A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material which is subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwise reserves all copyright rights whatsoever.
The present invention relates generally to digital rights management. More specifically, systems and methods are disclosed for controlling the distribution or use of an electronic work. The present invention uses unique protocols for the transfer of electronic information so that original works can be transferred from one location to another in such a way that only one original work exists at a given time. This type of implementation allows for peer-to-peer distribution of originals without requiring a registration authority with centralized back-end servers to vouch for what constitutes an “original” piece of information, thus reducing (or eliminating entirely) the need to centrally record changes in ownership each time originals change hands.
An original physical document can be distinguished from a copy by examining the paper stock, holographic characteristics of the printing, or by latent markings that appear when a document is photocopied. In contrast, it is commonly thought that a distinction cannot be readily drawn between an original electronic document and a copy, since a copy of an electronic document is typically an exact duplicate.
Distinguishing an original from a copy is important when the original has a characteristic, property, or value that a copy of the original does not. For example, bearer instruments or bearer bonds are documents that uniquely entitle the owner of the document to value or property. Because bearer bonds are not registered or tracked in the name of any individual, it is impossible to replace them should they become lost or stolen. In that respect, bearer bonds are similar to cash, and can be redeemed by anyone who has physical possession of the bond. Therefore, a copy of a bearer instrument is typically worth very little, since it does not entitle its owner to the value or property to which the owner of the original bearer instrument is entitled. In addition, “pink slips” to automobiles and original deeds of trust entitle the owners of such documents to possession of certain types of property, namely real estate and automobiles, respectively. If an individual would like to purchase real estate or a car, he or she would probably feel uncomfortable conducting a transaction without proof that the alleged owner was in receipt of such title documents. Therefore, the ability to produce original documentation of ownership can be extremely important.
In some situations, an original document may not be needed. One such example would be a contract that is equally enforceable regardless of whether the party demanding performance produces the original signed document or a photocopy. Another example is the situation in which proving the authenticity of an electronic version of a document is sufficient to demand enforcement. However, if each party claims to have a copy of the “original,” but there are substantive differences between these copies, then the ability to produce or identify the actual original would be helpful in reconciling these differences.
The systems and methods of the present invention allow for originals to change owners, but in a preferred embodiment these trades result in a zero sum of new originals. The systems and methods of the present invention can allow for original electronic information to be processed within an automated workflow process. For example, if a corporation wants to secure a loan from a commercial bank with a bearer bond that it holds, the corporation would typically need to turn over the bond to the bank, which would then hold the bond in custody as collateral until the loan was paid back. Embodiments of the present invention would allow the corporation to electronically transfer the bond to the bank in a manner that would result in the bank having the original bearer bond and not the corporation. The reverse would occur when the loan was paid back. A similar process could be used when an owner of an electronic bearer bond simply wished to place it in another location for safer keeping. For example, if a bank offered an electronic safety deposit box akin to the boxes in a physical branch vault, a bank customer might transfer an electronic bearer bond from a personal computer at home into the bank's electronic safety deposit box. As another example, as computing equipment ages or changes, a person may wish to transfer original documents, music, ebooks, movies, software applications or any other type of electronic file from one computer to another.
The systems and methods of the present invention can accommodate single or multiple originals (or what might also or alternatively be referred to as “masters” or “restricted copies”). Currency, although generally serialized, is an example in which multiple instances of the genuine originals exist that must be distinguished from counterfeit copies. The systems and methods of the present invention allow for originals to change owners, but in a preferred embodiment these trades result in a zero sum of originals. This type of implementation allows for peer-to-peer distribution of originals without requiring a registrar authority with a centralized back-end server to vouch for what is an “original” and what is not, and to record in its records a change in ownership each time an original changes hands.
