The present invention relates to a system and method for measuring and/or analysing usage of resources. More particularly the present invention relates to measuring and/or analysing usage of resources on a network using data sources retrieved from actions performed by users of the resources, such measurement and/or analysis providing information about resources that do not have available statistics, (such as site centric measurements) and combining them with site centric data to create a more accurate whole of market picture or components thereof.
In the light of high penetration of Internet use and the rapid growth of the on-line industry, there has become a need for an accurate and independent Internet site rating service. Such a service should provide on-line industry users and organisations and other interested parties with a precise vehicle with which to assess vital Internet site traffic dynamics. For example, it would be advantageous for such users and organisations to have an accurate picture of the information that Internet users were viewing on and interacting with particular websites, as well as the range of sites that target markets were visiting, the advertisements being viewed and how particular sites compared statistically with competitor sites. This type of commercial information is invaluable to those in the on-line industry wishing to properly target their markets and also focus their on-line presence.
Furthermore, to date there has been no product or service for the on-line industry users and organisations that provides a total market rating system that uses site centric measurements, such as proxy and server log files, browser based measurements, and user centric measurements, such as panel data and sample survey data. Furthermore, site and user centric measurements have not been used to collect data relating statistics pertaining to, for example, a website that has no site centric measurement data available. By providing the sites with such information it provides a more accurate picture about the Internet population and which sites the population use or visit regardless of whether the site centric measurements are available or not for a particular site.
A syndicated multi media marketing data base has been used in Australia which integrates consumer demographics, product usage and media consumption for value-added marketing and media solutions. The data base enables advertising planners, buyers and users to target their advertising campaigns and to plan and evaluate integrated media campaigns based on the only official buying and selling currencies for mainstream Australian media. The data base utilises the strengths of the media industries most widely used research tools such as TV ratings data, radio ratings data, readership surveys and service usage questionnaires. Each reporting period the operator of this data base uses a combination of data to integrate TV viewing data, updated each period, at the program level into a respondent single source data set which may comprise up to say 40,000 respondents. This method is used as a more integrated method of producing data sets capable of cross-referencing television with other media and consumption variables. This approach allows viewing information from the audited television ratings to be analysed against usage, consumption and other media information. The television data base is refreshed periodically so that the most current television program data is available with ratings consistent with the operator of the data base.
The abovementioned system does not allow the “fusion” of one data source created from measuring interactions of a sample of users in relation to their use of the resources, for example use of the internet, and a further source of data pertaining to interactions provided by all users of the resource, measured from for example a website, or viewers of a program measured by a television station to obtain accurate estimates of traffic densities at for example a particular website or television program where the particular website or television station does not have the further source available.
Known measurement techniques include that of a server log file analysis. In this method a log file is kept on the server of all record files requested, IP addresses of those visiting the site as well as successful downloading of all resources delivered from the site server. This method, however is not necessarily an accurate indication of resources used and/or viewed on the site, due to the method not being able to account for resources that are subsequently stored in proxy server caches or browser caches and are re-viewed. For example popular web pages may be stored on various Internet Service Providers (ISPs) proxy servers around the world, so that the ISPs do not need to directly access a popular site every time a user requests access to that site. The ISP simply provides access to their stored version of the site. This enables the ISPs to provide a more efficient service, but results in a less accurate measurement service due to the inability to monitor caches.
Similarly, once a site is accessed, site resources are saved in the user's browser cache, while in use. While the server log file analysis may have recorded data relating to the accessed resources at the time they were accessed, if the user then returns to one or more pages, such as by hitting the “back” button on their browser, then the resource being returned to is typically accessed from their browser cache, so that once again this page request is not recorded by the server log file.
Another method used by some organisations is the so-called browser based measurement approach. In this method, software monitors site resources as they are viewed within a browser. This software monitors the user's actions when accessing the Internet. While this approach does not suffer the accuracy problems of server log file analysis, a problem that does exist with this approach is that for a complete market analysis all sites need to be willing to agree to install the measurement code on every site page. In practice, it has proven quite difficult to obtain cooperation with all sites.
In another method, also used by some organisations, Internet users are recruited and their individual usage of the Internet is monitored to be used in statistical analysis. Usage is monitored by installing hardware and/or software on the user's computer. This hardware or software is not transparent for the user and is often quite onerous, requiring the user to log the software on each time they use it.
