This disclosure generally relates to presentation applications, and more specifically, to the concurrent use of network-based collaborative presentation applications by multiple collaborators.
Conventional electronic presentation applications may be used to create electronic documents for pages or slides that are used in a presentation. These presentation slides often include text, images, graphics, audio, video, multimedia, objects and other data to provide a rich audio/visual display to accompany an oral presentation. Some presentation applications are used in a local environment, for example on a single user's computer. Other presentation applications may be shared on a network with multiple users. Shared presentation documents can be difficult to maintain and update accurately, particularly when the shared presentation documents are used and edited concurrently by multiple users.
In some instances the presentations and/or the presentation application may be stored partially or entirely remote from the client. In such instances, particularly with respect to presentations that are rich in media, attempting to download entire presentations prior to presenting any of the slides may incur substantial delays. In collaborative environments, partial downloading of presentations to limit delays incurs the risk of conflicts arising from third party document edits between the downloading of various portions of the presentation.
Thus, a need exists in the art for managing the incremental retrieval by clients of portions of presentations in a collaborative setting. Accordingly, a collaborative presentation application is disclosed herein that provides to a user a consistent view of a presentation while leveraging incremental downloading to expedite presentation access.
According to one aspect, the invention relates to a system for incrementally communicating a document to a client computer. The system includes a processor and a memory. The memory stores computer executable instructions, which when executed by the processor cause the processor to receive a first request from a user at a client computer to view a first portion of the document, transmit to the user the first portion of a first version of the document over an electronic network in response to the first request, and receive a second request from the user to receive a second portion of the document. The second request indicates a document version from which the user seeks the second portion of the document. The computer executable instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to determine whether the user is authorized to receive the second portion from the document version indicated by the second request. In response to determining that the user is authorized to receive the second portion of the document from the document version indicated by the second request, the computer executable instructions cause the processor to transmit the second portion of the document version indicated by the second request to the client computer. In response to determining that the client computer is not authorized to receive the second portion of the document from the document version indicated by the second request, the computer readable instructions cause the processor to output an error message.
According to another aspect, the invention relates to a system for incrementally loading a document. The system includes a processor and a memory. The memory stores computer executable instructions, which when executed by the processor cause the processor to transmit to a server a first request requesting access for a user to a first portion of a document, receive the first portion of a first version of the document, and transmit a second request to the server requesting access to a second portion of a second version of the document for the user. In response to the second request requesting access to a version of the document to which the user has authorization to access, the computer readable instructions further cause the processor to receive from the server the second portion of the second version of the document. In response to the second request requesting access to a version of the document to which the user lacks authorization to access, the computer readable instructions further cause the processor to receive an error message from the server.
According to additional aspects, the invention relates to methods of incrementally communicating a document to a client computer and incrementally loading a document, as carried out by the systems described above.
Further features of the invention, its nature and various advantages, will be apparent upon consideration of the following detailed description, taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, in which like reference characters refer to like parts throughout, and in which:
To provide an overall understanding of the invention, certain illustrative embodiments will now be described, including systems and methods for providing time consistent access to collaboratively generated presentations. However, it will be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the systems and methods described herein may be adapted and modified as is appropriate for the application being addressed and that the systems and methods described herein may be employed in other suitable applications, and that such other additions and modifications will not depart from the scope thereof.
Overview
Aspects of the invention relate to a presentation application which may be used in an online networked environment for collaboration between multiple users. Some or all of the users may be physically remote from the others. Various viewers may be granted varying permission levels to access documents created via the system. Documents using the presentation application may be viewed in a time-consistent fashion, despite modifications made to the presentation by others.
System Description
A client 110 may include a device, such as a personal computer, a lap top computer, tablet, a smart phone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), or other type of computer or communication device. Users of clients 110 may access or receive information from server 120 over the network 140.
As shown in
The interaction of clients 110 with server 120 may be through a browser 115 at each client 110. For example, the online presentation application may be an application that runs and is displayed within a browser 115. In this arrangement, clients 110 may not need to install presentation software to use the online presentation at client 110. Browser programs are well known and are widely available in the art. When browsers or browser programs are discussed herein, these terms are intended to refer to any program that allows a user to browse markup documents (e.g., web documents), regardless of whether the browser program is a stand alone program or an embedded program, such as a browser program included as part of an operating system.
