Conversations within contact centers are typically more structured than everyday speech. The contact center conversations may contain a mixture of free conversation and structured speech. Structured speech is sequences that have a higher repetition rate than free speech. Structured speech may include scripts that are read word-for-word by agents, computer generated voice mail messages, interactive voice response (IVR) generated speech, and figures of speech.
Accuracy is also a concern when translating speech to text to generate transcripts of conversations in the contact center. When performing speech to text there are often errors in the conversion. This may be cause by noise on the line, speakers do not speak clearly, or transcription system itself has errors. In long texts, the probability of errors increases. Thus, it is difficult to determine agent compliance to scripts and to verify quality assurance.
In accordance with some implementations described herein, there is provided a method for determining structured speech. The method may include receiving a transcript of an audio recording created by a text-to-speech communication processing system. Thereafter, analyzing text in the transcript to determine repetitions within the text, where the repetitions being indicative of structured speech. From the repetitions, a duration distribution of the repetitions may be determined to ascertain a first type of structured speech. The first type of structured speech many be interactive voice response (IVR) generated speech. A length of the repetitions may be determined to ascertain a second type of structured speech. The second type of structured speech may be scripts spoken by, e.g., agents in the contact center.
In accordance with some implementations, there is provided a method for converting speech to text in a speech analytics system. The method may include receiving audio data containing speech made up of sounds from an audio source, processing the sounds with a phonetic module resulting in symbols corresponding to the sounds, and processing the symbols with a language module and occurrence table resulting in text. The method also may include determining a probability of correct translation for each word in the text, comparing the probability of correct translation for each word in the text to the occurrence table, and adjusting the occurrence table based on the probability of correct translation for each word in the text.
This summary is provided to introduce a selection of concepts in a simplified form that are further described below in the detailed description. This summary is not intended to identify key features or essential features of the claimed subject matter, nor is it intended to be used to limit the scope of the claimed subject matter.
The foregoing summary, as well as the following detailed description of illustrative implementations, is better understood when read in conjunction with the appended drawings. For the purpose of illustrating the implementations, there are shown in the drawings example constructions; however, the implementations are not limited to the specific methods and instrumentalities disclosed. In the drawings:
The following description and associated drawings teach the best mode of the invention. For the purpose of teaching inventive principles, some conventional aspects of the best mode may be simplified or omitted. The following claims specify the scope of the invention. Some aspects of the best mode may not fall within the scope of the invention as specified by the claims. Thus, those skilled in the art will appreciate variations from the best mode that fall within the scope of the invention. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the features described below can be combined in various ways to form multiple variations of the invention. As a result, the invention is not limited to the specific examples described below, but only by claims and their equivalents.
Structured speech has a different statistical behavior than free conversation. By understanding the statistical distinction, structured speech may be automatically identified based in Large-Vocabulary Continuous Speech Recognition (LVCSR) outputs from contact centers, given a set of transcribed calls. For example, a different retrieval criterion may be used for structured speech than free conversation. By exploiting the fact that structured speech includes long sentences, a high level of precision and recall may be obtained, in view of the following.
Links 110, 114, 116, 118, 120, 122 and 124 may use any of a variety of communication media, such as air, metal, optical fiber, or any other signal propagation path, including combinations thereof. In addition, links 110, 114, 116, 118, 120, 122 and 124 may use any of a variety of communication protocols, such as internet, telephony, optical networking, wireless communication, wireless fidelity, or any other communication protocols and formats, including combinations thereof. Further, links 110, 114, 116, 118, 120, 122 and 124 could be direct links or they might include various intermediate components, systems, and networks.
Communication network 106 may be any type of network such as a local area network (LAN), wide area network (WAN), the internet, a wireless communication network, or the like. Any network capable of transferring data from one device to another device may operate as communication network 106.
The speech analytics system 100 may include recorder 109 that stores the speech from audio source 102 or audio source 104 for later retrieval by communication processing system 108 or other downstream devices or systems. The audio sources 102 and 104 may be any source, such as a telephone, VoIP endpoint, mobile device, general purpose computing device, etc. The recorded speech is made up of a plurality of sounds that are then translated to text.
Communication processing system 108 may be any device capable of receiving data through communication network 106 from other devices, such as audio sources 102 and 104, processing the data, and transmitting data through network 106 to other devices. For example, communication processing system 108 may include a processing system for processing data, a communication interface for receiving and transmitting data, a storage system for storing data, and a user interface. One example embodiment of communication processing system 108 is represented by the communication processing system 108 illustrated in
Communications processing system 108 receives speech made up of sounds from audio source 102, audio source 104 or recorder 109, and proceeds to convert the speech to text. First, communication processing system 108 uses a phonetic module to convert the sounds into symbols corresponding to the sounds. Next, communication processing system 108 uses a language module and occurrence table to convert the symbols into text. In addition, communication processing system 108 determines a probable accuracy for each word translated. This probability may be based upon the words proceeding or following the selected word. Finally, communication processing system 108 compares the probable accuracies for each word translated with an occurrence table and adjusts the occurrence table as indicated by the probable accuracies for each word.