An example of this method is provided in U.S. Pat. No. 5,675,510, where personal computer use is measured through the use of a hardware box physically located on the user's computer. This hardware records log files of Internet access by the user. This process is expensive due to the hardware costs, installation costs and maintenance and support costs. Furthermore, the process is quite obtrusive, as the users are very conscious of the tracking as they see the box every time they use their PC. Furthermore, the process does not track access of monitored users where for example, a monitored user accesses the internet at a location other than at the user's home or work. Examples of location that are not monitored are cyber cafés, educational facilities, friend's homes, etc.
There is considered to be a need for an alternative measurement approach that provides accurate results and also has improved transparency for the user.
According to a first aspect of the invention there is provided a method of measuring and analysing multiple data sources over a communications network in order to ascertain information about the use of one or more resources linked to said communications network, said method comprising the steps of:
The combining step may include one or more of displaying, aggregating, transforming, calibrating or formatting said single data source via a reporting server means through said communications network.
According to a second aspect of the invention there is provided a system for measuring and analysing multiple data sources over a communications network in order to ascertain information about the use of one or more resources linked to said communications network, said system comprising:
According to a third aspect of the invention there is provided a system for measuring and analysing multiple data sources over a communication network in order to ascertain information about the use of one or more resources linked to said communications network, said system comprising:
According to a fourth aspect of the invention there is provided a network enabling internet access by a user computer, characterised in that a connection means on the user computer may be set to enable connection between a proxy server and the user computer such that the proxy server is communicably coupled between the connection means on the user computer and any internet site servers in order to monitor the internet usage of the user.
In this regard, the expression “connection means” is taken to refer to the means by which a user is provided with internet access, such as an internet browser. Additionally, the user computer may be any means capable of receiving and displaying information from the internet, such as a set-top internet terminal.
According to a fifth aspect of the invention, there is provided a method of enabling research in a communications network having at least one user computer with an internet browser, the method comprising the step of:
Therefore, by making a small change to the setting of a user's connection means/network browser at only one point in time, it is possible to analyse the user's network usage, without the need for installing any software, impacting on user time or diverting their attention. This method also is able to overcome the measurement problems pertaining to resources stored in caches.
According to a sixth aspect of the invention there is provided an apparatus for measuring usage of internet resources, comprising:
According to a seventh aspect of the invention there is provided a method of measuring usage of internet resources comprising the steps of:
And finally according to an eighth aspect of the invention there is provided a system for measuring and analysing multiple data sources over a communications network in order to ascertain information about the use of one or more resources linked to said communications network, said system comprising:
The invention will be hereinafter described in one or more preferred embodiments with reference to the accompanying drawings, wherein:
a) is a schematic flow diagram showing the processes involved in measuring and obtaining various data sources generally in accordance with the invention;
b) is a schematic flow diagram showing the processes involved in measuring, obtaining and processing various data sources and applying results to extract data on unmonitored sources;
a) and 5(b) are block diagrams showing the processes involved with data when access is made to an unmonitored resource and a monitored resource;
a) is a schematic diagram of a system for measuring and analysing data from data sources according to a further embodiment of the invention using a proxy server;
b) is a schematic diagram of a system for measuring and analysing data from data sources according to another embodiment using an independent server; and
Shown in
The embodiment shown in
With reference to
A further data source may be measured and analysed from a group of one or more monitored or participating users. A random sample of monitored users is recruited to form a panel from whom their interactions are measured and recorded in terms of accessing monitored and unmonitored resources, at the resource servers, via each user's browser, indicated by “B” in
The further data source may comprise user centric measurements including panel data, sample data, survey data. Each monitored user of the group (otherwise termed a “panellist”) will have every page impression, web site access, or time spent on a site or page or any other characteristic measured and recorded via measurement code which is downloaded together with the requested resource to the panellist's browser B. For example, then, if user interface means 10 and 12 are used by panellists each time they access or interact with monitored resources, at servers 2 and 4, and/or on unmonitored resources through servers 6 and 8, these are recorded by a second collection server means comprising one or more collection servers 26, 28. Identification means is transmitted to the collection servers 26, 28 identifying the user, after each interaction is recorded, either through some form of identification means or cookies.