An online presentation application, as described herein, may be implemented as a distributed web application in which portions of the application may be executed at one or more of clients 110 and at server 120. More specifically, clients 110 that wish to use the online presentation application may request the presentation application from server 120. In response, server 120 may transmit portions of the presentation application for local execution at clients 110. The online presentation application may thus execute as a distributed application across server 120 and one or more of clients 110.
Presentation module 125 may include components, not shown, for example, a front-end component that interfaces with clients 110, and a back-end component for processing presentation features as well as supporting the collaborative document updating further described herein.
Online Presentation Collaboration
Presentation documents may be used collaboratively online using the system 100. For example, as shown in
However, in some circumstances, for example, when actually presenting a presentation, users having permission to edit presentations (referred to as editor-users) may wish to access a time-consistent version of the presentation, such that their view of the presentation is not affected by other users' edits. Similarly, other users (referred to as viewer-users) may be granted limited permissions to access the presentation. Viewer-users may only be granted access to a single time-consistent view of the presentation. To support this functionality, the server 120 stores multiple time consistent versions 2111 to 211n of the presentation at the server. The time consistent versions 2111 to 211n are stored in a read-only fashion so that a user can access them in a time consistent fashion. The respective time consistent versions 2111 to 211n may be stored for a predetermined amount of time, until the presentation master document 211 differs from respective time consistent versions 2111 to 211n to more than a predetermined degree, or until users accessing the respective time consistent versions 211l to 211n have released such versions.
The time consistent versions 2111 to 211n need not be formally distinct versions of a document, e.g., in the context of a document management system. That is, as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, current document management systems typically store multiple versions of documents, often distinguished by version number. In the system 100, the server 120 may simultaneously store multiple time-consistent versions of a single version number of a document, each referred to herein as a meta-version. Thus, if a viewer-user opens a version, e.g., version 3 of a first document, and an editor-user subsequently opens, edits, and saves the same version 3 of the first document, the server 120 preserves a meta-version of the unedited version 3 such that the viewer-user can continue to access it in an unchanged form. The server 120 deletes the meta-version upon the viewer-user closing or otherwise releasing the version of the document. As user herein a version of a document shall refer to either a formal version of a document as well as to meta-versions of a document.
Incremental Presentation Loading Process
The incremental presentation loading process 300 begins with a user operating on a client device, such as client 110, requesting access to a presentation via an initial document request 302. This initial document request 302 includes a user identifier as well as a document identifier. The initial document request 302 may include data identifying a specific time consistent version of the presentation, e.g., any one of time consistent versions 2111 to 211n, the user is requesting. Alternatively, the initial document request 302 may omit a version identifier. In response to requests that omit a requested version identifier, the server 120 interprets the request to be for the most recent version of the presentation, e.g., the presentation master document 211. The server 120 then stores a copy of master presentation document 211 as a new time-consistent version 211n+1, for subsequent access by the user. The initial document request may be accompanied by a digital certificate or other authenticating data object to authenticate the user to the server 120.
In response to the initial document request 302, the server 120 responds by transmitting an initial portion transmission 304 to the client 110. The initial portion transmission 304 includes an initial portion of the requested presentation 211 along with a permissions token and data indicating the number of portions included in the presentation. As used herein, a portion refers to any discrete segment of a presentation document, including, for example, one or more presentation slides or one or more media files. The permissions token includes data from which the server 120 can verify the version or versions of the requested presentation from which the user is permitted to download additional presentation portions.
In one implementation, the permissions token includes a hash of the user identification, the document identifier, and the version identifier received in the initial document request 302. The applied hash function is a secure one-way cryptographic hash function known solely to the server 120. In alternate implementations, the permissions token includes additional data, including, for example a time stamp indicating the time that the initial document request 302 was received or the time the initial portion transmission 304 was transmitted. Such information can be used by the server 120 to limit the time with which the user can access a version of the presentation to limit the possibility of the user receiving overly stale information. The hash may also be based on the time stamp.
Upon receiving the initial portion transmission 304, the user can request additional portions of the presentation through a subsequent portion request 306. The subsequent portion request includes the user's user identifier, the document identifier, a version identifier, and the permissions token received in the initial portion transmission 304.
