The invention relates to software licensing, and in particular to a system for controlling the number of users that concurrently use a licensed software file.
It is a problem in the software field to prevent unauthorized users from accessing and using an application file while also providing a method to allow customers to purchase and concurrently use more than one copy. A number of software publishers license software files under a pricing model wherein a customer purchases the right to concurrently use a predetermined number of copies. Software files that are sold for concurrent use are often delivered with license management software installed on a license server, from which the customer requests software licenses. The licensing management software ensures that the customer does not use more licenses than they have purchased and are entitled to use. A problem arises when a customer attempts to share use of the application files at more than one site.
Effective management of multiple copies of application files and “floating licenses” presents a major dilemma for computer site administrators and software application publishers. The focus of control for managing multiple copies of an application file or application file software license is the physical location of the application file or the program disk. The details of controlling physical access and the degree of inconvenience vary, but in a world of hard disks, networks, file servers and electronic email, management based on controlled distribution is intrinsically impractical or even impossible. Without any practical tools, site administrators are forced to rely on a rather ill defined “reasonable effort” at software license compliance. Three solutions have commonly been used.
The first solution has been to run the license management software at only one site and require users at other sites to request a software license across a wide-area-network (WAN) as described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,742,757. There are disadvantages to this approach. Software license requests across a WAN can be slow, and if the WAN connection goes down, some sites may be unable to request software licenses. A solution to the problem is to break the software licenses into subsets and provide each site with its own license server, licensing management software and a set of software licenses. Using this solution, users at each site contact their local license server first. If the license server does not have a license available, the user is required to request a license from another server across the WAN. However, the user has no way of knowing which license server has a software license available. The problem is exasperated when additional sites are added, providing fewer software licenses at each site and additional sites to contact to request a software license.
A third solution, a licensing product named “KeyServer” from Sassafras Software of Hanover N.H., solves the previously discussed problems by providing a system that allows “ghost servers”. Customers purchase and use KeyServer to control the number of concurrent application users so that the business does not use more software licenses than the business has purchased and therefore has a right to use. Ghost servers are placed at each site and handle software license requests from clients at those sites. Ghost servers obtain software licenses from a central license server. If a ghost server can not contact the central license server, the ghost server acts as the central license server. While this solution offers a very reliable system, a problem arises with controlling licensing limits. When the central license server is not available to the ghost servers, each ghost server acts as the central license server, enabling each ghost server to allow access to the entire software license count at each and every site. Whether intentional or inadvertent, failure of the central license server provides a method for exceeding license limits.
For these reasons, a need exists for a system to track the number of software licenses used at each license server site, analyze software license usage at each site, and allocate a set of software licenses to each site based on the sites predictive software license usage.
The predictive software license balancing system authorizes concurrent use of an application file at multiple sites. Initially, the plurality of software licenses are divided among the multiple sites. A license server located at each site accepts software application file usage requests from users at that particular site. If a software license is available when the request is received, the user is granted an authorization to access and use the corresponding application file. The multiple license servers are interconnected via a WAN or other network connection. As concurrent usage of an application are authorized at the multiple sites, the license servers record the application file usage statistics relating to the number of software licenses available and number of concurrent users authorized during a predetermined time period and exchange the usage statistics with the other license servers. Using the usage statistics from the multiple license servers, the percentage of application file concurrent usage at the multiple sites is calculated. Using the usage statistics gathered over a period of time, the application file concurrent usage for each site is predicted and software licenses distributed accordingly.
In the event communication between one license server and the other license servers temporarily fails, the disconnected license server would continue to operate based on the previous predictions. The other license servers would continue to rebalance software license distribution between the communicating license servers using previous predictions for the disconnected license server. When the connection is re-established, new usage statistics are shared and new predictions calculated and the software licenses are redistributed according to the predictions. Following a complete failure of a license server, connection with the other license servers is established and valid usage statistics retrieved from one of the other license servers.
