In a text document search, a user typically enters a query into a search engine. The search engine evaluates the query against a database of indexed documents and returns a ranked list of documents that best satisfy the query. A score, representing a measure of how well the document satisfies the query, is algorithmically generated by the search engine. Commonly-used scoring algorithms rely on splitting the query up into search terms and using statistical information about the occurrence of individual terms in the body of text documents to be searched. The documents are listed in rank order according to their corresponding scores so the user can see the best matching search results at the top of the search results list.
Another evaluation that certain search engines may employ to improve the quality of the results is to modify the rank of the results by a selected ranking function. One exemplary prior art ranking function determines that when one page links to another page, it is effectively casting a vote for the other page. The more votes that are cast for a page, the more important the page. The ranking function can also take into account who cast the vote. The more important the page, the more important their vote. These votes are accumulated and used as a component of the ratings of the pages on the network.
A ranking function is used to improve the quality of the ranking. Ranking functions can rely on combination of content in the document (such as terms contained in the body or metadata of the document), or data contained in other documents about this document (such as anchor text), measures of importance obtained by analyzing the URL graph and other query independent measures of relevance.
Typically, when evaluating the performance of a ranking function a set of users are asked to make relevance judgments on the top N (e.g., 10) documents returned by the search engine with a given ranking function for a given set of evaluation queries. The document corpus and the set of queries are kept fixed, so that performance of different ranking functions may be compared side-by-side eliminating all other variables from the equation. This is typically done in a prototyping (research) environment. A set of relevance judgments may also be obtained from a live system by asking users to volunteer relevance judgments for the search results on an arbitrary set of queries. Relying on relevance judgments to measure the performance allows a ranking function to be optimized by iteratively varying ranking parameters and measuring performance.
Embodiments of the present invention are related to a system and method for ranking search results according to language. The ranking function comprises a feature to penalize documents that do not match the language of the query, independently of other ranking features.
The language of the document is identified by performing statistical analysis of the character distribution and comparing it to trained language character distribution. The language of the document is detected (instead of relying on the metadata of the document such as language tags in html) because language detection is a relatively straightforward procedure with high precision, and the metadata is often ambiguous or wrong, or missing. Language detection is typically performed during the indexing process.
At query time the language of the query is obtained, for example, from the browser request headers or a client application. The query language is compared with the candidate document language. The language is considered matching if the document and query language match at least by primary language (for example, a German-Swiss query will typically be considered to match a German-German document), or if the document's primary language is English. Thus, documents written in a language that the user can't read are penalized, with the exception of English documents because of the assumption that most people that use the Internet can read English or understand different flavors of English.
The ranking function is modified with a language type feature that is used to adjust the ranking of documents based on the language types of files and the query language, thus improving the overall precision of the search engine. The weight of relevancy associated with each language type comparison is derived from the set of relevance judgments obtained from previous queries and feedback. In addition, by optimizing the weight, the weight may be treated as a ranking function parameter, and the behavior of the performance measure on different values of the weight may be observed.
Once the language type comparison is performed for a page, the file type is incorporated into the score for the page. The page's score incorporating the language type comparison determines the page's rank among the other pages within the search results.
Additionally, other document properties may affect the relevance of a document independent of the query. These document properties include the file type and the size of the file. Values may be associated with these document properties and incorporated into a scoring function to affect the rank of a document.
In one aspect, the network is first “crawled” to generate a table of properties associated with the links and pages of the network. “Crawling” refers to automatically collecting several documents (or any analogous discrete unit of information) into a database referred to as an index. Crawling traverses multiple documents on the network by following document reference links within certain documents, and then processing each document as found. The documents are processed by identifying key words or general text in the documents to create an index.
The present disclosure comprises embodiments that are described more fully hereinafter with reference to the accompanying drawings, which form a part hereof, and which show, by way of illustration, specific exemplary embodiments. Among other things, the various embodiments described herein may be embodied as methods, devices, or a combination thereof. Likewise, the various embodiments may take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment or an embodiment combining software and hardware aspects. The following detailed description is, therefore, not to be taken in a limiting sense.
With reference to
Computing device 100 may have additional features or functionality. For example, computing device 100 may also include additional data storage devices (removable and/or non-removable) such as, for example, magnetic disks, optical disks, or tape. Such additional storage is illustrated in
Computing device 100 also contains communication connections 116 that allow the device to communicate with other computing devices 118, such as over a network. Communication connection 116 is one example of communication media. Communication media may typically be embodied by computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules, 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, communication media includes wired media such as a wired network or direct-wired connection, and wireless media such as acoustic, RF, infrared and other wireless media. The term computer readable media as used herein includes both storage media and communication media.