In response to receiving the subsequent portion request 306, the server 120 verifies whether the user is permitted to download presentation portions from the document identifier-version identifier pair included in the subsequent portion request 306. In particular, the server calculates a hash of the user identifier, document identifier, and version identifier included in the subsequent portion request 306 using the same hash function used to create the hash included in the initial portion transmission 304. The server then compares the newly computed hash with the hash included in the subsequent portion request 306. Alternatively, the server 120 compares the newly computed hash with a locally saved copy of the hash included in the initial portion transmission 304. In either case, if the two hashes match, the server 120 transmits the requested subsequent portion to the user at the client 110 in a subsequent portion request response 308. In some implementations, the subsequent portion request response 308 may also include a flag indicating whether the presentation master document 211 has been modified with respect to the requested version. Upon this flag being set to true, the presentation application may alert a user, for example, through a separate control window.
In implementations in which the permissions token includes a time stamp, if the hashes match, confirming the authenticity of the time stamp, the server 120 compares the time stamp to a timing criteria to determine whether the user still has permission to access the document/version pairing. In one implementation, the timing criteria includes an absolute time limit for which the user is granted permission to download portions of the version of the presentation. If the time limit has been exceeded, the server issues an error in the subsequent portion request response 308.
In still other implementations, independent of or in conjunction with any time stamp that may be included in prior messages, the server 120 determines whether the users' permission to access the requested document version may have been revoked despite the matching hash. For example, permissions may be revoked if the presentation master document 211 has more than a threshold level of difference with the version requested by the user. Alternatively, permissions may be revoked if more than a threshold period of time has passed since revisions have been made to requested document in comparison to the requested version. The revocation criteria may be set by users with editor or administrative permissions on a document by document basis, a user by user basis, permission level by permission level basis, workgroup by workgroup basis, or any combination of the above. Upon permission being revoked with respect to a particular version of the document, the user is forced to restart the presentation download process with the then current state of the presentation master document 211.
The incremental presentation loading process 300 is described further below from the server and client perspectives in
Based on the identifiers in the initial document request, the server 120 generates a permissions token that can be used to verify the permissions of the user with respect to which version or versions of the presentation the user may access (step 404). Preferably, the user is granted access to a single version of the presentation. The permissions token includes a one-way hash of the user identifier, the document identifier, and the version identifier. In alternative implementations the permissions token may include any data resulting from a cryptographic function or other substantially irreversible transformation of the set of identifiers.
The server transmits the initial portion, referred to as the head, of the requested version of the requested presentation to the user along with the permissions token (step 406). In an alternative embodiment, the server stores the permissions token locally (i.e., in physical memory located at the server itself, or preferably in memory accessible by multiple servers providing the presentation server).
Subsequently, the server receives a request for a second portion of the presentation, for example, as part of a subsequent portion request 306 (step 408). The request includes the user identifier, the document identifier, a requested portion number, the version identifier, and, if included in the initial portion transmission to the user, the permissions token. Based on this data, the server determines whether the user is authorized to receive the second portion of the presentation (step 410). This authorization determination (step 410) can be based on any of the authorization evaluations described above in relation to
If the server determines that that the user is authorized to receive the second portion from the requested version (decision block 412), the server transmits the second portion to the user at the client (step 414). If the server determines that the user is not authorized to receive the second portion from the requested version (decision block 412), the server transmits an error message to the user (step 416). In one implementation, the error indicates the reason for the error message. For example, the error message may indicate whether the request was refused due to the identification of an incorrect version number, the expiration of a time limit, or due to degree of difference with respect to the presentation master document 211. The error message may be displayed to the user, for example, in a separate control window associated with the presentation application.
The user requests a subsequent portion of the presentation at step 610. The request may be for the second portion or any other portion of the presentation. The request may be initiated before or after the first portion is displayed. The subsequent portion request, as described above identifiers the requested portion, the user making the request, the document, and the version of the document. The portion may be identified by a slide number, portion number, URL, or any other suitable identifier for a portion of a presentation. In response to the subsequent portion request, the user receives either an error or the requested subsequent portion (decision block 612). If the user receives an error it is reported to the user, e.g., via a control window associated with the presentation application (step 614). If the user receives the requested subsequent portion, the portion is displayed by the client (step 616).