Systems and methods are provided for enabling a determination to be made of whether an electronic document is an original or a copy. Electronic books, music, documents, and any form of digital content can be transferred without creating more than one original. It should be appreciated that the present invention can be implemented in numerous ways, including as a process, an apparatus, a system, a device, a method, or a computer readable medium. In addition, the present invention may be provided as a computer program product, which may include a machine-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that may be used to program a computer (or other electronic device) to perform a process according to the present invention. The machine-readable medium may include, but is not limited to, a floppy diskette, optical disk, CD-ROM, magneto-optical disk, ROM, RAM, EPROM, EEPROM, magnetic or optical cards, or other type of media/machine-readable medium suitable for storing electronic instructions. Furthermore, the present invention may also be downloaded as a computer program product, wherein the program may be transferred from a remote computer (e.g., a server) to a local computer (e.g., a client) by way of data signals embodied in a carrier wave or other propagation medium via a communication link (e.g., a modem or network connection). Several inventive embodiments of the present invention are described below.
In one embodiment, a method is provided for distributing an original electronic work in a manner that ensures that, at most, only a predetermined number of instances of the original electronic work are in existence at any given time. In one embodiment, the predetermined number is equal to one. When a first system requests the electronic work from a second system, the second system sends a copy of the electronic work to the first system. A cryptographic protocol is then employed to mark the second system's copy of the electronic work as a copy, and to mark the first system's copy of the electronic work as the original. In one embodiment, marking a work as a copy might affect how the work is rendered, such as having “copy” appear on the screen in the case of a document, or preventing the bearer of a copy from performing a “transfer original” transaction since the bearer's system does not hold an original and, therefore, should not be able to transfer one.
In one embodiment, an interruption of the cryptographic protocol may result in neither system having the original electronic work (i.e., both systems may be deemed to have copies of the electronic work). A cryptographically enabled failure recovery mechanism can be used to determine that a system event caused the protocol to not complete, resulting in both documents being marked as copies. If the recovery mechanism determined that the original was lost, a new original could be authorized to be created, or one of the copies of the electronic work could be marked as the original, based upon predetermined criterion. In one embodiment, only certain predefined parties (e.g., an issuing authority) have the ability to create an original or a new original and to verify information from the recovery mechanism to determine that an original was in fact lost. The above mechanism would still allow other parties the ability to transfer an original to another party. In this embodiment, the issuing authority would verify the original was lost, create a new original, and transfer on behalf of the first sender the newly created original to the intended recipient.
In another embodiment, a method is provided for distributing an electronic work in a manner that ensures that, at most, only a predefined number of instances of the electronic work will be deemed to be originals. A first system requests one of the originals from a second system. The two systems authenticate each other. In a preferred embodiment an aspect of the authentication process is to ensure that the second system has an original to transfer and that the first system has the ability to protect the integrity of the original in a manner equivalent to the second system. The second system sends a copy of the electronic work to the first system. Upon receipt of the copy, the first system sends an authorization to the second system. Upon receipt of the authorization, the second system changes an attribute associated with its instance of the requested electronic work to indicate that it is a copy, not an original. The second system then sends an authorization to the first system. Upon receipt of the authorization, the first system changes an attribute associated with its instance of the received electronic work to indicate that it is an original, not a copy. The first system then sends an acknowledgement to the second system. In one embodiment, the first system considers the protocol complete once it has sent the acknowledgment to the second system, and the second system considers the protocol complete once it has received the acknowledgement from the first system. If either system determines (e.g., based on a predetermined criteria such as time) that a request to perform another transaction, and/or the protocol itself, has failed, it records this determination in a cryptographically signed event record, which it forwards to an authority responsible for administrating the recovery mechanism. In one embodiment, protocol failures that occur before the second system marks its version as a copy and after the first system marks its version as an original will not cause the original to be lost.
In yet another embodiment, a method is provided for ensuring that only a single instance of an electronic work is present in a system at any given time, the electronic work being comprised of some amount of electronic content and one or more rights or attributes associated with the content. When the electronic work is transferred from one system to another, only one system will possess the electronic work in its entirety at any given time, although more than one system may possess some subset of the electronic work's component parts. For example, more than one system may possess some or all of the electronic content included in the electronic work, but not the entire set of rights and/or attributes associated therewith.
