Patent Grant
8396811
The present invention relates to a computer processing system for shipment transactions involving a shipper and a carrier or a vendor and service providers where the transaction involves services.
Processing shipment transactions between a shipper and a carrier has been a manually intensive effort and has experienced little change. Generally, the shipment transaction process involves a goods transport path and a payment process path. The goods transport path typically starts when a carrier picks up the goods at the shipper's warehouse dock. The carrier receives a copy of a transaction document, sometimes referred to as a bill of lading (BOL), from the shipper. This type of transaction document includes information associated with the shipment transaction that is used by the shipper and carrier to track the shipment of goods. The carrier transports the goods to the receiver where the receiver signs a copy of the BOL to verify receipt of the goods. After the carrier has delivered the goods to the receiver, the carrier also submits the receiver's signed copy of the BOL to the carrier's headquarters.
At this point, records are generated that contain information about requested pick-up and delivery times, origin and destination, and type of load. The first problem in the process can occur when the carrier arrives to pick up the load. If the shipment is not ready or there are delays at the loading dock, accessorial charges may be imposed by the carrier. Because they are not part of the original BOL, the shipper may dispute these charges later, and this can cause payment delays down the line. Back at the loading dock, a second problem is created when manual changes are made on the BOL. Unfortunately, these changes rarely get recorded in the shipper's permanent electronic records causing a difference between the shipper's and the carrier's paperwork for the same load.
Now on the road, the driver needs to send the paperwork back to headquarters. Because the primary job of the driver is to get the shipment to its destination in a timely manner, paperwork can sometimes be delayed, and it may be days before the carrier headquarters receives a copy of the BOL.
The driver reaches the destination and delivers the shipment. At the point of delivery, the driver is supposed to provide notification of delivery. Again, this may or may not happen. When it does not, vital information is delayed or missing in the supply chain.
When the original and delivery copies of the BOL finally reach the clerk at the carrier's offices, the clerk sends out an invoice for the original shipment. A clerk at the shipper's office receives the invoice, often amid a pile of invoices for many carriers, and attempts to match the invoice with a copy of the original BOL. If a billing error is discovered, the clerk might send a check for a partial payment or simply hold the entire payment until the corrected invoice is provided. The carrier clerk receives this check and must then track down the original BOL and delivery copy to know why the check is for less than the total amount due. It is only after communicating with the shipper directly that the carrier finds out a mistake was made in the original paperwork. The carrier sends the shipper an amendment to the original invoice, and the shipping clerk must then organize and file all the paperwork together.
The payment process path starts when the carrier picks up the goods from the shipper. The carrier sends a copy of the BOL to the carrier's headquarters for processing. The carrier headquarters rates the BOL. Rating involves determining the shipment cost that takes into the account various shipment parameters such as the size, weight, type of material, and destination of the shipment. The carrier creates an invoice, sets up an accounts receivable, and sends the invoice to the shipper's accounts payable department. The shipper, either internally or via a third party, audits the invoice to ensure the final cost is proper.
One of the more burdensome aspects of the traditional process involves reaching agreement as to the final cost. If there is a dispute as to final cost, the shipper and carrier begin a burdensome and sometimes lengthy negotiation process in an attempt to settle the dispute. If the dispute is resolved, the shipper sets up an accounts payable for the transaction. The shipper will then send payment to the carrier and clear the accounts payable. The traditional process for paying the carrier and clearing the accounts payable involves several manually intensive steps. Upon receipt of payment, the carrier clears the accounts receivable. The traditional process for clearing an accounts receivable includes the carrier manually inputting final payment information into the accounts receivable system.
The traditional approach can lead to many disadvantages for a transaction between one shipper and one carrier. Typically, however, there are multiple carriers and shippers involved in multiple transactions, which makes the situation more complex, and that much more slow and inefficient. The process is manually intensive in that it relies on the hard copy of the BOL for proof of delivery and payment, resulting in a series of repetitive and time-consuming steps. Also, each BOL is often rated multiple times by multiple parties creating excessive redundancy.
Traditional shipment transaction systems are also highly susceptible to billing errors and fraud. For example, there is no connection between the delivery of goods and when the shipper is billed for delivery. This may result in double billing, no billing at all, or over-billing the shipper for freight delivery charges. Also, auditing error may occur which results in incorrect billing or payment. In addition, the carrier waits a disproportionately long time for payment while the invoice is being audited and/or disputed. For example, traditionally, a delivery takes about five days whereas payment takes about thirty days. This unnecessary delay adversely affects the carrier's working capital resources.
Additional costs arise as a result of the existing inefficiencies. Many of the costs are individually small, but very large in the aggregate. For example, the carrier incurs administrative costs including: the cost to create and deliver the initial invoice, costs of resolving billing disputes, costs of providing a signed copy of the BOL to the shipper, and costs of posting accounts receivable. The shipper incurs similar administrative costs.
Another disadvantage of traditional shipment transaction systems is that they have a tendency to strain relationships. Because carriers and shippers do not always have an effective way to communicate about the shipment, business partnerships can be strained when there are disputes. Continuous inaccuracies in either the shipment or invoice process cerate unnecessary tension along the entire supply chain for both shippers and carriers.
An additional disadvantage involves the inability to obtain immediate information regarding a shipment. Since the process is largely conducted manually, it is very difficult to track a shipment. To learn of the status of shipment or payment, there are various manual steps involved. For example, if the shipper wants to know if the carrier delivered the goods and if the payment has been made, the shipper must call the carrier and the appropriate financial institution.
There have been numerous attempts to improve the existing shipment and payment process. Some improvements have been made to each separate step of completing a shipment transaction, but the entire method remains relatively unchanged. For example, freight agents are used by shippers to schedule shipments and to process the invoice from the carrier. Also, third party service providers have taken over the role of managing the shipper's accounts payable department.
Another attempt to improve this burdensome transaction process involves the use of the Internet. Carriers have offered Internet access to their shipment information. Shippers access the carrier's Internet address and find out the immediate status of the shipment. A disadvantage of this system arises when, as in many applications, the shipper is using multiple carriers. In this typical situation, the shipper separately accesses the address of each carrier in order to find out the status of each shipment. This is unduly time-consuming.
Another disadvantage of traditional systems is that the shipper's reference number and the carrier's reference number are not compatible. The carrier maintains the shipment data, so the shipper accesses the data using the carrier's reference number rather than the shipper's reference number. The shipper and carrier track each shipment using multiple reference numbers.
These various attempts to improve the overall process have fallen short of providing a convenient and cost effective system to process a shipment transaction.
The present invention is directed to a shipment transaction system for processing transaction information related to goods shipped from a shipper by a carrier. According to one example implementation of the present invention, the system includes a processor arrangement that maintains shipper credit data for shippers and to process the transaction information in response to control data communicatively coupled between the processor arrangement and users of at least one type. The processor arrangement is linked with various users via a communications channel, and is programmed to receive control data from the users, to verify that the received control data is from an authorized source, and to evaluate the shipper credit data and the control data. In response, the processor arrangement determines whether to generate data that authorizes payment to the appropriate carrier(s).
According to another example implementation of the present invention, a shipment transaction system includes a processor arrangement programmed and configured to maintain shipper credit data of said one of a plurality of shippers, to process the transaction information in response to control data communicatively coupled between the processor arrangement and users of at least one type, and to automatically audit shipment transactions between shippers and carriers. The system further includes at least one communication channel communicatively linking the processor arrangement with the users of said at least one type, with the processor arrangement being further programmed to receive control data from the users, to verify that the received control data is from an authorized source, and to evaluate the shipper credit data and the control data and, in response, to determine whether to generate authorization data that authorizes payment to one of a plurality of carriers.
More specific implementations of one or both of the above systems involving the following. The processor arrangement permits authorized ones of the shippers and authorized ones of the carriers to review audit discrepancies using a communication channel communicatively coupled with the processor arrangement. The processor arrangement permit authorized ones of the shippers to approve payment to selected ones of the carriers without adversely impacting credit data of the authorized shippers, and permits authorized ones of the carriers to delay shipment for selected ones of the shippers without adversely impacting credit data of the authorized carriers.