If, while the viewer-user has access to the version, an editor-user requests access to the same version from the document management system (at decision block 708), the server 120 creates a new meta-version of the version of the document being viewed by the viewer-user (step 710). In one embodiment, the records of the document management system are updated upon creation of the new meta-version to indicate that the new editor-user meta-version of the version of the document is the new official instance of the version. After receiving edits to the editor-user meta-version (step 712), the server 120 stores the modified editor-viewer meta-version as the official version of the document in the document management system. The server 120 continues to preserve the viewer-user meta-version of the document, without any of the modifications entered by the editor-user. Upon the server 120 receiving a request from the viewer user for a subsequent portion of the version of the document (step 716), the server 120 transmits the subsequent portion from the presented viewer-user meta-version. If the viewer-user closes or otherwise releases the meta-version of the document (decision block 720), the server 120 deletes the viewer-user meta-version, leaving only the edited editor-user version in storage. Otherwise, the server 120 continues to preserve the viewer-user meta-version until it is released (step 724).
In an alternative implementation, instead of the server 120 creating a new meta-version of a version of a document upon receipt of an access request from an editor-user, the server 120 creates a new meta-version for use by the viewer user upon granting the viewer-user access. It is then this new viewer-user meta-version that is preserved until the user closes or otherwise releases the meta-version.
While various embodiments of the present invention have been shown and described herein, it will be obvious to those skilled in the art that such embodiments are provided by way of example only. Numerous variations, changes, and substitutions will now occur to those skilled in the art without departing from the invention. It should be understood that various alternatives to the embodiments of the invention described herein may be employed in practicing the invention. It is intended that the following claims define the scope of the invention and that methods and structures within the scope of these claims and their equivalents be covered thereby.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/296,246, filed Jun. 4, 2014 (pending), which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/608,584, filed Sep. 10, 2012, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,769,045, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/275,044 filed Oct. 17, 2011, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,266,245, each of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5231577 | Koss | Jul 1993 | A |
5408470 | Rothrock et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5557722 | DeRose et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5708826 | Ikeda et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5758358 | Ebbo | May 1998 | A |
5761669 | Montague et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5793966 | Amstein et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5799325 | Rivette et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5819304 | Nilsen et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
6049664 | Dale et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6061697 | Nakao | May 2000 | A |
6073144 | van Hoff | Jun 2000 | A |
6243706 | Moreau et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6327584 | Xian et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6341305 | Wolfe | Jan 2002 | B2 |
6349308 | Whang et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6349314 | Patel | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6377957 | Jeyaraman | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6418441 | Call | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6501779 | McLaughlin et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6662210 | Carleton et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6766333 | Wu et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6988241 | Guttman et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
7017112 | Collie et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7031954 | Kirsch | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7035910 | Dutta et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7069502 | Numata et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7162693 | Yamanaka et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7213199 | Humenansky et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7263497 | Wiser et al. | Aug 2007 | B1 |
7305613 | Oezgen | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7350142 | Kraft et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7437421 | Bhogal et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7478330 | Branson et al. | Jan 2009 | B1 |
7491399 | Vakharia | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7506242 | Kotler et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7529778 | Dewey et al. | May 2009 | B1 |
7634728 | Kraft | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7656543 | Atkins | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7667862 | Ziegler et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7680932 | Defaix et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7698379 | Dutta et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7774703 | Junuzovic et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7890928 | Patrudu | Feb 2011 | B2 |
8019780 | Pinkerton et al. | Sep 2011 | B1 |
8151204 | Lusen et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8184811 | Patten et al. | May 2012 | B1 |
8266534 | Curtis et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
8332815 | Balfe et al. | Dec 2012 | B2 |
9256753 | Sawicki | Feb 2016 | B2 |
20010037346 | Johnson | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020032701 | Gao et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020035580 | Tanabe | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020051185 | Yamaguchi et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020133492 | Goldstein et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020174085 | Nelson et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020194302 | Blumberg | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030014406 | Faieta et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030033287 | Shanahan | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030037076 | Bravery et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030037303 | Bodlaender et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030084078 | Torii et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030105719 | Berger et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030145279 | Bourbakis et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20040044965 | Toyama et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040085354 | Massand | May 2004 | A1 |
20040088653 | Bell et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040133444 | Defaix et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040215672 | Pfitzner | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040215825 | Pfitzner | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040215826 | Pfitzner | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040216090 | Kaler et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040248612 | Lee et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040255005 | Spooner | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050055337 | Bebo et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050091291 | Kaler et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050125461 | Filz | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050131887 | Rohrabaugh et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050144256 | Blumberg | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050185636 | Bucher | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050200896 | Narusawa et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050246526 | Forlenza | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050273695 | Schnurr | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060031751 | Ehud | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060075332 | Fairweather et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060101071 | Henderson | May 2006 | A1 |