Processing server means 30 and 32 respectively receive the data source and further data source to process the data. Thus processing server 32 processes data forwarded to it from the second collection server means. Examples of processing include aggregating or formatting the data, or calibrating the data for a particular purpose. One example of processing the data sources includes calibrating them for a particular purpose, such as calculating an error rate to determine an estimate for interactions, such as page impressions, for an unmonitored site for which there is no site centric data available. At this stage the received further data sources, as processed by the processing servers 30 and 32 and subsequently stored in storage means 35, may be viewed or displayed by interested parties on reporting server 34. An example of the calibration process will hereinafter be described.
It is to be noted that the further data source may be of the same type as the first mentioned data source, that is, from monitored resources.
Weighting may be performed to the collected data source and further data source in each of the collection servers 22 to 28. This is performed by the processing servers 30 and 32. The weighting is done to adjust for the difference in demographic profiles of the sample or group to the population. The population weightings are obtained from pre-established internet population statistics for a certain time period. This step ensures that the collected data, after the weighting process, is representative of the Internet population of the measured geographical region. To derive greater accuracy a further breakdown of the official data showing the Internet population statistics may be performed into a combination of various groups or subjects. Such groups may include sex, age, current access method, income. Thus the collected data from page impressions from the sample users may be tabled in terms of each of the categories mentioned above to provide a more accurate picture to interested groups. Furthermore, the breakdown may be in terms of categories relating to the types of monitored resources, for example, sport, politics, entertainment, business.
There will be an overlap of the data source and further data source results where a monitored resource, having say site centric measurements available, has corresponding further data source results pertaining to panellists. Thus, for example, for a monitored web site there is panel data collected from each of the panellists for the same monitored web site. Comparable data is therefore taken from the two corresponding different sources, being panel data which may pertain to various interactions performed by the panellists, and the abovementioned site centric measurements.
If, for example a panel or group of 3000 users are registered from which panel data is obtained, then a weighting function is applied to determine or estimate actual traffic levels for all internet users in a particular region. For example in Australia, there is an estimated total internet audience of 4.4 million. Weighting is simply applied as a multiplication factor which brings the representation sample in line with the total traffic market trends, that is, 4,400,000/3000=1466.7. All unique visitor numbers for sites or page impressions are multiplied or weighted by this factor in order to estimate the actual traffic levels.
Of the 3000 users who are taking part in the panel, say 2000 users, visit a monitored web site (resource) from server 2 or perform particular interactions on that web site which has corresponding site centric measurements output available, and another 2500 panellists visit a web site that is not monitored, say at server 8. As the other web site is not monitored then there is no site centric measurement data available and so to estimate the total traffic or users that would access the other web site or perform particular interactions on that web site or on a web page of that web site, the following occurs.
The 2000 users who have accessed the web site that is monitored, at server 2 is scaled up in accordance with the internet. Thus, we arrive at a figure of the total number of the internet audience being 4,400,000, divided by the number of panellists taking part in the sample, being 3000, and multiply this by 2000, which represents the number of panellists estimated to have actually visited that site. This results in an expected 2,933,333.3 users in the internet population to visit this site over the predefined period. This is the ideal situation where we would expect the numbers obtained, after scaling up, and the actual site centric measurements to correspond exactly. Equivalently, the number of users in the internet audience you would expect to visit the unmonitored site, at server 8 is 4,400,000/3000×2500=3,666,666.6 visits.
However, inherent in the sampling there are expected to be deviations and therefore calibration in terms of an error rate is introduced, being the ratio of the site centric measurements to that of the equivalent panellist metrics. Separate metrics may be used to improve accuracy, such as one for page impressions, advertisement views, unique visitors, or other traffic measurements or other resource metrics. Each of the error rates are derived for the metrics for the particular period under review.
Thus, for the above example, if the actual census data for the number of visits to the monitored web site is 3,200,000, then the actual deviation is 3,200,000/2,933,333.3 which provides a ratio of 1.0909 so that the sample has an error rate of a factor of 0.0909. This ratio of 1.0909 is then multiplied by the derived figure above (3,666,666.6) for the site that is not monitored which is equivalent to 4,000,000 visits or use of the attributes.
The above derived example related to using only one monitored site. However, similar or other techniques can be applied on a group of resources, such a number of web sites or advertising page impressions. Furthermore different metrics, based on different requirements may need alternative calibrations, such metrics including page impressions, unique visitors or time measurement. The calibration may be based on two data sources or more than two data sources, whether they be from monitored or unmonitored resources.
