The present invention relates generally to managing the use of tools loaded onto or associated with a computer numerically controlled (“CNC”) machine, and more particularly to algorithms for matching tools required by a program for creating a machined part to tools available for use by a particular machine or at least described by data accessible by the machine.
CNC machines use various tools (e.g., drills, end mills, reamers, taps, etc.) held by a movable, rotating spindle under the control of a program to form material such as metal into predetermined shapes or “parts.” Often several different tools are required to create a part from stock material, each tool performing a function as specified by the part program. Many CNC machines have an associated automatic tool changer (“ATC”) to speed the process of changing tools during execution of a part program. As is known in the art, such ATCs have many tool stations, each holding a particular tool which the ATC automatically indexes to a loading position for mounting to the spindle as required by the part program. Tools may also be changed manually. Generally, tools for manual loading that are used frequently by a particular machine are kept near the machine and are often mounted in tool holders. The locations of these tools for manual loading are collectively referred to as the manual tool changer (“MTC”). The various tools associated with a particular machine, either mounted in the spindle, mounted in the ATC, or available in the MTC, are referred to herein as the available tools.
Conventionally, to run a part program on a particular CNC machine, the operator had to determine from the part program the tools necessary to complete the part, and ensure that those tools were loaded, for example, in the ATC tool station locations expected by the part program. Alternatively, if a required tool was already loaded in the machine, but in a location different from that expected by the part program, the operator could modify the part program to reflect the actual location of the tool. Either way, the operator had to determine what tools were needed, identify the available tools, manually match the available tools with the needed tools, and correlate the actual locations of the available tools with the location designations of the needed tools specified by the part program. This process is slow and subject to error.
The present invention provides a system and method for tool use management wherein the CNC machine retains information identifying the available tools for the machine as well as their current locations, and executes an algorithm for determining the tools needed by the part program (hereinafter, “source tools”) and matching the source tools with the available tools. Each machine's memory (or a distributed memory, as further described below) is populated with tool information (including the actual location of the tool) when the available tools are initially loaded onto, replaced, or associated with the machine, and the part program is modified based on that tool information to correlate the source tools with the available tools. Consequently, the part program may be executed on any of a plurality of machines, each having a different configuration of available tools, without manually changing the locations of the available tools or manually modifying the part program to reflect the locations of the available tools.
The machine's memory may also retain information describing tools that are not currently available at the machine. Source tools may be matched to these unavailable tools to perform virtual operations on the machine. Alternatively, the operator may be informed that a tool required by a part program is unavailable at the machine, but defined by information in the machine's memory. The operator may then obtain the tool and add it to the available tools for the machine. The data maintained in the machine's memory describing the available tools and the defined, but unavailable tools (collectively referred to herein as “defined tools”) includes information about the physical characteristics and/or use of the tools. Throughout this description, this collection of data is referred to as “the tool library.”
In one embodiment of the invention, the memory associated with the machine also includes a tool database from which tools may be defined for storage in the tool library. The tool database may include a three-dimensional arrangement of tool information whereby the physical characteristics (e.g., tool diameter) and/or use information (e.g., spindle speed) for a tool may be accessed given a basic tool identifier (hereinafter, “the tool type”; e.g., drill) and the material to be machined by the tool (e.g., aluminum). Using a graphical user interface, the operator may populate the tool database (by selecting or typing information or importing information from a source location), and/or use the populated database to generate defined tools for the tool library.
In another embodiment of the invention, source tools that are not identically matched to defined tools are identified as unmatched tools. These unmatched tools may be matched to similar, but not identical, defined tools of the same tool type. A special case is an “unknown” tool type, which can be matched to similar defined tools of any type. The matching of the defined tools to the unmatched tools may be performed by the operator using the graphical user interface.
In yet another embodiment of the present invention, the algorithm for identifying the source tools and matching the source tools to the defined tools is used during importation of defined tools into the tool library to compare the imported defined tools with the previously defined tools to ensure that duplicates are not imported.
The above mentioned and other features of this invention, and the manner of attaining them, will become more apparent and the invention itself will be better understood by reference to the following description of embodiments of the invention taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings.