Embodiments are related to a ranking function for a search engine. The quality of a search engine is typically determined by the relevance of the documents according to the ranks assigned by the ranking function. The ranking function may be based on multiple features. Some of these features may depend on the query, while others are considered query-independent. Language type comparisons are a query-dependent measure of relevance referred to as language comparison type prior. The language type of the file and the query language are compared to generate a language-based prior to rank the search results. A language prior refers to a prior probability of belief that a document should be relevant given its language One method for establishing type-base priors is through the use of relevance judgments to weigh the language types according to their relevance.
A plurality of documents on a distributed network, represented by documents 210, 212, 214, and 216, are available for searching. In practice, a search engine may search any number of documents and typically search collections containing large numbers (e.g., millions) of documents. The volume of documents may be reduced from the Internet setting to the intranet setting, but the reduction is usually from billions to millions so that the relative number of documents is still quite large. An indexing module (not shown) generates individual document attributes (e.g., file type) and associated statistics (e.g., term frequencies) (218, 220, 222, and 224) for each document. The document attributes and statistics are stored in an index 226.
Search engine 200 consults index 226 to determine a search score 228 for each document based on the query and the corresponding document attributes and statistics. One of the document attributes included is the language type of the document. The file type is a query-independent attribute that is combined with other query-independent attributes and statistics and query-dependent attributes and statistics to form a document's final score. Typically, document scores 228 are then ranked in descending order to give the user a list of documents that are considered by the search algorithm to be most relevant to the query.
In the illustrated system, the search engine 200 represents a language type rated search engine, which considers the language type of a document in determining the document's search score. Language type rating of a document leverages the relevance judgments associated with each of the language types and the query language. A language-based prior is a query-dependent relevance measure because it rates the document's importance based on a comparison of the document language with the query language. (Another example of a query-dependent ranking function would be counting the number of times a search term appears in a document.)
Index 310 includes records that correspond to index keys and other document properties. The records of index 310 are used in providing results to client queries. In one embodiment, index 310 corresponds to multiple databases that collectively provide the storage for the index records.
Pipeline 320 is an illustrative representation of the gathering mechanism for obtaining the documents or records of the documents for indexing. Pipeline 320 allows for filtering of data by various plugins (e.g., gathering plugin 350) before the records corresponding to the data are entered into index 310.
Document interface 330 provides the protocols, network access points, and database access points for retrieving documents across multiple databases and network locations. For example, document interface 330 may provide access to the Internet while also providing access to a database of a local server and access to a database on the current computing device. Other embodiments may access other document locations using a variety of protocols without departing from the spirit or scope of the invention.
Client Interface 340 provides access by a client to define and initiate a search. The search may be defined according to keywords and/or other keys.
Gathering plugin 350 is one of several gatherer pipeline plugins. Gathering plugin 350 identifies properties that are included in a document, such as the text from the title or body, and the file type associated with the document. The properties are gathered by gathering plugin 350 as the documents provided through document interface 330 are crawled. In one embodiment, the functionality of gathering plugin 350 identifies all the fields of a document and their associated properties including the language type of the document.
Indexing plugin 360 is another plugin connected to pipeline 320. Indexing plugin 360 provides the mechanism for generating, partitioning, and updating index 310. In one embodiment, indexing plugin 360 provides the word lists that temporarily cache the keywords and other keys generated from crawled documents before flushing these results to index 310. The records of index 310 are populated from the crawl results included in these word lists.
Property store 370 includes the anchor properties that have been gathered by gathering plugin 350. For a particular document, property store 370 includes a record of the file type that is associated with the document. For example, a record in property store 370 may include a document ID that identifies the document and the file type in separate fields. In other embodiments, other fields may be included in property store 370 that are related to a particular document.
Despite the illustration in system 300 of one-way and two-way communications between functional blocks, any of these communication types may be changed to another type without departing from the spirit or scope of the invention (e.g., all communications may have an acknowledgment message requiring two-way rather than one-way communication).
The language information about each document is typically stored as an inverted index called query independent rank storage (“QIR”). QIR storage is used for storing associated values that can be used at query time for searching each document. A value is normally stored only once. The QIR storage can be logically viewed as an array of values indexed by document identifiers. In some embodiments, the QIR storage can be a compressed array, because many documents can have the same values stored in the QIR storage, and the default values need not be stored.