Thus, by using the above method, sites that are not monitored can have additional data available to them to estimate the amount of traffic which provides an invaluable resource to interested parties to specifically target users in respect of various activities or interactions that they have undergone in accessing a particular web site. Furthermore, it provides additional information to owners of monitored web sites as to how many visits or interactions/responses unmonitored web sites (being potential competitors to such owners) have had from the internet audience, based on the two or more sources of data, from the site centric measurements and/or from the user centric measurements, or simply based on the site centric measurements. Thus more information is available about the behaviour of the internet population or audience.
In the abovementioned process, in order to produce comparable data, sites having site centric data collected are grouped into the same grouping of sites which is made in the user centric data. Thereafter, the same groupings of URLs in the site centric and user centric groups are then formed. Naturally, the bigger this group accounts for in terms of the number of monitored resources or page impressions for example, the more accurate the end results are expected to be.
With reference to
The above principles are easily adapted to Web television, whereby each of the devices 10, 12, 14 or 16 are television receivers such that users are monitored in terms of their responses or choices of options regarding a particular television program or television commercial. Thus there are a number of sample TV users having respective television receivers accessing the internet and are monitored in terms of their responses or interactions on a particular resource server by the abovementioned measurement code accompanying each of the resources being downloaded to each of the user's devices. For various resources the site centric measurement data is already available and there will be some resources that overlap with the recorded user centric data. Thus information pertaining to various interactions or actions by many users are obtainable for other sites that are not monitored which thereby provides a good comparison of resource usage, for example, of various web sites to interested parties.
With reference to
The medium in which the two data sources are obtained need not be the same. For example site centric measurement data may be obtained for internet based resources and be compared with or correlated with user centric measurement data for Web TV users or digital television users.
With reference to
A data source, such as site centric data, is obtained for one or more interactions at step 62 from all users who interact in some way with the monitored resource. This is recorded and collected by the collection servers 22,24 of the data collection and processing means 20. By way of example, the number of visits to a particular web page has may be recorded.
After establishing a panel or group of users, at step 64 these users are monitored for their interactions and at step 66 a second data source, such as panel data or any other form of data, is measured, recorded and collected by collection servers 26,28 of the data collection and processing means 20. The panel data may comprise for example page impressions or the number of visits each panellist has for the monitored resource, such as a web site and every unmonitored resource. At step 68, the two sets of data sources may be viewed, combined or otherwise customised on server 34.
In
In
In
In
Rather than obtaining measurements through browsers, or equivalently some program means loaded onto a user interface device, specific software may be loaded onto the devices 10, 12, 14 or a “hardware” box may be attached to the devices so that the user may be aware that he or she is being monitored. Alternatively, a proxy server may be used.
Where a proxy server is used, it is invisible to the user and enables an organisation or interested parties to monitor the internet usage of the panel member as an alternative to installing software or firmware onto the panel member's user interface. An advantage of the transparency of this tracking technique is that it promotes panel continuity.
In accordance with a further embodiment and with reference to
Once a user has agreed to become a panel member, the user is instructed to change his or her browser setting to access the internet via the proxy server 100. If the user has trouble in effecting this set-up, they may e-mail a helpdesk provided by the organisation or access a call centre via telephone.
Examples of the manual proxy set-up process will now be described with reference to some existing Internet browsers.
If the user has Internet Explorer 4.0 or 5.0, to divert their internet access through a proxy server, they would be required to select “Internet Options” from their “View” menu, then “Connection Folder”, followed by “Access the Internet using a proxy server”. In the address entry box, they would enter the address of the proxy server, which would be provided to them by the research organisation.
Alternatively, if the user had Netscape 4.0, they would be required to select “Preferences” in the “Edit” menu of their browser, followed by “Advanced”, “Proxies”, “Manual Proxy Configuration” and “View”. In the http: entry box they would then be required to enter the address of the proxy server, as provided by the party initiating the network measurement.
As an alternative to the manual set-up process, a software program may be used to effect the browser setting change: for example, the user could click on a link, and the link would then implement the change.
With reference to
Thus, for some monitored resources there will be an overlap of site and user centric measurements for which data may be displayed separately or combined on reporting server 34. Alternatively an estimate of traffic data can be determined for those unmonitored resources having no site centric measurements available, using the aforementioned techniques.
When the access request is diverted to the proxy server 100, the panel member is able to be identified by virtue of an identification means such as user ID or a unique cookie assigned to the member during the sign up process. A cookie is a feature of the internet protocol Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), which is essentially a unique identifier stored on the user's computer.
