These and other features and advantages of the present example will be better understood from the following detailed description read in light of the accompanying drawings, wherein:
Like reference numerals are used to designate like elements in the accompanying drawings.
The detailed description provided below in connection with the appended drawings is intended as a description of the present examples and is not intended to represent the only forms in which the present examples may be constructed or utilized. The description sets forth the functions of the examples and the sequence of steps for constructing and operating the examples in connection with the examples illustrated. However, the same or equivalent functions and sequences may be accomplished by different examples.
Although the present examples are described and illustrated herein as being implemented in a computer operating system, the system described is provided as an example and not a limitation. As those skilled in the art will appreciate, the present examples are suitable for application in a variety of different types of computer systems.
Introduction
The computing environment 100 may typically include an operating system (“OS”) 102 that facilitates operation of the application 105, in conjunction with the one or more central processing units (“CPU”). Many operating systems 102 may allow multiple users to have access to the operation of the CPU. Multiple users may have ranges of access privileges typically ranging from those of a typical user to those of an administrator. Administrators typically have a range of access privileges to applications 105 running on the system, the user mode 103 and the kernel 104. Such a computing environment 100 may be susceptible to various types of attacks 107. Attacks may include not only outsiders seeking to gain access to the device 101 and the content 106 on it, but also attackers having administrative rights to the device 101 or other types of users having whatever access rights granted them.
For example, a trusted media player 202 may be designed to play media content 106 that is typically licensed only for use such that the media content 106 cannot be accessed in an unauthorized manner. Such a trusted application 202 may not operate and/or process the media content 106 unless the computing environment 200 can provide the required level of security, such as by providing a protected environment 203 resistant to attack 205.
As used herein, the term “process” can be defined as an instance of a program (including executable code, machine instructions, variables, data, state information, etc.) residing and/or operating in a kernel space, user space and/or any other space of an operating system and/or computing environment.
A digital rights management system 204 or the like may be utilized with the protected environment 203. The use of a digital rights management system 204 is merely provided as an example and may not be utilized with a protected environment or a secure computing environment. Typically a digital rights management system utilizes tamper-resistant software (“TRS”) which tends to be expensive to produce and may negatively impact computing performance. Utilizing a trusted application 202 may minimize the amount of TRS functionality required to provide enhanced protection.
Various mechanisms known to those skilled in this technology area may be utilized in place of, in addition to, or in conjunction with a typical digital rights management system. These mechanisms may include, but are not limited to, encryption/decryption, key exchanges, passwords, licenses, and the like. Thus, digital right management as used herein may be a mechanism as simple as decrypting an encrypted media, utilizing a password to access data, or other tamper-resistant mechanisms. The mechanisms to perform these tasks may be very simple and entirely contained within the trusted application 202 or may be accessed via interfaces that communicate with complex systems otherwise distinct from the trusted application 202.
In the example shown, source 302 and sink 303 are shown as part of a media pipeline 304 operating in the protected environment 203. A protected environment 203 tends to ensure that, once protected and/or encrypted content 309 has been received and decrypted, the trusted application 202 and its components prevent unauthorized access to the content 309.
Digital rights management 204 may provide a further avenue of protection for the trusted application 202 and the content 309 it processes. Through a system of licenses 308, device certificates 311, and other security mechanisms a content provider is typically able to have confidence that encrypted content 309 has been delivered to the properly authorized device and that the content 309 is used as intended.
In one example, a trusted application 202 may utilize a digital rights management (“DRM”) system 204 or the like along with a protected environment 203. In this case, the trusted application 202 is typically designed to acknowledge, and adhere to, the content's usage policies by limiting usage of the content to that authorized by the content provider via the policies. Implementing this may involve executing code which typically interrogates content licenses and subsequently makes decisions about whether or not a requested action can be taken on a piece of content. This functionality may be provided, at least in part, by a digital rights management system 204. An example of a Digital Rights Management system is provided in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/290,363, filed Apr. 12, 1999, U.S. patent applications Ser. Nos. 10/185,527, 10/185,278, and 10/185,511, each filed on Jun. 28, 2002 which are hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
Building a trusted application 202 that may be utilized in the CE device 401 or the PC 403 may include making sure the trusted application 202 which decrypts and processes the content 309 may be “secure” from malicious attacks. Thus, a protected environment 203 typically refers to an environment that may not be easy to attack.
As shown, the trusted applications 202 operate in a consumer electronics device 401, which may be periodically synced to a PC 403 that also provides a trusted application. The PC 403 is in turn coupled 404 to the internet 405. The internet connection allows digital media 410 to be provided by a service provider 407. The service provider 407 may transmit licenses and encrypted media 406 over the internet 405 to trusted application 202. Once encrypted media is delivered and decrypted it may be susceptible to various forms of attack.
Protected Environments and Potential Attacks
A protected computing environment tends to provide an environment that limits hackers from gaining access to unauthorized content. A hacker may include hackers acting as a systems administrator. A systems administrator typically has full control of virtually all of the processes being executed on a computer, but this access may not be desirable. For example, if a system user has been granted a license to use a media file should not be acceptable for a system administrator different from the user to be able to access the media file. A protected environment tends to contribute to the creation of a process in which code that decrypts and processes content can operate without giving hackers access to the decrypted content. A protected environment may also limit unauthorized access to users of privilege, such as administrators, and/or any other user, who may otherwise gain unauthorized access to protected content. Protection may include securing typical user mode processes (
Processes operating in the kernel may be susceptible to attack. For example, in the kernel of a typical operating system objects are created, including processes, that may allow unlimited access by an administrator. Thus, an administrator, typically with full access privileges, may access virtually all processes.
Protected content may include policy or similar information indicating the authorized use of the content. Such policy may be enforced via a DRM system or other security mechanism. Typically, access to protected content is granted through the DRM system or other mechanism, which may enforce policy. However, a system administrator, with full access to the system, may alter the state of the DRM system or mechanism to disregard the content policy.
A protected environment tends to provide a protected space that restricts unauthorized access to media content being processed therein, even for high-privilege users such as an administrator. When a protected environment is used in conjunction with a system of digital rights management or the like, a trusted application may be created in which a content provider may feel that adequate security is provided to protect digital media from unauthorized access and may also protect the content's policy from be tampered with along with any other data, keys or protection mechanisms that may be associated with the media content.
Attack Vectors
Current operating system (“OS”) architectures typically present numerous possible attack vectors that could compromise a media application and any digital media content being processed. For purposes of this example, attacks that may occur in an OS are grouped into two types of attacks, which are kernel mode attacks and user mode attacks.
The first type of attack is the kernel mode attack. Kernel mode is typically considered to be the trusted base of the operating system. The core of the operating system and most system and peripheral drivers may operate in kernel mode. Typically any piece of code running in the kernel is susceptible to intrusion by any other piece of code running in the kernel, which tends not to be the case for user mode. Also, code running in kernel mode typically has access to substantially all user mode processes. A CPU may also provide privilege levels for various code types. Kernel mode code is typically assigned the highest level of privilege by such a CPU, typically giving it full access to the system.
The second type of attack is the user mode attack. Code that runs in user mode may or may not be considered trusted code by the system depending on the level of privilege it has been assigned. This level of privilege may be determined by the user context or account in which it is operating. User mode code running in the context of an administrator account may have full access to the other code running on the system. In addition, code that runs in user mode may be partitioned to prevent one user from accessing another's processes.
These attacks may be further broken down into specific attack vectors. The protected environment is typically designed to protect against unauthorized access that may otherwise be obtained via one or more of these attack vectors. The protected environment may protect against attack vectors that may include: process creation, malicious user mode applications, loading malicious code into a process, malicious kernel code, invalid trust authorities, and external attack vectors.
Process creation is a possible attack vector. An operating system typically includes a “create process” mechanism that allows a parent process to create a child process. A malicious parent process may, by modifying the create process code or by altering the data it creates, make unauthorized modifications to the child process being created. This could result in compromising digital media that may be processed by a child process created by a malicious parent process.
Malicious user mode applications are a possible attack vector. An operating system typically includes administrator level privileges. Processes running with administrator privileges may have unlimited access to many operating system mechanisms and to nearly all processes running on the computer. Thus, in Windows for example, a malicious user mode application running with administrator privileges may gain access to many other processes running on the computer and may thus compromise digital media. Similarly, processes operating in the context of any user may be attacked by any malicious process operating in the same context.
Loading malicious code into a secure process is a possible attack vector. It may be possible to append or add malicious code to a process. Such a compromised process cannot be trusted and may obtain unauthorized access to any media content or other data being processed by the modified process.
Malicious kernel mode code is a possible attack vector. An operating system typically includes a “system level” of privilege. In Windows, for example, all code running in kernel mode is typically running as system and therefore may have maximum privileges. The usual result is that drivers running in kernel mode may have maximum opportunity to attack any user mode application, for example. Such an attack by malicious kernel mode code may compromise digital media.
Invalid trust authorities (TAs) are a possible attack vector. TAs may participate in the validation of media licenses and may subsequently “unlock” the content of a digital media. TAs may be specific to a media type or format and may be implemented by media providers or their partners. As such, TAs may be pluggable and/or may be provided as dynamic link libraries (“DLL”) or the like. A DLL may be loaded by executable code, including malicious code. In order for a TA to ensure that the media is properly utilized it needs to be able to ensure that the process in which it is running is secure. Otherwise the digital media may be compromised.
External attacks are another possible attack vector. There are a set of attacks that don't require malicious code running in a system in order to attack it. For instance, attaching a debugger to a process or a kernel debugger to the machine, looking for sensitive data in a binary file on a disk, etc., are all possible mechanisms for finding and compromising digital media or the processes that can access digital media.
A possible attack vector 509 may be initiated via a malicious user mode application 502. In the exemplary operating system architecture both the parent of a process, and any process with administrative privileges, typically have unlimited access to other processes, such as one processing media content, and the data they process. Such access to media content may be unauthorized. Thus a protected environment may ensure that a trusted application and the media content it processes are resistant to attacks by other user mode applications.
A possible attack vector 508 is the loading of malicious code 503 into a process 501. Having a secure process that is resistant to attacks from the outside is typically only as secure as the code running on the inside forming the process. Given that DLLs and other code are typically loaded into processes for execution, a mechanism that may ensure that the code being loaded is trusted to run inside a process before loading it into the process may be provided in a protected environment.
A possible vector of attack 510 is through malicious kernel mode code 504. Code running in kernel mode 104 typically has maximum privileges. The result may be that drivers running in kernel mode may have a number of opportunities to attack other applications. For instance, a driver may be able to access memory directly in another process. The result of this is that a driver could, once running, get access to a processes memory which may contain decrypted “encrypted media content” (
A possible attack vector 507 is by external attacks 506 to the system 100. This group represents the set of attacks that typically do not require malicious code to be running on the system 100. For instance, attaching a debugger to an application and/or a process on the system, searching a machine for sensitive data, etc. A protected environment may be created to resist these types of attacks.
Creating and Maintaining Protected Environments
The term “kernel”, as used here, is defined as the central module of an operating system for a computing environment, system or device. The kernel module may be implemented in the form of computer-executable instructions and/or electronic logic circuits. Typically, the kernel is responsible for memory management, process and task management, and storage media management of a computing environment. The term “kernel component”, as used here, is defined to be a basic controlling mechanism, module, computer-executable instructions and/or electronic logic circuit that forms a portion of the kernel. For example, a kernel component may be a “loader”, which may be responsible for loading other kernel components in order to establish a fully operational kernel.
To summarize the process of creating and maintaining a protected environment:
1. Block 602 represents the start-up of a computer system. This typically begins what is commonly known as the boot process and includes loading of an operating system from disk or some other storage media.