In yet another embodiment, a shipment transaction system includes a processor arrangement programmed and configured to maintain shipper credit data of a shipper, to process the transaction information in response to control data communicatively coupled between the processor arrangement and users of at least one type, and to maintain a database of shippers and carriers, the database having a main parameter set for validating ones of the shippers and carriers that are qualified as users thereof and having respective data sets for the validated shippers and carriers indicating varying communication access levels for communicators of each respective validated shipper and carrier. At least one communication channel communicatively links the processor arrangement with the users of said at least one type, and the processor arrangement is audits shipment transactions and reports thereon to at least one of the validated shippers and carriers according to one of the varying communication access levels for communicators of the validated shipper and/or carrier.
Another more specific embodiment involve the above shipment transaction system with the processor arrangement further programmed and configured to audit shipment transactions and report thereon to at least one of the validated shippers and carriers according to different communication access levels, each being defined based on data provided by a respective one of the validated shippers and carriers. Further, the processor arrangement can be configured and arranged to permit and block access to shipment transaction information according to information stored in the database, and the database can include information defining payment authorization levels for communicators, wherein the processor arrangement permits approval for payment to carriers for shipment transactions according to the information defining payment authorization levels. As enhancements to this implementation, the information defining payment authorization levels for communicators in the database is defined by a specified type of user, and the information defining payment authorization levels for communicators is downloaded into the database from the user at a remote site.
According to one application, the present invention is directed to a transaction validation system for auditing transaction information related to services provided by one of a plurality of vendors and processed by one of a plurality of service providers. The system comprises a central processor arrangement programmed and configured to maintain data relating to an authorized profile list criterion that includes information about authorized users empowered to authorize payment by the vendor, and programmed and configured to process the transaction information by determining whether the transaction information satisfies the authorized profile list criterion, and using the authorized profile list criterion to generate information for auditing a transaction between one of a plurality of vendors and one of a plurality of service providers.
According to another application, the present invention is directed to a transaction validation system for auditing transaction information related to services provided by a vendor and a plurality of subvendors and processed by one of a plurality of subvendor controlled service providers. The system comprises a central processor arrangement, coupled to vendor and subvendor, programmed and configured to maintain data relating to an authorized profile list criterion that includes information about authorized users empowered to authorize payment by the vendor, and programmed and configured to process the transaction information by determining whether the transaction information satisfies the authorized profile list criterion, and using the authorized profile list criterion to generate information for auditing a transaction between the vendor and both of the plurality of subvendors and plurality of subvendor controlled service providers.
According to another application, the present invention is directed to a transaction validation system for auditing transaction information related to services provided by a vendor, the transaction information being generated by one of a plurality of service providers prior to processing by the vendor. The system comprises a central processor arrangement programmed and configured to maintain data relating to an authorized profile list criterion that includes information about authorized users empowered to authorize payment by the vendor to service provider, and programmed and configured to process the transaction information by determining whether the transaction information satisfies the authorized profile list criterion, and using the authorized profile list criterion to generate information for auditing a transaction between the vendor and one of a plurality of service providers.
Other aspects of the present invention are directed to methods for implementing the computer operations at a central control center, and to arrangements and methods for configuring and operating the coordination of the above-characterized shipment transaction system at the shipper's station and with respect to the carrier.
The above summary of the present invention is not intended to describe each illustrated embodiment, or every implementation, of the present invention. This is the purpose of the figures and of the detailed description that follows.
Other aspects and advantages of the invention will become apparent upon reading the following detailed description and upon reference to the drawings in which:
a is a block diagram illustrating an example flowchart for programming the BOL rating engine 30 of
While the invention is susceptible to various modifications and alternative forms, specific embodiments thereof have been shown by way of example in the drawings and will herein be described in detail. It should be understood, however, that it is not intended to limit the invention to the particular forms disclosed. On the contrary, the intention is to cover all modifications, equivalents, and alternatives falling within the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the appended claims.
The present invention is generally applicable to a computer processing system for a shipment transaction involving a shipper and a carrier. The present invention has been found to be particularly advantageous for a system which efficiently automates the payment of a shipment transaction and efficiently provides access to shipment information.
The present invention is generally directed to a system that automates the shipment transaction process to thereby provide a convenient transaction protocol between the delivery, billing, and payment aspects of the transaction.
In one embodiment of the present invention, a computer arrangement includes a main CPU communicatively coupled via the Internet to provide around the clock access of shipment transaction data to authorized shippers, carriers, operators of the main CPU and, in more specific implementations, a separate financial institution and/or an auditor that is independent of the shippers, carriers, and CPU operators (and if applicable the separate financial institution). As is conventional with Internet communications, electronic notes can be included for supplemental communication with anyone in the shipment transaction chain. The main CPU maintains a database of all information relating to the shipments of the carriers and shippers, and the main CPU is used to analyze the shipments for auditing purposes, effect payments, to facilitate changes to the rating systems, and to facilitate resolution of audit discrepancies.
When a problem arises with a shipment, for example, the shipper (or the carrier if preferred) can change the rating via the Internet. Moreover, the shipper can instruct the main CPU to delay payment. Similarly, the carrier can inform the main CPU that a delivery of a shipment is being delayed due to its problems in receiving payments from the shipper.
By permitting the shipper access to analysis of the information database, the shipper can inquire of the main CPU data useful in assisting the shipper address issues, such as: which carrier has the best on-time delivery record, and which carrier has the most cost-effective service between two locations. Carriers can also use such data to addresses issues such as to identify the shipper that generates the most business in a target region. Further, all users of the system have the potential to access an abundance of historical data including, for example, approval history, and delivery and payment information.
As shown in
The shipper processor 24 processes 204 the purchase order information including referencing inventory control and customer information systems to generate 206 shipment parameters. In a particular application, the shipment parameters include the identity of the carrier, identity of the receiver, the number of units, the weight of the shipment, the destination of the shipment, the date of shipment, and the estimated date of delivery. The shipper processor 24 is located at the shipper's premises so that the shipper processor 24 receives accurate information resulting in further reliability and efficiency of the system.
The shipper processor 24 electronically sends 208 the shipment parameters to the BOL rating engine 30. The transmission is accomplished conventionally. The BOL rating engine 30 of the illustrated embodiment of
a is a block diagram illustrating an example flowchart for programming the BOL Rating Engine 30 of
The BOL rating engine 30 sends 222 the rated BOL to the shipper processor 24. In a particular application, the BOL rating engine 30 is included in the shipper processor 24. The shipper processor 24 performs the rating function of the BOL rating engine 30 so that there is no need to send the shipment parameters to an external BOL rating engine. The shipment parameters are processed and a rated BOL is generated solely by the shipper processor 24.
Another advantage associated with the process in which a rated BOL is produced is that only one BOL rating engine 30 is needed for the entire shipment transaction system. This saves duplicate efforts by the carrier 22 and ensures exact payment. A significant benefit of this illustrated embodiment of
The shipper processor 24 receives 212 the rated BOL and sends 214 the rated BOL to a shipper access terminal 32 located at the shipper's premises. In an alternative embodiment, the BOL rating engine 30 is located off the shipper's premises so that the shipper processor 24 can access the BOL rating engine 30 on an as-needed basis. One advantage is that one standardized BOL rating engine could be electronically linked to multiple shipper processors thereby reducing the cost to each individual shipper.
The data processing device 34 sends the transaction information to a central processor 40. In one embodiment, the data processing device 34 is implemented using a conventional personal computer programmed to operate under the control of an operating system stored in the memory. These types of computer arrangements are not presently programmed to conventionally interface with a central processing center and a processing device located at a shipper's premises. One advantage of interfacing the central processor 40 with shipper access terminal 32 is that the shipper access terminal 32 can control the quantity, quality, and timing of information that is transmitted between the shipper processor 24 and the central processor 40. The access terminal 32 can also control the communication sessions between the shipper processor 24 and the central processor 40. The shipper access terminal 32 is designed so that the shipper 20 may directly access the transaction information. The shipper 20 will not be allowed to make changes to the transaction information, but is able to add additional information. This ensures the integrity of the transaction information. An additional advantage of the access terminal 32 is that the data processing device 34 can receive real-time information from the shipper processor 24 regarding the shipment transaction.