During the processing of the data it is possible to check for any anomalous usage of sites (eg. One user visiting a particular site fifty times in one day), that may not be representative of the overall sample of panellists. If it finds anomalies like this, the particular data may then be disregarded.
When recording interactions of a panel of users at the data collection and processing means 20, a view of internet usage by the “panel population” is able to be obtained. The data obtained via this panel approach may be used in isolation to obtain relevant statistics. Alternatively, as previously mentioned, a fusion of the panel data with site centric measurement data such as from browser based data or proxy or server logs may be used. In this alternative way, it is possible to fill the reporting properties or interactions of resources for which accurate site centric measurement data is not available, in order to improve the overall market measurement accuracy.
The user details should be periodically validated, so from time to time the users should be contacted to confirm participation and verify personal details.
Variations and additions are possible within the general inventive concept as will be apparent to those skilled in the art. In particular, if a user's browser or interface device does not support Java, alternative approaches for obtaining measurement data are possible and within the inventive concept, such as via CGI (Common Gateway Interface) measurement.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
PQ2063 | Aug 1999 | AU | national |
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/AU00/00937 | 8/7/2000 | WO | 00 | 9/5/2003 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO01/11506 | 2/15/2001 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3540003 | Murphy | Nov 1970 | A |
3696297 | Otero | Oct 1972 | A |
3818458 | Deese | Jun 1974 | A |
3906454 | Martin | Sep 1975 | A |
4058829 | Thompson | Nov 1977 | A |
4125892 | Fukuda et al. | Nov 1978 | A |
4166290 | Furtman et al. | Aug 1979 | A |
4236209 | Lombardo, Jr. et al. | Nov 1980 | A |
4283709 | Lucero et al. | Aug 1981 | A |
4355372 | Johnson et al. | Oct 1982 | A |
4356545 | West | Oct 1982 | A |
4473824 | Claytor | Sep 1984 | A |
4516216 | Armstrong | May 1985 | A |
4546382 | McKenna et al. | Oct 1985 | A |
4566030 | Nickerson et al. | Jan 1986 | A |
4603232 | Kurland et al. | Jul 1986 | A |
4658290 | McKenna et al. | Apr 1987 | A |
4677552 | Sibley et al. | Jun 1987 | A |
4695880 | Johnson et al. | Sep 1987 | A |
4700378 | Brown | Oct 1987 | A |
4706121 | Young | Nov 1987 | A |
4713791 | Saluski | Dec 1987 | A |
4718025 | Minor et al. | Jan 1988 | A |
4725886 | Galumbeck et al. | Feb 1988 | A |
4740912 | Whitaker | Apr 1988 | A |
4745559 | Willis et al. | May 1988 | A |
4751578 | Reiter et al. | Jun 1988 | A |
4757456 | Benghait | Jul 1988 | A |
4774658 | Lewin | Sep 1988 | A |
4783648 | Homma et al. | Nov 1988 | A |
4792921 | Corwin | Dec 1988 | A |
4817080 | Soha | Mar 1989 | A |
4823290 | Fasack et al. | Apr 1989 | A |
4831582 | Miller et al. | May 1989 | A |
4845658 | Gifford | Jul 1989 | A |
4849879 | Chinnaswamy et al. | Jul 1989 | A |
4868866 | Williams, Jr. | Sep 1989 | A |
4887308 | Dutton | Dec 1989 | A |
4907188 | Suzuki | Mar 1990 | A |
4912466 | Call | Mar 1990 | A |
4912522 | Oates et al. | Mar 1990 | A |
4924488 | Kosich | May 1990 | A |
4935870 | Burk, Jr. et al. | Jun 1990 | A |
4954699 | Coffey et al. | Sep 1990 | A |
4958284 | Bishop et al. | Sep 1990 | A |
4961132 | Uehara | Oct 1990 | A |
4972367 | Burke | Nov 1990 | A |
4972504 | Daniel, Jr. et al. | Nov 1990 | A |
4977455 | Young | Dec 1990 | A |
4977594 | Shear | Dec 1990 | A |
4989230 | Gillig et al. | Jan 1991 | A |
5006978 | Neches | Apr 1991 | A |
5007017 | Kobayashi | Apr 1991 | A |
5008929 | Olsen et al. | Apr 1991 | A |
5019963 | Alderson et al. | May 1991 | A |
5023907 | Johnson et al. | Jun 1991 | A |
5023929 | Call | Jun 1991 | A |
5038211 | Hallenbeck | Aug 1991 | A |
5038374 | Kaufman et al. | Aug 1991 | A |
5042027 | Takase et al. | Aug 1991 | A |
5047867 | Strubbe et al. | Sep 1991 | A |
5049873 | Robins et al. | Sep 1991 | A |
5062147 | Pickett et al. | Oct 1991 | A |
5063610 | Alwadish | Nov 1991 | A |
5088108 | Uddenfeldt et al. | Feb 1992 | A |
5101402 | Chiu et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
5109350 | Henwood et al. | Apr 1992 | A |
5140419 | Galumbeck et al. | Aug 1992 | A |
5150116 | West | Sep 1992 | A |
5159685 | Kung | Oct 1992 | A |
5161109 | Keating et al. | Nov 1992 | A |
5166866 | Kim et al. | Nov 1992 | A |
5181113 | Chang | Jan 1993 | A |
5204947 | Bernstein et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
5208588 | Nishiyama | May 1993 | A |
5210530 | Kammerer et al. | May 1993 | A |
5212684 | MacNamee et al. | May 1993 | A |
5214792 | Alwadish | May 1993 | A |
5220522 | Wilson et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
5220655 | Tsutsui | Jun 1993 | A |
5223827 | Bell et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
5223924 | Strubbe | Jun 1993 | A |
5226120 | Brown et al. | Jul 1993 | A |
5231593 | Notess | Jul 1993 | A |
5235680 | Bijnagte | Aug 1993 | A |
5237677 | Hirosawa et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5237681 | Kagan et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5237684 | Record et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5239540 | Rovira et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5241625 | Epard et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5241671 | Reed et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5245429 | Virginio et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
