The present application generally relates to the field of content management. More particularly, the disclosed embodiments relate to improving extraction of watermarks that are embedded in host contents.
This section is intended to provide a background or context to the disclosed embodiments that are recited in the claims. The description herein may include concepts that could be pursued, but are not necessarily ones that have been previously conceived or pursued. Therefore, unless otherwise indicated herein, what is described in this section is not prior art to the description and claims in this application and is not admitted to be prior art by inclusion in this section.
Watermarks are substantially imperceptible signals embedded into a host content. The host content may be any one of audio, still image, video or any other content that may be stored on a physical medium or transmitted or broadcast from one point to another. Watermarks are designed to carry auxiliary information without substantially affecting fidelity of the host content, or without interfering with normal usage of the host content. For this reason, watermarks are sometimes used to carry out covert communications, where the emphasis is on hiding the very presence of the hidden signals. Other widespread applications of watermarks include prevention of unauthorized usage (e.g., duplication, playing and dissemination) of copyrighted multi-media content, automatic content recognition (ACR), proof of ownership, authentication, tampering detection, content integrity verification, broadcast monitoring, transaction tracking, audience measurement, triggering of secondary activities such as interacting with software programs or hardware components, communicating auxiliary information about the content such as caption text, full title and artist name, or instructions on how to purchase the content, and the like. The above list of applications is not intended to be exhaustive, as many other present and future systems can benefit from co-channel transmission of main and auxiliary information.
Watermark system design involves balancing a number of different requirements, such as imperceptibility, robustness, security, false positive rate, processing load, payload size, etc. In some applications of watermarks, such as copy management applications, the watermarks that are embedded in a host content must often be extracted in consumer products (e.g., media players, copiers, etc.) that access and use the content. As a result of limited computational resources (e.g., memory, real estate on silicon, processing cycles, etc.) available to watermark extractors within such devices, these applications often create challenges in meeting all of the above noted requirements of the watermarking system since an improvement in one requirement often comes at the expense of another requirement. For example, the robustness of watermark extraction (i.e., a measure of how well an extractor can extract embedded watermarks in the presence of noise and other impairments in the host content and/or watermarking channel) can often be improved by increasing the number of extraction attempts at, for example, small offsets from a particular location of interest of the host content. An increase in the number of extraction attempts, however, increases both the processing load on the extractor and the probability of false watermark extractions. As another example, an increase in payload size typically comes at the expense of reduced robustness and/or increased false positive rate.
In should be noted that in the present application, the term “watermark extraction” is used to describe the operations that result in the extraction of a watermark payload, i.e. the bits or symbols of the message carried by the watermark, which is different from removal or erasure of watermarks from the host content. Alternatively, watermark extraction can be called watermark detection, but sometimes watermark detection is used to indicate the detection of the presence of a watermark within a host content without actually extracting the payload carried by that watermark.
The disclosed embodiments relate to systems, devices, methods and computer program products that improve the detection of watermarks by providing information indicative of a ranking of watermark payloads to watermark extractors.
One aspect of the disclosed embodiments relates to a method that includes receiving a host content at a watermark extractor device and obtaining, at the watermark extractor device, information indicative of a ranking of a plurality of watermark payload values. Such information designates each watermark payload value within a first subset of the plurality of watermark payload values as having an associated rank value. The method further includes based at least in-part on the information indicative of the ranking, configuring the watermark extractor device to prioritize resource allocation for extraction of payload values that are designated as belonging to the first subset over payload values that are not designated as belonging to the first subset, and extracting a payload value from one or more watermarks embedded in the host content. The extracted payload value is one of the payload values designated as belonging to the first subset.
In one exemplary embodiment, prioritizing resource allocation enables extraction of at least one payload value within the first subset with a higher robustness level compared to extraction of any payload value that is not in the first subset. In another exemplary embodiment, prioritizing resource allocation enables extraction of each of the payload values within the first subset with a higher robustness level compared to extraction of each of the payload values within the first subset without the additionally allocated resources. In yet another exemplary embodiment, the ranking comprises a listing of watermark payload values in a particular order of importance. In still another embodiment, the designation as belonging to the first subset is based at least in-part on having a higher likelihood of being extracted compared to watermark payload values that are not in the first subset. The likelihood of being extracted for at least one of the watermark payload values within the first subset is, for example, determine based upon a likelihood of being extracted by other watermark extractor devices.
According to another exemplary embodiment, the designation as belonging to the first subset is based at least in-part on one or more characteristics of the host content. The one or more characteristics can, for example, comprise one or both of: an age or popularity of the host content. In one exemplary embodiment, the designation as belonging to the first subset is based at least in-part on an extent of economic loss associated with unauthorized dissemination of the host content. In still another exemplary embodiment, the designation as belonging to the first subset is based at least in-part on statistics collected regarding one or both of: the host content, or one or more watermark payload values.
In one exemplary embodiment, the designation as belonging to the first subset is based at least in-part on one or more of: a viewing history of a user of the extractor device, a location of a user of the extractor device, a preference of a user of the extractor device, a demographic information of a user of the extractor device, or a behavioral information of a user of the extractor device. In another exemplary embodiment, a count of watermark payload values in the first subset is determined based on a dynamic threshold value that is changeable, thereby allowing designation of a different number of watermark payload values as belonging to the first subset. In yet another exemplary embodiment, the above noted method further includes updating the first subset to include at least one watermark payload value that is different from the watermark payload values before the updating.
In still another exemplary embodiment, configuring the watermark extractor device to prioritize resource allocation includes one or more of: prioritizing usage of a memory resource, prioritizing usage of processing operations, enabling usage of additional watermark payload templates, or enabling usage of additional error correction code templates. In one exemplary embodiment, configuring the watermark extractor device to prioritize resource allocation enables extraction of at least one watermark payload value that is designated as belonging to the first subset with an increased robustness level and with an increased probability of false watermark extractions compared to a watermark payload value that is not designated as belonging to the first subset. In one exemplary embodiment, an expected probability of false watermark extractions for all watermark payload values is not increased. In another exemplary embodiment, the above noted method further comprises allocating additional watermark templates associated with the watermark payload values in the first subset to produce an expanded set of watermark templates, where extracting the payload value comprises comparing a candidate watermark payload value obtained from the host content to all templates in the expanded set of watermark templates to obtain a match to within a predefined error tolerance. In one variation, at least a subset of the expanded set of watermark templates is stored as a look up table (LUT) within the extractor device prior to initiating extraction of the payload value. In another variation, at least a subset of the expanded set of watermark templates is generated on-the-fly, subsequent to initiating extraction of the payload value.
According to one exemplary embodiment, configuring the watermark extractor device to prioritize resource allocation for extraction of payload values that are designated as belonging to the first subset comprises configuring the watermark extractor device to conduct a search for payload values that are designated as belonging to the first subset using template matching operations, where the watermark extractor is configured to conduct a search for payload values that are not designated as belonging to the first subset using non-template-matching error correction code decoding operations. For example, configuring the watermark extractor device to conduct a search for payload values that are designated as belonging to the first subset using template matching operations can include constructing an error correction code watermark payload template for each of the payload values in the first subset.
In another exemplary embodiment, extracting the watermark payload value comprises comparing a candidate watermark payload value obtained from the host content to a plurality of constructed error correction code watermark payload templates corresponding to each of the watermark payload values in the first subset, producing a plurality of error counts, each error count representing a count of mismatched symbols between the candidate watermark payload value and a corresponding constructed error correction code watermark payload template, and identifying, as the extracted watermark payload value, a watermark payload value that corresponds to the smallest error count.
In yet another exemplary embodiment, the above noted method further includes configuring the watermark extractor device to allocate fewer resources for extraction of watermark payload values that are not designated as belonging to the first subset compared to the watermark payload values that are designated as belonging to the first subset. In one exemplary embodiment, the allocated sources for extraction of all payload values is not increased. In another exemplary embodiment, the information indicative of the ranking is obtained from a database located remotely from the extractor device. In still another exemplary embodiment, each of the watermarked payload values is ranked in an order of importance, and configuring the watermark extractor device to prioritize resource allocation comprises allocating more resources for extraction of a payload value that is ranked as being more important within the first subset compared to a payload values that is ranked as being less important within the first subset.
Another aspect of the disclosed embodiments relates to a device that includes a processor, and a memory comprising processor executable code. The processor executable code, when executed by the processor, configures the device to receive a host content, and obtain information indicative of a ranking of a plurality of watermark payload values, where the information designates each watermark payload value within a first subset of the plurality of watermark payload values as having an associated rank value. The processor executable code, when executed by the processor, also configures the device to, based at least in-part on the information indicative of the ranking, configure the device to prioritize resource allocation for extraction of payload values that are designated as belonging to the first subset over payload values that are not designated as belonging to the first subset. The processor executable code, when executed by the processor, further configures the device to extract a payload value from one or more watermarks embedded in the host content, where the extracted payload value is one of the payload values designated as belonging to the first subset.
In one exemplary embodiment, the processor executable code, when executed by the processor, further configures the device to receive new information indicative of the ranking, and modify the first subset in accordance with the new information. In another exemplary embodiment, the processor executable code, when executed by the processor, configures the device to modify the first subset by at least one of: adding a payload value to the first subset that was not previously in the first subset, o removing an existing payload value from the first subset. In still another exemplary embodiment, the processor executable code, when executed by the processor, configures the device to allocate the additional resources including one or more of: prioritizing usage of an additional memory resource, prioritizing usage of additional processing operations, allocating additional watermark payload templates, or allocating additional error correction code templates.
In another exemplary embodiment, the processor executable code, when executed by the processor, further configures the device to allocate additional watermark templates associated with the watermark payload values in the first subset to produce an expanded set of watermark templates. Further, the processor executable code, when executed by the processor, configures the device to extract the payload value by at least in-part comparing a candidate watermark payload value obtained from the host content to all templates in the expanded set of watermark templates to obtain a match to within a predefined error tolerance.