These and other features and advantages of the present invention will be presented in more detail in the following detailed description and the accompanying figures which illustrate by way of example the principles of the invention.
The present invention will be readily understood by referring to the following detailed description in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, wherein like reference numerals designate like structural elements, and in which:
FIG. A-1 in the appendix illustrates the architecture of a security domain in an embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. A-2 in the appendix illustrates the use of multiple levels of keys.
FIG. A-3 illustrates the architecture of an exemplary clearinghouse in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. A-4 in the appendix depicts the architecture of the Root in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. A-5 in the appendix is an illustration of a Renovator's architecture in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. A-6 in the appendix illustrates the structure of a Security Clearinghouse in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. A-7 in the appendix depicts certain modules of the security kernel.
FIG. A-8 in the appendix depicts certain modules of the security kernel.
FIG. A-9 in the appendix illustrates the structure of a Content Provider Module in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. A-10 in the appendix illustrates the operation of a system that uses the certificate structure of the present invention.
FIG. A-11 in the appendix illustrates an embodiment of a security infrastructure.
FIG. A-12 in the appendix illustrates another embodiment of a security infrastructure.
FIG. A-13 in the appendix is an example of a graph authorizing the principal A to perform operation R in B's domain of operation.
FIG. A-14 in the appendix depicts a certificate infrastructure.
FIG. A-15 in the appendix depicts a sub-graph of the process of the Content provider evaluating eligibility of a Device for receiving content.
FIG. A-16 in the appendix is an example of a sub-graph that enables a Device to evaluate a Content provider.
FIG. A-17 in the appendix illustrates the various certificates involved in a phase 2 scenario.
FIG. A-18 in the appendix depicts the set of certificates involved in a proof.
FIG. A-19 in the appendix depicts the set of certificates involved in another proof.
FIG. A-20 in the appendix depicts the set of certificates involved in yet another proof.
FIG. A-21 in the appendix depicts the set of certificates involved in yet another proof.
FIG. A-22 in the appendix depicts the set of certificates involved in yet another proof.
FIG. A-23 in the appendix depicts the set of certificates involved in yet another proof.
FIG. A-24 in the appendix depicts an authorization network protocol.
FIG. A-25 in the appendix depicts the certificates that a Renovator D holds after being renovated by the Root.
FIG. A-26 in the appendix depicts the certificates held by a Device after being renovated.
FIG. A-27 in the appendix depicts the certificates held by a Content provider after being renovated.
FIG. A-28 in the appendix depicts a delegation construct.
FIG. A-29 in the appendix shows an alternate certificate layout for phase 2.
A detailed description of the invention is provided below. While the invention is described in conjunction with several embodiments, it should be understood that the invention is not limited to any one embodiment, but instead encompasses numerous alternatives, modifications, and equivalents. For example, while embodiments are described in the context of a system and method for controlling the distribution of electronic documents such as deeds, titles, and bearer instruments, those skilled in the art will recognize that the disclosed systems and methods are readily adaptable for broader application. For example, without limitation, the present invention could be readily applied in the context of distributing virtually any type of digital or electronic work, such as digital music, recordings, books, movies, videos, digital entitlements and the like (and the term “document,” as used herein, should be interpreted to apply to any of these as well as other types of digital or electronic works, unless otherwise clear from the context). In addition, while numerous specific details are set forth in the following description in order to provide a thorough understanding of the present invention, the present invention may be practiced without some or all of these details. Moreover, for the purpose of clarity, certain technical material that is known in the art related to the invention has not been described in detail in order to avoid unnecessarily obscuring the present invention.