In an alternative embodiment, the shipper access terminal 32 is linked to a magnetic stripe card reader. The card reader accepts a card and transmits the data contained therein to the data processing device 34 of the shipper access terminal 32. The magnetic stripe card reader accepts an identification card from a user of the system. The identification card contains relevant user information. In an alternative application, the access terminal 32 is linked to a bar code reader that is designed to receive information from a bar code and input the bar code information into the data processing device 34. The bar code is printed on the BOL or on a carrier identification card.
The data processing device 34 sends 318 the transaction information to the central processor 40. The design of the central processor 40 is dictated by the desired speed, the number of users, and the amount of data to be processed.
The data storage unit 42 is essentially a memory unit that stores information relevant to the shipping transaction. The design of the data storage unit 42 is dictated by the amount of data needed to be stored.
The authorized user profile lists represent the users and combination of users that are authorized to use the system. Authorized user profile lists include a shipper profile list, a carrier profile list, a carrier/shipper profile list, and a shipper access terminal profile list. The profile lists provide the cross-reference between the payment ID (assigned by central processor 40), an account ID (assigned by an issuing processor 45), and a merchant number (assigned by a paying processor 54).
An authorized shipper profile list identifies information regarding the shipper and the shipment as can be seen below in Table 2.
An authorized carrier profile list identifies information regarding the carrier 22 and the shipment transaction as can be seen below in table 3. Included in the carrier profile is a merchant number that a paying processor 54 assigns to the carrier 22. Each carrier 22 can have multiple merchant numbers if desired. This allows carrier flexibility to assign different merchant numbers for different regions or different shippers. This flexibility facilitates the carrier's business management process. It is not known of existing systems that provide such flexibility.
An authorized shipper/carrier profile list identifies information regarding valid shipper carrier combinations as can be seen below in table 4.
An authorized shipper access terminal profile identifies the shipper 20 as well as the shipping dock. A shipper has a separate shipper access terminal profile for each dock. The central processor 40 assigns a different dock ID for each dock. The information included in the access point profile is listed below in table 5.
The central processor 40 authenticates 408 the transaction information by comparing elements of transaction information with the authorized user profile lists. The elements of the transaction information used for authentication include; the identity of the shipper, the identity of the shipper's dock, and the identity of the carrier. If the authentication is successful, the central processor 40 assigns 410 a payment identification number (payment ID) to the transaction information and stores 412 the transaction information in the data storage unit 42. The payment ID is a unique key for the transaction record which the central processor 40 uses to centrally track the transaction. The payment ID includes specific information regarding the shipment transaction including; the shipper identification number, the BOL number, and the shipping date. The advantage of the payment ID is that it allows the central processor 40 to more efficiently and accurately track the different actions occurring within the system. The payment ID can be referenced to the specific identification numbers that any of the users may assign. The payment ID is now considered “open”. Open is a term used to signify that the shipper 20 has transferred the goods to the carrier 22, and the carrier 22 has not yet completed the shipment.
If the authentication is unsuccessful, the central processor 40 stores 414 the invalid transaction in a suspense file in the data storage unit 42. When an invalid transaction is stored, a notification is sent which indicates that an error has occurred and is in need of further review and correction. Once the error is corrected, the corrected transaction may be sent into the normal process path.
The central processor 40 sends the authenticated transaction information, including the shipper identity and the cost of the shipment, to an issuing institution 44 for authorization.
The issuing processor 45 receives 502 the authorization request from the central processor 40. The issuing processor 45 compares 504 the authorization request to the open-to-buy of the shipper and attempts to approve 506 the request. If the shipper 20 has enough open to buy, the issuing processor 45 approves the authorization request. The issuing processor 45 stores 507 the approved authorization request and decreases 508 the open-to-buy. The issuing processor 45 sends 510 the authorization approval to the central processor 40 and the central processor 40 updates the records in the data storage unit 42. If the authorization is successful, the payment ID is considered “authorized”. If the authorization is unsuccessful, the issuing processor 45 sends 512 an authorization decline to the central processor 40.
After the goods are delivered to a receiver, the payment ID must be “closed”. Closed refers to providing proof of delivery (POD) of the shipment in order to complete the shipment transaction. POD includes the identity of the shipper, the BOL number, the carrier invoice number, the delivery date and time, the person acknowledging receipt, and the condition of the shipment. A carrier processor 46 receives the POD and sends the information to the central processor 40.
In one embodiment, the carrier processor 46 is a conventional bar code reader. The bar code reader is used by the carrier 22 to read a bar code on the shipment. The bar code reader sends the POD information to the central processor 40.
In an alternative embodiment, the carrier processor 46 is a voice response unit 48 (VRU).
A standard touch-tone telephone is used to access the VRU 48. While the location of the telephone is not critical, locating it at the receiver's premises promotes efficiency, convenience, and accuracy. It is convenient and efficient because the carrier 22 can call the VRU 48 at the exact time the shipment is delivered. It is accurate in that the phone number of the receiver, automatically captured by the VRU 48, will identify where and when the call was made.
The VRU 48 prompts 604 the carrier 22 for the shipper ID. The VRU 48 receives 606 the shipper ID and attempts to match 608 the entered shipper ID with an open shipper ID. If the shipper ID is matched, the VRU 48 prompts 610 the carrier 22 for the BOL number. The VRU 48 receives 612 the entered BOL number and attempts to match 614 the combination of the entered BOL number and shipper ID with an open BOL number and Shipper ID. If the BOL number and shipper ID combination is matched, the VRU 48 prompts 616 the carrier 22 for condition of shipment. The VRU 48 receives 618 the condition of shipment and sends 620 the POD information which includes BOL number, the shipper ID, and the condition of the shipment to the central processor 40.
If the VRU 48 cannot match either the shipper ID and the BOL number, the VRU 48 prompts 622 the carrier 22 to either try again or routes 624 the carrier 22 to customer service where the problem can be resolved.
A payment ID can be completed by the above manner or a payment ID can expire. A payment ID expires when a pre-programmed number of days have elapsed since the shipping date. This preprogrammed number of days is defined as auto close days in the data storage unit 42. A particular transaction is identified by the shipper and carrier to expire on a specific date, the effective date, whether or not the proof of delivery is received. On the effective date, the payment process begins. This has the advantage that the carrier 22 will be paid for every shipment carried. Payment to the carrier 22 is expedited if proof of delivery is received.
The central processor 40 periodically extracts 714 from the data storage unit 42 the transactions that are listed as “completed and authorized” or “expired and authorized.” The central processor 40 sorts and batches 716 the transactions by the merchant number. The central processor 40 generates 718 a deposit file 50 for those authorized transactions that are completed or expired and which have not been previously extracted. In a particular application, one deposit file 50 is created for all transactions completed by each carrier. The deposit file 50 is formatted so that it is compatible with the paying processor's 54 format. The deposit file 50 includes the payment ID, the account ID, the carrier identity, the BOL number, the destination city, the destination state, the destination zip code, and the cost of shipment. The cost of the shipment represents the amount that is owed by the shipper 20 and payable to the carrier 22.
The central processor 40 performs 720 a general integrity check on the deposit file 50. The integrity check includes: ensuring that the payment ID has been authorized, ensuring that the BOL is completed or expired, and ensuring that payment has not yet occurred for the particular payment ID.
If the central processor 40 validates the deposit file 50, the processor 40 sends 722 the deposit file 50 to a paying processor 54 of a paying institution 52. In a particular application, the deposit file 50 is conventionally sent via a telephone transmission. The paying institution has a paying processor 54 which processes financial information and maintains financial accounts for the carrier 22. The paying processor 54 is generally designed to process financial information. The paying institution 52 maintains one or more accounts for each carrier 22.
The paying processor 54 validates 806 the incoming deposit file and generates 808 payment to the carrier 22. The paying processor 54 tenders 810 payment to the carrier 24 and sends 812 this information to the central processor 40 so that the central processor 40 can update the data storage unit 42. In a particular application, the paying processor 54 tenders payment by directly paying the carrier 22. In an alternative embodiment, the paying processor 54 sends the payment to the carrier's bank conventionally through the Federal Reserve's Automated Clearing House.