Corresponding reference characters indicate corresponding parts throughout the several views. Although the drawings represent embodiments of the present invention, the drawings are not necessarily to scale and certain features may be exaggerated in order to better illustrate and explain the present invention.
The embodiments disclosed below are not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise forms disclosed in the following detailed description. Rather, the embodiments are chosen and described so that others skilled in the art may utilize their teachings.
Machine memory 14 conceptually includes a tool library 21, a tool database 23, and a materials database 25. Tool database 23 includes information describing tools and materials database 25 includes information describing materials to be machined by the tools, as is further described below. For a plurality of tools, tools database 23 generally associates default use information (i.e., feeds and speeds) for roughing and finishing operations on different workpiece materials. Materials database 25 may be used in creating tools database 23, as materials database 25 describes the characteristics of the various workpiece materials. Materials database 25 may also be used in creating verification graphics (i.e., simulations displayed to the operator to demonstrate use of part program 12 to form a part) that more realistically depict the actual workpiece. Moreover, materials database 25 may be used in the tool life management functions of the machine to estimate tool wear over time based on the hardness characteristics of the material.
Tool library 21 includes defined tools as is further described below, which are depicted in
Machine memory 14 further includes a map 36 associated with ATC grouping 22. Map 36 includes information describing the physical position in the machine's ATC of the physical tools described by defined tools 30, 32, 34 of ATC grouping 22.
As should be apparent to one skilled in the art, memory 14 may be a distributed memory including multiple memory devices at various physical locations which are accessible by the machine (or multiple machines), either directly or over a wired or wireless network. Alternatively, memory 14 may reside entirely on the machine. As is further described below, defined tools 44, 46, 48 (only three shown to simplify the description) of unmatched grouping 26 are source tools from program 12 that do not match any defined tools in ATC grouping 22 or in MTC grouping 24 of tool library 21. Even if defined tools 44, 46, 48 remain unmatched, the data may be used by the machine to perform virtual operations as is further described below.
When part program 12 is loaded onto a machine (e.g., transferred from a portable media to the machine controller or otherwise received by the controller from a source location), TMA 10 is executed. Various steps of TMA 10 are depicted in flow diagram 50 of
Referring now to
At step 76, algorithm 64 accesses information in source tool 16 describing a plurality of physical characteristics of the physical tool specified by source tool 16. For example, source tool 16 may specify a cut diameter value, a shank diameter value, a flute length value, etc. Each of these physical characteristics may be compared to the corresponding data in defined tool 30 to calculate a compatibility index for defined tool 30. The method of computing a compatibility index may vary for each tool type. In some cases, one or more threshold conditions must be satisfied during the comparison in order for it to proceed. For example, when comparing data associated with drills, step 76 may require that the diameters differ by no more than 0.000001 mm, and that the spin directions be identical. Further comparison is skipped unless both threshold conditions are met. In one embodiment of the invention, step 76 compares physical characteristics and computes the compatibility index by applying weighting factors to one or more of these geometry comparisons. For example, some of the physical characteristics may be considered more critical than others, and thus may have a heavier weighting factor. The weighted comparisons result in a compatibility index value, for example, a value between zero and one.
In another embodiment of the invention, the criteria for matching defined tools to source tools are fully configurable by the operator using, for example, an XML-based configuration map accessed by the operator with a graphical user interface. In one implementation of this embodiment, the tool type can be defined as a default criterion that must match for TMA 10 to designate the defined tool as a matched tool, unless the operator overrides the default criterion. The default may further require that the tools being compared have diameters that match to within a specified tolerance (e.g., 0.001 inches), which may also be changed by the operator. The specified tolerance for compared physical characteristics (such as diameter) of the default criteria, as well as the operator configured criteria as described below, may be an absolute value or a relative value. More specifically, the diameter of the tools, for example, may be required to differ by no more than an absolute amount (e.g., 0.001 inches) or by a relative percentage (e.g., one tool has a diameter that matches the other tool's diameter to within 2% of the other tool's diameter). These absolute or relative limitations on tool matching criteria may be associated with any matching criteria described herein.