In still another exemplary embodiment, the processor executable code, when executed by the processor, configures the device to conduct a search for payload values that are designated as belonging to the first subset using template matching operations, where the watermark extractor is configured to conduct a search for payload values that are not designated as belonging to the first subset using non-template-matching error correction code decoding operations. In another exemplary embodiment, the processor executable code, when executed by the processor, configures the device to construct an error correction code watermark payload template for each of the payload values in the first subset.
In one exemplary embodiment, the processor executable code, when executed by the processor, configures the device to compare a candidate watermark payload value obtained from the host content to a plurality of constructed error correction code watermark payload templates corresponding to each of the watermark payload values in the first subset, produce a plurality of error counts, each error count representing a count of mismatched symbols between the candidate watermark payload value and a corresponding constructed error correction code watermark payload template, and identify, as the extracted watermark payload value, a watermark payload value that corresponds to the smallest error count. In still another exemplary embodiment, the processor executable code, when executed by the processor, further configures the device to allocate fewer resources for extraction of watermark payload values that are not designated as belonging to the first subset compared to the watermark payload values that are designated as belonging to the first subset.
In another exemplary embodiment a system is provided that includes the above noted device. Such a system further includes a management center comprising a database, where the management center is configured to provide the information indicative of the ranking from the database to the extractor device. Such a system can also include a plurality of additional devices, each of the plurality of additional devices comprising a corresponding watermark extractor device, where the management center is configured to communicate bi-directionally with each of the plurality of additional devices and with the device.
Another aspect of the disclosed embodiments relates to a computer program product, embodied on one or more non-transitory computer readable media. The computer program product includes program code for receiving a host content at a watermark extractor device, and program code for obtaining, at the watermark extractor device, information indicative of a ranking of a plurality of watermark payload values, where the information designates each watermark payload value within a first subset of the plurality of watermark payload values as having an associated rank value. The computer program product also includes program code for, based at least in-part on the information indicative of the ranking, configuring the watermark extractor device to prioritize resource allocation for extraction of payload values that are designated as belonging to the first subset over payload values that are not designated as belonging to the first subset, and program code for extracting a payload value from one or more watermarks embedded in the host content, wherein the extracted payload value is one of the payload values designated as having belonging to the first subset.
Another aspect of the disclosed embodiments relates to a device that includes a receiver configured to receive a host content, and a processor implemented at least in-part in hardware and configured to obtain information indicative of a ranking of a plurality of watermark payload values. Such information designates each watermark payload value within a first subset of the plurality of watermark payload values as having an associated value. The processor is further configured to, based at least in-part on the information indicative of the ranking, configure a watermark extractor component to prioritize resource allocation for extraction of payload values that are designated as belonging to the first subset over payload values that are not designated as belonging to the first subset. The watermark extractor is also configured to extract at least one payload value designated as belonging to the first subset from one or more watermarks that are embedded in the host content.
In the following description, fir purposes of explanation and not limitation, details and descriptions are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the disclosed embodiments. However, it will be apparent to those skilled in the art that the present invention may be practiced in other embodiments that depart from these details and descriptions.
Additionally, in the subject description, the word “exemplary” is used to mean serving as an example, instance, or illustration. Any embodiment or design described herein as “exemplary” is not necessarily to be construed as preferred or advantageous over other embodiments or designs. Rather, use of the word exemplary is intended to present concepts in a concrete manner.
As noted earlier, watermarks can be used in many different applications such as copy control, forensic marking, or automatic content recognition (ACR). In many of those applications, not all embedded watermark payloads are equally important or equally likely to be encountered by a particular extractor. For example, in ACR applications, where particular types of content, or particular content repositories and websites are examined, a watermark extractor may be provided with some prior knowledge as to which watermark payload values are likely to be presented to it. Such an advanced knowledge of watermark payload values can, for example, be acquired by the watermark extractor using a database that maintains information regarding watermark extractions occurring in other (e.g., similar) extractors. The extractor can then use such information to preferentially allocate more or less resources to extract certain watermark payloads. That is, allocation of resources are prioritized such that more resources are allocated for the extraction of watermark payload values that are designated as having a high rank. Non-limiting examples of such additional resources include additional memory resources, additional processing operations (e.g., computations cycles), additional watermark payload templates and additional error correction code templates. Further details of watermark and error correction code templates are provided in the sections that follow. In some embodiments, the allocation of total resources for the extraction of all watermark payloads remains unchanged (or is not increased) since an increase in allocation of resources for higher ranked payload values can be offset by a reduced allocation of resources for lower ranked payload values. Further, since, in some embodiments, the extraction of higher ranked payloads is more likely, the resources for extraction of lower ranked payloads may not get utilized.
In some embodiments, the designation of payload values as having a high rank value is based at least in-part on an extent of economic loss associated with unauthorized dissemination of the host content. For example, in a copy control watermarking system, a content that includes a “no home use” message as part of its embedded watermark payload often corresponds to a content that is only authorized for presentation in movie theatres. As such, any subsequent encounters with such a movie (e.g., at a file sharing website) should be treated as a movie piracy scenario, which can result in a significant economic loss to the movie studios, movie theatres, actors, and other personnel and entities that are involved in the production and distribution of the movie. In this case, proper extraction of a “no home use” watermark payload is treated as more important than extraction of, for example, a “no Internet redistribution” payload (which could represent unauthorized dissemination of a content that is intended to be only released on DVD).
In some exemplary embodiments, the designation of payload values as having a high rank value is based at least in-part on a contractual agreement that requires a watermark system designer or a system operator to treat particular watermark payloads with higher priority than other payloads.
In some embodiments, an extractor is configured to adjust its operations to conduct watermark extraction based on a received payload ranking information. For example, in one embodiment, an extractor first attempts to extract only those payloads that are most likely to be embedded in the content, and only upon a determination that those payloads cannot be reliably extracted, the extractor conducts further operations to extract less likely payloads. In such a configuration, the processing load is often reduced, since the extractor is more likely to conclude its operations when a likely payload is successfully extracted rather than expending resources in a systematic search of the payload space that includes unlikely watermark payload candidates.
In many applications, a watermarking system is designed based on a predefined maximum false positive rate. If all payloads are treated equally by the extractor, then each candidate watermark payload makes an equal contribution to the overall false positive rate of the watermarking system. On the other hand, when the payloads are ranked in a given priority order, in accordance with the disclosed embodiments, a watermark extractor can be configured to allocate a larger fraction of the overall false positive rate budget to the higher ranked payloads as compared to the lower ranked payloads. This way, the extractor becomes capable of extracting higher ranked codes with a higher robustness and/or at a higher confidence level. In such embodiments, the overall expected false positive rate associated with the extraction of all watermark payload values can remain unchanged (or is not increased) since, through proper allocation of extraction operations and resources, a potentially higher false positive rate for some payload values is offset by a tower false positive rate for other payload values.
Another aspect of the disclosed embodiments related to improving the robustness of watermark extractions for high ranking payloads. In particular, watermark extraction robustness in the presence of various signal distortions can be improved with incorporating additional processing steps in the watermark extraction process. For example, an extractor may attempt to invert (e.g., undo) various potential distortions that are likely to contaminate a particular host content, and then attempt to extract watermarks from both the received host content and the inverted host content. Alternatively, distorted watermark templates (e.g., representations of a watermark payload when the host content is subject to the corresponding distortions) can be provided to the extractor so as to allow the extractor to compare a candidate watermark payload that is extracted from the received content to the distorted watermark templates in search of a match. In both of the above extraction techniques, the chances of extracting a watermark improve by increasing the number of watermark extraction or template matching attempts. Such expanded extraction operations not only allow the search of a larger portion of the watermark extraction space, but they can be designed to enable a search of the extraction space with a finer search granularity. The drawback, however, is an increase in both the processing load and the probability of false watermark extractions.
The techniques of the disclosed embodiments allow an extractor to allocate a larger portion of the false positive rate budget and computational resources to the extraction of higher-ranking payloads, thus allowing more extraction attempts to be directed towards such higher ranking payloads while allocating fewer computational resources (e.g., extraction attempts) to the lower-ranking payloads. As a result, in systems that operate in accordance with such exemplary embodiments of the present application, the total number of processing operations and the probability of false watermark extractions can remain substantially the same as systems where such payload ranking techniques are not utilized. Yet, watermarks that are considered to be more important are extracted with an improved extraction robustness.
By the way of example, and not by limitation, the following provides an illustration of watermark extractor enhancements based on payload ranking for an ACR system. In ACR systems, the embedded watermarks can be used to identify the host content (e.g., a movie, a TV show, a song, an image, etc.). In such systems, watermarks can be used to additionally identify a content distribution channel, such as a theatre where the movie is shown or a broadcast station from which the content is being broadcast. Furthermore, watermarks can be used to identify one or more segments of the content by, for example, incorporating a field (e.g., a counter) into the watermark payload that is sequentially incremented (e.g., once per minute) for the duration of the content. In order to carry all of the above information, the watermark payload needs to be relatively large, e.g. between 20 and 100 bits. Such payload bits are typically linked to the content metadata through a database. For example, each field within the watermark payload can be used as a pointer (or a serial number) that identifies a database entry for the corresponding field.
In an ACR system, payload ranking can be implemented based on a number of different criteria. In one example embodiment, the payloads are ranked based on their likelihood of having been extracted by a similar and/or a same type of device. For example, a list of all extracted watermarks can be constructed for software extractors running on operating system A (i.e., device type A), software extractors running on operating system B (i.e., device type B), hardware extractors running on standalone media handling devices such as DVD players (i.e., device type C), hardware extractors running on integrated media handling devices such as media players incorporated in television sets (i.e., device D), etc. For each type of device, the extracted payload values are counted, and sorted to generate a listing (for each device type) that identifies the most frequently extracted payload as the top ranked payload, followed by the second most frequently extracted payload as the second highest ranked payload, and so on.
