, dated Apr. 21, 2010, pp. 1-3. |
International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/056668 dated Apr. 16, 2010, pp. 1-9. |
International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/056668, dated Apr. 16, 2010, 9 pages. |
International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/064919 dated Jul. 1, 2010, pp. 1-3. |
International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/065019 dated Jun. 4, 2010, pp. 1-6. |
International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/065019, Jun. 4, 2010, 6 pages. |
International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/US2010/043345, Apr. 28, 2011, 3 pages. |
International Search Report PCT/US2010/043345 dated Apr. 28, 2011, 3 pages. |
Jamison, Scott. Essential SharePoint 2010: Overview, Governance, and Planning. Addison-Wesley Professional; 1 edition (Aug. 22, 2010). |
Kamouskos et al., Active Electronic Mail, 2002, ACM 6 pages. |
Kaushik et al., Email Feedback: A Policy based Approach to Overcoming False Positives, 2005, 10 pages. |
Lightfoot, Johnathan and Beckett, Chris. Plain & Simple Microsoft® SharePoint® 2010. O'Reilly Media, Inc. Copyright © 2010. |
Londer, Olga and Coventry, Penelope. Step by Step Microsoft® SharePoint® Foundation 2010. Microsoft Press. ISBN: 978-0-7356-2726-0. Copyright © 2011. |
M. Eric Johnson et al., The Evolution of the Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Industry and the Security Risks for Users, Jan. 7-10, 2008, IEEE, pp. 1-10. |
Mango, “Robust Perceptual Image Hashing Using Feature Points,” http://bluecoat-02/?cfru=aHR0cDovL3NpZ25hbC51Y2UudXRIeGFzLmVkdS9+dmlzaGFs- L2hhc2gtcGFydEkucHM=, 2003. |
Mango, “Robust Perceptual Image Hashing Using Feature Points,” http://bluecoat-02/?cfru=aHR0cDovL3NpZ25hbC51Y2UudXRIeGFzLmVkdS9+dmlzaGFs- L2hhcgtcGFydEkucHM=, 2003. |
Mango, et al., “Perceptual Image Hashing via Feature Points: Performance Evaluation and Tradeoffs,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 15, No. 11, Nov. 2006. |
Mango, Robust Perceptual Image Hashing Using Feature Points, http://bluecoat-02/?cfru=aHR0cDovL3NpZ25hbC5lY2UudXRIeGFzLmVkdS9+dmizaGFs- L2hhc2gtcGFydEkucHM=, 2003. |
Jain, Pravin. The class of JAVA. Aug. 12, 2010. |
Microsoft SharePoint 2010 SDK: Building Block: Files and Documents, msn.microsoft.com (Nov. 1, 2010), https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/ee538269(v=office.14).aspx, (last visited Feb. 27, 2017). |
Microsoft SharePoint 2010 SDK: How to: Upload a File to a SharePoint Site from a Local Folders, msn.microsoft.com (Jul. 7, 2010), https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/ms454491(v=office.14).aspx, (last visited Feb. 27, 2017). |
Microsoft SharePoint 2010 White Paper , Microsoft.com, www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?familyid=5c562f71-3aa9-46fd-abac-7d381813f2b8 (Sep. 2010), www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=5c562f71-3aa9-46fd-abac-7d381813f2b8 (last visited Feb 27, 2017). |
Microsoft, “Microsoft XP, Product Guide”, pp. 1-26, 2001. |
Microsoft, “Microsoft XP, Product Guide”, pp. 1-26. |
Monga, “Robust Perceptual Image Hashing Using Feature Points,” http://bluecoat-02/?cfru=aHR0cDovL3NpZ25hbC51Y2UudXRIeGFzLmVkdS9+dmlzaGFs- L2hhc2gtcGFydEkucHM=, 2003. |
Monga, “Robust Perceptual Image Hashing using Feature Points,” http://bluecoat-02/?cfru=aHR0cDovL3NpZ25hbC51Y2UudXRIeGFzLmVkdS9+dmlzaGFs- L2hhc2gteGFydEkucHM=, 2003. |
Monga, “Robust Perceptual Image Hashing Using Feature Points,” http://bluecoat-02/?cfru=aHROcDovL3NpZ25hbC51Y2UudXRIeGFzLmVkdS9+dmlzaGFs- L2hhc2gtcGFydEkucHM=, 2003. |
Monga, et al., “Perceptual Image Hashing Via Feature Points: Performance Evaluation and Tradeoffs,” IEEE Tranactions on Image Processing, vol. 15, No. 11, Nov. 2006. |
Monga, et al., “Perceptual Image Hashing Via Feature Points: Performance Evaluation and Tradeoffs,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 15, No. 11, Nov. 2006. |
Monga, V. et al., Perceptual image hashing via feature points: performance evaluation and tradeoffs IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 15 (11) (2006), pp. 3453-3466. |
Nathaniel S. Good et al., Usability and privacy: a study of KaZaA P2P file-sharing, Apr. 5-10, 2003, ACM, vol. No. 5, Issue No. 1, pp. 137-144. |
Non-Final Office Action Apr. 27, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/275,185, filed Nov. 20, 2008. |