In this embodiment, certain tools may, by default, also be required to have other matching physical or use characteristics in addition to or less than the tool type and tool diameter characteristics. For example, cutting taps and forming taps may be required to also have identical or nearly identical thread directions and thread pitches, and thread mills may further be required to have identical or nearly identical thread diameters. On the other hand, where the source tool is a probe, the matching tool may only be required to be the identical tool type (i.e., a probe).
Operator configurable matching criteria may include any of the criteria described above, as well as any other criteria relating to a physical or use characteristic of a tool. In general, the operator may be prompted to define a matching criterion for any of the physical or use characteristics associated with a given tool.
In yet another embodiment of the invention, the operator can configure the matching criteria such that the only criterion applied during the matching process is the numeric reference of the tool. This configuration disables the comparison of tool type, physical characteristics, and use information such that a defined tool will match a source tool if their numeric references are the same, regardless of the other characteristics of the tools. When configuring the matching criteria in this manner, the operator should specify that the numeric references must match to an absolute amount between zero and one (non-inclusive), thereby ensuring that only tools with identical numeric references will be considered matches.
At step 78, the compatibility index value is compared to a threshold value. It should be understood, however, that in embodiments where a compatibility index is not computed, but rather tool matching criteria are applied to the tools under consideration, step 78 is a determination of whether the matching criteria are met. In one embodiment of the invention, during the automatic matching process described herein in association with loading of part program 12, the threshold value to which the compatibility index is compared is one, signifying an identical match of source tool 16 with the defined tool currently under consideration. It should be understood, however, that one of ordinary skill in the art may implement a different threshold value to permit matches that are less than identical. Step 78 determines whether the compatibility index value is equal to or exceeds the threshold (or whether the matching criteria are met, as the case may be). If not, then control passes to step 74 where the next defined tool 32 of ATC grouping 22 is accessed. If, on the other hand, the compatibility index value is equal to or greater than the threshold (or the matching criteria are met, as the case may be), control is passed to step 80, where algorithm 64 identifies defined tool 30 as a match with source tool 16 before accessing defined tool 32 at step 74.
When algorithm 64 accesses defined tool 32 of ATC grouping 22, control is returned to step 70 where algorithm 64 determines whether it has processed all of the defined tools in ATC grouping 22. Algorithm 64 continues stepping through defined tools 30, 32, 34 of ATC grouping 22 and comparing them to source tool 16 in the manner described above until all of the defined tools of ATC grouping 22 have been processed. As algorithm 64 processes defined tools 30, 32, 34, it adds defined tools that match source tool 16 (if any) to the list created by step 80. Eventually, all of defined tools 30, 32, 34 of ATC grouping 22 are processed, and the result of step 70 is “yes.”
At step 82, control is returned to process control routine 58 of
At step 88, process control routine 58 calls tool matching algorithm 64 to process unmatched tools 44, 46, 48 in unmatched grouping 26. It should be understood that multiple part programs 12 may concurrently reside on the machine. In the process of loading these part programs 12, source tools may be added to unmatched tool grouping 26 if they do not match a defined tool in ATC grouping 22 or MTC grouping 24. Later loaded part programs 12 may require source tools that match the unmatched tools from earlier loaded part programs 12. While unmatched tools 44, 46, 48 are not physical tools currently available for use in cutting operations, they may still be used for virtual operations or added, for example, to the MTC if a physical tool corresponding to the unmatched tool is obtained for use. The processing of unmatched tools 44, 46, 47 is the same as that described above with regard to ATC grouping 22 and MTC grouping 24. As should be apparent from the foregoing, if a source tool is matched to an unmatched tool in unmatched tool grouping 26, then the source tool is not added to unmatched tool grouping 26. On the other hand, if a source tool does not match any of defined tools 30, 32, 34 of ATC grouping 22, defined tools 38, 40, 42 of MTC grouping 24, or unmatched tools 44, 46, 48 of unmatched grouping 26, then the source tool is added to tool library 21 as an unmatched tool. In this manner, TMA 10 prevents addition of duplicate unmatched tools to unmatched grouping 26. When a part program 12 is unloaded from the machine, TMA 10 determines whether any unmatched tools from the program are still needed by other part programs. If so, then those unmatched tools are left in unmatched grouping 26. Otherwise, they are removed.