One advantage associated with the generation of payments to the carrier 22 is that the carrier 22 is paid relatively soon after the carrier 22 has completed the shipment. This provides the carrier 22 with improved cash flow and reduces the carrier's working capital requirements. Another advantage is that the carrier 22 does not have to audit or rate the payment that saves time and money. This streamlined approach reduces the carrier's administrative costs associated with processing a payment.
The paying processor 54 generates 814 a systems bill for the carrier 22. This systems bill represents the amount the carrier 22 owes for the service provided by the system of the present invention. The paying processor 54 sends 816 the systems bill to the carrier 22. The paying processor 54 sends 818 the systems bill information to the central processor 40 where the information is stored in the data storage unit 42. The paying processor 54 delivers 820 the paid shipment transactions to the issuing processor 45 of the issuing institution 44.
The issuing institution 44 maintains one or more accounts for the shipper 20 and extends and manages credit to the shipper 20. The issuing processor 45 maintains the amount paid to each carrier 22 on behalf of each shipper 20.
The issuing processor 45 posts 912 the cost of shipment for all paid transactions to the shipper's account thereby increasing the balance due from the shipper 20. The issuing processor 45 periodically bills 914 the shipper 20 for the posted financial transactions paid on behalf of the shipper 20 and periodically receives 916 payment from the shipper 20. When the issuing processor 45 receives payment, the processor 45 posts payment to the shipper's account and increases 918 the open-to-buy.
The issuing processor 45 communicates with the central processor 40 and sends information regarding shipper 20 payment and billing. The central processor 40 updates the data storage unit 42 with this information.
In an alternative embodiment, the paying institution 52 is incorporated into the issuing institution 44. This results in one processor performing the functions of the issuing processor 45 and the paying processor 54.
A further advantage of the computer processing system for a shipment transaction involving a shipper and a carrier is that the data storage unit 42 and central processor 40 interface to store and provide value-laden information to the users of the system. The central processor 40 provides a security check for all information entering and leaving the data storage unit 42. The central processor edits incoming files and provides on-line alarms for duplicate files, stale dated files, out of balance files, and files with corrupt data. The central processor 40 maintains a suspense file in the data storage unit 42 where incoming invalid transaction information and unmatched proof of delivery information are stored. With a centrally located suspense file, the problem resolution process is more efficient.
The central processor 40 maintains data views and tables and stores this information in the data storage unit 42. The central processor 40 maintains a BOL Header Table for each BOL number that generally includes a summary of all information relating to that shipment transaction. This information is shown in the table 6 below. The source of the particular data element is indicated in column four of table 6.
In addition, the central processor 40 maintains BOL line item details from the transaction information. The BOL line item details generally consist of information relating to the goods of the shipment as can be seen below in table 7.
In the example system application of
A further advantage of the shipment transaction system of
In an alternative embodiment, multiple users access the shipment information via the central processor 40. The shipment information is stored in the data storage unit 42. The central processor 40 is electronically linked to a multitude of user stations. The link between the central processor 40 and a user station allows for conventional two-way communication. The user station is a standard personal computer comprising of a video display, a keyboard, a central processor, and a modem link. A user initiates a request for information by accessing the central processor 40 using the personal computer. When the user is logged into the central processor 40, the central processor 40 prompts the user to enter a password.
The central processor 40 provides a security check on all information requests. The security check is programmed such that the shipper 20 and carrier 22 are restricted to accessing only their own data. In addition, the processor 40 is programmed such that unauthorized parties are denied access.
The central processor 40 receives informational requests from the user. The central processor 40 accesses the data storage unit 42 and extracts the requested information and transmits the information to the user's station. The advantage of such an information service is clear. Users will be able to obtain current information regarding a shipment transaction.
In a particular application, once a user has access to the system, the central processor 40 will prompt the user for a range of dates of interest including the current day, the previous day, monthly total, yearly total, or a specified date range. The central processor 40 displays the transaction information, freight amounts, shipment costs, total weight, and cost per pound for various types of transactions including: transactions added to the data storage unit, transactions with proof of delivery, transactions that have expired, transactions in the suspense file, transactions paid to carrier, transactions in transit, transactions declined, and transactions approved.
The central processor 40 allows user's to request a particular transaction by entering any one of a multitude of transaction elements. The central processor 40 identifies a particular transaction with reference to the BOL number, the shipper's customer number for the receiver 22, the payment ID, the carrier's customer number for the shipper 20, the merchant number, the account ID, the receiver's order number for the shipper 20, the shipper's order number for the BOL number, or the shipping date. This ensures compatibility between the user reference numbers such that the user can access information using their unique reference number assigned to the transaction.
The example application has additional advantages. The central processor 40 provides to all authorized users the ability to generate custom analysis of their own data. This has the advantage of giving the carrier 22 the ability to extract payment data needed to automatically post his accounts receivable system. This is an advantage over existing systems that rely on manual distribution of payment against the account receivable system. Similarly, the shipper can extract payment data and automatically post his accounts payable which closes out the individual accounts payable due to each carrier. An advantage stemming from this automated system is that the shipper 20 does not need a paper invoice in order to have proof of delivery. The shipper 20 accesses the central processor 40 and verifies which shipments have been delivered by a particular carrier 22. Similarly, the carrier 22 accesses the central processor 40 to find out which transactions have been paid out by the shipper 20. This informational system removes much uncertainty from the shipment process that promotes more efficient use of available resources such as working capital, transportation, and personnel.
In a particular application, the central processor 40 generates standard shipment transaction summary reports and provides appropriate access to the reports by various users. These reports include a transaction inventory control report, an open aging summary report, a suspense inventory control by source report, and a suspense inventory aging summary report. The central processor 40 uses the security profiles to determine which subset of transaction records will be summarized for each user. For example, the shipper 20 has access only to that shipper's reports.
The inventory control report provides control totals of BOL numbers, merchandise value, and freight value. There are key control points including: starting inventory position, new BOL's from shippers, BOL's closed since the last report by the different methods discussed for closing BOL numbers, BOL's re-opened since the last report by manual proof of delivery override via customer service, BOL's canceled since the last report, and the ending inventory position.
The open aging summary report contains those BOL numbers that have not been delivered. In addition, the freight value and merchandise value for each shipper ID and Dock ID are supplied for distinct age groups. The age groups include groupings by consecutive days since the shipping date and one group for 10 days past the shipping date. The suspense inventory control by source report includes merchandise and freight value amounts of transactions in the suspense file. Several control points for the suspense inventory control include: starting inventory position, new inventory added since last report, inventory cleared since last report, inventory deleted since last report, inventory undeleted since last report, and ending inventory position. The suspense inventory aging summary report provides an aged summary of suspense files including the merchandise and freight value of items that are in the suspense file by original receipt date.
The central processor 40 generates detailed reports including: the inventory aging detail report, the suspense inventory aging detail report, and the declined item aging detail report. The detail reports are viewed by either the shipper ID/Dock ID/account ID combination or by the carrier ID/merchant number combination. The inventory aging detail report lists the open BOL numbers sorted by the days in inventory, the shipper ID combination, and the BOL number. The inventory detail report lists the merchandise and freight value associated with each open BOL number. The suspense inventory aging detail report lists open BOL numbers by source and receipt date. Several fields are displayed including: shipper ID, dock ID, account ID, BOL number, carrier ID, freight value, and the merchandise value. The declined item aging detail report allows users to research the cause of exception items and lists the shipper ID combination, ship date, authorization time, BOL number, shipper invoice number, merchant number, and freight value. The declined item aging detail report is viewed by either shipper ID/dock ID/account ID combination, or by carrier ID/merchant number combination.
The central processor 40 generates two reports that reference declined authorizations. These reports include the declined item summary report and the declined item aging report. The declined item summary report summarizes information regarding the declined authorization. The declined item aging report summarizes the information regarding the declined authorization by the shipping date.