In an example, the occurrence table may be based upon the occurrence of words in a test sample. There may be a variety of test samples and occurrence tables corresponding to different dialects, languages, or regional slang. There may also be a variety of test samples and occurrence tables corresponding to different domains such as banking, law, commerce, phone centers, technical support lines, or the like. When speech of a known dialect or domain is received, it is compared to a corresponding occurrence table, and the appropriate occurrence table is updated based upon the probable accuracy of the translation of the speech. Thus, the occurrence table for different dialects and domains are continually being updated as more speech is translated.
While
In an example embodiment, communication processing system 108 receives audio data from audio sources 102 and 104 through communication network 106. This audio data may utilize any of a wide variety of formats. The audio data may be recorded as .mp3 or .wav files or the like. Further, the audio data may include one or more conversations within a single data file or group of data files. In some embodiments, the audio data may be translated from speech to text by other elements (not shown) within communication network 106, and the translated text may then be provided to communication processing system 108.
Communication processing system 108 processes audio data received from audio sources 102 and 104, producing an index of symbols found within the audio data. These symbols may include phonemes, words, phrases, or the like. The index of symbols may be stored in database 110 in some embodiments. Communication processing system 108 then processes the index of symbols searching for symbols that have a deviation in frequency of occurrence within a time period. This time period may be of any length. For example, communication processing system 108 may receive daily updates of audio data and search for symbols having a deviation in frequency of occurrence in comparison to the audio data received for the previous week. Other embodiments may use other periods of time in a similar method.
Speech analytics system 106 determines a probability of correct translation for each word in the text (operation 206). This probability may be based in part or in whole on the words proceeding or following the selected word. Speech analytics system 106 compares the probability of correct translation for each word in the text to an appropriate occurrence table (operation 208). This occurrence table may be selected based upon a number of factors such as dialect or language of the speech, and the domain in which the speech was obtained.
Speech analytics system 106 then modifies the occurrence table based on the probability of correct translation for each word in the text (operation 210). This modification may simply change the occurrence probability by a fixed percentage, or by a variable percentage based on the probability of correct translation of the given word, or any other of a wide variety of methods for modification.
Speech analytics system 106 determines a probability of correct translation for each word in the text (operation 206). This probability may be based in part or in whole on the words proceeding or following the selected word. Speech analytics system 106 compares the probability of correct translation for each word in the text to an appropriate occurrence table (operation 208). This occurrence table may be selected based upon a number of factors such as dialect or language of the speech, and the domain in which the speech was obtained.
Speech analytics system 106 then modifies the occurrence table based on the probability of correct translation for each word in the text (operation 210). This modification may simply change the occurrence probability by a fixed percentage, or by a variable percentage based on the probability of correct translation of the given word, or any other of a wide variety of methods for modification.
In accordance with aspects of the disclosure, structured speech may be identified. Structure speech may include IVR, scripts, and figures of speech. With regard to IVR, this type of structured speech is repetitive. Thus, the communication processing system 108 can recognizing errors in a transcription by taking advantage of the repetitive nature of IVR speech. An IVR message may be, “Welcome to ABC Products customer service center. All of our representatives are busy assisting other customers.” Similarly, a voicemail system prompt may be, “You have reached the voice mail box of Jane Doe, please leave your message after the tone.”
Scripts are another type of structured speech, and are typically statements spoken by agents are, as required by law, certain situations (e.g., disclaimers), and in response to customer inquiries, etc. The scripts are spoken by many different agents with typically only minor modification and timing between the agents. An agent script may be, for example, “For security purposes can you please verify the last four digits of your social security number.” Scripts may have medium length sentences, but are repeated among conversations in the contact center.
Figures of speech are small to medium-sized sentences that people tend to say even thought they are not written text read aloud. The figures of speech are typically common phrases, such as “Oh, my!” They occur with some repetition, but are typically shorter than scripts. Similar to a script, figures of speech tend to have some repetition among conversations in the contact center, but are typically shorter in length and of lower frequency.
With regard to free speech, the order and length of words in is variable. Free speech typically does not repeat among conversations. An example of free speech is, “Well, you see, first click on start.”
The communication processing system 108 can make determinations of the type of speech by looking words within the transcript. For example, for IVR speech, if a predetermined number or percentage of words in an IVR recording are recognized (e.g., 9 out of 16), the communication processing system 108 can make a determination that a particular segment of the transcript is IVR speech. The communication processing system 108 may make a determination not to index each and every word of the recognized IVR speech.
The communication processing system 108 can make analyze the text of the transcribed speech to make determinations of the type of speech (operation 306) by looking words within the transcript. For example, the communication processing system 108 may identify structured speech based upon repetitions. The communication processing system 108 may identify IVR speech based on durations and distributions. For example,
The communication processing system 108 may make a determination (operation 308) that a particular segment of the transcript is IVR speech based on the duration distribution of the particular segment. As such, the IVR speech can be separated (operation 310). For example, the segment, “All of our representatives are busy assisting other customers” can be identified as IVR speech.
Using this knowledge, the communication processing system 108 may determine if a predetermined number of words in an IVR recording are recognized. In accordance with the determination, the communication processing system 108 may make a determination not to index each and every word of the recognized IVR speech.
After separating IVR phrases, scripts spoken by agents can be identified by, e.g., examining a length of the phrase. As noted above, scripts are read from text or are statements that agents are trained to say, (“A Federal Law and your decision will not affect your service”). Also as noted above, figures of speech are customary statement (“Hello, how can I help you?”). Because figures of speech tend to be a few words, whereas the scripts tend to be longer sentences, a phrase can be categorized as a script (operation 312) or a figure of speech (operation 314). Thus, figures of speech can be separated out from scripts based on length.