For example, the entire score for the values for Click Distance, URL depth, File Types, static features, and the like, can be pre-computed at index time and a single value is stored in the QIR storage associated with each document. Language priors need not stored in this way, because language matching is not strictly query independent. Instead, the original detected language of the document can be stored in a separate QIR storage. In addition, a default language (such as English, or unknown) is not normally stored, so a majority of the documents need not be represented in the language storage. In another embodiment, a value can be repeated in the index for every occurrence of a document (which can create redundancy in storage).
At the end of a crawl, the static ranking features are typically computed and stored in the QIR storage. The detected language is also retrieved from the pseudo keys and stored in its own storage (language storage) to allow quick access to the detected language of the document by document ID at query time.
For example, when the language on an HTML page is determined to be Dutch, the language of the HTML page that is stored in the index can be Dutch or, for example, German, because it can be assumed that German readers can read Dutch. Thus, in an embodiment, classes of languages can be utilized such that a document is not penalized when the document has a language that is in the class as the query language. The query language can be determined via character integration that the query sends such as which languages the browser has been configured to use. With the query received and the language type values calculated, processing continues at block 404.
At block 404, the language type value for each of the documents is merged with the other document statistics (see
At block 406, a scoring function is populated with the set of document statistics, including the component corresponding to the prior probability of relevance based on the file type. The scoring function calculates a score for a particular document. The language type component provides a query-independent factor to the scoring function. The other portion of the scoring function corresponds to other query-independent factors and the query-dependent or content-related portion of the scoring function. In one embodiment, the scoring function is a sum of query-dependent (QD) and query-independent (QID) scoring functions:
Score=QD(doc, query)+QID(doc) (1)
The QD function can be any document scoring function. In one embodiment, the QD scoring function corresponds to the field weighted scoring function described in patent application Ser. No. 10/804,326, entitled “Field Weighting in Text Document Searching”, filed on Mar. 18, 2004 and hereby incorporated by reference. As provided by the Ser. No. 10/804,326 patent application, the following is a representation of the field weighted scoring function:
Wherein the terms are defined as follows: wtf is the weighted term frequency or sum of term frequencies of a given term multiplied by weights across all properties; wdl is the weighted document length; avwdl is the average weighted document length; N is the number of documents on the network (i.e., the number of documents crawled); n is the number of documents containing the given query term; and k1 and b are constants. These terms and the equation above are described in detail in the Ser. No. 10/804,326 patent application.
The QID function can be any transformation of document properties or statistics such as the file type component, click-distance, and other document statistics (such as URL depth). In one embodiment this function for click distance and URL depth is as follows:
Wherein the terms for the function are defined as follows: Wcd is the weight of the query-independent component; bcd is the weight of the click distance; bud is the weight of the URL depth; CD is the Click Distance; UD is the URL Depth; and kcd is the click distance saturation constant. The weighted terms (wcd, bcd, and bud) assist in defining the importance of each of their related terms and ultimately the shape of the scoring functions. The URL depth (UD) is an addition to the query-independent component to smooth the effect of the click distance on the scoring function. In some cases, a document that is not very important (i.e., has a large URL depth) may have a short click distance. The two functions of (2) and (3) and the file type component (W(t)) can be added together to yield a scoring function (Score), such that the new scoring function becomes:
The score can be adjusted (i.e., documents can be penalized) for having a language that is different than the query language. The language prior weight provides an estimate of the log-odds ratio of probability of relevance given language match over probability of non-relevance given language match:
where r is relevance of the document to any query, ld is the document language, and lq is the query language and W(ld, lq) is the weight of the prior probability of relevance based on a language match. In an embodiment, a language can be determined as a Boolean language match (where “1” indicates a match, and “0” indicates no match). The weight can be then be multiplied by the determined Boolean value. The weight itself can be a single global weight, or it can be a matrix for all possible pairs of languages.
The language prior weight can be added to (4) to provide:
In an embodiment, the weight of the language prior can be considered as part of the static rank of the document, similar to file type priors, but in fact depends on the query, because the feature itself is a function of both query and document language. This creates an implementation detail, where instead of pre-computing the actual static score and storing it in the index as a value for each document, the original detected language of the document is stored, and the feature determined at query time in response to a comparison of the query language and the document language match. Once scoring function (5) is populated with the document statistics for a particular document, processing proceeds to block 408.