Non-final office action issued for U.S. Appl. No. 13/799,067 dated Oct. 30, 2014. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 26, 2013 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/659,817 by More, S., filed Oct. 24, 2012. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 26, 2013 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/659,817 of More, S., filed Oct. 24, 2012. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 27, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/275,185 of More, S., filed Nov. 20, 2008. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 27, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/275,185, filed Nov. 20, 2008. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Aug. 1, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/621,429, filed Nov. 18, 2009. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Aug. 1, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/621,429 of More, S., filed Nov. 18, 2009. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Aug. 13, 2013 in co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/306,819 by Glover, R.W., filed Nov. 29, 2011. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Dec. 22, 2011 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/209,082. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Dec. 6, 2012 in co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/306,798, filed Nov. 29, 2011. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Jan. 9, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,043, filed Jul. 21, 2008. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 11, 2011 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/209,096, filed Sep. 11, 2008. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 16, 2006 for U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,496,841. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 16, 2006 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,496,841. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 18, 2013 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/659,793 by More, S., filed Oct. 24, 2012. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 18, 2013 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/659,793 of More, S., filed Oct. 24, 2012. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 20, 2006 in Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 10/136,733 filed Apr. 30, 2002. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 20, 2006 in U.S. Appl. No. 10/136,733, filed Apr. 30, 2002. |
Non-Final Office Action dated May 17, 2013 in co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/306,765 by Mulder, S. P. M, filed Nov. 29, 2011. |
Non-Final Office Action dated May 7, 2008 in Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001. |
Non-Final Office Action dated May 7, 2008 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,496,841. |
“3BClean”. |
“EzClean—Metadata removal utility for Microsoft Office”. |
“MIMEsweeper Solutions”. |
“CS MAILsweeper™ 4.3 for SMTP” by Clearswift Ltd (© 2002). |
“EzClean—New Features—version 3.3”. |
“EzClean 3.2—New Features”. |
“EzClean FAQ”. |
“How do I make sure that there is no embarrassing Metadata in any documents that I attach to e-mails? ezClean makes it easy!” |
“Lotus Announces cc:Mail for The World Wide Web; Provides EasyAccess to E-Mail Via the Web”. |
“Middleboxes: Taxonomy and Issues,” Internet Engineering TaskForce (IETF), RFC 3234 (Feb. 2002). |
“MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions): Mechanisms forSpecifying and Describing the Format of Internet Message Bodies,” Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), RFC 1341 (Jun. 1992). |
“Think Your Deletions are Gone Forever? Think Again! ezClean Makes Metadata Removal Easy!” |
3B Clean: What is the Problem? 3B is the solution. |
3B Transform from 2005. |
3BOpen Doc Making StarOffice and OpenOftice.org a viable option. |
3BOpenDoc—Convert documents to and from OSF. |
Advisory Action dated Apr. 12, 2013, in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/621,429 by More, S., filed Nov. 18, 2009. |
Advisory Action dated Apr. 12, 2013, in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/621,429 of More, S., filed Nov. 18, 2009. |
Advisory Action dated Nov. 1, 2013, in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/659,793 by More, S., filed Oct. 24, 2012. |
Bettenburg et al., An Empirical Study on the Risks of Using Off-the-Shelf Techniques for Processing Mailing List Data, 2009, IEEE 4 pages. |
Bindu et al., Spam War: Battling Ham against Spam, 2011 IEEE 6 pages. |
Bitform Extract SDK 2005.1. |
Bobba et al. Attribute-Based Messaging: Access Control and Confidentiality, 2010, ACM 35 pages. |
Cawood, Stephen. How to Do Everything™ Microsoft® SharePoint® 2010. McGraw-Hill, 2010. ISBN 978-0-07-174367-9 (pbk). Copyright © 2010. |