In one embodiment of the invention, at step 90 the various matched tools stored at step 80 of algorithm 64 are sorted to determine the best match with source tool 16. As a result of matching algorithm 64 as described above, all of the matched tools may be identical in geometry to source tool 16 (i.e., if the threshold value to which the compatibility index value is compared is set to one). In other embodiments, the matched tools may not be identical geometric matches. In that case, the primary sorting criteria in step 90 may be the compatibility index, which relates to the quality of the geometric match. Where all of the matched tools are identical in geometry to source tool 16 (or where there is a tie in the compatibility index sorting), the matched tools may be automatically sorted by location. In one embodiment, the location order in terms of preference for sorting is the spindle, the ATC, the MTC, then unmatched tool grouping 26. The spindle is preferred because the tool is already loaded. The ATC is the next preference because the tool will be automatically loaded. The MTC is the next preference because the tool is available for manual loading onto the spindle. Unmatched grouping 26 is the next preference because the unmatched tools, although not physically available for use, are at least geometrically characterized and can be used in virtual operations including verification of part program 12.
Referring back to
For the purpose of explanation, assume that multiple defined tools matched source tool 16 during the processing described above. Assume further that the first matched tool after sorting is defined tool 32, which has a numeric reference of tool 2. Step 100 determines whether the defined tool currently under consideration (here, defined tool 32) has already been matched to a source tool as is further described below. In this example we assume that defined tool 32 has not been associated with any source tool. Accordingly, at step 102 TMA 10 automatically correlates defined tool 32 with source tool 16 of part program 12.
In another embodiment of the invention, the sorted, matched tools are not evaluated automatically to determine the best matching tool. In this embodiment, all of the matched tools are displayed to the operator so that the operator may select the desired matched tool.
In another embodiment, the numeric reference for the tools to be matched may be used as the criteria for designating a matching tool. For example, if multiple defined tools satisfy the matching criteria, any defined tool having a numeric reference that is identical to the numeric reference of the source tool may automatically be designated a matched tool. As with all matched tools, the designated matched tool cannot thereafter be matched with another source tool, even if all matching criteria (except numeric tool reference) are met.
In some circumstances, part programs require the use of two identical tools. For example, an end mill of a particular geometry may be required for rough cutting the part, while another end mill of the identical geometry is required for finish cutting. Where this situation exists, TMA 10 needs to ensure that the same matched tool is not associated with both source tools. Step 100 of algorithm 64 provides this feature. In one embodiment, the first source tool would be correlated with the first matched tool accessed in step 96. At step 100, TMA 10 determines that the first matched tool has not yet been matched to a source tool. Thus, at step 102, the first matched tool is correlated with the first source tool.
The second source tool is then processed through steps 52, 54, and 56. As the second source tool is identical to the first, the same matched tools should be identified during this processing, and they will be sorted in the same order. Accordingly, at step 96 TMA 10 will access the first matched tool. At step 100, TMA 10 will determine that the first matched tool has already been associated with a source tool. TMA 10 will then return to step 94. Assuming additional matched tools were identified by tool matching algorithm 64, the result of step 94 will be “yes,” and the next matched tool will be accessed at step 96. At step 100, TMA 10 will determine that the second matched tool has not been associated with a source tool. Finally, at step 102 TMA 10 will correlate the second matched tool with the second source tool. In this manner, a defined tool on the machine will not be correlated to two separate, but identical source tools required by part program 12.
After a matched tool is correlated with source tool 16 in the manner described above, TMA 10 returns to step 52 to determine whether additional source tools required by part program 12 need to be matched. Source tool 18 will be accessed at step 54. At step 56, TMA 10 calls process control routine 58, which executes tool matching algorithm 64 for each defined tool of ATC grouping 22 and MTC grouping 24, and each unmatched tool of unmatched grouping 26 in the manner described above. In one embodiment of the invention, one of the sorted matched tools identified during this processing (if any) is then correlated at step 102 with source tool 18 of part program 12. In another embodiment, all of the matched tools identified are displayed to the operator for manual selection. If no matched tools are found, then source tool 18 is added to unmatched grouping 26 at step 98. The numeric reference for source tool 18 when added to unmatched grouping 26 will be the numeric reference associated with source tool 18 (i.e., tool 2) if that numeric reference is not already associated with another defined tool in tool library 21, otherwise it will be the next available numeric reference.