If connection to the other license servers were not reestablished within a time period, the disconnected license server may consider the failure to be permanent. Following a permanent failure, the license server would revert to a default set of software licenses available for authorizing concurrent application file usage at that particular site. In this embodiment, the other connected license servers may rebalance the software licenses based on the default set of software licenses available for the disconnected license server.
The predictive software license balancing system summarized above and defined by the enumerated claims may be better understood by referring to the following detailed description, which should be read in conjunction with the accompanying drawings. This detailed description of the preferred embodiment is not intended to limit the enumerated claims, but to serve as a particular example thereof. In addition, the phraseology and terminology employed herein is for the purpose of description, and not of limitation.
A number of software providers license software files under a pricing model wherein a customer purchases the right to concurrently use a predetermined number of copies of an application file, referred to as “floating licenses”. Software files that are sold with “floating licenses” are often delivered with license management software installed on a license server, from which users request software licenses. The licensing management software ensures that the customer does not use more licenses than they have purchased and are entitled to use.
Predictive Software License System Configuration—
The present predictive software license balancing system is configured to operate between two or more sites. Referring to the block diagram in
In the example illustrated in
Software License Balancing—
Referring to the flow diagram in
For example, if sites 110 and 130 authorize three concurrent users to access and use the application file between the hours of 8 am and 5 pm, sites 110 and 130 each use approximately forty-percent of the available software licenses. Site 120 application file usage during the same time period is one in this example. Therefore the eight software licenses are initially distributed in step 210 with a subset of three software licenses distributed to each site 110 and 130 and the remaining two software licenses are distributed to site 120. In step 270, the license server at each site manages authorization of concurrent usage for that particular site.
Providing a method for compiling and sharing application file usage statistics between the multiple license servers reduces the time required to request a software license from a central license server and balances the number of software licenses available at each particular site. By balancing the number of software licenses available at each license server based on predicted application file usage reduces the need to transfer software licenses between license servers, thus saving time. A multi-site organization using the present predictive software licensing balancing system reduces the WAN traffic required by prior art license distribution systems to request and transfer software licenses. Instead, WAN bandwidth is required only for sharing application file usage statistics and the application file usage statistics can be schedule for distribution during optimal times.
Operational Characteristics—
Referring to the block diagram in
When license server 132 receives an application file usage request in step 310 from user 137, license server 132 determines in step 320 whether a software license is available. If a software license is not available in step 320, license server 132 sends a software license request to an alternative license server, such as license server 122, in step 330. License server 122 has authorized one user and has one software license available. The request for a software license is granted by license server 122 to requesting license server 132 in step 342. Each license server updates the number of software licenses available at the two sites. License server 122 now has one software license available and one software license granted. If a subsequent user requests usage of the application file, server 122 would have to deny the request unless another license server such as license server 112 or 132 have a software license available. Likewise, license server 132 updates records to show four software licenses available. In step 137, license server 132 authorizes concurrent use to user 137 allowing user 137 to access and use the application file in step 346.
In the event that there is not a software license available at the three sites 110, 120 and 130, the application file usage requester, user 137 in this example, is queued for authorization to concurrently use the application file when a software license is available from any one of the three sites 110, 120 or 130. In this example, license server requested a software license from license servers 112 and 122. The requests were denied since license servers 112 and 122 have granted concurrent use of the software licenses available for their particular site. The request remains active at each license server 112, 122 and 132 until a user terminates use of an application file, at which time the request from license server 132 is granted.
Referring to
Predictions may also be based on usage statistics by time-of-day or day of the week. For example, license servers on opposite coasts or in different countries may share software licenses and use the software licenses at different times, thus providing more software licenses available at each site without the purchase of additional software licenses. Software applications are licenses for 24-hour use although many businesses only use the application files during an eight or ten hour day. Sharing the software licenses with a site using the application file during opposite hours saves the cost associated with purchasing twice as many software licenses.