At block 408, the scoring function is executed and the relevance score for the document is calculated. Once the relevance score is calculated, it is stored in memory and associated with that particular document. Processing then moves to decision block 410.
At decision block 410, a determination is made whether relevance scores for all the documents corresponding to the search query have been calculated according to scoring function (5). The scores may be calculated serially as shown or in parallel. If all the scores have not been calculated, processing returns to block 406 where the scoring function is populated with the next set of document statistics. However, if all the scores have been calculated, processing continues to block 412.
At block 412, the search results of the query are ranked according to their associated scores. The scores now take into account the language type of each of the documents. Accordingly, the ranking of the documents has been refined so that documents of a particular language type that is in the same language class as the query language (for example) are ranked higher than other documents having language types that are different from the query language. Once the search results are ranked, processing proceeds to block 414, where process 400 ends.
After process 400 is complete, the ranked documents may be returned to the user by the various operations associated with the transmission and display of results by a search engine. The documents corresponding to the higher precision results may then be selected and viewed at the user's discretion.
The above specification, examples and data provide a complete description of the manufacture and use of the composition of the invention. Since many embodiments of the invention can be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention, the invention resides in the claims hereinafter appended.
The present disclosure is a continuation-in-part of and claims the benefit under 15 USC §120 of the filing of patent application having Ser. No. 11/073,381, entitled, “System and Method for Ranking Search Results Using File Types,” filed Mar. 3, 2005. The present disclosure is related to patent applications having Ser. No. 10/955,462, entitled, “System and Method for Incorporating Anchor Text into Ranking Search Results”, filed Sep. 30, 2004; Ser. No. 10/955,983, entitled, “System and Method for Ranking Search Results Using Click Distance”, filed Sep. 30, 2004; Ser. No. 10/804,326, entitled “Field Weighting in Text Document Searching”, filed on Mar. 18, 2004. The related applications are assigned to the assignee of the present patent application and are hereby incorporated by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5222236 | Potash et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
5257577 | Clark | Nov 1993 | A |
5594660 | Sung et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5606609 | Houser et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5848404 | Hafner et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5893092 | Driscoll | Apr 1999 | A |
5920859 | Li | Jul 1999 | A |
5933851 | Kojima et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5960383 | Fleischer | Sep 1999 | A |
5983216 | Kirsch et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5987457 | Ballard | Nov 1999 | A |
6006225 | Bowman et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6012053 | Pant et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6032196 | Monier | Feb 2000 | A |
6041323 | Kubota | Mar 2000 | A |
6070158 | Kirsch et al. | May 2000 | A |
6070191 | Narendran et al. | May 2000 | A |
6098064 | Pirolli et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6125361 | Chakrabarti et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6128701 | Malcolm et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6145003 | Sanu et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6151624 | Teare et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6167369 | Schulze | Dec 2000 | A |
6182085 | Eichstaedt et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6182113 | Narayanaswami | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6185558 | Bowman et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6202058 | Rose et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6208988 | Schultz | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6216123 | Robertson et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6222559 | Asano et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6240407 | Chang et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6240408 | Kaufman | May 2001 | B1 |
6247013 | Morimoto | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6263364 | Najork et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6285367 | Abrams et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6285999 | Page | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6304864 | Liddy et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6317741 | Burrows | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6327590 | Chidlovskii | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6349308 | Whang et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6351467 | Dillon | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6351755 | Najork et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6360215 | Judd et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6385602 | Tso et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6389436 | Chakrabarti et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6418433 | Chakrabarti et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6418452 | Kraft et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6418453 | Kraft et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6442606 | Subbaroyan et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6473752 | Fleming | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6484204 | Rabinovich | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6516312 | Kraft et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6539376 | Sundaresan et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6546388 | Edlund et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6547829 | Meyerzon et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6549896 | Candan et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6549897 | Katariya et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6594682 | Peterson et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6598047 | Russell et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6598051 | Wiener et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6601075 | Huang et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6622140 | Kantrowitz | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6628304 | Mitchell et al. | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6633867 | Kraft et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6633868 | Min | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6636853 | Stephens | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6638314 | Meyerzon et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6671683 | Kanno | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6701318 | Fox et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6718324 | Edlund et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6718365 | Dutta | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6738764 | Mao et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6763362 | McKeeth | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6766316 | Caudill et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6766422 | Beyda | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6775659 | Clifton-Bligh | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6775664 | Lang et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6778997 | Sundaresan et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6829606 | Ripley | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6859800 | Roche et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6862710 | Marchisio | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6871202 | Broder | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6883135 | Obata et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6886010 | Kostoff | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6886129 | Raghavan et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6910029 | Sundaresan | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6931397 | Sundaresan | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6934714 | Meinig | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6944609 | Witbrock | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6947930 | Anick et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6959326 | Day et al. | Oct 2005 | B1 |