As should be apparent from the foregoing, each of the source tools of part program 12 is processed in the above-described manner to be either matched to a defined tool or unmatched tool in tool library 21 or stored in unmatched grouping 26. Finally, at step 52 TMA 10 will determine that all of the source tools of part program 12 have been processed, and control will pass to step 104 where TMA 10 replaces the original numeric tool references associated with the source tools with the numeric references of the correlated matched tools. When performing this function, TMA 10 first identifies, for each source tool, all operations 16, 18, 20 in part program 12 that use the source tool. Then, TMA 10 replaces the original tool references with the matched tool references identified above. The following example illustrates this process.
Assume in part program 12, three operations exist, and they originally reference the following source tools:
In one embodiment of the invention, during the above-described replacement process, TMA 10 checks the tool use information (i.e., the feed and speed information) corresponding to the source tools to determine whether that information was manually programmed into part program 12. Some operators modify the default feed and speed information provided with the tool. During creation of part program 12, the feed and speed information may either be imported, for example, from tool database 23 when the tool is defined, or manually entered. If the information is manually entered, then a flag is set in association with the information to indicate manual entry. TMA 10 identifies these flags in making the manual entry determination. In one embodiment of the invention, if the feed and speed information was manually entered, then TMA 10 retains it. If the feed and speed information was not manually entered, then TMA 10 replaces it with the feed and speed information associated with the matched tool during the replacement process described above.
When one or more source tools are added to unmatched grouping 26, an “unmatched tool(s)” message is displayed to the operator after part program 12 is loaded. In one embodiment of the invention, the operator has the option of selecting a tool review screen, which lists all of the source tools and the location of their matches (i.e., the spindle, the ATC, the MTC, or in unmatched grouping 26). If no matched tool was found, the source tool is identified as an “unmatched tool.” The operator may match unmatched tools with similar, but not identical, defined tools in ATC grouping 22 or MTC grouping 24. When the operator selects (e.g., clicks on) an unmatched tool on the tool review screen and activates a “find matches” command, TMA 10 is again executed for the selected unmatched tool. For this unmatched tool operation, however, TMA 10 begins execution at step 60 of process control routine 58 and ends execution at step 92 as described below. Additionally, the threshold associated with step 78 of tool matching algorithm 64 is set to zero instead of one.
At step 60, the input parameter is the unmatched tool. Step 62 calls tool matching algorithm 64 of
As the threshold for step 78 is zero during the unmatched tool operation, every defined tool 30, 32, 34 processed by step 78 will be added to the list of matched tools. This same process is performed at steps 84, 86, and 88 of process control routine 58 for defined tools 38, 40, 42 of MTC grouping 24. The list of matched tools may then be sorted at step 90 of process control routine 58 in order of percentage match. Finally, the sorted list of matched tools is displayed to the operator, along with the locations (i.e., the ATC or the MTC) of the matched tools. The operator then selects a matched tool from the list and it is used to replace the previously unmatched source tool required by part program 12 in the manner described above.
As was indicated above, a tool matched to a source tool required by part program 12 need not have a corresponding physical tool on the machine (i.e., a tool in the spindle, the ATC, or the MTC). If the operator executes part program 12 and a source tool has been correlated to an unmatched tool of unmatched grouping 26, then TMA 10 will display a message to the operator indicating that a physical tool is not present for one or more of the source tools. The operator may load a physical tool on the machine by placing it, for example, in the ATC and creating a corresponding defined tool in tool library 21. Alternatively, the operator may select an option of defining the tool and adding it to the MTC for manual loading at the appropriate time. Even if the operator does not obtain a physical tool, the operator may cause the machine to perform virtual operations using the unmatched tool such as a graphical verification of part program 12.
In addition to its use during loading of part program 12 and manual matching of unmatched tools, TMA 10 may be used when defined tools are added to tool library 21. Tool library 21 may be updated with new defined tools from part programs or back-up files, with defined tools located in a central library server, etc. Regardless of the source of the defined tool for importation into tool library 21, TMA 10 may be executed to prevent importation of duplicate defined tools.