Referring now to
The approach shown in
According to a more specific implementation, there are specific operational profiles and specific user profiles used by the main CPU to execute operations. These specific operational profiles fall into five categories: approval policies to define the monetary limits for each particular approver of bills; floor limits to define any rule for automatic approval of bills; G/L charts of accounts that are used in the process of allocating freight expenses to particular accounts within the company's general ledger system; operational filters to define characteristics of the rights of each user of the system within the company; and data filters that define business rules that are used to limit the transactions such a user can see.
The specific user profiles, which are issued and managed by the company using the system, are used by the system to enforce business rules with the company. These rules may include, for example, that every user ID: be unique, associated with only one organizational unit within only one company, and have only one operational filter and only one data filter associated with it. Examples of other such business rules include establishing that actions performed by the company are binding and that updates to the company's profiles be made regularly.
At levels 1026 and 1028, the main CPU uses the previously defined information to establish the user relationships (depicted at level 1026) and to define carrier vendors or shipper customers, respectively, for the shipper-type company or the carrier-type company.
Using the above information, the main CPU then begins to define trading partners and trading parameter data for each shipper and for each carrier. This is depicted at level 1034 of
For additional examples of ways to implement the above-characterized levels, as well as other aspects and examples of the various example embodiments, reference may be made to the attached Appendix A (Training Guide) and to the attached Appendix B (Users Guide). For example, for information relating to the example setup information of
Within tier II, database/servers are maintained in a dual manner to permit for execution of programs for actual system use and for user acceptance testing. Business logic database/servers 1081 and 1083 store an object oriented program that is used to execute the processing in the actual system (1081) and for user acceptance testing (1082). Also for the actual system (1082) and for user acceptance testing (1084), database/servers 1082 and 1084 provide web server functions for the Internet access at block 1080. Database/server 1085 is used as a background tool and is useful, for example, for sending and receiving information between tier II components and the main CPU 1078. Database/servers 1089 and 1090 store shipment transaction information for processing in the actual system (1089) and for processing the same data for analytical purposes, for example, in response to inquiries made by the shipper, the carrier, the bank, or an outside entity (e.g., an auditor).
Database/servers 1088, 1089 and 1090 can be used to duplicate the functionality of database/servers 1085, 1086 and 1087 for testing purposes.
Database/servers 1091 and 1092 can be used as interactive voice response units adapted to be used by carriers to receive information such as delivery notification, as discussed previously.
As mentioned above, for additional details concerning example implementations and aspects, and alternative embodiments of the present invention, reference may be made to the attached Appendix A (Training Guide) and to the attached Appendix B (Users Guide), each of which forms part of the instant patent application.
This invention need not be limited to scenarios involving shipment of product and the use of physical carriers for transportation of the product or equipment, since an important advantage of the invention is to provide the parties involved a mechanism for auditing transaction information to validate that a transaction occurred properly and as agreed upon by the parties involved. The present invention also provides for application of the validation system in other areas, by way of example only, but should not be limited to these transaction scenarios. Telecommunications service vendors or telephone operating companies (TELCOs) are interested in providing their services to third party customers but do not wish to add additional infrastructure (more personnel and equipment) in order to engage more customers for their services. The TELCO can engage the services of an independent system manager that installs the necessary hardware and software at the location of the third party customer and is then responsible for ongoing service and maintenance of the equipment and software. In return, the system manager is paid a fee by the TELCO for the initial set up and ongoing service calls that may be made by the third party customer. These transactions are validated to ensure that they were properly completed and then payment is sent to the system manager for services rendered.
In the area of services, vendors that provide a particular service usually secure customers through a network of agents or service providers that work directly with the customers to sign them up for the service. As shown in
In a specific example, a communications services provider assumes the role of the vendor for services ranging from telephone to cable (this includes wireless, satellite, video conferencing, interne services, video of demand, etc.) and an authorized agent assumes the role of the service provider that helps the vendor sign up customers for a fee. The rest of the transaction is similar to the transaction characterized in connection with
Assuming that all details of the initial transaction are in order, processor 1324 sends the complete purchase information to data processing device 1334 of access terminal 1332; processing device 1334 then sends the transaction information to central processor 1340. Vendor processing device 1346 receives proof of delivery of service provided, or confirmation that the subscriber of the service has met all of the acceptance criteria, and that he is now ready to be connected to the system (e.g. cellular phone system). Central processor 1340 processes and stores all pertinent transaction information in data storage unit 1342, which allows for immediate access to the information by the vendor 1322, the service provider 1320 and any other authorized users for verification of data integrity and tracking purposes. The remainder of the transaction is similar to embodiments already described, wherein the paying institution 1352 and the issuing institution 1344 are involved in processing the payment to the service provider once it has been authorized by vendor. Further, the paying and issuing institution may be one and the same and can charge its fees to the vendor and service provider in the system as it is receiving payments from vendor 1322 and tendering payments to service provider 1320.
As an example of the type of information that could be used in the vendor/service provider scenario, reference is made to the following Tables:
The above-described system can be used by authorized representatives (or agents) to help customers subscribe to other types of services for a fee. Travel agents are already commission-based when they assist customers in making reservations for lodging, air and land transportation; however, they can now be tied to this system for faster processing of payments back to them in return for a fee that can be charged by the banking institution for this service.
The system can also be used in the area of providing wireless communications services (or entertainment services such as satellite programming or satellite communications) to third party customers, via authorized or empowered representatives, to verify that customers have the correct equipment and software to receive the service from the communications vendor. The representative is involved in preliminary issues of credit checks and programming selection and is the normal contact for the customer if any service issues arise. The representative is paid a fee for the initial set up and ongoing support of the customer using the transaction validation system described to ensure that the work was properly done and that payment is issued to the authorized representative by an authorized user of the system. This system is also applicable in the area of video conferencing services, where a third party customer is interested in working with the communication services vendor through a communications consultant. The consultant helps to set up the equipment and software required to connect to the video conferencing network and is there to service the customer's needs on an ongoing basis. The consultant provides all of the services for a fee to be paid by the communications service vendor.
Software or information technology (IT) developers also benefit from this system when using IT consultants that work closely with third party customers, specifically when such customers need help in upgrading and maintaining their systems. The IT consultants are paid using the transaction validation system described for services rendered. Companies selling products through online (Internet) agents such as Buy.com, eBay.com or eToys.com or via a normal telephone (such as florists, catalog purchases, QVC, Home Shopping Network, etc.) also benefit from this system.
The role of a “vendor” is becoming blurred as more companies start to shift their manufacturing of products to companies that specialize in the manufacture of that type of product in response to the customer's demand for lower cost, shorter lead times and better technology. This is especially true in the area of computers and consumer electronics. OEM companies like IBM and HP, in the computer area, and Ericsson and Qualcomm, in the mobile communications area, have shifted much of their manufacturing to contract manufacturers such as Solectron and Flextronics. Contract manufacturers have the capability of taking the engineered designs of these customers and manufacturing them at the lowest possible cost due to their purchasing strength and logistic capabilities. They in turn will ship the completed product to the end customer (e.g. Circuit City, Best Buy, and etc.) on behalf of the OEM and invoice that customer if the OEM chooses that method. Here the contract manufacturer has control of the carrier that will be shipping the product to the OEM's customer. In the eyes of the customer the vendor is still the OEM that is the party receiving the P.O. and whom they are holding responsible if the product has a problem or is not shipped on time. The emerging vendor/subvendor relationship, including the service provider (providing transportation services in this case) who is involved in this type of transaction, requires the banking institution to ultimately pay the service provider and subvendor when it is authorized by the vendor to do so. This is another opportunity for the banking institution to expedite auditing and financial negotiations due to the presence of the subvendor in this equation.