Alternatively, payload ranking can be implemented based on one or more characteristics of the host content. In some exemplary embodiments, the ranking is determined based on the age and/or popularity of the host content. For example, higher payload rankings can be assigned to currently broadcast content and lower rankings to older content. In one exemplary embodiment, the assignment of payload rankings is carried out at a database which includes, or can obtain, information regarding the age (e.g., whether the content is being currently broadcast) and/or popularity (e.g., if the content is on a top-50 list or has exceeded certain viewership). Such a database also includes, or can obtain, the payload values that have been embedded in such current or popular content, allowing it to generate a payload ranking list based on the age or popularity criteria, and communicate the ranking to one or more extractors. Additional non-limiting examples of payload ranking criteria includes assigning higher ranks to premium content, pay-per-view content, content belonging to customers with special privileges, etc.
Another aspect of the disclosed embodiments relates to providing a payload ranking technique that is based on the use of error correction codes. Since watermarks can be distorted due to various intentional or unintentional processing operations (e.g., as part of content post-processing, transmission and/or storage), watermark payloads are typically encoded using channel coding techniques that allow correction of error-contaminated symbols. Some examples of well-known error correction/error detection codes include Reed-Solomon codes, BCH codes, LDPC codes, CRCs, etc. An error correction code selected for a watermarking system allows a particular number of symbol errors (e.g., bit errors) to be detected and/or corrected depending on the particular parameters of the error correction code. This error correction/detection capability is obtained by adding parity (or redundancy symbols to each block of data e.g., to each watermark payload) that is to be protected, where a larger number of errors can be corrected resulting in a better watermark resilience to signal distortions) at the expense of an increased payload size. It should be noted that typical forward error correction codes treat all payload values equally during the decoding process.
In some exemplary embodiments, payload ranking is used to modify error correction code decoding operations to improve the detection of embedded watermarks with high ranking payloads. In one exemplary embodiment, a set of watermark templates is provided only for the higher ranking payloads. That is, the appropriate parity symbols (generated based on the particular error correction algorithm of the watermarking system) are appended to each of the higher ranking payloads to form “constructed error correction code (or error detection code) packet, templates” (hereinafter a “constructed ECC templates”). A candidate watermark packet that is extracted from a received content is then compared against all such constructed. ECC templates to determine if a match within a predefined error tolerance is found. Upon a determination that such a match is found, the corresponding payload value is declared as the extracted payload value.
In some exemplary embodiments, the constructed ECC templates are stored in a look-up-table (LUT). Alternatively, or additionally, ECC packet templates can be generated on-the-fly after the initiation of watermark extraction operations (e.g., upon acquisition of a watermark packet candidate).
In some exemplary embodiments related to the ECC constructed templates, such templates are only generated for higher ranking payloads and all other payloads are decoded using conventional (i.e., non-template matching) error correction code decoding techniques. For example, upon a determination that no higher ranking code is extracted, the extractor can make a decision as to whether or not to pursue the detection of lower ranking payloads based on conventional techniques. In these embodiments, the extraction robustness of higher ranking payloads is improved since template matching (e.g., based on LUT decoding or on-the-fly generation of templates) typically allows a higher number of errors to be corrected, while maintaining a substantially similar (e.g., within the same order of magnitude) false positive extraction rate, compared to non-template matching techniques. However, depending on the type of error correction code algorithm and the size of error correction code space, LUT decoding results in consumption of additional memory, while computing the templates on-the-fly increases the processing load of the watermark extractor. Thus, in some implementations, the additional robustness for higher ranking payloads is achieved at the expense of consumption of additional resources. It should be noted that on-the-fly generation of watermark templates typically involves generation of the watermark templates based on an algorithm during the watermark extraction process (e.g., after the extraction process is initiated). Thus, on-the-fly watermark generation means that watermark templates are created as needed and then are erased from memory, which is repeated whenever a new need for watermark templates arises, i.e. many times during an extractor run. In contrast, creating templates as, for example, part of extractor initialization process would only require storing the watermark templates in a LUT, which requires memory resources but not much processing, since the templates are created only once per run.
In a first exemplary embodiment where LUT decoding is carried out, the LUT is created by a database and communicated to the extractors. In a second exemplary embodiment, the higher ranking payloads are selected by the database and communicated to the extractor, but generation of the LUT comprising watermark templates for such higher ranking watermark payloads are conducted at the extractor. In the first exemplary embodiment, through the use of some communication bandwidth between the database and the extractors, processing load of the extractors is reduced, whereas in the second embodiment the opposite holds true. The above two exemplary embodiments (and combinations thereof) illustrate how communication bandwidth between the database and the extractors can be traded off for processing load at the extractor. Such tradeoff considerations can be utilized to implement the disclosed embodiments on a case-by-case basis. For instance, in scenarios where communication bandwidth is at a premium, the second exemplary embodiment may be implemented.
In some exemplary embodiments related to the ECC constructed templates, such templates are generated for all payloads, but the higher ranking payloads are treated preferentially. For example, additional variations of ECC construed templates are generated for only the higher ranking payloads while one (or a limited number) of such templates are generated for the remaining payloads. This way, an expanded search of the extraction payload space (i.e., search of a larger portion of the extraction space and/or search a particular portion of the watermark extraction space with finer granularity) is conducted for only the higher ranking payloads. The generation of ECC constructed templates for all payload values can be particularly useful (or efficient) when the watermark payload size is small, and/or when only a limited number of watermark payloads have been implemented.
In some exemplary embodiments, the list of high ranking payloads is dynamically adjusted. For example, the payload values can change over time as certain payloads gain further importance while other payloads lose their importance. Similarly, the count of high ranking payload values can dynamically change as the list of important payloads shrinks or expands to include fewer or additional payload values. In embodiments that template matching is utilized, a list of watermark templates as well as the associated error thresholds, can be updated dynamically to reflect changes in the ranking of the payloads. These changes can be implemented at the extractor device pursuant to communications with a database that decides which payloads should get preferential treatment during a given period of time and/or which extractors should such information be conveyed to. In deciding which payloads to be treated preferentially, additional considerations can be used, such as viewing history of a particular user, user's location obtained through, for example, its IP address, user provided data regarding the user's preferences, a demographic information of a user of the extractor device, a behavioral information of a user of the extractor device, etc.
The disclosed embodiments can be implemented using hardware devices that comprise particular physical components. For example, the devices of the present application can be implemented as an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), as part of a field programmable gate array (FPGA), and/or using digital and analog components and circuitry.
Certain aspects of the disclosed embodiments can be implemented as a device that includes a processor and a memory comprising processor executable code. The processor executable code, when executed by the processor, configures the device to perform any one of and/or all operations that are described in the present application. For example,
Various embodiments described herein are described in the general context of methods or processes, which may be implemented in one embodiment by a computer program product, embodied in a computer-readable medium, including computer-executable instructions, such as program code, executed by computers in networked environments. A computer-readable medium may include removable and non-removable storage devices including, but not limited to, Read Only Memory (ROM), Random Access Memory (RAM), compact discs (CDs), digital versatile discs (DVD), Blu-ray Discs, etc. Therefore, the computer-readable media described in the present application include non-transitory storage media. Generally, program modules may include routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, etc. that perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types. Computer-executable instructions, associated data structures, and program modules represent examples of program code for executing steps of the methods disclosed herein. The particular sequence of such executable instructions or associated data structures represents examples of corresponding acts for implementing the functions described in such steps or processes.
For example, one aspect of the disclosed embodiments relates to a computer program product that is embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium. The computer program product includes program code for carrying out any one or and/or all of the operations of the disclosed embodiments.