Those phrases that do not fall into the above structures are likely to be free speech (operation 316). Separating the structures may be useful, because for example, in scripts, the word “rebate” may have a different meaning than when it occurs in a figure of speech or free speech. Thus, as will be described below, when searching on the word “rebate,” a context (script, figure of speech, or free speech) may be included in the index and searched.
Identifying scripts within a contact corpus is useful for analysis purposes (operation 318). In some implementations, agent compliance may be determined. For example, it may be determined which agents do or do not strictly adhere to scripts that include, e.g., disclaimers. Contacts may be reviewed that should include a script, but do not. Agents may be ranked based on their compliance to scripts. In addition, identifying scripts may be used to determine which agents are more or less polite than others. Politeness may be analyzed to determine if agents who are more polite helping with customer retention, sales, etc. Yet further, identifying scripts may determine if agents are attempting to up-sell, and what the characteristics of the calls are in which up-selling is performed.
For contacts within the corpus, scores for a script can be determined by setting a minimum distance between the script and words in the contact. A script may be identified by looking for a word or group of words, a Boolean expression or weighting of words. Pattern matching may be performed if a number of errors are small. However, there is not a need to search each and every word in script for it to be correct. In some implementations, an order of the words may be used.
For example, as show in
In some implementations, scripts may be used as categories. For example, the communication processing system 108 may identify the scripts and output a list. The communication processing system 108 may evaluate each contact for the scripts it contains (e.g., binary output). A user may use a “Script Definition Tool” (SDT) to assign a script with a name, color, impact, etc. The user may assign the script with a type, such as a greeting, authentication, hold, transfer or closure. Additional types assigned can be legal, company policy, up-sale, politeness etc. Manual edit of scripts may be performed by the user who may edit the scripts list to focus on interesting scripts and perform “fine tuning.” Each script can be given a name, color, impact similarly to categories.
In some implementations, the communication processing system 108 may utilize scripts similarly to categories. For example, scripts may be used as a filter in a query. Since the script is binary, a “NOT” operator can be used for checking compliance. Scripts may be displayed, and impact and relevance determined for a specific query. In a player application, scripts may be marked within a contact (see, e.g.,
In some implementations, scripts may be identified as part of a quality management and scorecards. A supervisor may obtain a list of sentences that each of his/her agents tends to use. The supervisor may ascertain the greetings/closure each agent uses. The supervisor may determine an agents first call resolution capabilities.
Scripts may be exported to database 110. From database 110, the scripts can be integrated with evaluation forms (QM) and Scorecards. Scripts compliance can be used in QM as metrics for evaluations, and for training purposes. Script adherence reports may be generated to determine which agents exceptionally use certain scripts. The reports may also surface scripts that have exceptionally low or high compliance. For each agent, a graph of his/her compliance to various scripts may be generated, as well as an overall scripts compliance graph for all scripts.
In some implementations, analytics may be performed to determine how the usage of an up-sale script contribute to sales (e.g., using meta data); whether agent politeness leads to better customer satisfaction (e.g., using categories); and whether a polite agent helps improve customer retention; whether complying to company policy has a positive effect on sales. Analytics may determine other aspects, such as what characterizes a specific agent group and what their common scripts are. In addition, it may be determined what characterizes good agents; and what are their common scripts (e.g., using QM data).
In the above, the user need not type in whole script when monitoring agents for compliance, QM, etc. Special identifiers can be added to the index and used to searching purposes.
Communication interface 301 includes components that communicate over communication links, such as network cards, ports, RF transceivers, processing circuitry and software, or some other communication devices. Communication interface 301 may be configured to communicate over metallic, wireless, or optical links Communication interface 301 may be configured to use TDM, IP, Ethernet, optical networking, wireless protocols, communication signaling, or some other communication format—including combinations thereof. In this example, communication interface 301 is configured to receive audio data from recorder 104 or directly from audio source 102.
User interface 302 includes components that interact with a user. User interface 302 may include a keyboard, display screen, mouse, touch pad, or some other user input/output apparatus. User interface 302 may be omitted in some examples.
Processing circuitry 305 includes microprocessor and other circuitry that retrieves and executes operating software 307 from memory device 306. Memory device 306 includes a disk drive, flash drive, data storage circuitry, or some other memory apparatus. Operating software 307 includes computer programs, firmware, or some other form of machine-readable processing instructions. Operating software 307 may include an operating system, utilities, drivers, network interfaces, applications, or some other type of software. When executed by circuitry 305, operating software 307 directs processing system 303 to operate communication processing system 108 as described herein.
In this example, operating software 307 includes a phonetic module that directs processing circuitry 305 to translate speech to sounds, a language module that directs processing circuitry 305 to translate sounds to text, and an occurrence table that is used with the language module to improve the accuracy of the sounds to text translation.
The above description and associated figures teach the best mode of the invention. The following claims specify the scope of the invention. Note that some aspects of the best mode may not fall within the scope of the invention as specified by the claims. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the features described above can be combined in various ways to form multiple variations of the invention. As a result, the invention is not limited to the specific embodiments described above, but only by the following claims and their equivalents.