2. Typically one of the first operations during the boot process is the loading of the kernel and its components. This example provides the validation of kernel components and, if all are successfully validated as secure, the setting of a flag indicating the kernel is secure. This is shown in block 604.
3. After the computer system is considered fully operational a user may start an application such as a trusted media player which may require a protected environment. This example provides a secure kernel with an application operating in a protected environment, as shown in block 606.
4. Once the protected environment has been created and one or more of the processes of the application have been loaded into it and are operating, the trusted environment may periodically check the kernel secure flag to ensure the kernel remains secure, as shown in block 608. That is, from the point in time that the trusted application begins operation, a check may be made periodically to determine whether any unauthorized kernel components have been loaded. Such unauthorized kernel components could attack the trusted application or the data it may be processing. Therefore, if any such components are loaded, the kernel secure flag may be set appropriately.
Loading and Validating a Secure Kernel
Kernel components 720-730 are typically “signed” and may include a certificate data 738 that may allow the kernel to validate that they are the components they claim to be, that they have not been modified and/or are not malicious. A signature block and/or certificate data 738 may be present in each kernel component 720-730 and/or each loaded kernel component 760, 762. The signature and/or certificate data 738 may be unique to each component. The signature and/or certificate data 738 may be used in the creation and maintenance of protected environments as indicated below. Typically a component is “signed” by its provider in such as way as to securely identify the source of the component and/or indicate whether it may have been tampered with. A signature may be implemented as a hash of the component's header or by using other techniques. A conventional certificate or certificate chain may also be included with a component that may be used to determine if the component can be trusted. The signature and/or certificate data 738 are typically added to a component before it is distributed for public use. Those skilled in the art will be familiar with these technologies and their use.
When a typical computer system is started or “booted” the operating system's loading process or “kernel loader” 751 may typically load the components of the kernel from disk or the like into a portion of system memory to form the kernel of the operating system. Once all of the kernel components are loaded and operational the computer and operating system are considered “booted” and ready for normal operation.
Kernel component #1720 thru kernel component #n 730, in the computing environment, may be stored on a disk or other storage media, along with a revocation list 714, a kernel dump flag 712 and a debugger 710 along with a debug credential 711. Arrow 604 indicates the kernel loading process which reads the various components 714-730 from their storage location and loads them into system memory forming a functional operating system kernel 750. The kernel dump flag 712 being described as a “flag” is not meant to be limiting; it may be implemented as a boolean variable or as a more complex data structure or mechanism.
The kernel loader 751 along with the PE management portion of the kernel 752, the revocation list 754 and two of the kernel components 720 and 722 are shown loaded into the kernel, the latter as blocks 760 and 762, along with an indication of space for additional kernel components yet to be loaded into the kernel, 764 and 770. Finally, the kernel 750 includes a kernel secure flag 790 which may be used to indicate whether or not the kernel 750 is currently considered secure or not. This illustration is provided as an example and is not intended to be limiting or complete. The kernel loader 751, the PE management portion of the kernel 752 and/or the other components of the kernel are shown as distinct kernel components for clarity of explanation but, in actual practice, may or may not be distinguishable from other portions of the kernel.
Included in the computing environment 200 may be a revocation list 714 that may be used in conjunction with the signature and certificate data 738 associated with the kernel components 760 and 762. This object 714 may retain a list of signatures, certificates and/or certificate chains that are no longer considered valid as of the creation date of the list 714. The revocation list 714 is shown loaded into the kernel as object 754. Such lists are maintained because a validly-signed and certified component, for example components 760 and 762, may later be discovered to have some problem. The system may use such a list 754 to check kernel components 720-730 as they are loaded, which may be properly signed and/or have trusted certificate data 738, but that may have subsequently been deemed untrustworthy. Such a revocation list 754 will typically include version information 755 so that it can more easily be identified, managed and updated as required.
Another component of the system that may impact kernel security is a debugger 710. Debuggers may not typically be considered a part of the kernel but may be present in a computing environment 200. Debuggers, including those known as kernel debuggers, system analyzers, and the like, may have broad access to the system and the processes running on the system along with any data. A debugger 710 may be able access any data in a computing environment 200, including media content that should not be accessed in a manner other than that authorized. On the other hand, debugging is typically a part of developing new functionality and it typically is possible to debug within protected environments the code intended to process protected media content. A debugger 710 may thus include debug credentials 711 which may indicate that the presence of the debugger 710 on a system is authorized. Thus detection of the presence of a debugger 710 along with any accompanying credentials 711 may be a part of the creation and maintenance of protected environments (
The computing environment 200 may include a kernel dump flag 712. This flag 712 may be used to indicate how much of kernel memory is available for inspection in case of a catastrophic system failure. Such kernel dumps may be used for postmortem debugging after such as failure. If such a flag 712 indicates that substantially all memory is available for inspection upon a dump then the kernel 750 may be considered insecure as hacker could run an application which exposes protected media in system memory and then force a catastrophic failure condition which may result in the memory being available for inspection including that containing the exposed media content. Thus a kernel dump flag 712 may be used in the creation and maintenance of a protected environments (
The term “authorized for secure use” and the like as used below with respect to kernel components has the following specific meaning. A kernel containing any components that are not authorized for secure use does not provide a secure computing environment within which protected environments may operate. The opposite may not be true as it depends on other factors such as attack vectors.
1. Block 801 shows the start of the loading process 604 after the PE management portion of the kernel has been loaded and made operational. Any component loaded in the kernel prior to this may be validated as described above.
2. Block 802 shows that the kernel secure flag initially set to TRUE unless any component loaded prior to the PE management portion of the kernel, or that component itself, is found to be insecure at which point the kernel secure flag may be set to FALSE. In practice the indication of TRUE or FALSE may take various forms; the use of TRUE or FALSE here is only an example and is not meant to be limiting.
3. Block 804 indicates a check for the presence of a debugger in the computing environment. Alternatively a debugger could reside remotely and be attached to the computing environment via a network or other communications media to a process in the computing environment. If no debugger is detected the loading process 604 continues at block 810. Otherwise it continues at block 809. Not shown in the diagram, this check may be performed periodically and the state of the kernel secure flag updated accordingly.
4. If a debugger is detected, block 806 shows a check for debug credentials which may indicate that debugging may be authorized on the system in the presence of a protected environment. If such credentials are not present, the kernel secure flag may be set to FALSE as shown in block 808. Otherwise the loading process 604 continues at block 810.
5. Block 810 shows a check of the kernel dump flag. If this flag indicates that a full kernel memory dump or the like may be possible then the kernel secure flag may be set to FALSE as shown in block 808. Otherwise the loading process 604 continues at block 812. Not shown in the diagram, this check may be performed periodically and the state of the kernel secure flag updated accordingly.
6. Block 812 shows the loading of the revocation list into the kernel. In cases where the revocation list may be used to check debug credentials, or other previously loaded credentials, signatures, certificate data, or the like, this step may take place earlier in the sequence (prior to the loading of credentials and the like to be checked) than shown. Not shown in the diagram is that, once this component is loaded, any and all previously loaded kernel components may be checked to see if their signature and/or certificate data has been revoked per the revocation list. If any have been revoked, the kernel secure flag may be set to FALSE and the loading process 604 continues at block 814. Note that a revocation list may or may not be loaded into the kernel to be used in the creation and maintenance of a protected environments.
7. Block 814 shows the transition to part 2 of this diagram shown in
8. Block 902 shows a check for any additional kernel components to be loaded. If all components have been loaded then the load process 604 is usually complete and the kernel secure flag remains in whatever state it was last set to, either TRUE or FALSE. If there are additional kernel components to be loaded the load process 604 continues at block 906.
9. Block 906 shows a check for a valid signature of the next component to be loaded. If the signature is invalid then the kernel secure flag may be set to FALSE as shown in block 918. Otherwise the loading process 604 continues at block 908. If no component signature is available the component may be considered insecure and the kernel secure flag may be set to FALSE as shown in block 918. Signature validity may be determined by checking for a match on a list of valid signatures and/or by checking whether the signer's identity is a trusted identity. As familiar to those skilled in the security technology area, other methods could also be used to validate component signatures.
10. Block 908 shows a check of the component's certificate data. If the certificate data is invalid then the kernel secure flag may be set to FALSE as shown in block 918. Otherwise the loading process 604 continues at block 910. If no component certificate data is available the component may be considered insecure and the kernel secure flag may be set to FALSE as shown in block 918. Certificate data validity may be determined by checking the component's certificate data to see if the component is authorized for secure use. As familiar to those skilled in the art, other methods could also be used to validate component certificate data.
11. Block 910 shows a check of the component's signature against a revocation list loaded in the kernel. If the signature is present on the list, indicating that it has been revoked, then the kernel secure flag may be set to FALSE as shown in block 918. Otherwise the loading process 604 continues at block 912.
12. Block 912 shows a check of the component's certificate data against a revocation list. If the certificate data is present on the list, indicating that it has been revoked, then the kernel secure flag may be set to FALSE as shown in block 918. Otherwise the loading process 604 continues at block 914.
13. Block 914 shows a check of the component's signature to determine if it is OK for use. This check may be made by inspecting the component's leaf certificate data to see if the component is authorized for secure use. Certain attributes in the certificate data may indicate if the component is approved for protected environment usage. If not the component may not be appropriately signed and the kernel secure flag may be set to FALSE as shown in block 918. Otherwise the loading process 604 continues at block 916.
14. Block 916 shows a check of the component's root certificate data. This check may be made by inspecting the component's root certificate data to see if it is listed on a list of trusted root certificates. If not the component may be considered insecure and the kernel secure flag may be set to FALSE as shown in block 918. Otherwise the loading process 604 continues at block 920.
15. Block 920 shows the loading of the component into the kernel where it is now considered operational. Then the loading process 604 returns to block 902 to check for any further components to be loaded.
Creating Protected Environments
1. Block 1101 shows the start of the protected environment creation process 606. This point is usually reached when some application or code calls for a protected environment to operate.
2. Block 1102 shows the establishment of a protected environment. While not shown in the diagram, this may be accomplished by requesting the operating system to create a new secure process. Code later loaded and operating in this secure process may be considered to be operating in a protected environment. If the kernel secure flag is set to FALSE then the “create new secure process” request may fail. This may be because the system as a whole may be considered insecure and unsuitable for a protected environment and any application or data requiring a protected environment. Alternatively, the “create new secure process” request may succeed and the component loaded into the new process may be informed that the system is considered insecure so that it can modify its operations accordingly. Otherwise the process 606 continues at block 1106.
3. Block 1106 shows a check for a valid signature of the software component to be loaded into the new secure process or protected environment. If the signature is invalid then the process 606 may fail as shown in block 1118. Otherwise the process 606 continues at block 1108. Not shown in the process is that the program, or its equivalent, creating the new secure process may also be checked for a valid signature. Thus, for either the component itself and/or the program creating the new secure process, if no signature is available the component may be considered insecure and the process 606 may fail as shown in block 1118. Signature validity may be determined by checking for a match on a list of valid signatures and/or by checking whether the signer's identity is a trusted identity. As familiar to those skilled in the security technology area, other methods could also be used to validate component signatures.
4. Block 1108 shows a check of the software component's certificate data. If the certificate data is invalid then the process 606 may fail as shown in block 1118. Otherwise the process 606 continues at block 1110. If no component certificate data is available the component may be considered insecure and the process 606 may fail as shown in block 1118. Certificate data validity may be determined by checking the component's certificate data to see if the component is authorized for secure use. As familiar to those skilled in the art, other methods could also be used to validate component certificate data.