The foregoing description of embodiments has been presented for purposes of illustration and description. The foregoing description is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit embodiments of the present invention to the precise form disclosed, and modifications and variations are possible in light of the above teachings or may be acquired from practice of various embodiments. The embodiments discussed herein were chosen and described in order to explain the principles and the nature of various embodiments and their practical application to enable one skilled in the art to utilize the present invention in various embodiments and with various modifications as are suited to the particular use contemplated. The features of the embodiments described herein may be combined in all possible combinations of methods, apparatus, modules, systems, and computer program products.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3406344 | Hopper | Oct 1968 | A |
| 3842196 | Loughlin | Oct 1974 | A |
| 3885217 | Cintron | May 1975 | A |
| 3894190 | Gassmann | Jul 1975 | A |
| 3919479 | Moon et al. | Nov 1975 | A |
| 3973206 | Haselwood et al. | Aug 1976 | A |
| 4048562 | Haselwood et al. | Sep 1977 | A |
| 4176379 | Wessler et al. | Nov 1979 | A |
| 4199788 | Tsujimura | Apr 1980 | A |
| 4225967 | Miwa et al. | Sep 1980 | A |
| 4230990 | Lert, Jr. et al. | Oct 1980 | A |
| 4281217 | Dolby | Jul 1981 | A |
| 4295128 | Hashemian et al. | Oct 1981 | A |
| 4425578 | Haselwood et al. | Jan 1984 | A |
| 4454610 | Sziklai | Jun 1984 | A |
| 4464656 | Nakamura | Aug 1984 | A |
| 4497060 | Yang | Jan 1985 | A |
| 4512013 | Nash et al. | Apr 1985 | A |
| 4547804 | Greenberg | Oct 1985 | A |
| 4564862 | Cohen | Jan 1986 | A |
| 4593904 | Graves | Jun 1986 | A |
| 4639779 | Greenberg | Jan 1987 | A |
| 4669089 | Gahagan et al. | May 1987 | A |
| 4677466 | Lert, Jr. et al. | Jun 1987 | A |
| 4686707 | Iwasaki et al. | Aug 1987 | A |
| 4703476 | Howard | Oct 1987 | A |
| 4706282 | Knowd | Nov 1987 | A |
| 4723302 | Fulmer et al. | Feb 1988 | A |
| 4729398 | Benson et al. | Mar 1988 | A |
| 4739398 | Thomas et al. | Apr 1988 | A |
| 4750173 | Bluthgen | Jun 1988 | A |
| 4755871 | Morales-Garza et al. | Jul 1988 | A |
| 4755884 | Efron et al. | Jul 1988 | A |
| 4764608 | Masuzawa et al. | Aug 1988 | A |
| 4764808 | Solar | Aug 1988 | A |
| 4789863 | Bush | Dec 1988 | A |
| 4805020 | Greenberg | Feb 1989 | A |
| 4807013 | Manocha | Feb 1989 | A |
| 4807031 | Broughton et al. | Feb 1989 | A |
| 4840602 | Rose | Jun 1989 | A |
| 4843562 | Kenyon et al. | Jun 1989 | A |
| 4876617 | Best et al. | Oct 1989 | A |
| 4876736 | Kiewit | Oct 1989 | A |
| 4930011 | Kiewit | May 1990 | A |
| 4931871 | Kramer | Jun 1990 | A |
| 4937807 | Weitz et al. | Jun 1990 | A |
| 4939515 | Adelson | Jul 1990 | A |
| 4943963 | Waechter et al. | Jul 1990 | A |
| 4945412 | Kramer | Jul 1990 | A |
| 4967273 | Greenberg | Oct 1990 | A |
| 4969041 | O'Grady et al. | Nov 1990 | A |
| 4972471 | Gross et al. | Nov 1990 | A |
| 4972503 | Zurlinden | Nov 1990 | A |
| 4979210 | Nagata et al. | Dec 1990 | A |
| 5057915 | Von Kohorn | Oct 1991 | A |
| 5073925 | Nagata et al. | Dec 1991 | A |
| 5080479 | Rosenberg | Jan 1992 | A |
| 5113437 | Best et al. | May 1992 | A |
| 5116437 | Yamamoto et al. | May 1992 | A |
| 5161251 | Mankovitz | Nov 1992 | A |
| 5191615 | Aldava et al. | Mar 1993 | A |
| 5200822 | Bronfin et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
| 5210820 | Kenyon | May 1993 | A |
| 5210831 | Emma et al. | May 1993 | A |
| 5213337 | Sherman | May 1993 | A |
| 5214792 | Alwadish | May 1993 | A |
| 5237611 | Rasmussen et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
| 5251041 | Young et al. | Oct 1993 | A |
| 5270480 | Hikawa | Dec 1993 | A |
| 5294962 | Sato et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
| 5294982 | Salomon et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
| 5319453 | Copriviza et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
| 5319735 | Preuss et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
| 5351304 | Yamamoto | Sep 1994 | A |
| 5379345 | Greenberg | Jan 1995 | A |
| 5402488 | Karlock | Mar 1995 | A |
| 5404160 | Schober et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
| 5404377 | Moses | Apr 1995 | A |
| 5408258 | Kolessar | Apr 1995 | A |
| 5414729 | Fenton | May 1995 | A |
| 5424785 | Orphan | Jun 1995 | A |
| 5425100 | Thomas et al. | Jun 1995 | A |
| 5432799 | Shimpuku et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
| 5436653 | Ellis et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
| 5450490 | Jensen et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
| 5452901 | Nakada et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
| 5473631 | Moses | Dec 1995 | A |
| 5481294 | Thomas et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
| 5497372 | Nankoh et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
| 5502576 | Ramsay et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
| 5504518 | Ellis et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
| 5508754 | Orphan | Apr 1996 | A |
| 5519454 | Willis | May 1996 | A |
| 5523794 | Mankovitz et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
| 5526427 | Thomas et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
| 5537484 | Kobayashi | Jul 1996 | A |
| 5579124 | Aijala et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
| 5581658 | O'Hagan et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
| 5581800 | Fardeau et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
| 5592553 | Guski et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
| 5612729 | Ellis et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
| 5613004 | Cooperman et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
| 5636292 | Rhoads | Jun 1997 | A |
| 5664018 | Leighton | Sep 1997 | A |
| 5687191 | Lee et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
| 5687236 | Moskowitz et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
| 5699427 | Chow et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5719619 | Hattori et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
| 5719937 | Warren et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
| 5737329 | Horiguchi | Apr 1998 | A |
| 5752880 | Gabai et al. | May 1998 | A |
| 5761606 | Wolzien | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5764763 | Jensen et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5778108 | Coleman, Jr. | Jul 1998 | A |
| 5787334 | Fardeau et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
| 5805635 | Andrews, Jr. et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5809064 | Fenton et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5809139 | Girod et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5819289 | Sanford, II et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5822360 | Lee et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5822432 | Moskowitz et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5825892 | Braudaway et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5828325 | Wolosewicz et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5832119 | Rhoads | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5841978 | Rhoads | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5848155 | Cox | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5850249 | Massetti et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5850481 | Rhoads | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5862260 | Rhoads | Jan 1999 | A |
| 5870030 | DeLuca et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5887243 | Harvey et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5889868 | Moskowitz et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5892900 | Ginter et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
| 5893067 | Bender et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
| 5901178 | Lee et al. | May 1999 | A |
| 5905800 | Moskowitz et al. | May 1999 | A |
| 5930369 | Cox et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5933798 | Linnartz | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5937000 | Lee et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5940124 | Janko et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5940134 | Wirtz | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5940135 | Petrovic et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5940429 | Lam et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5943422 | Van Wie et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5945932 | Smith et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5949885 | Leighton | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5960081 | Vynne et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5963909 | Warren et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5986692 | Logan et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 6021432 | Sizer, II et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6031914 | Tewfik et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6035171 | Takaya et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6035177 | Moses et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6037984 | Isnardi et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6044156 | Honsinger et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6061793 | Tewfik et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6067440 | Diefes | May 2000 | A |
| 6078664 | Moskowitz et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6094228 | Ciardullo et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6101310 | Terada et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6128597 | Kolluru et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6145081 | Winograd et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6154571 | Cox et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6160986 | Gabai et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6173271 | Goodman et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6175627 | Petrovic et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6175842 | Kirk et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6189123 | Anders Nystrom et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6209092 | Linnartz | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6209094 | Levine et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6222932 | Rao et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6229572 | Ciardullo et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6233347 | Chen et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6246775 | Nakamura et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6246802 | Fujihara et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6249870 | Kobayashi et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6252972 | Linnartz | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6253113 | Lu | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6253189 | Feezell et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6268866 | Shibata | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6278792 | Cox et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6282299 | Tewfik et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6285774 | Schumann et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
| 6289108 | Rhoads | Sep 2001 | B1 |
| 6290566 | Gabai et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
| 6330335 | Rhoads | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6330672 | Shur | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6332031 | Rhoads et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6332194 | Bloom et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6353672 | Rhoads | Mar 2002 | B1 |
| 6363159 | Rhoads | Mar 2002 | B1 |
| 6373974 | Zeng | Apr 2002 | B2 |
| 6374036 | Ryan et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6381341 | Rhoads | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6385330 | Powell et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6388712 | Shinohara et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6389152 | Nakamura et al. | May 2002 | B2 |
| 6389538 | Gruse et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6400826 | Chen et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6400827 | Rhoads | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6404781 | Kawamae et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6404898 | Rhoads | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6411725 | Rhoads | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6415040 | Linnartz et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6415041 | Oami et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6424726 | Nakano et al. | Jul 2002 | B2 |
| 6427012 | Petrovic | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6430301 | Petrovic | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6430302 | Rhoads | Aug 2002 | B2 |
| 6442285 | Rhoads et al. | Aug 2002 | B2 |
| 6449367 | Van Wie et al. | Sep 2002 | B2 |
| 6449496 | Beith et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6473560 | Linnartz et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6477431 | Kalker et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
| 6487301 | Zhao | Nov 2002 | B1 |
| 6490355 | Epstein | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6496591 | Rhoads | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6505160 | Levy et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6510233 | Nakano | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6510234 | Cox et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6512837 | Ahmed | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6523113 | Wehrenberg | Feb 2003 | B1 |