Chen et al., Online Detection and Prevention of Phishing Attacks, 2006, IEEE 7 pages. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 10/136,733, filed Apr. 30, 2002. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,043, filed Jul. 21, 2008. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/209,082, filed Sep. 11, 2008. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/209,096, filed Sep. 11, 2008. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/275,185, filed Nov. 20, 2008. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/621,429, filed Nov. 18, 2009. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/1844,818, filed Jul. 27, 2010. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/844,818, filed Jul. 27, 2010. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/306,765, filed Nov. 29, 2011. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/306,798, filed Nov. 29, 2011. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/306,819, filed Nov. 29, 2011. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/620,364, filed Sep. 14, 2012. |
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/659,793, filed Oct. 24, 2012. |
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/659,817, filed Oct. 24, 2012. |
Dominik Grolimund et al., Cryptree: A Folder Tree Structure for Cryptographic File Systems, Oct. 2-4, 2006, IEEE, pp. 189-198. |
EZclean version 3.3 Installation Guide and Admin Manual. |
EzClean version 3.3 Integration Guide for use with CS MailSweeper for SMTP. |
Stolfo et al., AMT?MET: Systems for Modeling and Detecting Errant Email. 2003, IEEE 6 pages. |
Sujoy Roy, et al., “Robust Hash for Detecting and Localizing Image Tampering,” Image Processing, 2007, ICIP 2007, IEEE International Conference on, vol. 6, No., pp. V1-117-V1-120, Sep. 16, 2007-Oct. 19, 2007. |
Sujoy Roy; Qibin Sun; , “Robust Hash for Detecting and Localizing Image Tampering,” Image Processing, 2007. ICIP 2007. IEEE International Conference on , vol. 6, No., pp. VI-117-VI-120, Sep. 16, 2007-Oct. 19, 2007. |
Tsai, et al., “A document Workspace for Collaboration and Annotation based on XML Technology”, Department of Electrical Engineering, 2001, pp. 165-172. |
Tsai, et al., “A Document Workspace for Collaboration and Annotation based on XML Technology”, IEEE, 2000, pp. 165-172. |
Tuklakov, et al., “Symmetric Hash Functions for Fingerprint Minutiae,” International Workshop on Pattern Recognition for Crime Prevention, Security and Surveillance, Bath U.K., Oct. 2, 2005, pp. 30-38. |
Tulyakov et al, Symmetric Hash Functions for Fingerprint Minutiae, ICAPR 2005, LNCS 3687, pp. 30-38, 2005. |
Tulyakov et al. “Symmetric Hash Functions for Fingerprint Minutiae.” International Workshop on Patter Recognition for Crime Prevention, Security and Surveillance, Bath U.K., Oct. 2, 2005, pp. 30-38. |
Tulyakov, et al., “Symmetric Hash Functions for Fingerprint Minutiae,” International Workshop on Pattern Recognition for Crime Prevention, Security and Surveillance, Bath U.K., Oct. 2, 2005, pp. 30-38. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/789,104, filed Mar. 7, 2013, Gofman. |
User Permissions and Permission Levels (SharePoint Foundation 2010)(technet.microsoft.com) (Jan. 4, 2011), https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc288074(v=office.14).aspx (last visited Feb. 27, 2017). |
V Monga, B.L. Evans Perceptual image hashing via feature points: performance evaluation and tradeoffs IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 15 (11) (2006), pp. 3453-3466. |
Weiss et al., Lightweight document matching for help-desk applications, In: Intelligent Systems and their Applications, IEEE, Vo. 15, Issue:2, pp. 57-61, ISSN 1094-7167, 2000. |
Wells et al., “Groupware & Collaboration Support”, www.objs.com/survey/groupwar.htm, Aug. 30, 2001, 10 pages. |
Written Opinion of PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/051313, dated Mar. 3, 2010, 3 pages. |
Written Opinion of PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/051313, dated Mar. 3, 2010, 4 pages. |
Written Opinion PCT Application No. PCT/2009/064919, dated Jul. 1, 2010, 4 pages. |
Written Opinion PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/056651, dated Apr. 21, 2010, pp. 1-5. |
Written Opinion PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/056668 dated Apr. 16, 2010 pp. 1-4. |
Written Opinion PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/056668, dated Apr. 16, 2010, 4 pages |
Written Opinion PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/064919 dated Jul. 1, 2010, pp. 1-4 pages. |
Written Opinion PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/064919 dated Jul. 1, 2010, pp. 1-4. |
Written Opinion PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/065019 dated Jun. 4, 2010, p. 1-5. |
Written Opinion PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/065019 dated Jun. 4, 2010, pp. 1-5. |
Written Opinion PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/065019, dated Jun. 4, 2010, 5 pages. |
Written Opinion PCT Application No. PCT/US2010/043345 dated Apr. 28, 2011, 4 pages. |
Written Opinion PCT/US2009/056651 dated Apr. 21, 2010, pp. 1-5. |
XP-002257904, “Workshare Debuts Synergy”, 2003, 3 pages. |
Xuefeng Liang; et al., “Fingerprint Matching Using Minutia Polygons,” Pattern Recognition, 2006, ICPR 2006, 18th International Conference on, vol. 1, No., pp. 1046-1049. |