This application is a division of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/755,549, filed Apr. 7, 2010, entitled “SPEECH ANALYTICS SYSTEM AND SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING STRUCTURED SPEECH,” which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/167,495, and entitled “STRUCTURED SPEECH”, filed on Apr. 7, 2009, and Application Ser. No. 61/178,795, and entitled “SPEECH ANALYTICS SYSTEM”, filed on May 15, 2009, the contents of the above are hereby incorporated by reference in their entireties.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3594919 | De Bell et al. | Jul 1971 | A |
3705271 | De Bell et al. | Dec 1972 | A |
4510351 | Costello et al. | Apr 1985 | A |
4684349 | Ferguson et al. | Aug 1987 | A |
4694483 | Cheung | Sep 1987 | A |
4763353 | Canale et al. | Aug 1988 | A |
4815120 | Kosich | Mar 1989 | A |
4924488 | Kosich | May 1990 | A |
4953159 | Hayden et al. | Aug 1990 | A |
5016272 | Stubbs et al. | May 1991 | A |
5101402 | Chiu et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
5117225 | Wang | May 1992 | A |
5210789 | Jeffus et al. | May 1993 | A |
5239460 | LaRoche | Aug 1993 | A |
5241625 | Epard et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5267865 | Lee et al. | Dec 1993 | A |
5299260 | Shaio | Mar 1994 | A |
5311422 | Loftin et al. | May 1994 | A |
5315711 | Barone et al. | May 1994 | A |
5317628 | Misholi et al. | May 1994 | A |
5347306 | Nitta | Sep 1994 | A |
5388252 | Dreste et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
5396371 | Henits et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
5432715 | Shigematsu et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
5465286 | Clare et al. | Nov 1995 | A |
5475625 | Glaschick | Dec 1995 | A |
5485569 | Goldman et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
5491780 | Fyles et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
5499291 | Kepley | Mar 1996 | A |
5535256 | Maloney et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5572652 | Robusto et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5577112 | Cambray et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5590171 | Howe et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5597312 | Bloom et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5619183 | Ziegra et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5696906 | Peters et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5717879 | Moran et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5721842 | Beasley et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5740318 | Naito et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5742670 | Bennett | Apr 1998 | A |
5748499 | Trueblood | May 1998 | A |
5757644 | Jorgensen et al. | May 1998 | A |
5778182 | Cathey et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5784452 | Carney | Jul 1998 | A |
5790798 | Beckett, II et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5796952 | Davis et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5809247 | Richardson et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5809250 | Kisor | Sep 1998 | A |
5825869 | Brooks et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5835572 | Richardson, Jr. et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5862330 | Anupam et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5864772 | Alvarado et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5884032 | Bateman et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5907680 | Nielsen | May 1999 | A |
5918214 | Perkowski | Jun 1999 | A |
5918222 | Fukui et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5923746 | Baker et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5933811 | Angles et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5944791 | Scherpbier | Aug 1999 | A |
5948061 | Merriman et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5958016 | Chang et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5964836 | Rowe et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5978648 | George et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5982857 | Brady | Nov 1999 | A |
5987466 | Greer et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5990852 | Szamrej | Nov 1999 | A |
5991373 | Pattison et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5991796 | Anupam et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6005932 | Bloom | Dec 1999 | A |
6009429 | Greer et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6014134 | Bell et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6014647 | Nizzari et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6018619 | Allard et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6035332 | Ingrassia et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6038544 | Machin et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6039575 | L'Allier et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6057841 | Thurlow et al. | May 2000 | A |
6058163 | Pattison et al. | May 2000 | A |
6061798 | Coley et al. | May 2000 | A |
6072860 | Kek et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6076099 | Chen et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6078894 | Clawson et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6091712 | Pope et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6100891 | Thorne | Aug 2000 | A |
6108711 | Beck et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6122665 | Bar et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6122668 | Teng et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6130668 | Stein | Oct 2000 | A |
6138139 | Beck et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6144991 | England | Nov 2000 | A |
6146148 | Stuppy | Nov 2000 | A |
6151622 | Fraenkel et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6154771 | Rangan et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6157808 | Hollingsworth | Dec 2000 | A |