| 6529506 | Yamamoto et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
| 6530021 | Epstein et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
| 6535617 | Hannigan et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
| 6550011 | Sims, III | Apr 2003 | B1 |
| 6553127 | Kurowski | Apr 2003 | B1 |
| 6556688 | Ratnakar | Apr 2003 | B1 |
| 6557103 | Boncelet, Jr. et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
| 6570996 | Linnartz | May 2003 | B1 |
| 6571144 | Moses et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
| 6574350 | Rhoads et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
| 6577744 | Braudaway et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
| 6584138 | Neubauer et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
| 6590996 | Reed et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
| 6590997 | Rhoads | Jul 2003 | B2 |
| 6591365 | Cookson | Jul 2003 | B1 |
| 6592516 | Lee | Jul 2003 | B2 |
| 6598162 | Moskowitz | Jul 2003 | B1 |
| 6614914 | Rhoads et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6618484 | Weber et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6625297 | Bradley | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6628729 | Sorensen | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6633653 | Hobson et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
| 6636615 | Rhoads et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
| 6636967 | Koyano | Oct 2003 | B1 |
| 6647128 | Rhoads | Nov 2003 | B1 |
| 6647129 | Rhoads | Nov 2003 | B2 |
| 6654501 | Acharya et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
| 6661905 | Chupp et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6665419 | Oami | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6668068 | Hashimoto | Dec 2003 | B2 |
| 6671376 | Koto et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6671388 | Op De Beeck et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6674861 | Xu et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
| 6674876 | Hannigan et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
| 6675146 | Rhoads | Jan 2004 | B2 |
| 6678389 | Sun et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
| 6681029 | Rhoads | Jan 2004 | B1 |
| 6683958 | Petrovic | Jan 2004 | B2 |
| 6697944 | Jones et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
| 6700990 | Rhoads | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 6704431 | Ogawa et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 6707926 | Macy et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 6721439 | Levy et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
| 6728390 | Rhoads et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
| 6737957 | Petrovic et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
| 6738495 | Rhoads et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
| 6744906 | Rhoads et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
| 6748360 | Pitman et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
| 6751337 | Tewfik et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
| 6757405 | Muratani et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
| 6757908 | Vogel | Jun 2004 | B1 |
| 6760463 | Rhoads | Jul 2004 | B2 |
| 6768807 | Muratani | Jul 2004 | B1 |
| 6771797 | Ahmed | Aug 2004 | B2 |
| 6785399 | Fujihara | Aug 2004 | B2 |
| 6785401 | Walker et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
| 6785815 | Serret-Avila et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
| 6792542 | Lee et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
| 6798893 | Tanaka | Sep 2004 | B1 |
| 6801999 | Venkatesan et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
| 6810527 | Conrad et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
| 6823455 | Macy et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
| 6829368 | Meyer et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
| 6829582 | Barsness | Dec 2004 | B1 |
| 6834344 | Aggarwal et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
| 6834345 | Bloom et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
| 6850555 | Barclay | Feb 2005 | B1 |
| 6850626 | Rhoads et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
| 6856693 | Miller | Feb 2005 | B2 |
| 6871180 | Neuhauser et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
| 6880082 | Ohta | Apr 2005 | B2 |
| 6888943 | Lam et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
| 6891958 | Kirovski et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
| 6912010 | Baker et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
| 6912294 | Wang et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
| 6912315 | Wong et al. | Jun 2005 | B1 |
| 6915002 | Gustafson | Jul 2005 | B2 |
| 6915422 | Nakamura | Jul 2005 | B1 |
| 6915481 | Tewfik et al. | Jul 2005 | B1 |
| 6928233 | Walker et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
| 6931536 | Hollar | Aug 2005 | B2 |
| 6944313 | Donescu | Sep 2005 | B1 |
| 6944771 | Epstein | Sep 2005 | B2 |
| 6947571 | Rhoads et al. | Sep 2005 | B1 |
| 6947893 | Iwaki et al. | Sep 2005 | B1 |
| 6952774 | Kirovski et al. | Oct 2005 | B1 |
| 6954541 | Fan et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
| 6961854 | Serret-Avila et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
| 6973195 | Matsui | Dec 2005 | B1 |
| 6993154 | Brunk | Jan 2006 | B2 |
| 6996249 | Miller et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
| 7007166 | Moskowitz et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
| 7020304 | Alattar et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
| 7024018 | Petrovic | Apr 2006 | B2 |
| 7043049 | Kuzma | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7043536 | Philyaw et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
| 7043638 | McGrath et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7046808 | Metois et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
| 7054461 | Zeller et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7054462 | Rhoads et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7058809 | White et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7058815 | Morin | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7068809 | Stach | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7072492 | Ogawa et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
| 7103678 | Asai et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
| 7107452 | Serret-Avila et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
| 7111169 | Ripley et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
| 7113613 | Echizen et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
| 7123718 | Moskowitz et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
| 7142691 | Levy | Nov 2006 | B2 |
| 7162642 | Schumann et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7164778 | Nakamura et al. | Jan 2007 | B1 |
| 7167560 | Yu | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7167599 | Diehl | Jan 2007 | B1 |
| 7171020 | Rhoads et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7177429 | Moskowitz et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
| 7197368 | Kirovski et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
| 7206649 | Kirovski et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
| 7224819 | Levy et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
| 7231061 | Bradley | Jun 2007 | B2 |
| 7289643 | Brunk et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
| 7298865 | Lubin et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
| 7319759 | Peinado et al. | Jan 2008 | B1 |
| 7321666 | Kunisa | Jan 2008 | B2 |
| 7334247 | Finseth et al. | Feb 2008 | B1 |
| 7336802 | Kunisa | Feb 2008 | B2 |
| 7346514 | Herre et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
| 7369677 | Petrovic et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
| 7369678 | Rhoads | May 2008 | B2 |
| 7389421 | Kirovski et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
| 7409073 | Moskowitz et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
| 7430670 | Horning et al. | Sep 2008 | B1 |
| 7450727 | Griesinger | Nov 2008 | B2 |
| 7454019 | Williams | Nov 2008 | B2 |
| 7562392 | Rhoads et al. | Jul 2009 | B1 |
| 7581103 | Home et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
| 7587601 | Levy et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
| 7616776 | Petrovic et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
| 7617509 | Brunheroto et al. | Nov 2009 | B1 |
| 7630497 | Lotspiech et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
| 7644282 | Petrovic et al. | Jan 2010 | B2 |
| 7660991 | Nakamura et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
| 7664332 | Wong et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
| 7693297 | Zhang et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
| 7698570 | Schumann et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
| 7756272 | Kocher et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
| 7788684 | Petrovic et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
| 7788693 | Robbins | Aug 2010 | B2 |
| 7797637 | Marcjan | Sep 2010 | B2 |
| 7818763 | Sie et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
| 7840006 | Ogawa et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
| 7979881 | Wong et al. | Jul 2011 | B1 |
| 7983922 | Neusinger et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
| 7986806 | Rhoads | Jul 2011 | B2 |
| 7991995 | Rabin et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
| 8005258 | Petrovic et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
| 8015410 | Pelly et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
| 8055013 | Levy et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8059815 | Lofgren et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8059858 | Brundage et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8106744 | Petrovic et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
| 8106745 | Petrovic et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
| 8138930 | Heath | Mar 2012 | B1 |
| 8151113 | Rhoads | Apr 2012 | B2 |
| 8155463 | Wong et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
| 8181262 | Cooper et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
| 8189861 | Rucklidge | May 2012 | B1 |
| 8194803 | Baum et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
| 8249992 | Harkness et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
| 8259938 | Petrovic et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
| 8301893 | Brundage | Oct 2012 | B2 |
| 8315835 | Tian et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
| 8346532 | Chakra et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 8346567 | Petrovic et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 8451086 | Petrovic et al. | May 2013 | B2 |
| 8467717 | Croy et al. | Jun 2013 | B2 |
| 8479225 | Covell et al. | Jul 2013 | B2 |
| 8538066 | Petrovic et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
| 8588459 | Bloom et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
| 8589969 | Falcon | Nov 2013 | B2 |
| 8681978 | Petriovic et al. | Mar 2014 | B2 |
| 8791789 | Petrovic et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
| 20010001159 | Ford | May 2001 | A1 |
| 20010021926 | Schneck et al. | Sep 2001 | A1 |
| 20010022786 | King et al. | Sep 2001 | A1 |
| 20010025341 | Marshall | Sep 2001 | A1 |
| 20010044899 | Levy | Nov 2001 | A1 |
| 20010051996 | Cooper et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
| 20010054146 | Carro et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
| 20020007403 | Echizen et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
| 20020010684 | Moskowitz | Jan 2002 | A1 |
| 20020012443 | Rhoads et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
| 20020019769 | Barritz et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
| 20020033844 | Levy et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
| 20020044659 | Ohta | Apr 2002 | A1 |