5. Block 1110 shows a check of the component's signature against a revocation list. If the signature is present on the list, indicating that it has been revoked, then the process 606 may fail as shown in block 1118. Otherwise the process 606 continues at block 1112.
12. Block 1112 shows a check of the component's certificate data against a revocation list. If the certificate data is present on the list, indicating that it has been revoked, then the process 606 may fail as shown in block 1118. Otherwise the process 606 continues at block 1114.
13. Block 1114 shows a check of the component's signature to determine if it is acceptable for use. This check may be made by inspecting the component's leaf certificate data to see if the component is authorized for secure use. Certain attributes in the certificate data may indicate if the component is approved for protected environment usage. If not the component may be considered to not be appropriately signed and the process 606 may fail as shown in block 1118. Otherwise the process 606 continues at block 1116.
14. Block 1116 shows a check of the component's root certificate data. This check may be made by inspecting the component's root certificate data to see if it is listed on a list of trusted root certificates. If not the component may be considered insecure and the process 606 may fail as shown in block 1118. Otherwise the process 606 continues at block 1120.
15. Block 1118 shows the failure of the software component to load followed by block 1130, the end of the protected environment creation process 606.
16. Block 1120 shows the software component being loaded into the protected environment, where it is considered operational, followed by block 1130, the end of the protected environment creation process 606.
Validating a Secure Kernel Over Time
The protected environment 202 may periodically check with the PE management portion of the kernel 752 to determine whether the kernel 750 remains secure over time. This periodic check may be performed because it is possible for a new component to be loaded into the kernel 750 at any time, including a component that may be considered insecure. If this were to occur, the state of the kernel secure flag 790 would change to FALSE and the code operating in the protected environment 202 has the opportunity to respond appropriately.
For example, consider a media player application that was started on a PC 200 with a secure kernel 750 and a portion of the media player application operating in a protected environment 202 processing digital media content that is licensed only for secure use. In this example, if a new kernel component that is considered insecure is loaded while the media player application is processing the media content, then the check kernel secure state process 240 would note the kernel secure flag 790 has changed to FALSE indicating the kernel 750 may no longer be secure.
Alternatively, the revocation list 745 may be updated and a kernel component previously considered secure may no longer be considered secure, resulting in the kernel secure flag 790 being set to FALSE. At this point the application may receive notification that the system 200 is no longer considered secure and can terminate operation, or take other appropriate action to protect itself and/or the media content it is processing.
The diagram shows a sequence of communications 608, illustrated with exemplary pseudo code, between the protected environment 202 and the PE management portion of the kernel 752. This communication may include a check of the version of a revocation list which may give an application the ability to specify a revocation list of at least a certain version. This communications sequence may be cryptographically secured using conventional techniques.
1. The protected environment 202 makes a IsKernelSecure(MinRLVer) call 1320 to the PE management portion of the kernel to query the current security state of the kernel. Included in this call 1320 may be the minimum version (MinRLVer) of the revocation list expected to be utilized.
2. The PE management portion of the kernel checks to see if the protected environment, which is the calling process, is secure. If not, then it may provide a Return(SecureFlag=FALSE) indication 1322 to the protected environment and the communications sequence 608 is complete. This security check may be done by the PE management portion of the kernel checking the protected environment for a valid signature and/or certificate data as described above.
3. Otherwise, the PE management portion of the kernel checks the kernel secure flag in response to the call 1320. If the state of the flag is FALSE then it may provide a Return(SecureFlag=FALSE) indication 1324 to the protected environment and the communications sequence 608 is complete.
4. Otherwise, the PE management portion of the kernel checks the revocation list version information for the revocation list. If the revocation list has version information that is older than that requested in the IsKernelSecure(MinRLVer) call 1320 then several options are possible. First, as indicated in the diagram, the PE management portion of the kernel may provide a Return(SecureFlag=FALSE) indication 1326 to the protected environment and the communications sequence 608 is complete.
Alternatively, and not shown in the diagram, an appropriate version revocation list may be located and loaded into the kernel, all kernel components could be re-validated using this new or updated list, the kernel secure flag updated as appropriate and the previous step #3 of this communications sequence 608 repeated.
5. Otherwise, the PE management portion of the kernel may provide a Return(SecureFlag=TRUE) indication 1328 to the protected environment and the communications sequence 608 is complete.
Exemplary Computing Environment
A suitable computing environment can be implemented with numerous other general purpose or special purpose systems. Examples of well known systems may include, but are not limited to, personal computers (“PC”) 1400, hand-held or laptop devices, microprocessor-based systems, multiprocessor systems, set top boxes, programmable consumer electronics, gaming consoles, consumer electronic devices, cellular telephones, PDAs, and the like.
The PC 1400 includes a general-purpose computing system in the form of a computing device 1401 couple to various peripheral devices 1403, 1404, 1415, 1416 and the like. The components of computing device 1401 may include one or more processors (including CPUs, GPUs, microprocessors and the like) 1407, a system memory 1409, and a system bus 1408 that couples the various system components. Processor 1407 processes various computer executable instructions to control the operation of computing device 1401 and to communicate with other electronic and/or computing devices (not shown) via various communications connections such as a network connection 1414 an the like. The system bus 1408 represents any number of several types of bus structures, including a memory bus or memory controller, a peripheral bus, an accelerated graphics port, and/or a processor or local bus using any of a variety of bus architectures.
The system memory 1409 may include computer readable media in the form of volatile memory, such as random access memory (RAM), and/or non-volatile memory, such as read only memory (ROM). A basic input/output system (BIOS) may be stored in ROM. RAM typically contains data and/or program modules that are immediately accessible to and/or presently operated on by one or more of the processors 1407. By way of example, shown loaded in system memory for operation is a trusted application 202 utilizing a protected environment 203 and the media content being processed 106.
Mass storage devices 1404 and 1410 may be coupled to the computing device 1401 or incorporated into the computing device 1401 by coupling to the system bus. Such mass storage devices 1404 and 1410 may include a magnetic disk drive which reads from and writes to a removable, non volatile magnetic disk (e.g., a “floppy disk”) 1405, and/or an optical disk drive that reads from and/or writes to a non-volatile optical disk such as a CD ROM, DVD ROM or the like 1406. Computer readable media 1405 and 1406 typically embody computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules and the like supplied on floppy disks, CDs, DVDs, portable memory sticks and the like.
Any number of program programs or modules may be stored on the hard disk 1410, other mass storage devices 1404, and system memory 1409 (typically limited by available space) including, by way of example, an operating system(s), one or more application programs, other program modules, and/or program data. Each of such operating system, application program, other program modules and program data (or some combination thereof) may include an embodiment of the systems and methods described herein. Kernel components 720-730 may be stored on the disk 1410 along with other operating system code. Media application 105 and/or a digital rights management system 204 may be stored on the disk 1410 along with other application programs. These components 720-730 and applications 105, 204 may be loaded into system memory 1409 and made operational.
A display device 1416 may be coupled to the system bus 1408 via an interface, such as a video adapter 1411. A user can interface with computing device 1400 via any number of different input devices 1403 such as a keyboard, pointing device, joystick, game pad, serial port, and/or the like. These and other input devices may be coupled to the processors 1407 via input/output interfaces 1412 that may be coupled to the system bus 1408, and may be coupled by other interface and bus structures, such as a parallel port(s), game port(s), and/or a universal serial bus (USB) and the like.
Computing device 1400 may operate in a networked environment using communications connections to one or more remote computers and/or devices through one or more local area networks (LANs), wide area networks (WANs), the Internet, radio links, optical links and the like. The computing device 1400 may be coupled to a network via a network adapter 1413 or alternatively via a modem, DSL, ISDN interface or the like.
Communications connection 1414 is an example of communications media. Communications media typically embody computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules and/or other data in a modulated data signal such as a carrier wave or other transport mechanism and includes any information delivery media. The term “modulated data signal” means a signal that has one or more of its characteristics set or changed in such a manner as to encode information in the signal. By way of example, and not limitation, communications media include wired media such as a wired network or direct-wired connection, and wireless media such as acoustic, radio frequency, infrared, and other wireless media.
Those skilled in the art will realize that storage devices utilized to store computer-readable program instructions can be distributed across a network. For example a remote computer or device may store an example of the system described as software. A local or terminal computer or device may access the remote computer(s) or device(s) and download a part or all of the software to run a program(s). Alternatively the local computer may download pieces of the software as needed, or distributively process the software by executing some of the software instructions at the local terminal and some at remote computers and/or devices.
Those skilled in the art will also realize that by utilizing conventional techniques known to those skilled in the art that all, or a portion, of the software instructions may be carried out by a dedicated electronic circuit such as a digital signal processor (“DSP”), programmable logic array (“PLA”), discrete circuits, or the like. The term electronic apparatus as used herein includes computing devices and consumer electronic devices comprising any software and/or firmware and the like, and/or electronic devices or circuits comprising no software and/or firmware and the like.
The term computer readable medium may include system memory, hard disks, mass storage devices and their associated media, communications media, and the like.