Failure Mode—FIGS. 1 and 4-5:
Failure of the communication channel in step 400 between one license server and the other license servers does not prevent each license server from managing the authorization of concurrent application file usage at that particular site in step 410. Instead, the disconnected license server continues to manage application file usage requests in step 410 based on the stored predictive license balancing. Likewise, the other two license servers manage concurrent usage in step 410 at their particular site based on previously calculated application file usage predictions. However, the connected license servers continue to collect and share application file usage statistics in steps 420 and 430. Using the new application file usage statistics combined with the previously recorded application file usage statistics for the disconnected license server, the connected license servers predict future application file usage statistics in step 440 and redistribute software licenses accordingly, taking into account the number of concurrent users predicted for the disconnected license server. Meanwhile, the disconnected license server continues to collect application file usage statistics. In step 450 when the connection is restored, the application file usage statistics are shared in step 460 with the other license servers and new application file usage predictions calculated and each license server continues to manage software licenses at their particular site in step 470
Referring to the operational flow diagram of
If application file usage statistics are not available in step 550 from another license server after the communication channel is restored in step 520, the previously failed license server manages the default software license subset in step 560 and collects and shares updated application file usage statistics in step 562.
A catastrophic failure of all of the license servers simultaneously would result in each license server initializing with the default subset of software licenses. Each license server would collect and share new application file usage statistics as previously discussed. In an alternative embodiment, the usage statistics are periodically sent to an alternative remote storage device. In this embodiment, if all of the license servers fail simultaneously, the first license server reinitialized recovers the previously saved usage statistics from the remote storage device. As the other license servers reinitialize, the other license servers recover usage statistics from the first license server and operation presumes.
As to alternative embodiments, those skilled in the art will appreciate that the present predictive software license balancing system can be configured with an alternative number of sites, license servers and available software licenses. It is also anticipated that the multi-site license servers receive and process software application file usage requests for more than one application file type and that the usage statistics and predictions for each application file type are calculated and distributed independent of the other application file types. Likewise, a single file may contain an application that supports a number of different features that may be individually turned on or off with licenses. Therefore the term application file has been illustrated and described as an example of usage of the present predictive software license balancing system and not as a limitation of usage.
While the present predictive software license balancing system has been illustrated and discussed for use in a multi site situation, usage is not intended to be limited to businesses having multiple sites. The present predictive software license balancing system may be utilized with license servers connected within a Local Area Network (LAN) or a software licensing system having multiple software servers at one or more sites wherein each of the multiple license servers is treated as being a separate site.
It is apparent that there has been described, a predictive software license balancing system that fully satisfies the objects, aims, and advantages set forth above. While the predictive software license balancing system has been described in conjunction with specific embodiments thereof, it is evident that many alternatives, modifications, and/or variations can be devised by those skilled in the art in light of the foregoing description. Accordingly, this description is intended to embrace all such alternatives, modifications and variations as fall within the spirit and scope of the appended claims.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4288659 | Atalla | Sep 1981 | A |
4405829 | Rivest et al. | Sep 1983 | A |
4780821 | Crossley | Oct 1988 | A |
4811393 | Hazard | Mar 1989 | A |
4888800 | Marshall et al. | Dec 1989 | A |
4937863 | Robert et al. | Jun 1990 | A |
5005122 | Griffin et al. | Apr 1991 | A |
5023907 | Johnson et al. | Jun 1991 | A |
5157663 | Major et al. | Oct 1992 | A |
5179591 | Hardy et al. | Jan 1993 | A |
5204897 | Wyman | Apr 1993 | A |
5206903 | Kohler et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
5230020 | Hardy et al. | Jul 1993 | A |
5260999 | Wyman | Nov 1993 | A |
5307481 | Shimazaki et al. | Apr 1994 | A |
5329570 | Glassmacher et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5341427 | Hardy et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5347580 | Molva et al. | Sep 1994 | A |
5386369 | Christiano | Jan 1995 | A |
5390297 | Barber et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
5408649 | Beshears et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5448639 | Arazi | Sep 1995 | A |
5553143 | Ross et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5563946 | Cooper et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5579222 | Bains et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5629980 | Stefik et al. | May 1997 | A |
5646992 | Subler et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5671412 | Christiano | Sep 1997 | A |
5673315 | Wolf | Sep 1997 | A |
5699431 | Van Oorschot et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5708709 | Rose | Jan 1998 | A |
5717604 | Wiggins | Feb 1998 | A |
5724428 | Rivest | Mar 1998 | A |
5742757 | Hamadani et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5745569 | Moskowitz et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5745576 | Abraham et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5745879 | Wyman | Apr 1998 | A |
5754761 | Willsey | May 1998 | A |
5758068 | Brandt et al. | May 1998 | A |
5758069 | Olsen | May 1998 | A |
5790074 | Rangedahl et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5790664 | Coley et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5796941 | Lita | Aug 1998 | A |
5828747 | Fisher et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5835600 | Rivest | Nov 1998 | A |
5864620 | Pettitt | Jan 1999 | A |
5905793 | Flockhart et al. | May 1999 | A |
5905860 | Olsen et al. | May 1999 | A |
5935243 | Hasebe et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5940504 | Griswold | Aug 1999 | A |
5956505 | Manduley | Sep 1999 | A |
5956716 | Kenner et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5960085 | de la Huerga | Sep 1999 | A |