| 20020052885 | Levy | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020053026 | Hashimoto | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020054089 | Nicholas et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020068987 | Hars | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020078356 | Ezaki et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020080964 | Stone et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020080976 | Schreer | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020082731 | Pitman et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020095577 | Nakamura et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020097873 | Petrovic | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020120849 | McKinley et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020120854 | LeVine et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020126842 | Hollar | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020126872 | Brunk et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020138734 | David et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020154144 | Lofgren et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020168082 | Razdan | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020168087 | Petrovic | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020178368 | Yin et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020181706 | Matsumura et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20020199106 | Hayashi | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20030009671 | Yacobi et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030012098 | Sako et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030012403 | Rhoads et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030016825 | Jones | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030021439 | Lubin et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030021441 | Levy et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030028796 | Roberts et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030031317 | Epstein | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030032033 | Anglin et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030033321 | Schrempp et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030037075 | Hannigan et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030051143 | Razdan et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030053655 | Barone et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030056103 | Levy et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030056213 | McFaddin et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030061489 | Pelly et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030063570 | Katayama et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030063747 | Petrovic | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030070075 | Deguillaume et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030072468 | Brunk et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030076955 | Alve et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030078891 | Capitant | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030081780 | Kim | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030081809 | Fridrich et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030112974 | Levy | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030112997 | Ahmed | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030115504 | Holliman et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030131350 | Peiffer et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030152225 | Kunisa | Aug 2003 | A1 |
| 20030174862 | Rhoads et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
| 20030177359 | Bradley | Sep 2003 | A1 |
| 20030179901 | Tian et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
| 20030185417 | Alattar et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030187679 | Odgers et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030188166 | Pelly et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030190054 | Troyansky et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030190055 | Kalker et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030191941 | Terada et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030200438 | Kirovski et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030223584 | Bradley et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20040005076 | Hosaka et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040008864 | Watson et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040009763 | Stone et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040010692 | Watson | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040015400 | Whymark | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040025023 | Yamada et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040025176 | Franklin et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040028255 | Miller | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040042635 | Epstein et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040042636 | Oh | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040073916 | Petrovic et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040078575 | Morten et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040088556 | Weirauch | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040091111 | Levy et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040093202 | Fischer et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040093523 | Matsuzaki et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040098593 | Muratani | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040101160 | Kunisa | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040103293 | Ryan | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040111740 | Seok et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040120544 | Eguchi et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040133794 | Kocher et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040136531 | Asano et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040151316 | Petrovic | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040169581 | Petrovic et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040174996 | Tewfik et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040202324 | Yamaguchi et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040204943 | Kirovski et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040216157 | Shain et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040250078 | Stach et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20040258274 | Brundage et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20040260930 | Malik et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050008190 | Levy et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050010779 | Kobayashi et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050013462 | Rhoads | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050025332 | Seroussi | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050050332 | Serret-Avila et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050063027 | Durst et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050071283 | Randle et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050071669 | Medvinsky et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050120220 | Oostveen et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050144632 | Mears et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050154891 | Skipper | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050177861 | Ma et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050196051 | Wong et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050202781 | Steelberg et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050242568 | Long et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050251683 | Levy et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050254649 | Demos | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050267928 | Anderson et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20060005029 | Petrovic et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060015927 | Antonellis et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060056653 | Kunisa | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060062426 | Levy et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060075424 | Talstra et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060104477 | Isogai et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060133644 | Wells et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060156009 | Shin et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060190403 | Lin et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060218604 | Riedl et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060227968 | Chen et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060239501 | Petrovic et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20070003103 | Lemma et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070005500 | Steeves et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070033146 | Hollar | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070039018 | Saslow et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070064545 | Carson et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070100483 | Kentish et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070110237 | Tehranchi et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070143617 | Farber et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070150418 | Ben-Menahem et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070168673 | Van Der Veen et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070177761 | Levy | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070192261 | Kelkar et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070208711 | Rhoads et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070214049 | Postrel | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070223708 | Villemoes et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20080002854 | Tehranchi et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080016360 | Rodriguez et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080031463 | Davis | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080209219 | Rhein | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080219643 | Le Buhan et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080228733 | Davis et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080250240 | Celik et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080273861 | Yang et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20080281448 | Uhrig et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20080298632 | Reed | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20080301304 | Chitsaz et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20080310629 | Van Der Veen et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20080310673 | Petrovic et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20080313741 | Alve et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20090031134 | Levy | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090033617 | Lindberg et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090100492 | Hicks, III et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090136082 | Zandifar et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
| 20090158318 | Levy | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090172405 | Shiomi et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090175594 | Ann et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090177674 | Yoshida | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090208008 | Lubin | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090262932 | Petrovic | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090268942 | Price | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090319639 | Gao et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20090326961 | Petrovic et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20100011217 | Tachibana et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100023489 | Miyata et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100034513 | Nakano et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20100069151 | Suchocki | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100111355 | Petrovic et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100115267 | Guo et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100121608 | Tian et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100146286 | Petrovic et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100159425 | Hamlin | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100162352 | Haga et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100214307 | Lee et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100226525 | Levy et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100228632 | Rodriguez | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100228857 | Petrovic et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100287579 | Petrovic et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
| 20100287609 | Gonzalez et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
| 20100332723 | Lin et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20110016172 | Shah | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110068898 | Petrovic et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110091066 | Alattar | Apr 2011 | A1 |
| 20110103444 | Baum et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
| 20110123063 | Delp et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
| 20110173210 | Ahn et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
| 20110185179 | Swaminathan et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
| 20110194727 | Guo et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
| 20110202687 | Glitsch et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
| 20110202844 | Davidson et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
| 20110209191 | Shah | Aug 2011 | A1 |
| 20110909191 | Shah | Aug 2011 | |
| 20110214044 | Davis et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110214143 | Rits et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110216936 | Reed et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110219229 | Cholas et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110225427 | Wood et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110235908 | Ke et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110255690 | Kocher et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110261667 | Ren et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110286625 | Petrovic et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
| 20110293090 | Ayaki et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20110311056 | Winograd | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20110320627 | Landow et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20120017091 | Petrovic et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120023595 | Speare et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120026393 | Petrovic et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