Xuefeng Liang; et al., “Fingerprint Matching Using Minutia Polygons,” Pattern Recognition, 2006, ICPR 2006, 18th International Confernce on, vol. 1, No., pp. 1046-1049. |
Xuefeng Liang; Tetsuo Asano; , “Fingerprint Matching Using Minutia Polygons,” Pattern Recognition, 2006. ICPR 2006. 18th International Conference on , vol. 1, No., pp. 1046-1049. |
Yung et al, Generating Robust Digital Signature for Image/Video Authentication, Multimedia and Security Workshop at ACM Multimedia '98, Bristol, U.K., Sep. 1998. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Sep. 19, 2011 for U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,043, filed Jul. 21, 2008. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Sep. 19, 2011 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,043, filed Jul. 21, 2008. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Sep. 19, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/844,818 by Glover, R., filed Jul. 27, 2010. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Sep. 19, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/844,818 of Glover, R., filed Jul. 27, 2010. |
Notice of Allowance dated Aug. 19, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,043, filed Jul. 21, 2008. |
Notice of Allowance dated Jul. 8, 2013 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/209,082 by S. More et al., filed Sep. 11, 2008. |
Notice of Allowance dated Jun. 26, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/275,185, filed Nov. 20, 2008. |
Notice of Allowance dated Mar. 13, 2013 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/844,818 by Glover, R., filed Jul. 27, 2010. |
Notice of Allowance dated Mar. 13, 2013 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/844,818 of Glover, R., filed Jul. 27, 2010. |
Notice of Allowance dated Oct. 2, 2012, in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/275,185 by More, S., filed Nov. 20, 2008. |
Notice of Allowance dated Oct. 2, 2012, in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/275,185 of More, S., filed Nov. 20, 2008. |
Notice of Allowance dated Oct. 24, 2008 in Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001. |
Notice of Allowance dated Oct. 24, 2008 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,496,841. |
Notice of Allowance dated Sep. 25, 2013, in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/659,817 by More, S., filed Oct. 24, 2012. |
Office Web Apps Overview (Installed on SharePoint 2010 Products), Technet.Microsoft.com (Jun. 11, 2010), https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff431685(v=office.14).aspx, (last visited Feb. 27, 2017). |
Pattison,Ted et al. Inside Microsoft® SharePoint® 2010. Critical Path Training, LLC © 2011. |
PC Magazine “Pure Intranets: Real-Time Internet Collaboration”, Aug. 30, 2001. |
PC Magazine “Pure Intranets: Real-Time Internet Collaboration”, http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/featuresgroupware/gpwst.htm, Aug. 30, 2001, 2 pages. |
Restriction Requirement Jun. 30, 2006 for U.S. Appl. No. 10/136,733, filed Apr. 30, 2002. |
Restriction Requirement dated Feb. 14, 2005 for U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,496,841. |
Restriction Requirement dated Feb. 14, 2005 in U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,496,841. |
Restriction Requirement dated Feb. 5, 2008 for U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,496,841. |
Restriction Requirement dated Feb. 5, 2008 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,496,841. |
Restriction Requirement dated Jun. 30, 2006 for U.S. Appl. No. 10/136,733, filed Apr. 30, 2002. |
Restriction Requirement dated Jun. 30, 2006 in U.S. Appl. No. 10/136,733, filed Apr. 30, 2002. |
Roussev, et al., “Integrating XML and Object-based Programming for Distributed Collaboration”, IEEE, 2000, pp. 254-259. |
Sahil Malik. Microsoft SharePoint 2010: Building Solutions for SharePoint 2010 . Apress; 1st ed. edition (Jun. 7, 2010). |
Silver, Michael A.; MacDonald, Neil. Plan to Deal with Metadata Issues with Windows Vista. Gartner, Inc.. Dec. 21, 2005.ID No. G00136321. |
Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, Internet Engineering Task Force(IETF), RFC 821 (Aug. 1982). |
Stephen Voida et al., Share and Share Alike: Exploring the User Interface Affordances of File Sharing, Apr. 22-27, 2006, ACM, pp. 1-10. |
Workshare Ltd. Workshare Protect 4.5 Admin Guide, (c) 2006. |
Classification Definitions Class 715, Data Processing: Presentation Processing of Document, Operator Interface Processing, and Screen Saver Display Processing; Feb. 2011; USPTO.gov, pp. 1-33. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20180196953 A1 | Jul 2018 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61115633 | Nov 2008 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 14745656 | Jun 2015 | US |
Child | 15886376 | US | |
Parent | 12621429 | Nov 2009 | US |
Child | 14745656 | US |