6171109 | Ohsuga | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6173437 | Polcyn | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6182094 | Humpleman et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6195679 | Bauersfeld et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6201948 | Cook et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6211451 | Tohgi et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6225993 | Lindblad et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6230197 | Beck et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6236977 | Verba et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6244758 | Solymar et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6282548 | Burner et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6286030 | Wenig et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6286046 | Bryant | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6288753 | DeNicola et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6289340 | Purnam et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6301462 | Freeman et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6301573 | McIlwaine et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6324282 | McIlwaine et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6347374 | Drake et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6351467 | Dillon | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6353851 | Anupam et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6360250 | Anupam et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6370574 | House et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6404857 | Blair et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6411989 | Anupam et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6418471 | Shelton et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6459787 | McIlwaine et al. | Oct 2002 | B2 |
6487195 | Choung et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6493758 | McLain | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6502131 | Vaid et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6510220 | Beckett, II et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6535909 | Rust | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6542602 | Elazar | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6546405 | Gupta et al. | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6560328 | Bondarenko et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6583806 | Ludwig et al. | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6606657 | Zilberstein et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6665644 | Kanevsky et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6674447 | Chiang et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6683633 | Holtzblatt et al. | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6697858 | Ezerzer et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6721734 | Subasic et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6724887 | Eilbacher et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6738456 | Wrona et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6751614 | Rao | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6757361 | Blair et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6772396 | Cronin et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6775377 | McIlwaine et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6792575 | Samaniego et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6810414 | Brittain | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6820083 | Nagy et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6823054 | Suhm et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6823384 | Wilson et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6870916 | Henrikson et al. | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6871229 | Nisani et al. | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6901438 | Davis et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6959078 | Eilbacher et al. | Oct 2005 | B1 |
6965886 | Govrin et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
7039166 | Peterson et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
7170979 | Byrne et al. | Jan 2007 | B1 |
7295980 | Garner et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7310600 | Garner et al. | Dec 2007 | B1 |
7346509 | Gallino | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7577246 | Idan et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7590542 | Williams et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7613717 | Reed et al. | Nov 2009 | B1 |
7664747 | Petras et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7706520 | Waterson et al. | Apr 2010 | B1 |
7720214 | Ricketts | May 2010 | B2 |
7865510 | Hillary et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7913063 | Lyerly | Mar 2011 | B1 |
7953219 | Freedman et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
7991613 | Blair | Aug 2011 | B2 |
7996210 | Godbole et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8023636 | Koehler et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8054964 | Flockhart et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8055503 | Scarano et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8060364 | Bachar et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8108237 | Bourne et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8112306 | Lyerly et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8200527 | Thompson et al. | Jun 2012 | B1 |
8219555 | Mianji | Jul 2012 | B1 |
8396741 | Kannan et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
8417713 | Blair-Goldensohn et al. | Apr 2013 | B1 |
8463595 | Rehling et al. | Jun 2013 | B1 |
8463606 | Scott et al. | Jun 2013 | B2 |
8504371 | Vacek et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
8531501 | Portman et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8583434 | Gallino | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8626753 | Aggarwal et al. | Jan 2014 | B1 |
8805717 | Fleming et al. | Aug 2014 | B2 |
8965765 | Zweig et al. | Feb 2015 | B2 |
20010000962 | Rajan | May 2001 | A1 |
20010032335 | Jones | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010043697 | Cox et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020002460 | Pertrushin | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020038363 | MacLean | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020052948 | Baudu et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020065911 | Von Klopp et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020065912 | Catchpole et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020128821 | Ehsani et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020128925 | Angeles | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020143925 | Pricer et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020165954 | Eshghi et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020188507 | Busche | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030040909 | Ghali | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030055654 | Oudeyer | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030055883 | Wiles et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030079020 | Gourraud et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030099335 | Tanaka et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030144900 | Whitmer | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030154240 | Nygren et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030204404 | Weldon et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20040062364 | Dezonno et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040068406 | Maekawa