The discussion that follows will describe how the properties that characterize an electronic work as an original can travel with it as it is transferred from one storage medium to another. A distinction will sometimes be made between “transferring” the original and “copying” either the original or a copy of the original. Transferring will generally mean moving the original from one medium to another (such as one computer disk to another computer disk) and having what remains on the first medium no longer being characterized as the original. Transferring would be similar, in the physical world, to being able to lift the print and ink from safety paper stock and place it onto blank safety paper stock, leaving no print and ink on the first safety paper stock, or alternatively leaving the print and ink and transforming the first safety stock to ordinary paper (something that is not considered possible). Transferring would create a new instance that is characteristically identical to the first instance, while changing the characteristics of the original first instance. “Copying,” by contrast, will generally refer to creating something that is characteristically different from the original and does not change the properties of the source from which the copy was made.
Systems and methods are provided for enabling a predetermined number of “original” digital works to be created and maintained. Distribution of the original digital works is controlled such that the original digital works can be distributed or transferred without increasing the number of original digital works that exist in the system at any given time beyond the predetermined number.
In one embodiment, digital rights management techniques—such as those described in commonly-assigned U.S. Pat. No. 5,892,900, entitled “Systems and Methods for Secure Transaction Management and Electronic Rights Protection,” issued Apr. 6, 1999 (“the '900 patent”) and U.S. Pat. No. 6,185,683, entitled “Trusted and Secure Techniques, Systems and Methods for Item Delivery and Execution,” issued Feb. 6, 2001 (the entire contents of both of these patents are hereby expressly incorporated herein by reference)—are used in combination with a cryptographic two-party protocol to distinguish original electronic documents from copies, and to enable transfer or distribution of original electronic documents from one party to another. In a preferred embodiment, each original document and copy thereof is tagged as either an original or a copy. This tagging, and altering of the tag, is preferably performed in a secure and protected manner. In a preferred embodiment, digital rights management techniques are used to persistently protect the documents and tags. For example, the documents and/or tags may be encrypted or otherwise secured such that special hardware and/or software, such as that described in the '900 patent, is needed to access and/or modify their contents. For example, in one embodiment, documents and/or tags are copied and/or transferred between parties in secure electronic containers, such as those described in the '900 patent. These secure containers are processed by each party using hardware and/or software protected processing environments, embodiments of which are also described in the '900 patent, thus ensuring that each parties' interests (as well as the interests of others, such as document creators, owners, and/or distributors) are protected, and that the tagging protocol described herein is executed securely. The tags themselves can be implemented in the same manner as the rules and controls described in the '900 patent, thereby ensuring their security and persistent association with the documents to which they correspond. Alternatively, the tags can be implemented as fields within other rules or controls associated with a document, since documents will typically have a variety of other associated rules and controls, as described in the '900 patent and the '683 patent. These rules or policies may indicate that a different set of rights are available to the holder of an original document from those that are available to the holder of a copy. For example, an owner of an original may be able to assign the document to someone else: something the holder of a copy might not be able to do. Also, by ensuring that only one original exists, the owner of the original in this example would only be able to assign or transfer the original once.
As indicated above, in a preferred embodiment, a cryptographic two-party protocol is used to transfer an original document from one party to another, and to enable or ensure that: (1) the bearer (sender) of an electronic original, master, or restricted copy (collectively “original”) can distribute it to another individual (recipient), and as a result of such a distribution will no longer have an original; (2) the recipient of an original document will now have the rights and privileges formerly held by the sender; (3) two “originals” will not exist during, or as a result of, the protocol's execution; and/or (4) certain failures in the transfer or protocol may result in no original existing, in which case the sender's and/or recipient's software creates a secure record of the failure, which an authorized party can examine and, if validated, create a new original.