For example, an operator may identify a source tool in a part program that the operator would like to import to tool library 21 of a particular machine. Instead of executing the tool matching process of TMA 10 described above, the operator may execute a tool importation process wherein all source tools in the part program are imported into tool library 21 if they do not already exist in tool library 21. After assembling the list of source tools referenced in part program 12 in the manner described above, TMA 10 accesses the first source tool (steps 52 and 54), and calls process control routine 58 (step 56). The input parameter at step 60 of routine 58 is the first source tool. At step 62, TMA 10 calls tool matching algorithm 64 to compared defined tools 30, 32, 34 of ATC grouping 22 to the first source tool in the manner described above. In this application of TMA 10, the compared tools must be identical to be considered a match. If a matched tool is identified, the first source tool is not imported into tool library 21 because it would constitute a duplicate. If no matched tool is identified, defined tools 38, 40, 42 of MTC grouping 24 are processed (step 84) in the same manner. Again, if a match is found, the source tool is not added to tool library 21. If none of the defined tools in ATC grouping 22 or MTC grouping 24 match the source tool, it is added to tool library 21. This procedure is repeated for the remaining source tools.
In screen 130 of
In the process of defining tools for storage in tool library 21 using database 23, the operator may begin by selecting a tool template.
The material and operation specific feeds and speeds defined for any tool will be automatically applied when the tool is entered in a data block or operation of a part program 12. In screen 145 of
While this invention has been described as having exemplary embodiments, the present invention may be further modified within the spirit and scope of this disclosure. This application is therefore intended to cover any variations, uses, or adaptations of the invention using its general principles. Further, this application is intended to cover such departures from the present disclosure as come within known or customary practice in the art to which this invention pertains.
This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/821,481, filed on Aug. 4, 2006, the entire disclosure of which is expressly incorporated herein by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3576979 | McCall et al. | May 1971 | A |
3602090 | Whetham | Aug 1971 | A |
3679955 | Rhoades | Jul 1972 | A |
3728595 | Adams | Apr 1973 | A |
3838258 | Logan | Sep 1974 | A |
3849712 | Lankford et al. | Nov 1974 | A |
3860805 | Strukel | Jan 1975 | A |
3882304 | Walters | May 1975 | A |
4130788 | Fiegehen et al. | Dec 1978 | A |
4131837 | Whetham | Dec 1978 | A |
4208718 | Chung | Jun 1980 | A |
4415867 | Rubin | Nov 1983 | A |
4433382 | Cunningham et al. | Feb 1984 | A |
4477754 | Roch | Oct 1984 | A |
4490781 | Kishi et al. | Dec 1984 | A |
4501998 | Nozawa et al. | Feb 1985 | A |
4542471 | Inabe et al. | Sep 1985 | A |
4543625 | Nozawa et al. | Sep 1985 | A |
4571686 | Torisawa | Feb 1986 | A |
4590573 | Hahn | May 1986 | A |
4616326 | Meier et al. | Oct 1986 | A |
4626756 | Inaba et al. | Dec 1986 | A |
4635206 | Bhatia et al. | Jan 1987 | A |
4723203 | Kishi et al. | Feb 1988 | A |
4728872 | Kishi et al. | Mar 1988 | A |
4739488 | Asakura | Apr 1988 | A |
4750105 | Ohkawa et al. | Jun 1988 | A |
4763276 | Perreirra et al. | Aug 1988 | A |
4797825 | Shimanuki et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
4833617 | Wang | May 1989 | A |
4835710 | Schnelle et al. | May 1989 | A |
4878172 | Matsumura | Oct 1989 | A |
4884373 | Suzuki et al. | Dec 1989 | A |
4901220 | Matsumura et al. | Feb 1990 | A |
4908555 | Ikeda et al. | Mar 1990 | A |
4926311 | Matsumura et al. | May 1990 | A |
4959597 | Kawamura et al. | Sep 1990 | A |
4963805 | Suzuki et al. | Oct 1990 | A |
4973895 | Torii et al. | Nov 1990 | A |
5028855 | Distler et al. | Jul 1991 | A |
5060164 | Yoneda et al. | Oct 1991 | A |
5062755 | Lawrence et al. | Nov 1991 | A |
5089950 | Miyata et al. | Feb 1992 | A |
5091861 | Geller et al. | Feb 1992 | A |
5117169 | Kakino et al. | May 1992 | A |
5134570 | Nankaku | Jul 1992 | A |
5177421 | Sasaki et al. | Jan 1993 | A |
5179514 | Rastegar et al. | Jan 1993 | A |
5198984 | Yamaguchi et al. | Mar 1993 | A |
5247447 | Korncoff et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
5287049 | Olomski et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5288209 | Therrien et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5334918 | McMurtry et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5339249 | Schaeffer | Aug 1994 | A |
5369592 | Honda | Nov 1994 | A |
5375064 | Bollinger | Dec 1994 | A |
5378091 | Nakamura | Jan 1995 | A |
5378218 | Diamaru et al. | Jan 1995 | A |
5402367 | Sullivan et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
5453933 | Wright et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5471395 | Brien | Nov 1995 | A |
5473532 | Unno et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
5493502 | Niwa | Feb 1996 | A |
5508596 | Olsen | Apr 1996 | A |
5544046 | Niwa | Aug 1996 | A |
5548195 | Doran | Aug 1996 | A |
5604677 | Brien | Feb 1997 | A |
5668459 | Kim | Sep 1997 | A |