This application is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/116,598 filed Apr. 27, 2005 and claims benefit to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/673,979 filed Friday, Apr. 22, 2005.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3718906 | Lightner | Feb 1973 | A |
4183085 | Roberts | Jan 1980 | A |
4323921 | Guillou | Apr 1982 | A |
4405829 | Rivest | Sep 1983 | A |
4528643 | Freeny | Jul 1985 | A |
4558176 | Arnold et al. | Dec 1985 | A |
4620150 | Germer et al. | Oct 1986 | A |
4658093 | Hellman | Apr 1987 | A |
4683553 | Mollier | Jul 1987 | A |
4750034 | Lem | Jun 1988 | A |
4817094 | Lebizay et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
4827508 | Shear | May 1989 | A |
4855730 | Venners et al. | Aug 1989 | A |
4855922 | Huddleston et al. | Aug 1989 | A |
4857999 | Welsh | Aug 1989 | A |
4910692 | Outram | Mar 1990 | A |
4916738 | Chandra | Apr 1990 | A |
4953209 | Ryder | Aug 1990 | A |
4959774 | Davis | Sep 1990 | A |
4967273 | Greenberg | Oct 1990 | A |
4977594 | Shear | Dec 1990 | A |
5001752 | Fischer | Mar 1991 | A |
5012514 | Renton | Apr 1991 | A |
5050213 | Shear | Sep 1991 | A |
5103392 | Mori | Apr 1992 | A |
5103476 | Waite | Apr 1992 | A |
5109413 | Comerford | Apr 1992 | A |
5117457 | Comerford | May 1992 | A |
5193573 | Chronister | Mar 1993 | A |
5222134 | Waite | Jun 1993 | A |
5249184 | Woest et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
5269019 | Peterson et al. | Dec 1993 | A |
5274368 | Breeden et al. | Dec 1993 | A |
5295266 | Hinsley | Mar 1994 | A |
5301268 | Takeda | Apr 1994 | A |
5303370 | Brosh | Apr 1994 | A |
5319705 | Halter | Jun 1994 | A |
5355161 | Bird et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
5369262 | Dvorkis et al. | Nov 1994 | A |
5373561 | Haber | Dec 1994 | A |
5406630 | Piosenka et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5410598 | Shear | Apr 1995 | A |
5414861 | Horning | May 1995 | A |
5437040 | Campbell | Jul 1995 | A |
5442704 | Holtey | Aug 1995 | A |
5448045 | Clark | Sep 1995 | A |
5457699 | Bode | Oct 1995 | A |
5459867 | Adams et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
5473692 | Davis | Dec 1995 | A |
5490216 | Richardson, III | Feb 1996 | A |
5500897 | Hartman, Jr. | Mar 1996 | A |
5509070 | Schull | Apr 1996 | A |
5513319 | Finch et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5522040 | Hofsass et al. | May 1996 | A |
5530846 | Strong | Jun 1996 | A |
5552776 | Wade et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5563799 | Brehmer et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5568552 | Davis | Oct 1996 | A |
5586291 | Lasker et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5615268 | Bisbee | Mar 1997 | A |
5629980 | Stefik | May 1997 | A |
5634012 | Stefik | May 1997 | A |
5636292 | Rhoads | Jun 1997 | A |
5638443 | Stefik | Jun 1997 | A |
5638513 | Ananda | Jun 1997 | A |
5644364 | Kurtze | Jul 1997 | A |
5671412 | Christiano | Sep 1997 | A |
5673316 | Auerbach | Sep 1997 | A |
5710706 | Markl et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5710887 | Chelliah | Jan 1998 | A |
5715403 | Stefik | Feb 1998 | A |
5717926 | Browning | Feb 1998 | A |
5721788 | Powell | Feb 1998 | A |
5724425 | Chang et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5745879 | Wyman | Apr 1998 | A |
5754763 | Bereiter | May 1998 | A |
5758068 | Brandt et al. | May 1998 | A |
5763832 | Anselm | Jun 1998 | A |
5765152 | Erickson | Jun 1998 | A |
5768382 | Schneier et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5771354 | Crawford | Jun 1998 | A |
5774870 | Storey | Jun 1998 | A |
5793839 | Farris et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5799088 | Raike | Aug 1998 | A |
5802592 | Chess | Sep 1998 | A |
5809144 | Sirbu | Sep 1998 | A |
5809145 | Slik | Sep 1998 | A |
5812930 | Zavrel | Sep 1998 | A |
5825877 | Dan | Oct 1998 | A |
5825879 | Davis | Oct 1998 | A |
5825883 | Archibald et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5841865 | Sudia | Nov 1998 | A |
5844986 | Davis | Dec 1998 | A |
5845065 | Conte et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5845281 | Benson | Dec 1998 | A |
5875236 | Jankowitz et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5883670 | Sporer et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5883955 | Ronning | Mar 1999 | A |
5892900 | Ginter | Apr 1999 | A |
5892906 | Chou et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5913038 | Griffiths | Jun 1999 | A |
5925127 | Ahmad | Jul 1999 | A |
5926624 | Katz | Jul 1999 | A |
5935248 | Kuroda | Aug 1999 | A |
5943248 | Clapp | Aug 1999 | A |
5948061 | Merriman | Sep 1999 | A |
5949879 | Berson | Sep 1999 | A |
5953502 | Helbig et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5956408 | Arnold | Sep 1999 | A |
5983238 | Becker et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5983350 | Minear | Nov 1999 | A |
5994710 | Knee et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6021438 | Duvvoori | Feb 2000 | A |
6026293 | Osborn | Feb 2000 | A |
6049789 | Frison et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6058476 | Matsuzaki | May 2000 | A |
6061451 | Muratani | May 2000 | A |
6061794 | Angelo et al. | May 2000 | A |
6069647 | Sullivan | May 2000 | A |
6078909 | Knutson | Jun 2000 | A |
6101606 | Diersch et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6119229 | Martinez et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6128740 | Curry | Oct 2000 | A |
6134659 | Sprong | Oct 2000 | A |
6147773 | Taylor | Nov 2000 | A |
6148417 | Da Silva | Nov 2000 | A |
6157721 | Shear | Dec 2000 | A |
6158011 | Chen | Dec 2000 | A |
6158657 | Hall, III et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6170060 | Mott | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6185678 | Arbaugh et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6188995 | Garst et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6189146 | Misra et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6192392 | Ginter | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6209099 | Saunders | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6219652 | Carter et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6219788 | Flavin | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6223291 | Puhl | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6226618 | Downs | May 2001 | B1 |
6226747 | Larsson et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6230185 | Salas et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6230272 | Lockhart | May 2001 | B1 |
6233600 | Salas et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6233685 | Smith | May 2001 | B1 |
6243439 | Arai et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6253224 | Brice, Jr. et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6263431 | Lovelace et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6266420 | Langford | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6266480 | Ezaki | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6272469 | Koritzinsky et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6279111 | Jensenworth et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6279156 | Amberg et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6286051 | Becker et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6289319 | Lockwood et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6295577 | Anderson et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6298446 | Schreiber | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6303924 | Adan et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6314408 | Salas et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6314409 | Schneck et al. | Nov 2001 | B2 |
6321335 | Chu | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6327652 | England | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6330670 | England et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6334189 | Granger | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6345294 | O'Toole et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6363488 | Ginter | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6367017 | Gray | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6373047 | Adan et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6374355 | Patel | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6385727 | Cassagnol et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6405923 | Seyson | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6408170 | Schmidt et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6409089 | Eskicioglu | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6411941 | Mullor et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6424714 | Wasilewski et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6425081 | Iwamura | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6441813 | Ishibashi | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6442529 | Krishan et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6442690 | Howard | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6449598 | Green | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6460140 | Schoch et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6463534 | Geiger et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6496858 | Frailong et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6507909 | Zurko | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6567793 | Hicks et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6571216 | Garg et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6581102 | Amini | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6585158 | Norskog | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6587684 | Hsu et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6609201 | Folmsbee | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6625729 | Angelo | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6631478 | Wang et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6646244 | Aas et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6664948 | Crane et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6671803 | Pasieka | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6678828 | Pham et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6690556 | Smola et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6694000 | Ung et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6704873 | Underwood | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6708176 | Strunk et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6711263 | Nordenstam et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6716652 | Ortlieb | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6738810 | Kramer et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6763458 | Watanabe | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6765470 | Shinzaki | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6772340 | Peinado | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6791157 | Casto et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6799270 | Bull | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6816596 | Peinado | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6816809 | Circenis | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6816900 | Vogel et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6829708 | Peinado | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6834352 | Shin | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6839841 | Medvinsky et al. | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6844871 | Hinckley et al. | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6847942 | Land et al. | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6850252 | Hoffberg | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6851051 | Bolle et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6853380 | Alcorn | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6868433 | Philyaw | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6871283 | Zurko et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6895504 | Zhang | May 2005 | B1 |
6920567 | Doherty et al. | Jul 2005 | B1 |
6931545 | Ta | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6934942 | Chilimbi | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6954728 | Kusumoto et al. | Oct 2005 | B1 |
6957186 | Guheen et al. | Oct 2005 | B1 |
6976162 | Ellison et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
6983050 | Yacobi et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
6986042 | Griffin | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6990174 | Eskelinen | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6993648 | Goodman et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7000100 | Lacombe et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7000829 | Harris et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7013384 | Challener et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7016498 | Peinado | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7028149 | Grawrock | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7039801 | Narin | May 2006 | B2 |
7043633 | Fink | May 2006 | B1 |
7052530 | Edlund et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7054468 | Yang | May 2006 | B2 |
7069442 | Sutton, II | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7069595 | Cognigni et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7076652 | Ginter et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7096469 | Kubala et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7097357 | Johnson et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7103574 | Peinado | Sep 2006 | B1 |
7113912 | Stefik | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7117183 | Blair et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7120250 | Candelore | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7121460 | Parsons et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7124938 | Marsh | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7127579 | Zimmer | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7130951 | Christie et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7131004 | Lyle | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7143297 | Buchheit et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7162645 | Iguchi et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7171539 | Mansell et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7174457 | England et al. | Feb 2007 | B1 |
7200760 | Riebe | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7203310 | England | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7207039 | Komarla et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7213266 | Maher | May 2007 | B1 |
7222062 | Goud | May 2007 | B2 |
7233666 | Lee | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7233948 | Shamoon | Jun 2007 | B1 |