5247517 | Ross et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
5247575 | Sprague et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
5247697 | Ban | Sep 1993 | A |
5249260 | Nigawara et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
5253346 | Okabayashi et al. | Oct 1993 | A |
5260878 | Luppy | Nov 1993 | A |
5262860 | Fitzpatrick et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5267314 | Stambler | Nov 1993 | A |
5267351 | Reber et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5276458 | Sawdon | Jan 1994 | A |
5276789 | Besaw et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5281962 | Vanden Heuvel et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5283639 | Esch et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5287363 | Wolf et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5297249 | Bernstein et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
5301350 | Rogan et al. | Apr 1994 | A |
5309243 | Tsai | May 1994 | A |
5315093 | Stewart | May 1994 | A |
5315580 | Phaal | May 1994 | A |
5317140 | Dunthorn | May 1994 | A |
5321831 | Hirose | Jun 1994 | A |
5321838 | Hensley et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5327237 | Gerdes et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5327554 | Palazzi, III et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5331544 | Lu et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5333302 | Hensley et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5339239 | Manabe et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5339412 | Fueki | Aug 1994 | A |
5347632 | Filepp et al. | Sep 1994 | A |
5349662 | Johnson et al. | Sep 1994 | A |
5351278 | Koshishiba et al. | Sep 1994 | A |
5351293 | Michener et al. | Sep 1994 | A |
5355327 | Stent et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
5355484 | Record et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
5359367 | Stockill | Oct 1994 | A |
5361359 | Tajalli et al. | Nov 1994 | A |
5367677 | Stanfill | Nov 1994 | A |
5371846 | Bates | Dec 1994 | A |
5374951 | Welsh | Dec 1994 | A |
5375070 | Hershey et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
5379380 | Mori et al. | Jan 1995 | A |
5388211 | Hornbuckle | Feb 1995 | A |
5388252 | Dreste et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
5388258 | Larsson et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
5390281 | Luciw et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
5398336 | Tantry et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
5406269 | Baran | Apr 1995 | A |
5408607 | Nishikawa et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5410598 | Shear | Apr 1995 | A |
5412778 | Andres | May 1995 | A |
5414809 | Hogan et al. | May 1995 | A |
5418728 | Yada | May 1995 | A |
5461708 | Kahn | Oct 1995 | A |
5483658 | Grube et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
5485897 | Matsumoto et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
5491820 | Belove et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
5495581 | Tsai | Feb 1996 | A |
5499340 | Barritz | Mar 1996 | A |
5524073 | Stambler | Jun 1996 | A |
5555303 | Stambler | Sep 1996 | A |
5557333 | Jungo et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5560038 | Haddock | Sep 1996 | A |
5568471 | Hershey et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5572643 | Judson | Nov 1996 | A |
5594911 | Cruz et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5604867 | Harwood | Feb 1997 | A |
5615264 | Kazmierczak et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5623652 | Vora et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5634100 | Capps | May 1997 | A |
5646998 | Stambler | Jul 1997 | A |
5648965 | Thadani et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5671283 | Michener et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5673382 | Cannon et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5696702 | Skinner et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5706502 | Foley et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5708709 | Rose | Jan 1998 | A |
5708780 | Levergood et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5710915 | McElhiney | Jan 1998 | A |
5710918 | Lagarde et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5712979 | Graber et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5715453 | Stewart | Feb 1998 | A |
5717860 | Graber et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5717923 | Dedrick | Feb 1998 | A |
5724521 | Dedrick | Mar 1998 | A |
5732218 | Bland et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5737619 | Judson | Apr 1998 | A |
5740549 | Reilly et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5787253 | McCreery et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5793302 | Stambler | Aug 1998 | A |
5796952 | Davis et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5799292 | Hekmatpour | Aug 1998 | A |
5819156 | Belmont | Oct 1998 | A |
5819285 | Damico et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5823879 | Goldberg et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5829001 | Li et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5835923 | Shibata et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5838919 | Schwaller et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5848396 | Gerace | Dec 1998 | A |
5870546 | Kirsch | Feb 1999 | A |
5878384 | Johnson et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5926168 | Fan | Jul 1999 | A |