et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040098265 | Kelly et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040100507 | Hayner et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040165717 | McIlwaine et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20050022106 | Kawai et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050108518 | Pandaya et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050133565 | Lee et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050165819 | Kudoh et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050170326 | Koehler et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050216269 | Scahill et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050221268 | Chaar et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20060074689 | Cosatto et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060080107 | Hill et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060085186 | Ma et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060179064 | Paz et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060188075 | Peterson | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060235690 | Tomasic et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20070011005 | Morrison et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070016580 | Mann et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070043608 | May et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070071206 | Gainsboro et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070150275 | Garner et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070198249 | Adachi et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070198329 | Lyerly et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070198330 | Korenblit et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070211881 | Parker-Stephen | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20080022211 | Jones et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080080698 | Williams et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080082329 | Watson | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080082330 | Blair | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080082341 | Blair | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080097985 | Olstad et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080120253 | Abdulali | May 2008 | A1 |
20080177538 | Roy et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080195385 | Pereg et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080215543 | Huang et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080235018 | Eggen et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080249764 | Huang et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080281581 | Henshaw et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080300872 | Basu | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090087822 | Stanton et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090092241 | Minert et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090119268 | Bandaru et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090138262 | Agarwal et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090222551 | Neely et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090228264 | Williams et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090228428 | Dan et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090248399 | Au | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090258333 | Yu | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090265332 | Mushtaq et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090292538 | Barnish | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090313016 | Cevik et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090327279 | Adachi et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100005081 | Bennett | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100076765 | Zweig et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100091954 | Dayanidhi et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100098225 | Ashton et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100104086 | Park | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100104087 | Byrd et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100119053 | Goeldi | May 2010 | A1 |
20100121857 | Elmore et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100145940 | Chen et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100161315 | Melamed et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100198584 | Habu et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100246799 | Lubowich et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100253792 | Kawaguchi et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100262454 | Sommer et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100274618 | Byrd et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100329437 | Jeffs et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20100332287 | Gates et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110010173 | Scott et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110055223 | Elmore et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110078167 | Sundaresan et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110082874 | Gainsboro et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110093479 | Fuchs | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110178803 | Petrushin | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110191106 | Khor et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110196677 | Deshmukh et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110208522 | Pereg et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110216905 | Gavalda et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110225115 | Moitra et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110238670 | Mercuri | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110246442 | Bartell | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110249811 | Conway et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110282661 | Dobry et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110307257 | Pereg et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120046938 | Godbole et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120130771 | Kannan et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120131021 | Blair-Goldensohn et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120143597 | Mushtaq et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120215535 | Wasserblat et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120245942 | Zechner et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120253792 | Bespalov et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20130018875 | Qiao | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130204613 | Godbole et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130297581 | Ghosh et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130297619 | Chandrasekaran et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130325660 | Callaway | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140012863 | Sundaresan et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140067390 | Webb | Mar 2014 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0453128 | Oct 1991 | EP |