7234144 | Wilt et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7236455 | Proudler et al. | Jun 2007 | B1 |
7254836 | Alkove | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7266569 | Cutter et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7278165 | Molaro | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7290699 | Reddy | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7296154 | Evans | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7296296 | Dunbar | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7299358 | Chateau et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7299504 | Tiller | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7340055 | Hori | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7343496 | Hsiang | Mar 2008 | B1 |
7350228 | Peled | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7353209 | Peinado | Apr 2008 | B1 |
7353402 | Bourne et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7356709 | Gunyakti et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7359807 | Frank et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7360253 | Frank et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7376976 | Fierstein | May 2008 | B2 |
7382879 | Miller | Jun 2008 | B1 |
7392429 | Westerinen et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7395245 | Okamoto et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7395452 | Nicholson et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7406446 | Frank et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7406603 | MacKay | Jul 2008 | B1 |
7421413 | Frank et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7426752 | Agrawal | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7441121 | Cutter | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7441246 | Auerbach et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7461249 | Pearson et al. | Dec 2008 | B1 |
7464103 | Siu | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7490356 | Lieblich et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7493487 | Phillips et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7494277 | Setala | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7499545 | Bagshaw | Mar 2009 | B1 |
7500267 | McKune | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7519816 | Phillips et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7526649 | Wiseman | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7539863 | Phillips | May 2009 | B2 |
7540024 | Phillips et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7549060 | Bourne et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7552331 | Evans | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7558463 | Jain | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7562220 | Frank et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7565325 | Lenard | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7568096 | Evans et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7574747 | Oliveira | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7584502 | Alkove | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7590841 | Sherwani | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7596784 | Abrams | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7609653 | Amin | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7610631 | Frank et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7617401 | Marsh | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7644239 | Westerinen et al. | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7653943 | Evans | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7665143 | Havens | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7669056 | Frank | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7694153 | Ahdout | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7703141 | Alkove | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7739505 | Reneris | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7752674 | Evans | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7770205 | Frank | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7810163 | Evans | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7814532 | Cromer et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7822863 | Balfanz | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7860250 | Russ | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7877607 | Circenis | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7881315 | Haveson | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7891007 | Waxman et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7900140 | Mohammed | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7903117 | Howell | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7958029 | Bobich et al. | Jun 2011 | B1 |
7979721 | Westerinen | Jul 2011 | B2 |
20010021252 | Carter | Sep 2001 | A1 |
20010034711 | Tashenberg | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010044782 | Hughes | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010056413 | Satoru et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20010056539 | Pavlin et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020002597 | Morrell, Jr. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020002674 | Grimes | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020007310 | Long | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020010863 | Mankefors | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020012432 | England | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020023207 | Olik | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020023212 | Proudler | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020036991 | Inoue | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020046098 | Maggio | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020049679 | Russell | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020055906 | Katz et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020057795 | Spurgat | May 2002 | A1 |
20020091569 | Kitaura et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020095603 | Godwin | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020097872 | Maliszewski | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020103880 | Konetski | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020104096 | Cramer | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020107701 | Batty et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020111916 | Coronna et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020112171 | Ginter et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020116707 | Morris | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020123964 | Kramer et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020124212 | Nitschke et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020129359 | Lichner | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020138549 | Urien | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020141451 | Gates et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020144131 | Spacey | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020147601 | Fagan | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020147782 | Dimitrova et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020147912 | Shmueli et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020164018 | Wee | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020178071 | Walker et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020184482 | Lacombe et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020184508 | Bialick et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020193101 | McAlinden | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020194132 | Pearson et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030004880 | Banerjee | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030005135 | Inoue et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030005335 | Watanabe | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030014323 | Scheer | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030027549 | Kiel et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030028454 | Ooho et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030035409 | Wang et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030037246 | Goodman et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030040960 | Eckmann | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030046026 | Levy et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030048473 | Rosen | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030055898 | Yeager | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030056107 | Cammack et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030065918 | Willey | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030069981 | Trovato | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030084104 | Salem et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030084278 | Cromer et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030084285 | Cromer et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030084306 | Abburi | May 2003 | A1 |
20030084337 | Simionescu et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030084352 | Schwartz et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030088500 | Shinohara et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030093694 | Medvinsky et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030097596 | Muratov et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030097655 | Novak | May 2003 | A1 |
20030110388 | Pavlin et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030115147 | Feldman | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030115458 | Song | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030120935 | Teal | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030126086 | Safadi | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030126519 | Odorcic | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030131252 | Barton et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030133576 | Grumiaux | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030135380 | Lehr et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030149671 | Yamamoto et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030156572 | Hui et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030156719 | Cronce | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030159037 | Taki | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030163383 | Engelhart | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030163712 | LaMothe et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030165241 | Fransdonk | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030172376 | Coffin, III et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030185395 | Lee | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030188165 | Sutton et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030188179 | Challener | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030196102 | McCarroll | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030196106 | Erfani et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030200336 | Pal | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030208338 | Challener et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030208573 | Harrison et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030219127 | Russ | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030221100 | Russ | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030229702 | Hensbergen et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030236978 | Evans et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040001088 | Stancil et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040003190 | Childs et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040003268 | Bourne | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040003269 | Waxman | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040003270 | Bourne | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040003288 | Wiseman et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040010440 | Lenard et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040010684 | Douglas | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040010717 | Simec | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040019456 | Cirenis | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040023636 | Gurel et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040030912 | Merkle, Jr. et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040034816 | Richard | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040039916 | Aldis et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040039924 | Baldwin et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040039960 | Kassayan | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040044629 | Rhodes et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040054629 | de Jong | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040054907 | Chateau et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040054908 | Circenis et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040054909 | Serkowski et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040059937 | Takehiko | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040064707 | McCann et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040067746 | Johnson | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040073670 | Chack et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040083289 | Karger | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040088548 | Smetters et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040093371 | Burrows et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040093508 | Foerstner et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040098583 | Weber | May 2004 | A1 |