An exemplary embodiment of the foregoing protocol is illustrated in
Note that the protocol shown in
It will be appreciated that many variations could be made to the protocol described in connection with
In one embodiment, the distributed security architecture includes one or more root authorities. For example, a root authority might exist for the purpose of establishing rules around who can or cannot transfer originals. For example, the root authority may create or authorize an issuing authority for the purpose of creating and transferring originals. The root and issuing authorities may be one or separate entities. The root authority may allow the issuing authority to delegate the authority to transfer originals to the recipient of the original. However, the root authority may choose not to allow the issuing authority to delegate the authority to create originals to another party. This use of delegation by the root authority would allow only the issuing authority to create originals, but allow all recipients of originals to transfer them to another recipient. The issuing authority in this illustration may, for example, be an issuer of bearer bonds or a department of motor vehicles issuing titles to automobiles. The issuing authority would preferably implement tight procedural and security controls to protect against unauthorized creation of originals. The root authority would supervise this process and ensure that it operates effectively and securely.
In some commercial or business transactions—such as payment of money for a bond, or the presentment of an automobile title and a related assignment document—the issuing authority would transfer an original document to a recipient. As a result of this transfer, the original would reside in the protected computing environment of the recipient or bearer. In this example, this computing environment would preferably have been directly or indirectly cryptographically-enabled by the root and/or issuing authority. The bearer might then decide to transfer the original to another party in a peer-to-peer transfer transaction in the manner described above in connection with
The issuing authority might eventually be the recipient of the original in a transfer. This could be the case when the last bearer of a bond redeems the bond, or when an automobile is sold and the new owner presents the assigned title to the department of motor vehicles for a new title. The issuing authority might also be the party that would review the authenticity of the transaction records created upon the occurrence of certain failures in the cryptographic two-party protocol of
In some embodiments, the systems and methods of the present invention can be applied to master copies of content. For example, a studio may, in advance of a general release, pre-distribute 100 restricted copies of a work to industry insiders. These restricted copies might have properties that the subsequently-released work would not. For example, a restricted copy might allow its holder to freely transfer it to another industry insider, but once transferred, the first holder might not be able to render the work. This embodiment would allow a set number of restricted copies to be freely circulated among authorized parties but would prevent the unauthorized creation of copies of the work for mass distribution, perhaps over the Internet.
In one embodiment, the content could be considered to be a digital entitlement for a product or service, and in a preferred embodiment a digital certificate may be used. In this embodiment, a holder of a certificate could be entitled to a product or service if it could be determined to be a holder of the original certificate (and conversely, the holder may not be entitled to the product or service if it is holding a mere copy of the certificate). For example, a holder (user) of an original certificate could transfer its certificate to the service provider, which would then become the holder of the original certificate. The service would operate for the user until the user requested its original certificate to be returned. This embodiment would prevent unauthorized users from enjoying the benefits of the product or service when they only possess a copy of the certificate. Further, it would allow the holder of the original certificate to transfer it to another one of its own protected environments or to another individual with a protected environment, similar to how a bus pass could be shared by a group of commuters while only allowing one commuter to ride a bus at any given time. Similarly, by, e.g., securely controlling the transfer of the original certificate (e.g., by requiring the purported certificate-holder to first authenticate him/herself), the system can prevent the unauthorized copying and use of a user's certificate, thus providing an advantage over other forms of authorization/payment, such as credit card information.
As indicated above, computers 331/332 may be coupled to a number of other computers via a conventional network infrastructure, such as a company's Intranet and/or the Internet, for example.
The operation of computer 331 and computer 332 is controlled primarily by programs stored in each computer's system memory and executed by each computer's processor 302. These programs typically include an operating system, and, in a preferred embodiment, also include digital rights management software for implementing a protected processing environment, such as that described in the '900 patent, in which electronic works can be securely handled, and the rules and attributes associated with the electronic works securely maintained and enforced.
In the illustrative embodiment shown in
Although the foregoing invention has been described in some detail for purposes of clarity, it will be apparent that certain changes and modifications may be made without departing from the principles of the present invention. It should be noted that there are many alternative ways of implementing both the processes and apparatuses of the present invention. Accordingly, the present embodiments are to be considered as illustrative and not restrictive, and the invention is not to be limited to the specific details given herein.