Referring now to the example process depicted in connection with
Referring briefly to Tables 1-7, the content of these tables for the subvendor is similar to that of the shipper/carrier scenario described earlier since the service provider is acting like a manufacturer of goods that needs to ship product to a customer via a carrier. Additional profiles similar to Table 1B (Transaction Information-Vendor/Subvendor/Service Provider), Table 8 (Vendor Profile) and Table 9 (vendor/subvendor profile) would be developed for a particular transaction. The subvendor can provide part of the service package that the vendor has contracted him to do and have the package delivered to the end customer through another party that will act as a service provider. For instance, IBM contracts with a subvendor to install a software update for a global IBM customer with a presence in Costa Rica. The subvendor in turn contracts with a local Costa Rican software consultant (service provider) to perform the actual software update at the customer site. Once the tables have been established and put into the system (and the authorized users identified) the auditing and payment operations can be performed substantially the same as described in earlier embodiments.
In another embodiment it is envisioned that the different users of the system may be located remotely from the transaction validation system and are accessing the system and its database through system processors or computer-like mechanism. For instance, the vendor, subvendor or service provider may be in a foreign country but accessing the transaction system and the central processor arrangement in the U.S. via a computer or a network that connects that user with the transaction system that may be in the U.S. The transaction system and its users need not be co-located. Specifically in
Accordingly, the present invention provides, among other aspects, a computer processing system for a shipment transaction involving a shipper and a carrier. Further, the present invention provides a computer processing system and method for auditing a transaction between a vendor and a service provider in the area of services. Finally, the present invention provides a computer processing system and method for auditing a transaction between a vendor, subvendor and a service provider. Other aspects and embodiments of the present invention will be apparent to those skilled in the art for consideration of the specification and practice of the invention disclosed herein. It is intended that the specification and illustrated embodiments be considered as exemplary only, with a true scope and spirit of the invention being indicated by the following claims.
The instant application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/259,657, filed Feb. 26, 1999, entitled “Shipment Transaction System And Method” now U.S. Pat. No. 6,571,149 issued May 27, 2003, and a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/310,711, filed May 12, 1999, with the same title now U.S. Pat. No. 6,704,612 issued Mar. 9, 2004, both of which are continuations of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/748,243 and are incorporated herein by reference.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4114027 | Slater et al. | Sep 1978 | A |
| 4270042 | Case | May 1981 | A |
| 4305059 | Benton | Dec 1981 | A |
| 4412287 | Braddock, III | Oct 1983 | A |
| 4507778 | Tan | Mar 1985 | A |
| 4567359 | Lockwood | Jan 1986 | A |
| 4713761 | Sharpe et al. | Dec 1987 | A |
| 4725719 | Oncken et al. | Feb 1988 | A |
| 4750119 | Cohen et al. | Jun 1988 | A |
| 4799156 | Shavit et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
| 4926325 | Benton et al. | May 1990 | A |
| 4949272 | Vanourek et al. | Aug 1990 | A |
| 4960981 | Benton et al. | Oct 1990 | A |
| 4992940 | Dworkin | Feb 1991 | A |
| 4995112 | Aoyama | Feb 1991 | A |
| 4996662 | Cooper et al. | Feb 1991 | A |
| 5008827 | Sansone et al. | Apr 1991 | A |
| 5017766 | Tamada et al. | May 1991 | A |
| 5025372 | Burton et al. | Jun 1991 | A |
| 5040132 | Schuricht et al. | Aug 1991 | A |
| 5043908 | Manduley et al. | Aug 1991 | A |
| 5054096 | Beizer | Oct 1991 | A |
| 5077694 | Sansone et al. | Dec 1991 | A |
| 5117364 | Barns-Slavin et al. | May 1992 | A |
| 5151948 | Lyke | Sep 1992 | A |
| 5153842 | Dlugos, Sr. et al. | Oct 1992 | A |
| 5159667 | Borrey et al. | Oct 1992 | A |
| 5161109 | Keating et al. | Nov 1992 | A |
| 5168444 | Cukor et al. | Dec 1992 | A |
| 5175416 | Mansvelt et al. | Dec 1992 | A |
| 5208446 | Martinez | May 1993 | A |
| 5218188 | Hanson | Jun 1993 | A |
| 5220501 | Lawlor et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
| 5222018 | Sharpe et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
| 5231569 | Myatt et al. | Jul 1993 | A |
| 5238349 | Grace, Sr. | Aug 1993 | A |
| 5285383 | Lindsey et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
| 5293310 | Carroll et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
| 5329589 | Fraser et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5334823 | Noblett, Jr. et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
| 5334824 | Martinez | Aug 1994 | A |
| 5337246 | Carroll et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
| 5357563 | Hamilton et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
| 5393963 | Thomas et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
| 5426281 | Abecassis | Jun 1995 | A |
| 5440634 | Jones et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
| 5483445 | Pickering | Jan 1996 | A |
| 5485369 | Nicholls et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
| 5500513 | Langhans et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
| 5631821 | Muso et al. | May 1997 | A |
| 5631827 | Nicholls et al. | May 1997 | A |
| 5652749 | Davenport et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
| 5666493 | Wojcik et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
| 5671362 | Cowe et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
| 5677955 | Doggett et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
| 5694334 | Donahue et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5694551 | Doyle et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5699528 | Hogan | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5712990 | Henderson | Jan 1998 | A |
| 5717989 | Tozzoli et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
| 5719771 | Buck et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
| 5732400 | Mandler et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
| 5754854 | Kanamori et al. | May 1998 | A |
| 5770844 | Henn | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5774170 | Hite et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5790790 | Smith et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5794207 | Walker et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5799286 | Morgan et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5806063 | Dickens | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5842178 | Giovannoli | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5845283 | Williams | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5870719 | Maritzen et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5892900 | Ginter et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
| 5893080 | McGurl et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
| 5896530 | White | Apr 1999 | A |
| 5897645 | Watters | Apr 1999 | A |
| 5910896 | Hahn-Carlson | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5917830 | Chen et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5918216 | Miksovsky et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5918229 | Davis et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5920847 | Kolling et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5924082 | Silverman et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5924089 | Mocek et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5930363 | Stanford et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5931917 | Nguyen et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5943670 | Prager et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5956690 | Haggerson et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5956700 | Landry | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5960407 | Vivona | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5970475 | Barnes et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5973685 | Schaffa et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5978567 | Rebane et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5982891 | Ginter et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5987506 | Carter et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5991728 | Debusk et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5991801 | Rebec et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5995976 | Walker et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 6012041 | Brewer et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6016477 | Ehnebuske et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6021202 | Anderson et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6026374 | Chess | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6029140 | Martin et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6029150 | Kravitz | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6043819 | LeBrun et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6044362 | Neely | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6047268 | Bartoli et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6055519 | Kennedy et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6058380 | Anderson et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6070150 | Remington et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6085200 | Hill et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6097834 | Krouse et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6115649 | Sakata | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6115711 | White | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6119163 | Monteiro et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6128602 | Northington et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6131087 | Luke et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6141653 | Conklin et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6151588 | Tozzoli et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6157924 | Austin | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6167378 | Webber, Jr. | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6169542 | Hooks et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6199046 | Heinzle et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6204763 | Sone | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6209095 | Anderson et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6223168 | McGurl et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6236972 | Shkedy | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6246994 | Wolven et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6254000 | Degen et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6260024 | Shkedy | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6266640 | Fromm et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6267292 | Walker et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6275813 | Berka | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6285916 | Kadaba et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
| 6317737 | Gorelik et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6323894 | Katz et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6324522 | Peterson et al. | Nov 2001 | B2 |
| 6324551 | Lamping et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6330550 | Brisebois et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6338044 | Cook et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| 6357042 | Srinivasan et al. | Mar 2002 | B2 |
| 6366289 | Johns | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6381587 | Guzelsu | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6389402 | Ginter et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6418441 | Call | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6421691 | Kajitani | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6442533 | Hinkle | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6477510 | Johnson | Nov 2002 | B1 |
| 6486899 | Bush et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