| 20120072729 | Winograd et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120072730 | Winograd et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120072731 | Winograd et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120084870 | Petrovic | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120102304 | Brave | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120122429 | Wood et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120129547 | Andrews, III et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120130719 | Petrovic et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120203556 | Villette et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120203734 | Spivack et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120216236 | Robinson et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120265735 | McMillan et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
| 20120272012 | Aronovich et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
| 20120272327 | Shin et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
| 20120300975 | Chalamala et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120300977 | Petrovic et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120304206 | Roberts et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120308071 | Ramsdell et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| 20130007462 | Petrovic et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20130011006 | Petrovic et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20130031579 | Klappert | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20130060837 | Chakraborty et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
| 20130073065 | Chen et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
| 20130108101 | Petrovic et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130114847 | Petrovic et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130114848 | Petrovic et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130117570 | Petrovic et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130117571 | Petrovic et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130129303 | Lee et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130132727 | Petrovic | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130142382 | Petrovic et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130151855 | Petrovic et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130151856 | Petrovic et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130152210 | Petrovic et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130283402 | Petrovic | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130339029 | Petrovic et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20140029786 | Winograd | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140067950 | Winograd | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140071342 | Winograd et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140074855 | Zhao et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140075465 | Petrovic et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140075466 | Zhao | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140075469 | Zhao | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140229963 | Petrovic et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140237628 | Petrovic | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140267907 | Downes et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140270337 | Zhao et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140270338 | Zhao et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140279296 | Petrovic et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140279549 | Petrovic et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140325550 | Winograd et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140325673 | Petrovic | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140355817 | Wong et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
| 20140376723 | Petrovic | Dec 2014 | A1 |
| 20150016228 | Petrovic et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
| 20150016663 | Tehranchi et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
| 20150036873 | Petrovic et al. | Feb 2015 | A1 |
| 20150121534 | Zhao et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 2276638 | Jan 2000 | CA |
| 1447269 | Oct 2003 | CN |
| 1556987 | Dec 2004 | CN |
| 101001354 | Jul 2007 | CN |
| 282734 | Sep 1988 | EP |
| 372601 | Jun 1990 | EP |
| 581317 | Feb 1994 | EP |
| 1137250 | Sep 2001 | EP |
| 2166725 | Mar 2010 | EP |
| 2605485 | Jun 2013 | EP |
| 2653964 | Oct 2013 | EP |
| 2782337 | Sep 2014 | EP |
| 2260246 | Apr 1993 | GB |
| 2292506 | Feb 1996 | GB |
| 2358313 | Jul 2001 | GB |
| 2363027 | Dec 2001 | GB |
| 10-150548 | Jun 1998 | JP |
| 11-086435 | Mar 1999 | JP |
| 11-284516 | Oct 1999 | JP |
| 11-346302 | Dec 1999 | JP |
| 2000-069273 | Mar 2000 | JP |
| 2000083159 | Mar 2000 | JP |
| 2000-174628 | Jun 2000 | JP |
| 2000163870 | Jun 2000 | JP |
| 2000216981 | Aug 2000 | JP |
| 2001022366 | Jan 2001 | JP |
| 2001-119555 | Apr 2001 | JP |
| 2001175270 | Jun 2001 | JP |
| 2001-188549 | Jul 2001 | JP |
| 2001-216763 | Aug 2001 | JP |
| 2001-218006 | Aug 2001 | JP |
| 2001245132 | Sep 2001 | JP |
| 2001257865 | Sep 2001 | JP |
| 2001-312570 | Nov 2001 | JP |
| 2001-527660 | Dec 2001 | JP |
| 2001339700 | Dec 2001 | JP |
| 2002-010057 | Jan 2002 | JP |
| 2002-024095 | Jan 2002 | JP |
| 2002-027223 | Jan 2002 | JP |
| 2002-091465 | Mar 2002 | JP |
| 2002091712 | Mar 2002 | JP |
| 2002100116 | Apr 2002 | JP |
| 2002125205 | Apr 2002 | JP |
| 2002135557 | May 2002 | JP |
| 2002-165191 | Jun 2002 | JP |
| 2002176614 | Jun 2002 | JP |
| 2002-519916 | Jul 2002 | JP |
| 2002-232693 | Aug 2002 | JP |
| 2002232412 | Aug 2002 | JP |
| 2002319924 | Oct 2002 | JP |
| 2002354232 | Dec 2002 | JP |
| 2003-008873 | Jan 2003 | JP |
| 2003-039770 | Feb 2003 | JP |
| 2003-091927 | Mar 2003 | JP |
| 2003134461 | May 2003 | JP |
| 2003-230095 | Aug 2003 | JP |
| 2003-244419 | Aug 2003 | JP |
| 2003-283802 | Oct 2003 | JP |
| 2003316556 | Nov 2003 | JP |
| 2003348324 | Dec 2003 | JP |
| 2004-023786 | Jan 2004 | JP |
| 2004070606 | Mar 2004 | JP |
| 2004-163855 | Jun 2004 | JP |
| 2004173237 | Jun 2004 | JP |
| 2004-193843 | Jul 2004 | JP |
| 2004194233 | Jul 2004 | JP |
| 2004-328747 | Nov 2004 | JP |
| 2005051733 | Feb 2005 | JP |
| 2005-094107 | Apr 2005 | JP |
| 2005525600 | Aug 2005 | JP |
| 20080539669 | Nov 2008 | JP |
| 20100272920 | Dec 2010 | JP |
| 5283732 | Jul 2013 | JP |
| 1020080087047 | Sep 2008 | KR |
| 20100009384 | Jan 2010 | KR |
| 1020120128149 | Nov 2012 | KR |
| 94-10771 | May 1994 | WO |
| 95-14289 | May 1995 | WO |
| 97-09797 | Mar 1997 | WO |
| 97-33391 | Sep 1997 | WO |
| 98-53565 | Nov 1998 | WO |
| 99-03340 | Jan 1999 | WO |
| 99-39344 | May 1999 | WO |
| 99-45706 | Oct 1999 | WO |
| 99-62022 | Dec 1999 | WO |
| 00-00969 | Jan 2000 | WO |
| 00-13136 | Mar 2000 | WO |
| 00-56059 | Sep 2000 | WO |
| 01-54035 | Jul 2001 | WO |
| 0150665 | Jul 2001 | WO |
| 01-55889 | Aug 2001 | WO |
| 0197128 | Dec 2001 | WO |
| 0213138 | Feb 2002 | WO |
| 0219589 | Mar 2002 | WO |
| 0223883 | Mar 2002 | WO |
| 0249363 | Jun 2002 | WO |
| 02095727 | Nov 2002 | WO |
| 2003052598 | Jun 2003 | WO |
| 03102947 | Dec 2003 | WO |
| 2005017827 | Feb 2005 | WO |
| 2005-027501 | Mar 2005 | WO |
| 2005038778 | Apr 2005 | WO |
| 2006051043 | May 2006 | WO |
| 2006116394 | Nov 2006 | WO |
| 2009031082 | Mar 2009 | WO |
| 2010073236 | Jul 2010 | WO |
| 2010135687 | Nov 2010 | WO |
| 2011116309 | Sep 2011 | WO |
| 2013067439 | May 2013 | WO |
| 2013090462 | Jun 2013 | WO |
| 2013090466 | Jun 2013 | WO |
| 2013090467 | Jun 2013 | WO |
| 2013163921 | Nov 2013 | WO |
| 2014144101 | Sep 2014 | WO |
| 2014153199 | Sep 2014 | WO |
| 2014160324 | Oct 2014 | WO |
| 2015013419 | Jan 2015 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| Wang, Honggang. “Communication-resource-aware adaptive watermarking for multimedia authentication in wireless multimedia sensor networks.” The Journal of Supercomputing 64, No. 3 (Jun. 1, 2013): 883-897. |
| Yeung, M. M., et al., “An invisible watermarking technique for image verification,” Image Processing, International Conference Proceedings, 2:680-683, Oct. 26-29, 1997. |
| Zhao, J., “A WWW service to embed and prove digital copyright watermarks,” Proc. European Conf. on Multimedia Applications, Services and Techniques (ECMAST96), May 1996 (15 pages). |
| Zhao, J., “Applying digital watermarking techniques to online multimedia commerce,” Proc. Int. Conf. on Imaging Science, Systems and Applications (CISSA'97), Jun./Jul. 1997 (7 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Sep. 26, 2008 for International Application No. PCT/US2007/016812, filed Jul. 25, 2007 (6 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Mar. 18, 2013 for International Application No. PCT/US2012/063431, filed Nov. 2, 2012 (10 pages). |
| Jacobsmeyer, J., et al., “Introduction to error-control coding,” Pericle Communications Company, 2004 (16 pages). |
| Kalker, T., et al., “A security risk for publicly available watermark detectors,” Proc. Benelux Info. Theory Symp., Veldhoven, The Netherlands, May 1998 (7 pages). |
| Kalker, T., et al., “System issues in digital image and video watermarking for copy protection,” Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Multimedia Computing and Systems, pp. 562-567, Jun. 1999. |
| Kang, X., et al., “A DWT-DFT composite watermarking scheme robust to both affine transform and JPEG; compression,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 8(13):776-786 Aug. 2003. |
| Kim, T.Y., et al., “An asymmetric watermarking system with many embedding watermarks corresponding to one detection watermark,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 3(11):375-377, Mar. 2004. |
| Kirovski, D., et al., “Multimedia content screening using a dual watermarking and fingerprinting system,” Proceedings of the tenth ACM international conference, pp. 372-381, 2002. |
| Kirovski, D., et al., “Randomizing the replacement attack,” ICASSP, pp. 381-384, 2004. |
| Kirovski, D., et al., “Robust spread-spectrum audio watermarking,” IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 3:1345-1348, 2001. |
| Kirovski, D., et al., “Multimedia content; screening using a dual watermarking and fingerprinting system,” Multimedia '02 Proceedings of the tenth ACM international conference on Multimedia, 2002 (11 pages). |
| Kocher, P., et al., “Self-Protecting Digital Content: A Technical Report from the CRI Content Security Research Initiative,” Cryptography Research, Inc. (CRI), 2002-2003 (14 pages). |
| Kutter, M., et al., “The watermark copy attack,” Proc. of the SPIE: Security and Watermarking of Multimedia Content II, 3971:1-10, Jan. 2000. |
| Kuznetsov, A.V., et al., “An error correcting scheme for defective memory,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 6(4):712-718, Nov. 1978 (7 pages). |
| Lacy, J., et al., “Intellectual property protection systems and digital watermarking,” Proceedings: Information Hiding, Second International Workshop, Portland, Oregon, pp. 158-168, 1998. |
| Lin, E.T., et al., “Detection of image alterations using semi-fragile watermarks,” Proceedings of the SPIE International Conference on Security and Watermarking of Multimedia Contents II, Jan. 2000 (12 pages). |
| Lin, P.L., et al., “Robust transparent image watermarking system with spatial mechanisms,” The Journal of Systems and Software, 50:107-116, Feb. 2000. |
| Lotspeich, J., “The Advanced Access Content System's Use of Digital Watermarking,” MCPS '06, Oct. 28, 2006, pp. 19-21. |
| Lu, C.S., et al., “Oblivious cocktail watermarking by sparse code shrinkage: A regional-and global-based scheme,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 4(2):209-224, Dec. 2000. |
| Maehara, F., et al., “A proposal of multimedial home education terminal system based on flash-squeak OS,” Technical report of the institute of image information and television engineers, 28(43):Jul. 21-24, 2004. |
| Mason, A. J., et al., “User requirements for watermarking in broadcast applications,” IEEE Conference Publication, International Broadcasting Convention (BC 2000), Amsterdam, Sep. 8-12, 2000 (7 pages). |
| Mintzer, F., et al., “If one watermark is good, are more better?,” Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, ICASSP, 4:2067-2069, Mar. 1999. |
| Mobasseri, B.G., et al. “Content authentication and tamper detection in digital video,” Image Processing Proceedings, International Conference, 1:458-461, 2000. |
| Moulin, P., et al., “Detection-theoretic analysis of desynchronization attacks in watermarking, ” Technical Report MSR-TR-2002-24, Microsoft Corporation, Mar. 2002. |
| Muranoi, R., et al., “Video retrieval method using shotID for copyright protection systems,” Proc. SPIE Multimedia Storage and Archiving Systems III, 3527:245-252, Nov. 1998. |
| Nikolaidis, N., et al., “Watermark detection: benchmarking perspectives,” 2002 IEEE Conference on Multimedia and Expo, 2002 (4 pages). |
| Office Action dated Jul. 21, 2011 for Japanese Patent Application No. 2008-508985 (6 pages). |
| Office Action dated Mar. 16, 2012 for Japanese Patent Application No. 2008-508985 (8 pages). |
| Office Action dated Mar. 18, 2011 for European Patent Application No. 03774648.4 (6 pages). |
| Office Action dated May 8, 2012 for Japanese Patent Application No. 2009-522802 (4 pages). |
| Office Action dated Nov. 26, 2012 for Japanese Patent Application No. 2011-114667 (8 pages). |
| Office Action dated May 1, 2013 for Japanese Patent Application No. 2011-114667 (6 pages). |
| Office Action dated Nov. 28, 2012 for Japanese Patent Application No. 2011-114666 (8 pages). |
| Park, J.H., et al., “Robust and fragile watermarking techniques for documents using bidirectional diagonal profiles,” Information and Communications Security: Third International Conference, Xian, China, Nov. 2001, pp. 483-494. |