0773687 | May 1997 | EP |
0989720 | Mar 2000 | EP |
2369263 | May 2002 | GB |
9843380 | Nov 1998 | WO |
0016207 | Mar 2000 | WO |
Entry |
---|
PCT International Search Report, International Application No. PCT/US03/02541, mailed May 12, 2003. |
Phaup, “New Software Puts Computerized Tests on the Internet: Presence Corporation announces breakthrough Question Mark Web product,” Web page, unverified print date of Apr. 1, 2002. |
Phaup, “QM Perception Links with Integrity Training's WBT Manager to Provide Enhanced Assessments for Web-Based Courses,” Web page, unverified print date of Apr. 1, 2002, unverified cover date of Mar. 25, 1999. |
Phaup, “Question Mark Introduces Access Export Software,” Web page, unverified print date of Apr. 2, 2002, unverified cover date of Mar. 1, 1997. |
Phaup, “Question Mark Offers Instant Online Feedback for Web Quizzes and Questionnaires: University of California assist with Beta Testing, Server scripts now available to high-volume users,” Web page, unverified print date of Apr. 1, 2002, unverified cover date of May 6, 1996. |
Piskurich, “Now-You-See-'Em, Now-You-Don't Learning Centers,” Technical Training pp. 18-21 (Jan./Feb. 1999). |
Read, “Sharpening Agents' Skills,” pp. 1-15, Web page, unverified print date of Mar. 20, 2002, unverified cover date of Oct. 1, 1999. |
Reid, “On Target: Assessing Technical Skills,” Technical Skills and Training pp. 6-8 (May/Jun. 1995). |
Rohde, “Gates Touts Interactive TV”, InfoWorld, Oct. 14, 1999. |
Ross, “Broadcasters Use TV Signals to Send Data”, PC World, Oct. 1996 |
“Setting up switched port analyzer for monitoring and recording IP-ICD agents on the Cisco ICS 7750”, Cisco Systems, Nov. 22, 2002. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/routers/access/ics7750/software/notes/icsspan.html. |
Stewart, “Interactive Television at Home: Television Meets the Internet”, Aug. 1998. |
Stormes, “Case Study: Restructuring Technical Training Using ISD,” Technical Skills and Training pp. 23-26 (Feb./Mar. 1997). |
Tennyson, “Artificial Intelligence Methods in Computer-Based Instructional Design,” Journal of Instruction Development 7(3):17-22 (1984). |
The Editors, Call Center, The Most Innovative Call. |
Tinoco et al., “Online Evaluation in WWW-based Courseware,” ACM pp. 194-198 (1997). |
Uiterwijk et al., “The virtual classroom,” InfoWorld 20(47):6467 (Nov. 23, 1998). |
Unknown Author, “Long-distance learning,” InfoWorld 20(36):7276 (1998). |
Aspect Call Center Product Specification, “Release 2.0”, Aspect Telecommunications Corporation, May 23, 1998, p. 798. |
“Customer Spotlight: Navistar International,” Web page, unverified print date of Apr. 1, 2002. |
DKSystems Integrates QM Perception with OnTrack for Training, Web page, unverified print date of Apr. 1, 2002, unverified cover date of Jun. 15, 1999. |
“OnTrack Online” Delivers New Web Functionality, Web page, unverified print date of Apr. 2, 2002, unverified cover date of Oct. 5, 1999. |
“Price Waterhouse Coopers Case Study: The Business Challenge,” Web page, unverified cover date of 2000. |
Abstract, net.working: “An Online Webliography,” Technical Training pp. 4-5 (Nov./Dec. 1998). |
Adams et al., “Our Turn-of-the-Century Trend Watch” Technical Training, pp. 46-47, (Nov./Dec. 1998). |
Anderson: Interactive TVs New Approach, The Standard, Oct. 1, 1999. |
Ante, “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Cryptography Legislation . . . (But Were too Sensible to Ask)”, PC World Online, Dec. 14, 1999. |
Barron, “The Road to Performance: Three Vignettes,” Technical Skills and Training, pp. 12-14 (Jan. 1997). |
Bauer, “Technology Tools: Just-in-Time Desktop Training is Quick, Easy, and Affordable,” Technical Training, pp. 8-11 (May/Jun. 1998). |
Beck et al., “Applications of AI in Education,” AMC Crossroads vol. 1:1-13 (Fall 1996), Web page, unverified print date of Apr. 12, 2002. |
Benson and Cheney, “Best Practices in Training Delivery,” Technical Training pp. 14-17 (Oct. 1996). |
Bental and Cawsey, “Personalized and Adaptive Systems for Medical Consumer Applications,” Communications ACM 45(5):62-63 (May 2002). |
Berst, “It's Baa-aack. How Interactive TV is Sneaking Into Your Living Room”, The AnchorDesk, May 10, 1999. |
Berst, “Why Interactive TV Won't Turn You On (Yet)”, The AnchorDesk, Jul. 13, 1999. |
Blumenthal et al., “Reducing Development Costs with Intelligent Tutoring System Shells,” pp. 1-5, Web page, unverified print date of Apr. 9, 2002, unverified cover date of Jun. 10, 1996. |
Borland and Davis, “US West Plans Web Services on TV”, CNETNews.com, Nov. 22, 1999. |
Brown, “Let PC Technology Be Your TV Guide”, PC Magazine, Jun. 7, 1999. |
Brown, “Interactive TV: The Sequel”, NewMedia, Feb. 10, 1998. |
Brusilovsky, “Adaptive Educational Systems on the World-Wide-Web: A Review of Available Technologies,” pp. 1-10, Web Page, unverified print date of Apr. 12, 2002. |
Brusilovsky, et al., “Distributed intelligent tutoring on the Web,” Proceedings of the 8th World Conference of the AIED Society, Kobe, Japan, Aug. 18-22, pp. 1-9 Web page, unverified print date of Apr. 12, 2002, unverified cover date of Aug. 18-22, 1997. |
Brusilovsky, et al., ISIS-Tutor: An Intelligent Learning Environment for CD/ISIS Users, pp. 1-15 Web page, unverified print date of May 2, 2002. |
“Building Customer Loyalty Through Business-Driven Recording of Multimedia Interactions in your Contact Center,” Witness Systems promotional brochure for eQuality, (2000). |
Byrnes et al., “The Development of a Multiple-Choice and True-False Testing Environment on the Web,” pp. 1-8, Web page, unverified print date Apr. 12, 2002, unverified cover date of 1995. |
Calvi and De Bra, “Improving the Usability of Hypertext Courseware through Adaptive Linking,” ACM, unknown page numbers (1997). |
Center Products We Saw in 1999, Web page, unverified print date of Mar. 20, 2002, unverified cover date of Feb. 1, 2000. |
Cline, “Deja vu—Will Interactive TV Make It This Time Around?”, DevHead, Jul. 9, 1999. |
Coffey, “Are Performance Objectives Really Necessary?” Technical Skills and Training pp. 25-27 (Oct. 1995). |
Cohen, “Knowledge Management's Killer App,” pp. 1-11, Web page, unverified print date of Apr. 12, 2002, unverified cover date of 2001. |
Cole-Gomolski, “New ways to manage E-Classes,” Computerworld 32(48):4344 (Nov. 30, 1998). |
Cross, “Sun Microsystems—the SunTAN Story,” Internet Time Group 8 (2001). |