20060149831 | Dutta et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060200755 | Melmon et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060230344 | Jennings et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20070033654 | Wilson | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070061714 | Stuple et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070070066 | Bakhash | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070186157 | Walker et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070208992 | Koren | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070220068 | Thompson et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070288637 | Layton et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080028302 | Meschkat | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080034008 | Burke et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080040659 | Doyle | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080059417 | Yamada et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080059539 | Chin et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080082604 | Mansour et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080126943 | Parasnis et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080127212 | Nakamizo et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080222273 | Lakshmanan et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20090055755 | Hicks et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090089664 | Wagner et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090112953 | Barsness et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090112990 | Campbell et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090119572 | Koivunen | May 2009 | A1 |
20090132907 | Shao et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090164620 | Ziegler et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090307585 | Tranchant et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100005410 | Pang | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100030578 | Siddique et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100050089 | Kim et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100070852 | Li | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100083096 | Dupuis-Latour et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100205230 | Simeonov et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100205520 | Parish et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100218099 | van Melle et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100229086 | Howell et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100235763 | Massand | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100245256 | Estrada et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100251122 | Lee et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100281076 | Pan et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100309436 | Allen, Jr. et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20100318894 | Billharz et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110035661 | Balinsky et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110051158 | Yamahata et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110066957 | Prats et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110078246 | Dittmer-Roche | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110085211 | King et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110099093 | Mills | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110164043 | Arora et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110179427 | Krishnamoorthy et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110219331 | DeLuca et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110252299 | Lloyd et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110252335 | Lloyd et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110252339 | Lemonik et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110264712 | Ylonen | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110282933 | Schmier | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110296299 | Parker | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120072821 | Bowling | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120117406 | Eun | May 2012 | A1 |
20120117452 | Lloyd et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120131483 | Archer et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20130080507 | Ruhlen et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130080785 | Ruhlen et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
Entry |
---|
Simultaneously edit a presentation with other authors, by MicrosoftTM Office: MAC, published Nov. 11, 2010, pp. 1-4. |
Advisory Action dated Sep. 7, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/274,723. |
Bibi et al., A Platform for Delivering Multimedia Presentations on Cultural Heritage, 2010 14th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics, pp. 175-179. |
Ellis et al., “Concurrency Control in Groupware Systems,” ACM 1989, pp. 399-407. |
Final Office Action dated May 31, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/274,720. |
Final Office Action dated Jun. 1, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/274,797. |
Final Office Action dated Jun. 14, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/275,093. |
Final Office Action dated Jun. 20, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/274,723. |
Final Office Action dated Nov. 16, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/274,716. |
Final Office Action dated Dec. 7, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/275,123. |
Huang et al., “A General Purpose Virtual Collaboration Room,” Google 1999, pp. 1-9. |
Kindberg, Mushroom: A Framework for Collaboration and Interaction across the Internet, Google 1996, pp. 1-11. |
Krieger, “Documents, Presentations, and Workbooks: Using Microsoft@ Office to Create Content That Gets Noticed,” published May 2011, pp. 1-104. |
Mulvany, “What's Going on in Indexing,” ACM 1997, pp. 10-15. |
Munteaunu et al., “Collaborative Editing for Improved Usefulness and Usability of Transcript-Enhanced Webcasts,” ACM 2008, pp. 373-382. |
Non Final Office Action dated Aug. 31, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/275,101. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Jan. 6, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/275,093. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Jan. 11, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/274,797. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Jan. 19, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/274,716. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Feb. 17, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/275,123. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Feb. 29, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/274,723. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 1, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/275,101. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Jun. 12, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/274,716. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 20, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/084,951. |
Non-Final Office Action dated Dec. 30, 2011 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/274,720. |
Notice of Allowance dated May 14, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/275,044. |
Pacull et al., Duplex: A Distributed Collaborative Editing Environment in Large Scale, ACM 1994, pp. 165-173. |
Raggett, Dave, “Slidy—a web based alternative to Microsoft PowerPoint,” published 2006, pp. 1-13. |
Taylor, “Cool Apple Keynote Presentation Tricks and Tips,” published Apr. 2011, p. 1-5. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 14296246 | Jun 2014 | US |
Child | 15248986 | US | |
Parent | 13608584 | Sep 2012 | US |
Child | 14296246 | US | |
Parent | 13275044 | Oct 2011 | US |
Child | 13608584 | US |