| Perez-Gonzalez, F., et al., “Approaching the capacity limit in image watermarking a perspective on coding techniques for data hiding applications,” Signal Processing, 6(81):1215-1238 Jun. 2001. |
| Petitcolas, F., et al., “The blind pattern matching attack on watermark systems,” IEEE Trans. Signal Processing, Apr. 2003 (4 pages). |
| Petitcolas, F.A.P., et al., “Attacks on copyright marking systems,” Second Workshop on Information Hiding, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Portland, Oregon, pp. 218-238, Apr. 1998. |
| Philips Research Liquid Audio Fraunhofer Institute, “Digital Audio Screening Technology for Phased Rollout,” Version 1.00, May 1999 (38 pages). |
| Pytlak, J.,“Anti-piracy coding,” URL: http://www.tele.com/pipermail/tig/2003-November/003842.html; Nov. 2003 (2 pages). |
| RSA Laboratories, “Frequently asked questions about today's cryptography,” Version 4.1, May 2000 (37 pages). |
| Schneier, B., “Applied cryptography, second edition: protocols, algorithms and source code in C,” Oct. 1995 (10 pages). |
| Seok, J., et al., “A novel audio watermarking algorithm for copyright protection of digital audio,” ETRI Journal, 24 (3):181-189, Jun. 2002. |
| Shih, F.Y., et al., “Combinational, image watermarking in the spatial and frequency domains,” Pattern Recognition, 36:696-975, May 2002. |
| Solanki, K., et al., “Robust image-adaptive data hiding: modeling, source coding and channel coding”, 41st Allerton Conference on Communications, Control and Computing, Oct. 2003 (10 pages). |
| Steinebach, M., et al., “StirMark benchmark: audio watermarking attacks,” International Conference on Information Technology: Coding and Computing (ITCC 2001), Las Vegas, Nevada, Apr. 2001 (6 pages). |
| Tanaka, K., et al., “Secret transmission method of character data in motion picture communication,” SPIE Visual Communications and Image Processing '91, 1605:646-649, 1991. |
| Tsai, M.J., et al., “Wavelet packet and adaptive spatial transformation of watermark for digital image authentication,” IEEE Image Processing, 2000 International Conference, 1:450-453, 2000 (4 pages). |
| Verance Corporation, “Confirmedia,” PowerPoint presentation made to National Association of Broadcasters; Apr. 24, 2001 (40 pages). |
| Wolfgang, R., et al., “Perceptual watermarks for digital images and video,” Proceedings of the IEEE, 87 (7):1108-1126, Jul. 1999. |
| Xu, C., et al., “Applications of digital watermarking technology in audio signals,” Journal of Audio Eng. Soc., 10 (47):805-812, Oct. 1999. |
| “Advanced Access Content System (AACS), Pre-recorded Video Book,” Revision 0.951, Sep. 2009 (86 pages). |
| “Content Protection—Self Protecting Digital Content,” http://www.cryptography.com/technology/spdc/index.html, May 2010 (1 page). |
| “Microsoft response to CfP for technology solutions to screen digital audio content for LCM acceptance,” Microsoft Corporation, May 23, 1999 (9 pages). |
| “Task AC122—copy protection for distribution services,” http://acad.bg/WISE/english/rd/partners/acts/areal/ac122-t.html, Jul. 1, 1997 (2 pages). |
| Adelsbach, A., et al., “Proving Ownership of Digital Content,” Proc. 3rd Int. Workshop on Information Hiding, 1768:117-133, Sep. 1999. |
| Aggarwal, A., et al., “Multi-Layer Grid Embeddings,” Foundations of Computer Science, 26th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 85:186-196, Oct. 1985. |
| Aris Technologies, Inc. “Audio Watermarking System to Screen Digital Audio Content for LCM Acceptance,” May 1999 (17 pages). |
| Bangaleea, R., et al., “Performance improvement of spread spectrum spatial-domain watermarking scheme through diversity and attack characterisation,” IEEE Africon, pp. 293-298, 2002. |
| Barreto, P.S.L.M., et al. “Toward Secure Public-Key Blockwise Fragile Authentication Watermarking,” IEEE Proceedings Vision, Image, and Signal Processing, 149(2):57-62, Apr. 2002. |
| Boney, L., et al., “Digital Watermarks for Audio Signals,” Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Univ. of Minnesota, Mar. 1996 (4 pages). |
| Cappellini, V., et al. “Robust Frame-based Watermarking for Digital Video,” Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications, Sep. 2001 (5 pages). |
| Caronni, G., “Assuring Ownership Rights for Digital Images,” Proceedings of reliable IT systems VIS 95, Vieweg Publishing Company, Germany, 1995 (10 pages). |
| Chen, B. et al., “Quantization index modulation: a class of provably good methods for digital watermarking and information embedding,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 47(4):1423-1443 May 2001. |
| Chou, J., et al., “A Robust Blind Watermarking Scheme based on Distributed Source Coding Principles,” Multimedia! 2000 Proceedings of the eighth ACM international conference on multimedia, Los Angeles, California, 2000 (8 pages). |
| Chou, J., et al., “A Robust Optimization Solution to the Data Hiding Problem using Distributed Source Coding Principles,” Pro. SPIE, 3971, San Jose, California, Jan. 2000 (10 pages). |
| Cinea, Inc., “Forensic watermarking deterring video piracy,” 2004, (9 pages). [http://www.cinea.com/whitepapers/forensic—watermarking.pdf]. |
| Costa, M., “Writing on Dirty Paper,” IEEE Trans. on Info. Theory, 29(3):439-441, May 1983. |
| Cox, I. J., et al., “Some general methods for tampering with watermarks,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 16(4): 587-593, May 1998. |
| Coxford, A., et al., “Advanced Mathematics: A Preparation for Calculus, Second Edition,” Harcourt Brace Jovanovish, Inc., 1978 (14 pages). |
| Das, et al., “Distributed Priority Queues on Hybercube Architectures,” IEEE, 1996, pp. 620-627. |
| Davidson, M.F., “Music File Filter,” Sony Music, New York, May 23, 1999 (2 pages). |
| Digimarc Corporation, “Digimarc Watermarking Guide,” 1999 (22 pages). |
| Dittmann, J., “Combining digital watermarks and collusion secure fingerprints for customer copy monitoring,” Proc. IEEE Seminar on Secure Images and Image Authentication, Apr. 2000 (6 pages). |
| Dittmann, J., et al., “Combining digital watermarks and collusion secure fingerprints for digital images,” Proc. SPIE 3657:171-182, Jan. 1999 (12 pages). |
| Epp, L.W., et al., “Generalized scattering matrices for unit cell characterization of grid amplifiers and device de-embedding,” IEEE, 2:1288-1291, Jun. 1995. |
| European Search Report dated Apr. 12, 2012 for European Patent Application No. 07836262.1 filed Jul. 25, 2007 (12 pages). |
| European Search Report dated Jul. 3, 2012 for European Patent Application No. 12150742.0, filed Oct. 7, 2003 (5 pages). |
| European Search Report dated Nov. 10, 2010 for European Patent Application No. 03774648.4, filed Oct. 7, 2003 (5 pages). |
| European Search Report dated Oct. 24, 2012 for European Patent Application No. 06758537.2, filed Apr. 21, 2006 (6 pages). |
| European Search Report dated Oct. 31, 2012 for European Patent Application No. 06758577.8, filed Apr. 25, 2006 (6 pages). |
| European Search Report dated Nov. 8, 2012 for European Patent Application No. 06785709.4, filed Jun. 27, 2006 (5 pages). |
| Furon, T., et al., “An asymmetric watermarking method,” IEEE Trans. Signal Processing, 4(51):981-995, Apr. 2003. |
| Guth H J. et al., “Error-and collusion-secure fingerprinting for digital data,” Proc. 3rd Int. Workshop on Information Hiding, LNCS 1768:134-145, Sep./Oct. 1999. |
| Hartung, F., et al., “Digital watermarking of MPEG-2 coded video in the bitstream domain,” Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 4:2621-2624, Apr. 1997. |
| Hartung, F., et al., “Watermarking of MPEG-2 encoded video without decoding and re-coding,” Proc. SPIE Multimedia Computing and Networking 97, 3020:264-274, Feb. 1997. |
| Hartung, F., et al., “Watermarking of uncompressed and compressed video,” Signal Processing, 3(66):283-301, May 1998. |
| Heegard, C., et al., “On the capacity of computer memory with defects,” IEEE Trans. Info. Theory, 5(IT-29):731-739, Sep. 1983. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Apr. 8, 2013 for International Application No. PCT/US2012/069306, filed Dec. 12, 2012 (12 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Mar. 25, 2013 for International Application No. PCT/US2012/069302, filed Dec. 12, 2012 (22 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Apr. 24, 2012 for International Application No. PCT/US2011/051857, filed Sep. 15, 2011 (9 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Aug. 14, 1998 for International Application No. PCT/US1998/009587, filed May 12, 1998 (3 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Aug. 22, 2007 for International Application No. PCT/US2006/031267, filed Aug. 9, 2006 (2 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Feb. 14, 2002 for International Application No. PCT/US2001/026505, filed Aug. 27, 2001 (2 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Feb. 28, 2013 for International Application No. PCT/US2012/066138, filed Nov. 20, 2012 (11 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Jan. 4, 2008 for International Application No. PCT/US2006/015615, filed Apr. 25, 2006 (5 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Mar. 14, 2013 for International Application No. PCT/US2012/069308, filed Dec. 12, 2012 (10 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Mar. 28, 2012 for International Application No. PCT/US2011/051855, filed Sep. 15, 2011 (8 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated May 13, 2008 for International Application No. PCT/US2006/025090, filed Jun. 27, 2006 (2 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated May 19, 2004 for International Application No. PCT/US2003/031816, filed Apr. 29, 2004 (3 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated May 29, 2008 for International Application No. PCT/US2006/015410, filed Apr. 21, 2006 (6 pages). |
| “ATSC-3.0 Automatic Content Recognition Watermarking Solutions,” ATSC Technology Group, Advanced Television Systems Committee, Inc., Jan. 2014 (6 pages). |
| “Civolution's 2nd screen synchronisation solution wins CSI product of the year 2011 award at IBC,” IBC Press Release, Hall 2—Stand C30, Sep. 2011 (2 pages). |
| “Red Bee and Civolution develop companion app for FX UK,” http://www.digitaltveurope.net/19981/red-bee-and-civolution-develop-companion-app-for-fx-uk, Jan. 2012 (2 pages). |
| Baudry, S., et al., “Estimation of geometric distortions in digital watermarking,” IEEE International Conference on Watermarking, (2):885-888, Sep. 2002. |
| European Search Report dated Oct. 14, 2014 for European Patent Application No. 14173053.1, filed Oct. 7, 2003 (5 pages). |
| European Search Report dated Apr. 23, 2015 for European Patent Application No. 12846172.0, filed Nov. 2, 2012 (8 pages). |
| European Search Report dated May 28, 2015 for European Patent Application No. 11825990.2, filed Sep. 15, 2011 (6 pages). |
| European Search Report dated May 29, 2015 for European Patent Application No. 11825992.8 filed Sep. 15, 2011 (6 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated May 28, 2015 for International Application No. PCT/US2015/020282, filed Mar. 12, 2015 (7 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated May 1, 2015 for International Application No. PCT/US2014/052973, filed Aug. 27, 2014 (16 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Sep. 12, 2014 for International Application No. PCT/US2014/035474, filed Apr. 25, 2014 (17 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Sep. 15, 2014 for International Application No. PCT/US2014/035539, filed Apr. 25, 2014 (16 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Aug. 25, 2014 for International Application No. PCT/US2014/029564, filed Mar. 14, 2014 (10 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Aug. 25, 2013 for International Application No. PCT/US2014/026322, filed Aug. 25, 2014 (12 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Aug. 8, 2014 for International Application No. PCT/US2014/028372, filed Mar. 14, 2014 (18 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Nov. 11, 2014 for International Application No. PCT/US2014/047840, filed Jul. 23, 2014 (15 pages). |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Feb. 25, 2015 for International Application No. PCT/US2014/041166, filed Jun. 5, 2014 (10 pages). |
| Miller, M.L. et al. “Computing the probability of false watermark detection,” Published in the Proceedings of the Workshop on Information Hiding, Dresden, Germany, Sep. 29-Oct. 1, 1999. |
| Miller, M.L. et al. “Informed embedding: exploiting image and detector information during watermark insertion,” IEEE Conference Publication, Image Processing, (3)1-4, Sep. 2000. |
| Office Action dated Dec. 29, 2014 for Chinese Patent Application No. 201180051690.8 (14 pages). |
| Office Action dated Jan. 20, 2014 for Japanese Patent Application No. 2013-036990 (6 pages). |
| Office Action dated Oct. 30, 2014 for Korean Patent Application No. 10-2013-7009718 (8 pages). |
| Office Action dated Mar. 30, 2015 for Korean Patent Application No. 10-2014-7015220 (19 pages). |
| Office Action dated Feb. 3, 2015 for Chinese Patent Application No. 201180051678.7 (27 pages). |
| Richenaker, G., “Next generation NP solutions and ENUM,” https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/treg/Events/Seminars/2011/Moldova/pdf/Session8—NextGeneration—Solutions.pdf, Neustar Inc., May 2011 (37 pages). |
| Spangler, T., “Social Science,” http://www.multichannel.com/content/social-science, Sep. 2011 (5 pages). |
| Wang, X, et al., “Robust correlation of encrypted attack traffic through stepping stones by manipulation of interpacket delays,” Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on computer communications security, Oct. 27-30, 2003, Washington D.C., USA. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20150030200 A1 | Jan 2015 | US |