Crouch, “TV Channels on the Web”, PC World, Sep. 15, 1999. |
D'Amico, “Interactive TV Gets $99 set-top box,” IDG.net, Oct. 6, 1999. |
Davis, “Satellite Systems Gear Up for Interactive TV Fight”, CNETNews.com, Sep. 30, 1999. |
De Bra et al., “Adaptive Hypermedia: From Systems to Framework,” ACM (2000). |
De Bra, “Adaptive Educational Hypermedia on the Web,” Communications ACM 45(5):60-61 (May 2002). |
Dennis and Gruner, “Computer Managed Instruction at Arthur Andersen & Company: A Status Report,” Educational Technical, pp. 7-16 (Mar. 1992). |
Diederich, “Web TV Data Gathering Raises Privacy Concerns”, ComputerWorld, Oct. 13, 1998. |
Diessel et al., “Individualized Course Generation: A Marriage Between CAL and ICAL,” Computers Educational 22(1/2)57-64 (1994). |
Dyreson, “An Experiment in Class Management Using the World-Wide Web,” pp. 1-12, Web page, unverified print date of Apr. 12, 2002. |
EchoStar, “MediaX Mix Interactive Multimedia With Interactive Television”, PRNews Wire, Jan. 11, 1999. |
E Learning Community, “Excellence in Practice Award: Electronic Learning Technologies,” Personal Learning Network pp. 1-11, Web page, unverified print date of Apr. 12, 2002. |
Eklund and Brusilovsky, “The Value of Adaptivity in Hypermedia Learning Environments: A Short Review of Empirical Evidence,” pp. 1-8, Web page, unverified print date of May 2, 2002. |
e-Learning the future of learning, THINQ Limited, London, Version 1.0 (2000). |
Eline, “A Trainers Guide to Skill Building,” Technical Training pp. 34-41 (Sep./Oct. 1998). |
Eline, “Case Study: Bridging the Gap in Canada's IT Skills,” Technical Skills and Training pp. 23-25 (Jul. 1997). |
Eline, “Case Study: IBT's Place in the Sun,” Technical Training pp. 12-17 (Aug./Sep. 1997). |
Fritz, “CB templates for productivity: Authoring system templates for trainers,” Emedia Professional 10(8):6876 (Aug. 1997). |
Fritz, “ToolBook II: Asymetrix's updated authoring software tackles the Web,” Emedia Professional 10(2):102106 (Feb. 1997). |
Furger, “The Internet Meets the Couch Potato”, PCWorld, Oct. 1996. |
Gibson et al., “A Comparative Analysis of Web-Based Testing and Evaluation Systems,” pp. 1-8, Web page, unverified print date of Apr. 11, 2002. |
Hallberg and DeFlore, “Curving Toward Performance: Following a Hierarchy of Steps Toward a Performance Orientation,” Technical Skills and Training pp. 9-11 (Jan. 1997). |
Harsha, “Online Training “Sprints” Ahead,” Technical Training pp. 27-29 (Jan./Feb. 1999). |
Heideman, “Training Technicians for a High-Tech Future: These six steps can help develop technician training for high-tech work,” pp. 11-14 (Feb./Mar. 1995). |
Heideman, “Writing Performance Objectives Simple as A-B-C (and D),” Technical Skills and Training pp. 5-7 (May/Jun. 1996). |
Hollman, “Train Without Pain: The Benefits of Computer-Based Training Tools,” pp. 1-11, Web page, unverified print date of Mar. 20, 2002, unverified cover date of Jan. 1, 2000. |
“Hong Kong Comes First with Interactive TV”, SCI-TECH, Dec. 4, 1997. |
Kane, AOL-Tivo: You've Got Interactive TV, ZDNN, Aug. 17, 1999. |
Kay, “E-Mail in Your Kitchen”, PC World Online, Mar. 28, 1996. |
“Keeping an Eye on Your Agents,” Call Center Magazine, pp. 32-34, Feb. 1993 LPRs & 798. |
Kenny, “TV Meets Internet”, PC World Online, Mar. 28, 1996. |
Koonce, “Where Technology and Training Meet,” Technical Training pp. 10-15 (Nov./Dec. 1998). |
Kursh, “Going the distance with Web-based training,” Training and Development 52(3):5053 (Mar. 1998). |
Larson, “Enhancing Performance Through Customized Online Learning Support,” Technical Skills and Training pp. 25-27 (May/Jun. 1997). |
Linderholm, “Avatar Debuts Home Theater PC”, PC World Online, Dec. 1, 1999. |
Linton et al., “OWL: A Recommender System for Organization-Wide Learning,” Educational Technical Society 3(1):62-76 (2000). |
Lucadamo and Cheney, “Best Practices in Technical Training,” Technical Training pp. 21-26 (Oct. 1997). |
McNamara, “Monitoring Solutions: Quality Must Be Seen and Heard,” Inbound/Outbound pp. 66-67 (Dec. 1989). |
Merrill, “The New Component Design Theory: Instruction design for courseware authoring,” Instructional Science 16:19-34 (1987). |
Metheus X Window Record and Playback, XRP Features and Benefits, 2 pages, Sep. 1994 LPRs. |
Minton-Eversole, “IBT Training Truths Behind the Hype,” Technical Skills and Training pp. 15-19 (Jan. 1997). |
Mizoguchi, “Intelligent Tutoring Systems: The Current State of the Art,” Trans. IEICE E73(3):297-307 (Mar. 1990). |
Mostow and Aist, “The Sounds of Silence: Towards Automated Evaluation of Student Learning a Reading Tutor that Listens” American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Web page, unknown date Aug. 1997. |
Mullier et al., “A Web base Intelligent Tutoring System,” pp. 1-6, Web page, unverified print date of May 2, 2002. |
Nash, Database Marketing, 1993, pp. 158-165, 172-185, McGraw Hill, Inc., USA. |
Needle, “Will the Net Kill Network TV?”, PC World Online, Mar. 10, 1999. |
Nelson et al., “The Assessment of End-User Training Needs,” Communications ACM 38(7):27-39 (Jul. 1995). |
“NICE and Cisco ICM/IPCC integration”, (Feb. 2003), http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns340/ns394/ns165/ns45/ns14/net—brochure09186a00800a3292.pdf. |
“NICE Systems announces the next generation of active VoIP recording solutions”, Press Release, NICE Systems, Mar. 14, 2006, http://www.nice.com/news/show—pr.php?id=581. |
“NICE Systems announces interoperability of its VoIP recording technology with Cisco Systems' customer contact software platform”, Business Wire, Jul. 3, 2001. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi—m0EIN/is—2001—July—3/ai—76154034. |
Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, dated Jun. 6, 2008. |
O'Herron, “CenterForce Technologies' CenterForce Analyzer,” Web page, unverified print date of Mar. 20, 2002, unverified cover date of Jun. 1, 1999. |
O'Roark, “Basic Skills Get a Boost,” Technical Training pp. 10-13 (Jul./Aug. 1998). |
Pamphlet, “On Evaluating Educational Innovations,” authored by Alan Lesgold, unverified cover date of Mar. 5, 1998. |
Papa et al., “A Differential Diagnostic Skills Assessment and Tutorial Tool,” Computer Education 18(1-3):45-50 (1992). |
Untitled, 10th Mediterranean Electrotechnical Conference vol. 1 pp. 124-126 (2000). |
Watson and Belland, “Use of Learner Data in Selecting Instructional Content for Continuing Education,” Journal of Instructional Development 8(4):29-33 (1985). |
Weinschenk, “Performance Specifications as Change Agents,” Technical Training pp. 12-15 (Oct. 1997). |
Wilson, “U.S. West Revisits Interactive TV”, Interactive Week, Nov. 28, 1999. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61178795 | May 2009 | US | |
61167495 | Apr 2009 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12755549 | Apr 2010 | US |
Child | 14270280 | US |