5682319 | Boland et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5687084 | Wertz | Nov 1997 | A |
5723961 | Fugino et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5751589 | Sato et al. | May 1998 | A |
5798928 | Niwa | Aug 1998 | A |
5815400 | Hirai et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5825017 | Pryor | Oct 1998 | A |
5827020 | Fujita et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5828574 | Robinson et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5844804 | Schussler | Dec 1998 | A |
5871391 | Pryor | Feb 1999 | A |
5892345 | Olsen | Apr 1999 | A |
5917726 | Pryor | Jun 1999 | A |
5919012 | Nakagawa et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5926389 | Trounson | Jul 1999 | A |
5933353 | Abriam et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5946449 | Dickerson et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5991528 | Taylor et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6019554 | Hong | Feb 2000 | A |
6052628 | Hong | Apr 2000 | A |
6064168 | Tao et al. | May 2000 | A |
6135857 | Shaw et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6163735 | Yamada et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6242880 | Hong | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6291959 | Yoshida et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6310621 | Gagne et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6317646 | de Caussin et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6330483 | Dailey | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6350222 | Susnjara | Feb 2002 | B2 |
6368879 | Toprac | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6400998 | Yamazaki et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6401004 | Yamazaki et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6438445 | Yoshida et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6456897 | Papiemik et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6470225 | Tutkowitz | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6493602 | Kranitzky et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6521856 | Marchesi et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6535788 | Yoshida et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6587747 | Hirai et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6597142 | Shibukawa et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6643563 | Hosek et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6671571 | Matsumiya et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6675061 | Hirai et al. | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6704611 | Coleman et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6766216 | Erichsen et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6772038 | Kadono | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6774598 | Kohler et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6775586 | Shibata et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6782306 | Yutkowitz | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6795749 | Suh et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6804575 | Sagawa et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6850806 | Yutkowitz | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6865499 | Yutkowitz | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6879874 | Sinn | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6920408 | Yutkowitz | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6922606 | Yutkowitz | Jul 2005 | B1 |
6957121 | Lottgen et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6999841 | Rutkowski | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7012395 | Haunerdinger et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7016763 | Fauser et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7050883 | Cho et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7096087 | Sagawa et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
20020103551 | Tamamura | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20030065424 | Erichsen et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20050015223 | Huang et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050049743 | Fauser et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050055323 | Zetek et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050085940 | Griggs et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050131716 | Hanan et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050162644 | Watanabe | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050188309 | Tasker et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050190185 | Fauser et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050246052 | Coleman et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050251030 | Azar | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050256604 | Diehi et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20060050267 | Murakami et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060149410 | Erichsen et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0553433 | Aug 1993 | EP |
1229413 | Aug 2002 | EP |
56076354 | Jun 1981 | JP |
57114325 | Jul 1982 | JP |
62130130 | Jun 1987 | JP |
WO9222023 | Dec 1992 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20080033592 A1 | Feb 2008 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60821481 | Aug 2006 | US |