5931912 | Wu et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5933811 | Angles et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5935207 | Logue et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5936541 | Stambler | Aug 1999 | A |
5948061 | Merriman et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5951643 | Shelton et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5956483 | Grate et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5958010 | Agarwal et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5963914 | Skinner et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5964839 | Johnson et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5974148 | Stambler | Oct 1999 | A |
5982917 | Clarke et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5986653 | Phathayakorn et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5999178 | Hwang et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6014638 | Burge et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6018619 | Allard et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6052730 | Felciano et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6070145 | Pinsley et al. | May 2000 | A |
6078324 | Phathayakorn et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6108637 | Blumenau | Aug 2000 | A |
6112238 | Boyd et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6112240 | Pogue et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6115608 | Duran et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6167358 | Othmer et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6173311 | Hassett et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6185586 | Judson | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6250930 | Mintz | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6264560 | Goldberg et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6275854 | Himmel et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6278966 | Howard et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6279036 | Himmel et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6279112 | O'Toole, Jr. et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6317787 | Boyd et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6324546 | Ka et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6360261 | Boyd et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6393479 | Glommen et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6397359 | Chandra et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6408335 | Schwaller et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6418470 | Blumenau | Jul 2002 | B2 |
6434532 | Goldband et al. | Aug 2002 | B2 |
6449604 | Hansen et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6457025 | Judson | Sep 2002 | B2 |
6466970 | Lee et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6473407 | Ditmer et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6569095 | Eggers | May 2003 | B2 |
6601100 | Lee et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6609239 | Xavier | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6621881 | Srinivasan | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6625648 | Schwaller et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6662195 | Langseth et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6662227 | Boyd et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6671715 | Langseth et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6712702 | Goldberg et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6719660 | Palazzolo | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6766370 | Glommen et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6807558 | Hassett et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6842782 | Malik et al. | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6859833 | Kirsch et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
7017143 | Andrew et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
20020040394 | Shapira | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020040395 | Davis et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020077787 | Rappaport et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020078191 | Lorenz | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020099812 | Davis et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020099818 | Russell et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020099819 | Hattori et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020103664 | Olsson et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020112048 | Gruyer et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020161673 | Lee et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20030046303 | Chen et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030046385 | Vincent | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030062223 | Coyle et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030110485 | Lu et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030144868 | MacIntyre et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030163563 | Bean | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030187677 | Malireddy et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030208578 | Taraborelli et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030231203 | Gallella | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040221033 | Davis et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20050114511 | Davis et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0228458 | Jun 1986 | EP |
0228242 | Aug 1987 | EP |
0451384 | Apr 1990 | EP |
0388658 | Sep 1990 | EP |
0632382 | Jun 1993 | EP |
0747841 | Dec 1996 | EP |
0228458 | Oct 1997 | EP |
WO 9826529 | Jun 1998 | WO |