| 6490567 | Gregory | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6493685 | Ensel et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6499036 | Gurevich | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6505169 | Bhagavath et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6505172 | Johnson et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6507826 | Maners | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6510383 | Jones | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6510384 | Okano | Jan 2003 | B2 |
| 6526443 | Goldsmith et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
| 6539360 | Kadaba | Mar 2003 | B1 |
| 6571149 | Hahn-Carlson | May 2003 | B1 |
| 6598026 | Ojha et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
| 6607081 | Graef et al. | Aug 2003 | B2 |
| 6629081 | Cornelius et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6673479 | McArthur et al. | Jan 2004 | B2 |
| 6684384 | Bickerton et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
| 6687713 | Mattson et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
| 6697702 | Hahn-Carlson | Feb 2004 | B1 |
| 6704612 | Hahn-Carlson | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 6721613 | Yamamoto et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
| 6721715 | Nemzow | Apr 2004 | B2 |
| 6741968 | Jacoves et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
| 6751630 | Franks et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
| 6785661 | Mandler et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
| 6789252 | Burke et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
| 6792459 | Elnozahy et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
| 6820038 | Wetzer et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
| 6829590 | Greener et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
| 6832212 | Zenner et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
| 6833865 | Fuller et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
| 6850900 | Hare et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
| 6873963 | Westbury et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
| 6873997 | Majjasie et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
| 6879962 | Smith et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
| 6882983 | Furphy et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
| 6882986 | Heinemann et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
| 6889194 | Kadaba | May 2005 | B1 |
| 6895438 | Ulrich | May 2005 | B1 |
| 6915268 | Riggs et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
| 6937992 | Benda et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
| 6941281 | Johnson | Sep 2005 | B1 |
| 6944595 | Graser et al. | Sep 2005 | B1 |
| 6973258 | Yoo et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
| 6983278 | Yu et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
| 6988111 | Chow et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
| 6999943 | Johnson et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
| 7047210 | Srinivasan | May 2006 | B1 |
| 7054841 | Tenorio | May 2006 | B1 |
| 7069234 | Cornelius et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
| 7069248 | Huber | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7076652 | Ginter et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
| 7079176 | Freeman et al. | Jul 2006 | B1 |
| 7099304 | Liu et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
| 7110959 | Hahn-Carlson | Sep 2006 | B2 |
| 7110979 | Tree | Sep 2006 | B2 |
| 7113964 | Bequet et al. | Sep 2006 | B1 |
| 7117170 | Bennett et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
| 7120871 | Harrington | Oct 2006 | B1 |
| 7124150 | Majjasie et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
| 7130822 | Their et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
| 7131069 | Rush et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
| 7133835 | Fusz et al. | Nov 2006 | B1 |
| 7136467 | Brockman et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
| 7143058 | Sugimoto et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
| 7146337 | Ward et al. | Dec 2006 | B1 |
| 7149744 | Tenorio | Dec 2006 | B1 |
| 7162458 | Flanagan et al. | Jan 2007 | B1 |
| 7177836 | German et al. | Feb 2007 | B1 |
| 7181017 | Nagel et al. | Feb 2007 | B1 |
| 7203662 | Das et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
| 7206768 | DeGroeve et al. | Apr 2007 | B1 |
| 7222081 | Sone | May 2007 | B1 |
| 7243139 | Ullman et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
| 7254588 | Sung et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
| 7257560 | Jacobs et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
| 7263506 | Lee et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
| 7324976 | Gupta et al. | Jan 2008 | B2 |
| 7327952 | Enomoto | Feb 2008 | B2 |
| 7340433 | Kay et al. | Mar 2008 | B1 |
| 7346575 | Ahles et al. | Mar 2008 | B1 |
| 7363261 | Whitehead et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
| 7373365 | Varadarajan et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
| 7386502 | Butcher, III | Jun 2008 | B1 |
| 7392934 | Hahn-Carlson et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
| 7415471 | Coleman | Aug 2008 | B1 |
| 7415617 | Ginter et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
| 7433845 | Flitcroft et al. | Oct 2008 | B1 |
| 7437310 | Dutta | Oct 2008 | B1 |
| 7448063 | Freeman et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
| 7475024 | Phan | Jan 2009 | B1 |
| 7496519 | Hahn-Carlson et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
| 7499875 | May et al. | Mar 2009 | B1 |
| 7529706 | Kulasooriya et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
| 7536354 | DeGroeve et al. | May 2009 | B1 |
| 7536362 | Starr et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
| 7548884 | Thomas | Jun 2009 | B1 |
| 7558793 | Topolovac et al. | Jul 2009 | B1 |
| 7574363 | Bodin | Aug 2009 | B2 |
| 7574386 | Hahn-Carlson et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
| 7587363 | Cataline et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
| 7590575 | Yu et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
| 7617146 | Keaton et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
| 7627499 | Hahn-Carlson | Dec 2009 | B2 |
| 7634455 | Keene et al. | Dec 2009 | B1 |
| 7640195 | Von Zimmermann et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
| 7660788 | Clark | Feb 2010 | B1 |
| 7693791 | Hahn-Carlson et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
| 7702563 | Balson et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
| 7725372 | Hahn-Carlson | May 2010 | B2 |
| 7765136 | Northington et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
| 7822653 | Hahn-Carlson et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
| 7890395 | Phelan | Feb 2011 | B2 |
| 7925551 | Hahn-Carlson et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
| 7970671 | Hahn-Carlson et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
| 8050938 | Green et al. | Nov 2011 | B1 |
| 8060410 | Hahn-Carlson | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8069054 | Hahn-Carlson et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8103575 | Hinkle | Jan 2012 | B1 |
| 8126785 | Hahn-Carlson et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
| 20010009002 | Logan et al. | Jul 2001 | A1 |
| 20010011241 | Nemzow | Aug 2001 | A1 |
| 20010014878 | Mitra | Aug 2001 | A1 |
| 20010025262 | Ahmed | Sep 2001 | A1 |
| 20010032154 | Schummer | Oct 2001 | A1 |
| 20010032171 | Brink et al. | Oct 2001 | A1 |
| 20010032183 | Landry | Oct 2001 | A1 |
| 20010039522 | Saxon | Nov 2001 | A1 |
| 20010047311 | Singh | Nov 2001 | A1 |
| 20010056395 | Khan | Dec 2001 | A1 |
| 20020007302 | Work et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
| 20020016765 | Sacks et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
| 20020026374 | Moneymaker et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
| 20020032649 | Selvarajan | Mar 2002 | A1 |
| 20020035488 | Aquila et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
| 20020038277 | Yuan | Mar 2002 | A1 |
| 20020038305 | Bahl et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
| 20020040304 | Shenoy et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
| 20020042782 | Albazz et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
| 20020046081 | Albazz et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
| 20020046125 | Speicher et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
| 20020046147 | Livesay et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
| 20020046169 | Keresman et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
| 20020048369 | Ginter et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
| 20020049622 | Lettich et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
| 20020055850 | Powell et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020059122 | Inoue et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020059134 | Ebbs et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020062278 | Ingram et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020065736 | Willner et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020065738 | Riggs et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020069177 | Carrott et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020072956 | Willems et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020077978 | O'Leary et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020087344 | Billings et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020087455 | Tsagarakis | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020095355 | Walker et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020103661 | Albazz et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020107761 | Kark et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020107794 | Furphy et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020111886 | Chenevich et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020116288 | Nakajima | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020116334 | Bennett et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020116348 | Phillips et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020120570 | Loy | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020123919 | Brockman et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020123973 | Eccles et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020143858 | Teague et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020147655 | Say | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020156797 | Lee et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020161719 | Manning et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020174034 | Au et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020184527 | Chun et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20020194174 | Calkins et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20020198829 | Ludwig et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20020198833 | Wohlstadter | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20030004823 | Sagy | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030005876 | Boswell | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030014325 | Biffar et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030018563 | Kilgour et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030026404 | Joyce et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030033205 | Nowers et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030033240 | Balson et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030041008 | Grey et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030046089 | Menninger et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030050876 | Tawara et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030055675 | Klein Twennaar | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030055779 | Wolf | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030055783 | Cataline et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030074206 | Hoffman et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030074298 | Daum | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030093320 | Sullivan | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030097318 | Yu et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030115129 | Feaver | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030117446 | Esposito-Ross et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030126047 | Hollar et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030135425 | Leavitt | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030135435 | Aharoni | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030139985 | Hollar et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030144901 | Coultier et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030154163 | Phillips et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