20040107356 | Shamoon | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040107359 | Kawano et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040107368 | Colvin | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040111609 | Kaji | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040123127 | Teicher et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040125755 | Roberts | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040128251 | Chris et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040133794 | Kocher et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040139027 | Molaro | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040158742 | Srinivasan et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040184605 | Soliman | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040187001 | Bousis | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040193919 | Dabbish et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040199769 | Proudler | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040205028 | Verosub | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040205357 | Kuo et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040210695 | Weber | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040220858 | Maggio | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040225894 | Colvin | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040249768 | Kontio | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040255000 | Simionescu et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040268120 | Mirtal et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050010766 | Holden | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050015343 | Nagai et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050021859 | Willian | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050021944 | Craft et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050021992 | Aida | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050028000 | Bulusu et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050033747 | Wittkotter | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050039013 | Bajikar et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050044197 | Lai | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050044391 | Noguchi | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050044397 | Bjorkengren | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050050355 | Graunke | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050060388 | Tatsumi et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050060542 | Risan | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050065880 | Amato et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050066353 | Fransdonk | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050071280 | Irwin | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050080701 | Tunney et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050089164 | Lang | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050091104 | Abraham | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050091488 | Dunbar | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050091526 | Alkove | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050097204 | Horowitz et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050102181 | Scroggie et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050108547 | Sakai | May 2005 | A1 |
20050108564 | Freeman et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050120251 | Fukumori | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050123276 | Sugaya | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050125673 | Cheng et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050129296 | Setala | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050131832 | Fransdonk | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050132150 | Jewell et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050138370 | Goud et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050138389 | Catherman et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050138406 | Cox | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050138423 | Ranganathan | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050141717 | Cromer et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050144099 | Deb et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050149722 | Wiseman | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050149729 | Zimmer | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050166051 | Buer | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050172121 | Risan | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050182921 | Duncan | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050182940 | Sutton | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050188843 | Edlund et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050203801 | Morgenstern et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050204205 | Ring | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050210252 | Freeman | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050213761 | Walmsley et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050216577 | Durham et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050221766 | Brizek et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050235141 | Ibrahim et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050240533 | Cutter et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050240985 | Alkove | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050246521 | Bade et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050246525 | Bade et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050246552 | Bade et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050251803 | Turner | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050257073 | Bade | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050262022 | Oliveira | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050265549 | Sugiyama | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050268115 | Barde | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050268174 | Kumagai | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050275866 | Corlett | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050278519 | Luebke et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050279827 | Mascavage et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050286476 | Crosswy et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050289177 | Hohmann, II | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050289343 | Tahan | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060010326 | Bade et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060015717 | Liu et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060015718 | Liu et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060015732 | Liu | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060020784 | Jonker et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060020821 | Waltermann et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060020860 | Tardif | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060026418 | Bade | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060026419 | Arndt et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060026422 | Bade et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060041943 | Singer | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060045267 | Moore | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060055506 | Nicolas | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060072748 | Buer | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060072762 | Buer | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060074600 | Sastry et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060075014 | Tharappel et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060075223 | Bade et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060085634 | Jain et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060085637 | Pinkas | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060085844 | Buer et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060089917 | Strom et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060090084 | Buer | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060100010 | Gatto et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060106845 | Frank et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060106920 | Steeb et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060107306 | Thirumalai et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060107328 | Frank et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060107335 | Frank et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060112267 | Zimmer et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060117177 | Buer | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060129496 | Chow | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060129824 | Hoff et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060130130 | Kablotsky | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060143431 | Rothman | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060149966 | Buskey | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060156416 | Huotari | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060165005 | Frank et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060168664 | Frank et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060173787 | Weber | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060206618 | Zimmer et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060212945 | Donlin et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060213997 | Frank et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060230042 | Butler | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060242406 | Barde | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060248594 | Grigorovitch | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060282319 | Maggio | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060282899 | Raciborski | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070033102 | Frank et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070058807 | Marsh | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070280422 | Setala | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080040800 | Park | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080256647 | Kim | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20090070454 | McKinnon, III et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20100146576 | Costanzo | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100177891 | Keidar | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100250927 | Bradley | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20110128290 | Howell | Jun 2011 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1287665 | Mar 2001 | CN |
1305159 | Jul 2001 | CN |
1393783 | Jan 2003 | CN |
1396568 | Feb 2003 | CN |
1531673 | Sep 2004 | CN |
1617152 | May 2005 | CN |
0 387 599 | Sep 1990 | EP |
0 409 397 | Jan 1991 | EP |
0 613 073 | Aug 1994 | EP |
0635790 | Jan 1995 | EP |
0 679 978 | Nov 1995 | EP |
0 715 246 | Jun 1996 | EP |
0 715 247 | Jun 1996 | EP |
0 735 719 | Oct 1996 | EP |
0 778 512 | Jun 1997 | EP |
0843449 | May 1998 | EP |
0 994 475 | Apr 2000 | EP |
1 045 388 | Oct 2000 | EP |
1061465 | Dec 2000 | EP |
1 083 480 | Mar 2001 | EP |
1085396 | Mar 2001 | EP |
1 128 342 | Aug 2001 | EP |
1120967 | Aug 2001 | EP |
1 130 492 | Sep 2001 | EP |
1 191 422 | Mar 2002 | EP |
1 338 992 | Aug 2003 | EP |
1 376 302 | Jan 2004 | EP |
1387237 | Feb 2004 | EP |
1429224 | Jun 2004 | EP |
1223722 | Aug 2004 | EP |
1460514 | Sep 2004 | EP |
1233337 | Aug 2005 | EP |
1 582 962 | Oct 2005 | EP |
2359969 | Sep 2001 | GB |
2378780 | Feb 2003 | GB |
H0535461 | Feb 1993 | JP |
H0635718 | Feb 1994 | JP |
H07036559 | Feb 1995 | JP |
H07141153 | Jun 1995 | JP |
H086729 | Jan 1996 | JP |
2001526550 | May 1997 | JP |
H09185504 | Jul 1997 | JP |
H9251494 | Sep 1997 | JP |
2000-242491 | Sep 2000 | JP |
2000293369 | Oct 2000 | JP |
2001051742 | Feb 2001 | JP |
2001-075870 | Mar 2001 | JP |
2003510684 | Mar 2001 | JP |
2001101033 | Apr 2001 | JP |
2003510713 | Apr 2001 | JP |
2001-175606 | Jun 2001 | JP |
2001184472 | Jul 2001 | JP |
2001-290650 | Oct 2001 | JP |
2001312325 | Nov 2001 | JP |
2001331229 | Nov 2001 | JP |
2001338233 | Dec 2001 | JP |
2002108478 | Apr 2002 | JP |
2002108870 | Apr 2002 | JP |
2002374327 | Dec 2002 | JP |
2003-058060 | Feb 2003 | JP |
2003507785 | Feb 2003 | JP |
2003-101526 | Apr 2003 | JP |
2003-115017 | Apr 2003 | JP |
2003-157334 | May 2003 | JP |
2003140761 | May 2003 | JP |
2003140762 | May 2003 | JP |
2003157335 | May 2003 | JP |
2003208314 | Jul 2003 | JP |
2003248522 | Sep 2003 | JP |
2003-284024 | Oct 2003 | JP |
2003296487 | Oct 2003 | JP |
2003-330560 | Nov 2003 | JP |
2002182562 | Jan 2004 | JP |
2004-062886 | Feb 2004 | JP |
2004062561 | Feb 2004 | JP |
2004118327 | Apr 2004 | JP |
2004164491 | Jun 2004 | JP |
2004295846 | Oct 2004 | JP |
2004304755 | Oct 2004 | JP |
2007525774 | Sep 2007 | JP |
H08-054952 | Feb 2011 | JP |
20010000805 | Jan 2001 | KR |
20020037453 | May 2002 | KR |
10-2004-0000323 | Jan 2004 | KR |
1020040098627 | Nov 2004 | KR |
20050008439 | Jan 2005 | KR |
20050021782 | Mar 2005 | KR |
10-0879907 | Jan 2009 | KR |
2 207 618 | Jun 2003 | RU |
WO 9301550 | Jan 1993 | WO |
WO 9613013 | May 1996 | WO |
WO 9624092 | Aug 1996 | WO |
WO 9627155 | Sep 1996 | WO |
WO-9721162 | Jun 1997 | WO |
WO 9725798 | Jul 1997 | WO |
WO 9743761 | Nov 1997 | WO |
WO 9802793 | Jan 1998 | WO |
WO 9809209 | Mar 1998 | WO |
WO 9810381 | Mar 1998 | WO |
WO-9811478 | Mar 1998 | WO |
WO 9821679 | May 1998 | WO |
WO 9821683 | May 1998 | WO |
WO 9824037 | Jun 1998 | WO |
WO 9833106 | Jul 1998 | WO |
WO 9837481 | Aug 1998 | WO |
WO 9858306 | Dec 1998 | WO |
WO-0054126 | Sep 2000 | WO |
WO 0058811 | Oct 2000 | WO |
WO 0059150 | Oct 2000 | WO |
WO-0135293 | May 2001 | WO |
WO-0145012 | Jun 2001 | WO |
WO 0152020 | Jul 2001 | WO |
WO 0152021 | Jul 2001 | WO |
WO-0163512 | Aug 2001 | WO |
WO-0177795 | Oct 2001 | WO |
WO-0193461 | Dec 2001 | WO |
WO-0208969 | Jan 2002 | WO |
WO 0219598 | Mar 2002 | WO |
WO 0228006 | Apr 2002 | WO |
WO 02057865 | Jul 2002 | WO |
WO-02056155 | Jul 2002 | WO |
WO 02088991 | Nov 2002 | WO |
WO-02103495 | Dec 2002 | WO |
WO-03009115 | Jan 2003 | WO |
WO 03034313 | Apr 2003 | WO |
WO-03030434 | Apr 2003 | WO |
WO 03058508 | Jul 2003 | WO |
WO03073688 | Sep 2003 | WO |
WO-03107585 | Dec 2003 | WO |
WO03107588 | Dec 2003 | WO |
WO-2004092886 | Oct 2004 | WO |
WO 2004097606 | Nov 2004 | WO |
WO 2004102459 | Nov 2004 | WO |
WO 2005010763 | Feb 2005 | WO |
WO-2007032974 | Mar 2007 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Patent Cooperation Treaty “PCT International Search Report” for International Application No. PCT/USO5/30490, Date of mailing of the international search report Sep. 18, 2007, Authorized Officer Jacqueline A. Whitfield.(The corresponding document was previously submitted in connection with parent U.S. Appl. No. 11/116,598 and is not being resubmitted herewith per 37 CFR 1.98(d).). |
Oh, Kyung-Seok, “Acceleration technique for volume rendering using 2D texture based ray plane casting on GPU”, 2006 Intl. Conf. CIS, Nov. 3-6, 2006. |
Slusallek, “Vision—An Architecture for Global Illumination Calculation”, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 1, No. 1; Mar. 1995; pp. 77-96. |
Zhao, Hua, “A New Watermarking Scheme for CAD Engineering Drawings”, 9th Intl. Conf. Computer-Aided Industrial Design and Conceptual Design; CAID/CD 2008;Nov. 22-25, 2008. |
Kuan-Ting Shen, “A New Digital Watermarking Technique for Video.” Proceedings Visual 2002, Hsin Chu, Taiwan, Mar. 11-13, 2002. |
Lotspiech, “Broadcast Encryption's Bright Future,” IEEE Computer, Aug. 2002. |
Memon, “Protecting Digital Media Content,” Communications of the ACM, Jul. 1998. |
Ripley, “Content Protection in the Digital Home,” Intel Technology Journal, Nov. 2002. |