5978565 | Ohran et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5982873 | Flockhart et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5995625 | Sudia et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6006016 | Faigon et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6009401 | Horstmann | Dec 1999 | A |
6011973 | Valentine et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6023763 | Grumstrup et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6023766 | Yamamura | Feb 2000 | A |
6047242 | Benson | Apr 2000 | A |
6067621 | Yu et al. | May 2000 | A |
6108703 | Leighton et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6128389 | Chan et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6134660 | Boneh et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6148415 | Kobayashi et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6163607 | Bogart et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6173053 | Bogart et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6178511 | Cohen et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6189146 | Misra et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6192122 | Flockhart et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6212635 | Reardon | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6219652 | Carter et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6223291 | Puhl et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6246871 | Ala-Laurila | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6314565 | Kenner et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6343280 | Clark | Jan 2002 | B2 |
6360320 | Ishiguro et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6381747 | Wonfor et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6414595 | Scrandis et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6421726 | Kenner et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6442708 | Dierauer et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6463534 | Geiger et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6498791 | Pickett et al. | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6502079 | Ball et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6513117 | Tarpenning et al. | Jan 2003 | B2 |
6513121 | Serkowski | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6539481 | Takahashi et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6557105 | Tardo et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6574612 | Baratti et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6584454 | Hummel, Jr. et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6615347 | de Silva et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6640305 | Kocher et al. | Oct 2003 | B2 |
6654888 | Cooper et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6675208 | Rai et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6697945 | Ishiguro et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6760324 | Scott et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6765492 | Harris | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6769063 | Kanda et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6772133 | Kambayashi et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6775782 | Buros et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6778820 | Tendler | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6785726 | Freeman et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6795941 | Nickels | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6816842 | Singh et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6826606 | Freeman et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6842896 | Redding et al. | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6850958 | Wakabayashi | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6854010 | Christian et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6868403 | Wiser et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6876984 | Tadayon et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6883095 | Sandhu et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6889212 | Wang et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6901386 | Dedrick et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6904523 | Bialick et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6920567 | Doherty et al. | Jul 2005 | B1 |
6928166 | Yoshizawa | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6928558 | Allahwerdi et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6934463 | Ishiguro et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6934848 | King et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6941283 | Kambayashi et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6957344 | Goldshlag et al. | Oct 2005 | B1 |
6959291 | Armstrong et al. | Oct 2005 | B1 |
6961858 | Fransdonk | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6968384 | Redding et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6973444 | Blinn et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
6976164 | King et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
6981222 | Rush et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
6993664 | Padole et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7032113 | Pendlebury | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7035918 | Redding et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7065214 | Ishiguro et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7073063 | Peinado | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7080402 | Bates et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7085382 | Terao et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7096469 | Kubala et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7100044 | Watanabe et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7100200 | Pope et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7124304 | Bel et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7127442 | Mazza et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7139737 | Takahashi et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7143409 | Herrero | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7146340 | Musson | Dec 2006 | B1 |
7149806 | Perkins et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7152245 | Dublish et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7171662 | Misra et al. | Jan 2007 | B1 |
7185195 | Hug et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7197321 | Erskine et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7206936 | Aull et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7216363 | Serkowski et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7225333 | Peinado et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7228426 | Sinha et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7228567 | Serkowski et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7260557 | Chavez | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7272500 | Walker | Sep 2007 | B1 |
7278164 | Raiz et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7283519 | Girard | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7302703 | Burns | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7308717 | Koved et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7310734 | Boate et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7313828 | Holopainen | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7318236 | DeMello et al. | Jan 2008 | B2 |