| 20030158811 | Sanders et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
| 20030163431 | Ginter et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
| 20030187796 | Swift et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030191711 | Jamison et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030195815 | Li et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030200172 | Randle | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030200185 | Huerta et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030212617 | Stone et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
| 20030220863 | Holm et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
| 20030225883 | Greaves et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20030233252 | Haskell et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20030233286 | Hahn-Carlson et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20030233292 | Richey et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20030233321 | Scolini et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20040010463 | Hahn-Carlson et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040019562 | Viberg | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040034578 | Oney et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040039696 | Harmon et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040049446 | Seljeseth | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040068431 | Smith et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040095237 | Chen et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040098350 | Labrou et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040098663 | Rey et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040107123 | Haffner et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040107125 | Guheen et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040117383 | Lee et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040123129 | Ginter et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040139032 | Rowan | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040153389 | Lortscher | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040153403 | Sadre | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040153407 | Club et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040158510 | Fisher | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040172360 | Mabrey et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040172368 | Johnson et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040181468 | Harmon et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040184163 | Nishioka et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040186806 | Sinclair et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040187075 | Maxham et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040201074 | Khandros et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040225574 | Arnold et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040230536 | Fung et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040230601 | Joao et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040243690 | Hancock et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20040254808 | Bennett et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20040260634 | King et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050015332 | Chen | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050021363 | Stimson et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050021527 | Zhang et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050027613 | Takekuma et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050027651 | DeVault et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050033660 | Solomon | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050033760 | Fuller et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050055306 | Miller et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050075964 | Quinn et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050119980 | Kohavi et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050125260 | Green et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050131839 | Cordery et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050137947 | Schaub et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050149378 | Cyr et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050165699 | Hahn-Carlson | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050177435 | Lidow | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050177507 | Bandych et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050192896 | Hutchison et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050216368 | Wechsel | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050234820 | MacKouse | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050240592 | Mamou et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050246192 | Jauffred et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050251478 | Yanavi | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050256802 | Ammermann et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050274792 | Hahn-Carlson et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20050278220 | Hahn-Carlson et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20050278221 | Hahn-Carlson et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20050278244 | Yuan | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20050278251 | Hahn-Carlson | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20050278255 | Hahn-Carlson et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20050283434 | Hahn-Carlson et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20050283437 | McRae et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20050289023 | Hahn-Carlson et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20050289024 | Hahn-Carlson | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20060004670 | McKenney et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060010058 | D'Hers et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060015454 | Hahn-Carlson | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060036476 | Klem | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060116957 | May et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060167762 | Hahn-Carlson | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060167791 | Hahn-Carlson | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060167792 | Hahn-Carlson | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060233334 | Bingaman et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060287953 | Chauhan | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20070022021 | Walker et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070055582 | Hahn-Carlson | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070136278 | Grazioli et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070156584 | Barnes et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070192178 | Fung et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070208635 | Van Luchene et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070214065 | Kahlon et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070214077 | Barnes et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070246528 | Kubo et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070262140 | Long | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070271160 | Stone et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070282724 | Barnes et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20070282744 | Barnes et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20070299769 | Fowler et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20080082374 | Kennis et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080086396 | Hahn-Carlson | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080103972 | Lanc | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080172314 | Hahn-Carlson | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080215456 | West et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080249940 | Hahn-Carlson et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20090171727 | Hahn-Carlson | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090192922 | Hahn-Carlson | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090259576 | Hahn-Carlson | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090265274 | Hahn-Carlson et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090287590 | Hahn-Carlson | Nov 2009 | A1 |
| 20090287598 | Hahn-Carlson | Nov 2009 | A1 |
| 20090292630 | Hahn-Carlson et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
| 20090307114 | Hahn-Carlson | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20100017315 | Hahn-Carlson | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100049650 | Keaton et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20100070397 | Hahn-Carlson et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100138325 | Hahn-Carlson | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100185540 | Hahn-Carlson et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100205054 | Hahn-Carlson et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20110004544 | Baum | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110029404 | Hahn-Carlson et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
| 20120158558 | Hahn-Carlson et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 0339850 | Feb 1989 | EP |
| 0407026 | Jan 1991 | EP |
| 0425421 | May 1991 | EP |
| 0779587 | Jun 1997 | EP |
| 2543327 | Sep 1984 | FR |
| 2398894 | Sep 2004 | GB |
| 2001312680 | Nov 2001 | JP |
| WO 9707468 | Feb 1997 | WO |
| WO 9908218 | Feb 1999 | WO |
| WO 0062225 | Oct 2000 | WO |
| WO 0109782 | Feb 2001 | WO |
| WO 0135570 | May 2001 | WO |
| WO 0148659 | Jul 2001 | WO |
| WO 0182193 | Nov 2001 | WO |
| WO 0188813 | Nov 2001 | WO |
| WO 0126017 | Dec 2001 | WO |
| WO 02021405 | Mar 2002 | WO |
| WO 02006920 | Sep 2002 | WO |
| WO 2005124635 | Dec 2005 | WO |
| WO 2006071881 | Jul 2006 | WO |
| WO 2008045793 | Apr 2008 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| Spencer et al., “JIT Systems and external logistics suppliers ,” International Journal of Operations & Production Management, v14, n6, pp. 60-74, 1994. |
| White, How Computers Work, Sep. 1999, 93 pp. |
| Professional Builder (1993) www.highbeam.com, Contracts & Law: Part III, 8 pp. |
| South China Morning Post, Hong Kong, Buying “Products over the Net,” Jul. 2000, 2 pp. |
| Xcitek Press Release, “U.S. Bank Selects Xcitek for Corporate Actions Data and XSP for Corporate Actions Automation,” NY, NY, Dec. 2003, 1 pp. |
| Berhad, “Fueling financial oil for the economy,” The New Straits Times Press (Malaysia), Dec. 10, 2001, 3 pp. |
| Singh, “A new road to recovery,” Risk, pp. 108-110, Sep. 2004. |
| “Credit Derivatives and Mortgage-backed Bonds in Capital Adequacy Requirements for Market Risk,” http://www.rahoitustarkastus.fi/Eng/Regulation/FSA—standards/FSA—interpretations/4—2005.html, Apr. 2005, 5 pp. |
| Brochure: SAP Supplier Relationship Management—At a Glance, SAP, 2003, 16 pp. |
| Brochure: Self-Service Procurement: Slashing Costs and Saving Time, SAP, 2003, 12 pp. |
| Electronic Commerce News, “Sarbanes-Oxley Continue to be Key Issue in Corporate Payments Space,” Sep. 1, 2003, v8, issue 18, 7 pp. |
| Fletcher, “Limits on reinsurance offsets sought by California regulator,” Business Insurance, May 8, 1995 4 pp. |
| Denver Business Wire, “JD Edwards Continues to drive network-centric applications delivery with OneWorld enhancements,” Jun. 16, 1997, p. 06160089. |
| Notice from the European Patent Office concerning business methods, dated Oct. 1, 2007, 2 pp. |
| Egan, “Administrative Orders from the Office of the Governer of Alaska,” Jul. 18, 1972, 3 pp. http://www.gov.state.ak.us/admin-orders/018.html. |
| Bodnar, “Estimating Exchange Rate Exposure: Issues in Model Structure,” Financial Management v32, n1, pp. 35-67, 2003. |
| Plewka, “Germany seizes the Emu initiative,” International Tax Review, v8, n5, pp. 43-46, May 1997. |
| Huang, “Exchange Risk and Exchange Rate Pass-Through,” v67/02-A of Dissertation Abstracts International, 2005. |
| McKeefry, “Seeking microcontrollers desperately,” Electronic Buyers News, n972, Sep. 11, 1995, 6 pp. |
| Mallory, Great Plains Accounting v.7 (Great Plains Software's accounting software) (Product Accouncement), Apr. 22, 1993, 3 pp. |
| Russell, “Kitting out is now in (Use of component kits is expanding as distributors develop added-value activities),” Electronic Times (online), n 852, Apr. 17, 1997, 4 pp. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 09259657 | Feb 1999 | US |
| Child | 09527717 | US | |
| Parent | 09310711 | May 1999 | US |
| Child | 09259657 | US |