This is a continuation of application Ser. No. 10/118,215, filed Apr. 5, 2002, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,580,988, and claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/282,257 entitled “Systems and Methods for Managing the Distribution of Electronic Content,” filed Apr. 5, 2001, all of which are incorporated herein by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4827508 | Shear | May 1989 | A |
4977594 | Shear | Dec 1990 | A |
5003405 | Wulforst | Mar 1991 | A |
5050213 | Shear | Sep 1991 | A |
5410598 | Shear | Apr 1995 | A |
5440634 | Jones et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5530235 | Stefik et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5534975 | Stefik et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5615268 | Bisbee et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5623547 | Jones et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5629980 | Stefik et al. | May 1997 | A |
5634012 | Stefik et al. | May 1997 | A |
5638443 | Stefik et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
5715403 | Stefik | Feb 1998 | A |
5724425 | Chang et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5748738 | Bisbee et al. | May 1998 | A |
5765152 | Erickson | Jun 1998 | A |
5778067 | Jones et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5892900 | Ginter et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5910987 | Ginter et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5915019 | Ginter et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5917912 | Ginter et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5920861 | Hall et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5933498 | Schneck et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5940504 | Griswold | Aug 1999 | A |
5943422 | Van Wie et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5949876 | Ginter et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5982891 | Ginter et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5999949 | Crandall | Dec 1999 | A |
6069952 | Saito et al. | May 2000 | A |
6112181 | Shear et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6138119 | Hall et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6157721 | Shear et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6185683 | Ginter et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6236971 | Stefik et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6237786 | Ginter et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6240185 | Van Wie et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6253193 | Ginter et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6292569 | Shear et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6363488 | Ginter et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6366894 | Everett et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6389402 | Ginter et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6427140 | Ginter et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6449367 | Van Wie et al. | Sep 2002 | B2 |
6618484 | Van Wie et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6640304 | Ginter et al. | Oct 2003 | B2 |
6658403 | Kuroda et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6658568 | Ginter et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6668325 | Collberg et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6697806 | Cook | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6785815 | Serret-Avila et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6832316 | Sibert | Dec 2004 | B1 |
7065505 | Stefik et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7152165 | Maheshwari et al. | Dec 2006 | B1 |
20010002485 | Bisbee et al. | May 2001 | A1 |
20010042043 | Shear et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010051996 | Cooper et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020023214 | Shear et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020048369 | Ginter et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020087859 | Weeks et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020112171 | Ginter et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20030023856 | Horne et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030041239 | Shear et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030046244 | Shear et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030069748 | Shear et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030069749 | Shear et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030084003 | Pinkas et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030105721 | Ginter et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030163431 | Ginter et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20040054630 | Ginter et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040059951 | Pinkas et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040073813 | Pinkas et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040103305 | Ginter et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040123129 | Ginter et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040133793 | Ginter et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20050050332 | Serret-Avila et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050060560 | Sibert | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050060584 | Ginter et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050108555 | Sibert | May 2005 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0 715 247 | Jun 1996 | EP |
WO 9627155 | Sep 1996 | WO |
WO 9712460 | Apr 1997 | WO |
WO 9809209 | Mar 1998 | WO |
WO 9810381 | Mar 1998 | WO |
WO 9837481 | Aug 1998 | WO |
WO 9901815 | Jan 1999 | WO |
WO 9924928 | May 1999 | WO |
WO 9948296 | Sep 1999 | WO |
WO 9957847 | Nov 1999 | WO |
WO 0075925 | Dec 2000 | WO |
WO 0106374 | Jan 2001 | WO |
WO 0109702 | Feb 2001 | WO |
WO 0110076 | Feb 2001 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20100030869 A1 | Feb 2010 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60282257 | Apr 2001 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 10118215 | Apr 2002 | US |
Child | 12534684 | US |