7336791 | Ishiguro | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7353388 | Gilman | Apr 2008 | B1 |
7356692 | Bialick et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7373657 | Walker | May 2008 | B2 |
7382881 | Uusitalo et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7383205 | Peinado et al. | Jun 2008 | B1 |
7415729 | Ukeda et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7545931 | Dillaway | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7549172 | Tokutani et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7552166 | Chack | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7681245 | Walker et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
20010001268 | Menon et al. | May 2001 | A1 |
20010034846 | Beery | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20020013722 | Kanaga | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020017977 | Wall | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020038422 | Suwamoto et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020052939 | Lee | May 2002 | A1 |
20020083003 | Halliday et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020087892 | Hideyo | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020107809 | Biddle et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020112186 | Ford et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020116340 | Hellberg et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020138441 | Lopatic | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020154777 | Candelore | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020169625 | Yang et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020169725 | Eng | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020188656 | Patton et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020188704 | Gold | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030013411 | Uchiyama | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030018491 | Nakahara et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030018582 | Yaacovi | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030023564 | Padhye et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030055749 | Carmody et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030084306 | Abburi et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030095542 | Chang et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030144959 | Makita | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030149670 | Cronce | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030149874 | Balfanz et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030156719 | Cronce | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030159033 | Ishiguro | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030159070 | Mayer et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030163428 | Schneck et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030172035 | Cronce et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030177393 | Ishiguro | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030191936 | Kawatsura et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030208449 | Diao | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030233547 | Gaston et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040003269 | Waxman et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040010469 | Lenard et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040044629 | Walker et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040044630 | Walker et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040047354 | Slater et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040054930 | Walker et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040073517 | Zunke et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040078339 | Goringe et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040088541 | Messerges et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040103011 | Hatano et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040103324 | Band | May 2004 | A1 |
20040127196 | Dabbish et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040128395 | Miyazaki | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040128551 | Walker et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040133794 | Kocher et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040162998 | Tuomi et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040181696 | Walker | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040249763 | Vardi | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040260589 | Varadarajan et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040268120 | Mirtal et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050005098 | Michaelis et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050038753 | Yen et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050076204 | Thornton et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050086174 | Eng | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050091507 | Lee et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050144437 | Ransom et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050154877 | Trench | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050198510 | Robert et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050202830 | Sudit | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050229004 | Callaghan | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050246098 | Bergstrom et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050289072 | Sabharwal | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060021068 | Xu et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060026105 | Endoh | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060036554 | Schrock et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060036894 | Bauer et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060064582 | Teal et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060089912 | Spagna et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060178953 | Aggarwal et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060242083 | Chavez | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060294010 | Kim et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070033419 | Kocher et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070094710 | Walker et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070107067 | Fountian | May 2007 | A1 |
20070219917 | Liu et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20080052295 | Walker et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080082449 | Wilkinson et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080141242 | Shapiro | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080189131 | Chavez | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20100049725 | Walker et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1071253 | Jan 2001 | EP |
1562378 | Aug 2005 | EP |
2006085481 | Mar 2006 | JP |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20040010440 A1 | Jan 2004 | US |