Steinebach, “Digital Watermarking Basics—Applications—Limits,” NFD Information—Wissenschaft und Praxis, Jul. 2002. |
DMOD WorkSpace OEM Unique Features; http://www.dmod.com/oem—features, downloaded Jan. 12, 2005. |
Search Report Ref 313743.02, for Application No. PCT/US 06/10327, mailed Oct. 22, 2007. |
Search Report Ref 313744.02, for Application No. PCT/US06/10664, mailed Oct. 23, 2007. |
Preliminary Report on Patentability Ref 313744.02, for Application No. PCT/US2006/010664, mailed Nov. 22, 2007. |
Arbaugh, “A Secure and Reliable Bootstrap Architecture,” IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, May 1997, pp. 65-71. |
Search Report Ref 313746.02 WO, for Application No. PCT/US05/30489, mailed Aug. 2, 2007. |
EP Partial Search Report, Ref. FB19620, for Application No. 06774630.5-1243 / 1902367 PCT/US2006026915, Mar. 29, 2012. |
CN First Office Action for Appliction No. 200680013409.0, Jun. 26, 2009. |
CN First Office Action for Appliction No. 200580049553.5, Aug. 8, 2008. |
CN First Office Action for Appliction No. 200680013372.1, Dec. 18, 2009. |
Bajikar, Trusted Platform Module (TPM) based Security on Notebook PCs—White Paper, Intel Corporation, Jun. 20, 2002. |
Content Protection System Architecture, A Comprehensive Framework for Content Protection, Feb. 17, 2000. |
Pruneda, Windows Media Technologies: Using Windows Media Rights Manager to Protect and Distribute Digital Media, Nov. 23, 2004. |
Shi, A fast MPEG video encryption algorithm, 1998. |
EP Communication for Application No. 04779544.8-2212/1678570 PCT/US2004024529, reference EP35527RK900kja, Mar. 9, 2010. |
EP Communication for Application No. 04 779 544.8-2212, reference EP35527RK900kja, May 10, 2010. |
EP Summons to attend oral proceedings for Application No. 04779544.8-2212/1678570, reference EP35527RK900kja, May 10, 2012. |
Bovet, “An Overview of Unix Kernels” 2001, 0 Reilly, USA, XP-002569419. |
JP Notice of Rejection for Application No. 2006-536592, Nov. 19, 2010. |
CN First Office Action for Application No. 200480003262.8, Nov. 30, 2007. |
CN Second Office Action for Application No. 200480003262.8, Jun. 13, 2008. |
CA Office Action for Application No. 2,511,397, Mar. 22, 2012. |
PCT international Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/US04/24529, reference MSFT-4429, May 12, 2006. |
JP Notice of Rejection for Application No. 2006-536586, Nov. 12, 2010. |
EP Communication for Application No. 04 779 478.9-2212, reference EP35512RK900peu, May 21, 2010. |
EP Communication for Application No. 04 779 4789-2212, reference EP35512RK900peti, Apr. 3, 2012. |
AU Examiner's first report on patent application No. 2004287141, Dec. 8, 2008. |
PCT International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/US04/24433, reference MSFT-4430, Nov. 29, 2005. |
CN First Office Action for Application No. 200480003286.3, Nov. 27, 2009. |
CA Office Action for Application No. 2,511,531, Mar. 22, 2012. |
CN First Office Action for Application No. 200480012375.4, Sep. 4, 2009. |
CN Second Office Action for Application No. 200480012375.4, Feb. 12, 2010. |
AU Examiner's first report on patent application No. 2004288600, Jan. 18, 2010. |
RU Office Action for Application No. 2005120671, reference 2412-132263RU/4102, Aug. 15, 2008. |
PCT International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/US04/23606, Apr. 27, 2005. |
PCT International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/US06/09904, reference 308715.02, Jul. 11, 2008. |
CN First Office Action for Application No. 200680012462.9, Mar. 10, 2010. |
JP Notice of Rejection for Application No. 2008-507668, Sep. 2, 2011. |
EP Communication for Application No. 06738895.9-2202/1872479 PCT/US2006009904, reference FB19160, Sep. 16, 2011. |
KR Office Action for Application No. 10-2007-7020527, reference 308715.08, Apr. 9, 2012. |
JP Final Rejection for Application No. 2008-507668, May 18, 2012. |
Kassier, “Generic QOS Aware Media Stream Transcoding and Adaptation,” Department at Distributed Systems, University of Ulm, Germany. Apr. 2003. |
DRM Watch Staff, “Microsoft Extends Windows Media DRM to Non-Windows Devices,” May 7, 2004. |
Lee, “Gamma: A Content-Adaptation Server for Wireless Multimedia Applications,” Bell Laboratories, Holmdel NJ, USA. Published in 2003. |
Ihde, “Intermediary-based Transcoding Framework,” Jan. 2001. |
LightSurf Technologies, “LightSurf Intelligent Media Optimization and Transcoding,” printed Apr. 18, 2005. |
Digital 5, “Media Server,” printed Apr. 18, 2005. |
“Transcode”, Nov. 29, 2002. XP-002293109. |
“SoX—Sound eXchange”. Last Updated Mar. 26, 2003. XP-002293110. |
Britton, “Transcoding: Extending e-buisness to new environments”, Accepted for publication Sep. 22, 2000. XP-002293153. |
Britton, “Transcoding: Extending E-Business to New Environments”; IBM Systems Journal, vol. 40, No. 1, 2001. |
Chandra, “Application-Level Differentiated Multimedia Web Services Using Quality Aware Transcoding”; IEEE Journal on Selected Areas of Communications, vol. 18, No. 12. Dec. 2000. |
Chen, “An Adaptive Web Content Delivery System”. May 21, 2000. XP-002293303. |
Chen, “iMobile EE—An Enterprise Mobile Service Platform”; AT&T Labs—Research, Wireless Networks, 2003. |
Chi, “Pervasive Web Content Delivery with Efficient Data Reuse”, Aug. 1, 2002. XP-002293120. |
Ripps, “The Multitasking Mindset Meets the Operating System”, Electrical Design News, Newton, MA. Oct. 1, 1990. XP 000162745. |
Huang, “A Frame-Based MPEG Characteristics Extraction Tool and Its Application in video Transcoding”; IEEE Transaction on Consumer Electronics, vol. 48, No. 3. Aug. 2002. |
Lee, “Data Synchronization Protocol in Mobile Computing Environment Using SyncML”; 5th IEEE International Conference on High Speed Networks and Multimedia Communications. Chungnam National University, Taejon, Korea. 2002. |
Shaha, “Multimedia Content Adaptation for QoS Management over Heterogeneous Networks”. Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ. May 11, 2001. XP-002293302. |
Shen, “Caching Strategies in Transcoding-enabled Proxy Systems for Streaming Media Distribution Networks”. Dec. 10, 2003. XP-002293154. |
Singh, “PTC: Proxies that Transcode and Cache in Heterogeneous Web Client Environments”; Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Web Information Systems, 2002. |
Lei, “Context -based media Adaptation in Pervasive Computing”. University of Ottawa. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. May 31, 2001. XP-002293137. |
Hong, “On the construction of a powerful distributed authentication server without additional key management”, Computer Communications, Nov. 1, 2000. |
Managing Digital Rights in Online Publishing, “How two publishing houses maintain control of copyright” information Management & Technology, Jul. 2001. |
Jakobsson, “Proprietary Certificates”, 2002. |
Kumik, “Digital Rights Management”, Computers and Law, E-commerce: Technology, Oct.-Nov. 2000. |
Torrubia, “Cryptography Regulations for E-commerce and Digital Rights Management”, Computers & Security, 2001. |
Zwollo, “Digital document delivery and digital rights management”, Information Services & Use, 2001. |
Griswold, “A Method for Protecting Copyright on Networks”, IMA Intellectual Property Project Proceedings, 1994. |
Kahn, “Deposit, Registration and Recordation in an Electronic Copyright Management System”, Coalition for Networked information, Last updated Jul. 3, 2002. |
Evans, “DRM: Is the Road to Adoption Fraught with Potholes?”, 2001. |
Fowler, “Technoiogy's Changing Role in Intellectual Property Rights”, IT Pro, Mar.-Apr. 2002. |
Gable, “The Digital Rights Conundrum”, Transform Magazine—Information Lifecycle, Nov. 2001. |
Gunter, “Models and Languages for Digital Rights”, Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Jan. 3-6, 2001. |
Peinado, “Digital Rights Management in a Multimedia Environment”, SMPTE Journal, Apr. 2002. |
Royan, “Content Creation and Rights Management: experiences of SCRAN (the Scottish Cultural Resources Access Network)”, 2000. |
Valimaki, “Digital rights management on Open and Semi-open Networks”, Proceedings of the Second IEEE Workshop on Internet Applications, Jul. 23-24, 2001. |
Yu, “Digital multimedia at home and content rights management”, Proceedings 2002 IEEE 4th International Workshop on Networked Appliances, Jan. 15-16, 2002. |
Hwang, “Protection of Digital Contents on Distributed Multimedia Environment”, Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference, Internet and Multimedia Systems and Applications, Nov. 19-23, 2000. |
Castro, “Secure routing for structured peer-to-peer overlay networks”, Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, Dec. 9-11, 2002. |
Friend, “Making the Gigabit IPsec VPN Architecture Secure”, Computer, Jun. 2004. |
Hulicki, “Security Aspects in Content Delivery Networks”, The 6th World Multiconference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics. Jul. 14-18, 2002. |
McGarvey, “Arbortext: Enabler of Multichannel Publishing”, EContent, Apr. 2002. |
Moffett, “Contributing and enabling technologies for knowledge management”, International Journal Information Technology and Management, Jul. 2003. |
Aviv, “Aladdin Knowledge Systems Partners with Rights Exchange, Inc. To Develop a Comprehensive Solution for Electronic Software Distribution,” Aug. 3, 1998. |
Amdur, “Metering Online Copyright,” Jan. 16, 1996. |
Amdur, “interTrust Challenges IBM Digital Content Metering; Funding, Name Change, Developer Kit Kick Off Aggressive Market Push”, Report on Electronic Commerce, Jul. 23, 1996. |
Armati, “Tools and standards for protection, control and presentation of data,” Last updated Apr. 3, 1996. |
Benjamin, “Electronic Markets and Virtual Value Chains on the Information Superhighway,” Sloan Management Review, Winter 1995. |
Cassidy, “A Web developer's guide to content encapsulation technology; New tools offer clever ways to distribute your programs, stories & and get paid for it”, Apr. 1997. |
Clark, “Software Secures Digital Content on Web”, Interactive Week, Sep. 25, 1995. |
Cox, “Superdistribution”, ldees Fortes, Wired, Sep. 1994. |
Cox, “What if there is a silver bullet”, J. Object Oriented Program, Jun. 1992. |
Hauser, “Does Licensing Require New Access Control Techniques?” Aug. 12, 1993. |
Hudgins-Bonafield, “Selling Knowledge on the Net; Container Consortium Hopes to Revolutionize Electronic Commerce,” Network Computing, Jun. 1, 1995. |
“IBM spearheading intellectual property protection technology for information on the Internet,” May 1, 1997. |
“Technological Solutions Rise to Complement Law's Small Stick Guarding Electronic Works; Vendors fight to establish beachheads in copy-protection field,” Information Law Alert, Jun. 16, 1995. |
Kaplan, “IBM Cryptolopes, SuperDistribution and Digital Rights Management,” Dec. 30, 1996. |
Kent, “Protecting Externally Supplied Software in Small Computers,” Sep. 1980. |
Kohl, “Safeguarding Digital Library Contents and Users; Protecting Documents Rather Than Channels,” D-Lib Magazine, Sep. 1997. |
Linn, “Copyright and Information Services in the Context of the National Research and Education Network,” IMA Intellectual Property Project Proceedings, Jan. 1994. |
McNab, “Superdistribution works better in practical applications,” Mar. 2, 1998. |
Moeller, “NetTrust lets cyberspace merchants take account,” PC Week, Nov. 20, 1995. |
Moeller, “IBM takes charge of E-commerce; Plans client, server apps based on SET,” Apr. 29, 1996. |
Pemberton, “An Online interview with Jeff Crigler at IBM InfoMarket,” Jul. 1996. |
“Licensit: kinder, gentler copyright? Copyright management system links content, authorship information,” Seybold Report on Desktop Publishing, Jul. 8, 1996. |
Sibert, “The DigiBox: A Self-Protecting Container for Information Commerce,” First USENIX Workshop on Electronic Commerce, Jul. 11-12, 1995. |
Sibert, “Securing the Content, Not the Wire, for Information Commerce,” Jul. 1995. |
Smith, “A New Set of Rules for Information Commerce; Rights-protection technologies and personalized-information commerce will affect all knowledge workers” Electronic Commerce, Nov. 6, 1995. |
Stefik, “Trusted Systems; Devices that enforce machine-readable rights to use the work of a musician or author may create secure ways to publish over the Internet,” Scientific American, Mar. 1997. |
Stefik, “Technical Perspective; Shifting the Possible: How Trusted Systems and Digital Property Rights Challenge Us to Rethink Digital Publishing,” Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Spring 1997. |
Tarter, “The Superdistribution Model,” Soft Letter: Trends & Strategies in Software Publishing, Nov. 15, 1996. |
Secor, “Rights Management in the Digital Age: Trading in Bits, Not Atoms,” Spring 1997. |
Weber, “Digital Right Management Technology,” A Report to the International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisations, Oct. 1995. |
White, “ABYSS: An Architecture for Software Protection,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Jun. 1990. |
White, “ABYSS: A Trusted Architecture for Software Protection,” IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Apr. 27-29, 1987. |
“Boxing Up Bytes”. No publication date available. This reference was cited in U.S. Appl. No. 09/892,371 on Mar. 22, 2002. |
Ramanujapuram, “Digital Content & Intellectual Property Rights: A specification language and tools for rights management,” Dr. Dobb's Journal, Dec. 1998. |
CN Notice on First Office Action for Application No. 200510056328.6, Jul. 24, 2009. |
EP Communication for Application No. 05 101 873.7-1247, reference EP34127TE900kja, Dec. 19, 2006. |
JP Notice of Rejection for Application No. 2005-067120, Dec. 28, 2010. |
Bellovin, “Defending Against Sequence No. Attacks” AT&T Research, IETF Standard, Internet Engineering Task Force, May 1996. |
Chung Lae Kim, “Development of WDM Integrated Optical Protection Socket Module,” Journal of Korean institute of Telematics and Electronics, Mar. 1996. |
Gardan, N+P (With and Without Priority) and Virtual Channel Protection: Comparison of Availability and Application to an Optical Transport Network, 7th International Conference on Reliability and Maintainability, Jun. 18, 1990. |
Microsoft, “Digital Rights Management for Audio Drivers” Updated Dec. 4, 2001, XP002342580. |
Microsoft, “Hardware Platform for the Next-Generation Secure Computing Base”, Windows Platform Design Notes, 2003, XP-002342581. |
Microsoft, Security Model for the Next-Generation Secure Computing Base, Windows Platform Design Notes, 2003, XP002342582. |
Choudhury, “Copyright Protection for Electronic Publishing Over Computer Networks”, Submitted to IEEE Network Magazine Jun. 1994. |
CN Third Office Action for Application No. 03145223.X, Mar. 7, 2008. |
EP Communication for Application No. 03 011 235.3-1247, Reference EP27518-034/gi, Apr. 22, 2010. |
EP Communication for Application No. 03 011 235.3-1247, Reference EP27518-034/gi, Nov. 4, 2011. |