6973490 | Robertson et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
6990628 | Palmer et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
7016540 | Gong et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7028029 | Kamvar et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7039234 | Geidl et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7051023 | Kapur et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7072888 | Perkins | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7076483 | Preda et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7080073 | Jiang et al. | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7107218 | Preston | Sep 2006 | B1 |
7152059 | Monteverde | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7181438 | Szabo | Feb 2007 | B1 |
7197497 | Cossock | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7231399 | Bem et al. | Jun 2007 | B1 |
7243102 | Naam et al. | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7246128 | Jordahl | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7257574 | Parikh | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7257577 | Fagin et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7260573 | Jeh et al. | Aug 2007 | B1 |
7281002 | Farrell | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7308643 | Zhu et al. | Dec 2007 | B1 |
7328401 | Obata et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7346604 | Bharat et al. | Mar 2008 | B1 |
7356530 | Kim et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7386527 | Harris et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7428530 | Ramarathnam et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7519529 | Horvitz | Apr 2009 | B1 |
20010042076 | Fukuda | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020055940 | Elkan | May 2002 | A1 |
20020062323 | Takatori et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020078045 | Dutta | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020099694 | Diamond et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020103798 | Abrol et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020107861 | Clendinning et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020107886 | Gentner et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020129014 | Kim et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020169595 | Agichtein et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020169770 | Kim et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030037074 | Dwork et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030053084 | Geidl et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030055810 | Cragun et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030061201 | Grefenstette et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030065706 | Smyth et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030074368 | Schuetze et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030208482 | Kim et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030217007 | Fukushima et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030217047 | Marchisio | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030217052 | Rubenczyk et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20040003028 | Emmett et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040006559 | Gange et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040049766 | Bloch et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040093328 | Damle | May 2004 | A1 |
20040111408 | Caudill et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040117351 | Challapalli et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040148278 | Milo et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040181515 | Ullmann et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040186827 | Anick et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040194099 | Lamping et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040199497 | Timmons | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040205497 | Alexander et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040215606 | Cossock | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040215664 | Hennings et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040254932 | Gupta et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050033742 | Kamvar et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050044071 | Cho et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050055340 | Dresden | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050055347 | Cho et al. | Mar 2005 | A9 |
20050060186 | Blowers et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050060304 | Parikh | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050060311 | Tong et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050071328 | Lawrence | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050071741 | Acharya et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050086192 | Kodama | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050086206 | Balasubramanian et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050086583 | Obata et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050144162 | Liang | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050154746 | Liu et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050165781 | Kraft et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050187965 | Abajian | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050192936 | Meek et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050192955 | Farrell | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050210006 | Robertson | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050216533 | Berkhin | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050240580 | Zamir et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050251499 | Huang | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050262050 | Fagin et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050283473 | Rousso et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060036598 | Wu | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060047649 | Liang | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060161534 | Carson et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060173560 | Widrow | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060195440 | Burges et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060206460 | Gadkari et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060206476 | Kapur et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060282455 | Lee et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060287993 | Yao et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070038616 | Guha | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070038622 | Meyerzon et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070073748 | Barney | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070106659 | Lu et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070150473 | Li et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070198459 | Boone et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070276829 | Wang et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20090106221 | Meyerzon et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090106223 | Meyerzon et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090106235 | Tankovich et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
10029644 | Jan 2002 | DE |
0950961 | Oct 1999 | EP |
1050830 | Nov 2000 | EP |
1120717 | Aug 2001 | EP |
1282060 | Feb 2002 | EP |
1557770 | Jul 2005 | EP |
10091638 | Apr 1998 | JP |
11328191 | Nov 1999 | JP |
2002-091843 | Mar 2002 | JP |
2003-248696 | Sep 2003 | JP |
10-2002-0015838 | Mar 2002 | KR |
10-2003-0082109 | Oct 2003 | KR |
10-2006-0116042 | Nov 2006 | KR |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20060294100 A1 | Dec 2006 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11073381 | Mar 2005 | US |
Child | 11412723 | US |