JP Notice of Rejection for Application No. 2003-180214, Sep. 18, 2009. |
RU Official Action for Application No. 2003118755/09(020028), reference 2412-127847RU/3152, Jul. 3, 2007. |
“DirectShow System Overview,” Last updated Apr. 13, 2005. |
“Features of the VMR,” accessed on Nov. 9, 2005. |
“Introduction to DirectShow Application Programming,” accessed on Nov. 9, 2005. |
“Overview of Data Row in DirectShow,” accessed on Nov. 9, 2005. |
“Plug-in Distributors,” accessed on Nov. 9, 2005. |
“Using the Video Mixing Renderer,” accessed on Nov. 9, 2005. |
“VMR Filter Components,” accessed on Nov. 9, 2005. |
JP Notice of Rejection for Application No. 2009-288223, Jun. 29, 2012. |
EP Communication for Application No. 11007532.2-1247/2492774, Reference EP27518ITEjan, Aug. 3, 2012. |
Abbadi, “Digital Rights Management Using a Mobile Phone”; Aug. 19-22, 2007, ICEC '07 Proceedings of the ninth international conference on Electronic commerce. |
PCT international Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/US06/26915, reference 313859.03, Oct. 17, 2007. |
CN First Office Action for Application No. 200680025136.1, Apr. 24, 2009. |
JP Notice of Rejection for Application No. 2008-521535, Jun. 10, 2011. |
JP Notice of Rejection for Application No. 2008-521535, Sep. 27, 2011. |
KR Preliminary Rejection for Application No. 10-2008-7000503, Sep. 27, 2012. |
CN Notice on Reexamination for Application No. 200680025136.1, Jun. 17, 2013. |
PCT International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/US06/27251, reference 311888.02, Jul. 3, 2007. |
CN First Office Action for Application No. 200680026251.0, Oct. 8, 2010. |
“International Search Report and Written Opinion mailed Jan. 16, 2007”, Application No. PCT/US2006/034622, 6 pages. |
“International Search Report and Written Opinion mailed Nov. 30, 2006”, Application No. PCT/US05/40950, 8 pages. |
Qiao, Daji et al., “MiSer: An Optimal Low-Energy Transmission Strategy for IEEE 802.11 a/h”, obtained from ACM, (Sep. 2003), pp. 161-175. |
“International Search Report and Written Opinion mailed Apr. 22, 2008”, Application No. PCT/US2007/087960, 7 pages. |
Eren, H. et al., “Fringe-Effect Capacitive Proximity Sensors for Tamper Proof Enclosures”, Proceedings of 2005 Sensors for Industry Conference, (Feb. 2005), pp. 22-25. |
“International Search Report and Written Opinion mailed Jul. 24, 2008”, Application No. PCT/US05/40966, 13 pages. |
Schneier, B. “Applied Cryptography, Second Edition: Protocols, Algorithms, and Source Code in C (cloth)”, (Jan. 1, 1996), 13 pages. |
Goering, Richard “Web Venture Offers Metered Access to EDA Packages—Startup Winds Clocks by the hour Tools (E*CAD Will Launch Web Site That Provides Pay-Per-Use and Pay-Per-Hour Access to Range of Chip Design Software)”, Electronic Engineering Times, (Nov. 6, 2003), 3 pages. |
Zemao, Chen et al., “A Malicious Code Immune Model Based on Program Encryption”, IEEE—Wireless Communication, Networking and Mobile Computing, WICOM '08, 4th International Conference on Oct. 12-14, 2008, 5 pages. |
Mufti, Dr. Muid et al., “Design and Implementation of a Secure Mobile IP Protocol”, Networking and Communicaiton, INCC 204, International Conference on Jun. 11-13, 2004, 5 pages. |
Davida, George I., et al., “UNIX Guardians: Active User Intervention in Data Protection”, Aerospace Computer Security Applications Conference, Fourth Dec. 12-16, 1988, 6 pages. |
Morales, Tatiana “Understanding Your Credit Score”, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/29/earlyshow/contributors/raymartin/main55152.shtml retrieved from the Internet on Apr. 23, 2009, (Apr. 30, 2003), 3 pages. |
“Achieving Peak Performance: Insights from a Global Survey on Credit Risk and Collections Practices”, GCI Group Pamphlet, (2002, 2004), 12 pages. |
“Equifax Business Solutions—Manage Your Customers”, Retrieved from the Internet from http://www.equifax.com/sitePages/biz/smallBiz/?sitePage=manage Customers on Oct. 14, 2005, 3 pages. |
“Prequalification Using Credit Reports”, Retrieved from the Internet at http://www.credco.com/creditreports/prequalification.htm on Oct. 14, 2005, 2 pages. |
Gao, Jerry et al., “Online Advertising—Taxonomy and Engineering Perspectives”, http://www.engr.sisu.edu/gaojerry/report/OnlineAdvertising%20.pdf, (2002), 33 pages. |
Oshiba, Takashi et al., “Personalized Advertisement-Duration Control for Streaming Delivery”, ACM Multimedia, (2002), 8 pages. |
Yue, Wei T., et al., “The Reward Based Online Shopping Community”, Routledge, vol. 10, No. 4, (Oct. 1, 2000), 2 pages. |
“International Search Report and Written Opinion mailed Nov. 8, 2007”, Application No. PCT/US05/40967, 5 pages. |
“International Search Report and Written Opinion”, Application Serial No. PCT/US05/40940, 9 pages, May 2, 2008. |
“International Search Report and Written Opinion mailed Apr. 25, 2007”, Application No. PCT/US05/040965, 5 pages. |
“International Search Report and Written Opinion mailed Sep. 25, 2006”, Application No. PCT/US05/40949, 7 pages. |
“EP Office Action mailed Nov. 17, 2006”, Application No. 05110697.9, 6 pages. |
“EP Office Action mailed Apr. 5, 2007”, Application No. 05110697.9, 5 pages. |
“EP Summons to Attend Oral Proceedings mailed Sep. 27, 2007”, Application No. 05110697.9, 7 pages. |
“Decision to Refuse a European Application mailed Feb. 15, 2008”, Application No. 05110697.9, 45 pages. |
“International Search Report and Written Opinion mailed Sep. 8, 2006”, Application No. PCT/US05/040942, 20 pages. |
“European Search Report mailed Dec. 6, 2010”, Application No. 05820177.3, 8 pages. |
Lampson, Butler et al., “Authentication in Distributed Systems: Theory and Practice”, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, v10, 265, (1992), 18 pages. |
“Office Action mailed Jun. 29, 2009”, Mexican Application No. MX/a/2007/005657, 2 pages. |
“Search Report Dated Jan. 11, 2008”, EP Application No. 05820090.8, 7 pages. |
“Examination Report mailed Mar. 5, 2008”, EP Application No. 05820090.8, 1 pages. |
“First Office Action mailed Apr. 11, 2008”, Chinese Application No. 200580038813.9, 11 pages. |
“Office Action mailed Jun. 29, 2009”, Mexican Application No. MX/a/2007/005656, 6 pages. |
“Office Action mailed Nov. 30, 2009”, Mexican Application No. MX/a/2007/005659, 6 pages. |
“Notice of Allowance mailed Jul. 2, 2010”, Mexican Application No. MX/a/2007/005659, 2 pages. |
“Extended European Search Report mailed Dec. 6, 2010”, EP Application No. 05820177.3, 8 pages. |
“Second Office Action mailed Dec. 18, 2009”, Chinese Application No. 200580038812.4, 24 pages. |
“Third Office Action mailed Apr. 1, 2010”, Chinese Application No. 200580038812.4, 9 pages. |
“Notice on Grant of Patent Right for Invention mailed May 5, 2011”, Chinese Application No. 200580038812.4, 4 pages. |
“Office Action mailed Jul. 7, 2009”, Mexican Application No. MX/a/2007/005660, 8 pages. |
“Notice of Allowance mailed Feb. 18, 2010”, Mexican Application No. MX/a/2007/005660, 2 pages. |
“Extended European Search Report mailed Aug. 13, 2010”, EP Application No. 05823253.9, 7 pages. |
“Notice on the First Office Action mailed Sep. 27, 2010”, Chinese Application No. 200580038745.6, 6 pages. |
“Office Action mailed Jul. 8, 2009”, Mexican Application No. MX/a/2007/005662, 7 pages. |
“Notice of Allowance mailed Feb. 19, 2010”, Mexican Application No. MX/a/2007/005662, 2 pages. |
“Partial Search Report mailed Jul. 23, 2010”, EP Application No. 05821183.0. |
“Extended European Search Report mailed Jan. 7, 2011”, EP Application No. 05821183.0, 9 pages. |
“Notice of Allowance mailed Dec. 25, 2009”, Chinese Application No. 200580038773.8, 4 pages. |
“Office Action mailed Jun. 26, 2009”, Mexican Application No. MX/a/2007/005655, 5 pages. |
“Office Action mailed Feb. 9, 2010”, Mexican Application No. MX/a/2007/005855, 6 pages. |
“Office Action mailed Sep. 24, 2010”, Mexican Application No. MX/a/2007/005655, 3 pages. |
“Extended European Search Report mailed Jan. 21, 2010”, EP Application No. 05819896.1, 8 pages. |
“Office Action mailed Mar. 19, 2010”, EP Application No. 05819896.1, 1 page. |
“Office Action mailed Feb. 10, 2010”, Mexican Application No. MX/a/2007/005656, 5 pages. |
“Office Action mailed Oct. 18, 2010”, Mexican Application No. MX/a/2007/005656, 3 pages. |
“Notice on the First Office Action mailed Jul. 30, 2010”, Chinese Application No. 200680033207.2, 7 pages. |
“EP Search Report mailed Jan. 2, 2008”, EP Application No. 05109616.2, 7 pages. |
“Flonix: USB Desktop OS Solutions Provider, http://www.flonix.com”, Retrieved from the Internet Jun. 1, 2005, (Copyright 2004), 2 pages. |
“Migo by PowerHouse Technologies Group, http://www.4migo.com”, Retrieved from the Internet Jun. 1, 2005, (Copyright 2003), 3 pages. |
“WebServUSB. http://www.webservusb.com”, Retrieved from the Internet Jun. 1, 2015, (Copyright 2004), 16 pages. |
“Notice of Rejection mailed Jul. 8, 2011”, Japanese Application No. 2007-541363, 10 pages. |
“Notice of Rejection mailed Aug. 5, 2011”, Japanese Patent Application No. 2007-552142, 8 pages. |
“Forward Solutions Unveils Industry's Most Advanced Portable Personal Computing System on USB Flash Memory Device”, Proquest, PR Newswire, http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=20&did=408811931&SrchMode=1&sid=6&Fmt=3, Retreived from the Internet Feb. 15, 2008, (Sep. 22, 2003), 3 pages. |
“Office Action mailed May 26, 2008”, EP Application No. 05109616.2, 5 pages. |
“Notice on Division of Application mailed Aug. 8, 2008”, CN Application No. 200510113398.0, 2 pages. |
“Notice on First Office Action mailed Dec. 12, 2008”, CN Application No. 200510113398.0. |
“The Second Office Action mailed Jul. 3, 2009”, CN Application No. 200510113398.0, 7 pages. |
“Notice on Proceeding With the Registration Formalities mailed Oct. 23, 2009”, CN Application No. 200510113398.0, 4 pages. |
“Examiner's First Report on Application mailed Jun. 4, 2010”, AU Application No. 2005222507, 2 pages. |
“Notice of Acceptance mailed Oct. 14, 2010”, AU Application No. 2005222507, 3 pages. |
“Decision on Grant of a Patent for Invention mailed Apr. 29, 2010”,Russian Application No. 2005131911, 31 pages. |
“Notice of Allowance mailed Nov. 13, 2009”, MX Application No. PA/a/2005/011088, 2 pages. |
“TCG Specification Architecture Overview”, Revision 1.2, (Apr. 28, 2004), 55 pages. |
“International Search Report and Written Opinion mailed Jun. 19, 2007”, PCT Application No. PCT/US05/46091, 11 pages. |
“Notice on Grant of Patent Right for Invention mailed Jan. 29, 2010”, CN Application No. 200580040764.2, 4 pages. |
“International Search Report mailed Jan. 5, 2007”, Application No. PCT/US2006/032708, 3 pages. |
“Cyotec—CyoLicence”, printed from www.cyotec.com/products/cyolcence on Sep. 7, 2005, (Copyright 2003-2005). |
“Magic Desktop Automation Suite for the Small and Mid-Sized Business”, printed from www.remedy.com/soultions/magic—it—suite.htm on Sep. 7, 2005, (Copyright 2005), 4 pages. |
“PACE Anti-Piracy Introduction”, printed from www.paceap.com/psintro.html on Sep. 7, 2005, (Copyright 2002), 4 pages. |
“Office Action mailed Jul. 6, 2009”, MX Application No. MX/a/2007/005661, 6 pages. |
“Office Action mailed Oct. 1, 2010”, MX Application No. MX/a/2007/005661, 3 pages. |
“Office Action mailed Mar. 8, 2011”, MX Application No. MX/a/2007/005661, 8 pages. |
“Notice on Second Office Action mailed Jun. 7, 2010”, CN Application No. 200680030846.3, 6 pages. |
“Decision on Rejection mailed Sep. 13, 2010”, CN Application No. 200680030846.3, 5 pages. |
Kwok, Sai H., “Digital Rights Management for the Online Music Business”, ACM SIGecom Exhchanges, vol. 3, No. 3, (Aug. 2002), pp. 17-24. |
“International Search Report and Written Opinion mailed Mar. 21, 2007”, Application No. PCT/US05/46223, 10 pages. |
“the First Office Action mailed Oct. 9, 2009”, CN Application No. 200580043102.0, 20 pages. |
“International Search Report and Written Opinion mailed Jul. 9, 2008”, Application No. PCT/US05/46539, 11 pages. |
“Notice of the First Office Action mailed Dec. 29, 2010”, CN Application No. 200580044294.7, 9 pages. |
“Office Action mailed Jul. 1, 2009”, MX Application No. 2007/a/2007/007441. |
“European Search Report mailed Aug. 31, 2011”, EP Application No. 05855148.2, 6 pages. |
“International Search Report and Written Opinion mailed Sep. 25, 2007”, Application No. PCT/US06/12811, 10 pages. |
“Examiner's First Report mailed Sep. 15, 2009”, AU Application No. 2006220489, 2 pages. |
“Notice of Acceptance mailed Jan. 25, 2010”, AU Application No. 2006220489, 2 pages. |
“The First Office Action mailed Aug. 22, 2008”, CN Application No. 200680006199.2, 23 pages. |
“The Second Office Action mailed Feb. 20, 2009”, CN Application No. 200680006199.2, 9 pages. |
“The Fourth Office Action mailed Jan. 8, 2010”, CN Application No. 200680006199.2, 10 pages. |
“The Fifth Office Action mailed Jul. 14, 2010”, CN Application No. 200680006199.2, 6 pages. |
“Notice on Grant of Patent mailed Oct. 20, 2010”, CN Application No. 200680006199.2, 4 pages. |
“First Office Action mailed Aug. 21, 2009”, CN Application No. 20068003046.3, 8 pages. |
“Notice on the First Office Action mailed Dec. 11, 2009”, CN Application No. 200510127170.7, 16 pages. |
“The Third Office Action mailed Jun. 5, 2009”, CN Application No. 200680006199.2, 7 pages. |
“Notice of Rejection mailed Sep. 9, 2011”, JP Application No. 2007-548385, 9 pages. |
“Notice of Rejection mailed Nov. 11, 2011”, Japanese Application No. 2005-301957, 21 pages. |
“Extended European Search Report mailed Dec. 21, 2011”, EP Application No. 05854752.2, 7 pages. |
“Final Rejection mailed Jan. 17, 2012”, Japan Application No. 2007-552142, 8 pages. |
“EP Office Action mailed Mar. 8, 2012”, EP Application No. 05109616.2, 6 pages. |
“Notice of Preliminary Rejection mailed May 30, 2012”, Korean Patent Application No. 10-2007-7011069, 1 page. |
“Extended European Search Report mailed Jul. 5, 2012”, EP Application No. 05851550.3, 6 pages. |
“Preliminary Rejection mailed Jul. 4, 2012”, Korean Application No. 10-2007-7012294, 2 pages. |
“Office Action mailed Jun. 8, 2012”, JP Application No. 2005-301957, 8 pages. |
KR Notice of Final Rejection for Application No. 10-2007-7024145, Reference No. 313361.12, Oct. 23, 2012. |
KR Notice of Preliminary Rejection for Application No. 2007-7023842, Reference No. 313361.06, Oct. 24, 2012. |
EP Communication for Application No. 04 778 899.7-2212, Reference EP35523RK900peu, Nov. 23, 2012. |
Utagawa, “Making of card applications using IC Card OS MULTOS” Mar. 1, 2003. |
Nakajima, Do You Really Know It? Basics of Windows2000/XP, Jan. 2004. |
N+1 Network Guide, “First Special Feature, Security Oriented Web Application Development, Part 3, Method for Realizing Secure Session Management”, Jan. 2004. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20090158036 A1 | Jun 2009 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60673979 | Apr 2005 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11116598 | Apr 2005 | US |
Child | 12390505 | US |