US 8,589,503 B2Grant
Prioritizing network traffic
Issue Date:2013-11-19
•18 Claims
•10 Drawing Sheets
Abstract
Methods and systems for operation upon one or more data processors for prioritizing transmission of communications associated with an entity based upon reputation information associated with the entity.
Metadata
Assignee
- McAfee, Inc.
Inventors
- Dmitri Alperovitch
- Sven Krasser
- Paula Greve
- Phyllis Adele Schneck
- Jonathan Torrez
Application Information
Application Number:US 12/417,459
Filing Date:2009-04-02
Priority Date:2008-04-04
Art Unit:2457
Classifications
IPC:
G06F15/16
Patent Drawings (10 sheets)
Description
Cross-Reference to Related Applications
[0001] This application claims priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) to U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/042,547, titled “Prioritizing Network Traffic” filed Apr. 4, 2008, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Technical Field
[0002] This document relates generally to systems and methods for processing communications and more particularly to systems and methods for prioritizing network traffic.
Background
[0003] Internet connectivity has become central to many daily activities. For example, millions of people worldwide use the internet for various bill pay and banking functionalities. Countless more people use the internet for shopping, entertainment, to obtain news, and for myriad other purposes. Moreover, many businesses rely on the internet for communicating with suppliers and customers, as well as providing a resource library for their employees.
[0004] However, a large amount of traffic that is communicated by the internet is relatively unimportant or not time critical. For example, electronic mail is typically not time sensitive. Thus, whether electronic mail is delivered instantaneously or delayed by an hour often does not make a difference. Such unimportant communication traffic has the potential to delay and/or disrupt more important traffic.
Summary
[0005] In one aspect, systems, methods, apparatuses and computer program products are provided. In one implementation, reputation based prioritization of network traffic is provided to routers for use in routing network traffic. Methods for prioritizing network traffic can include: receiving communications, the communications comprising data being communicated from a sending device to a destination device through a network; parsing the communications based upon one or more transmission protocol associated with the communications, the parsing being operable to identify one or more originating entities and one or more destination entities; determining whether the network is in a bandwidth limited situation; if the network is in a bandwidth limited situation, identifying a reputation associated with the one or more originating entities and the one or more destination entities; applying a prioritization policy to the communications, the prioritization policy being operable to prioritize transmissions based upon the reputation associated with the one or more originating entities and the reputation associated with the one or more destination entities; and transmitting the communications based upon the applied prioritization policy. Other embodiments of this disclosure include corresponding systems, apparatus, and computer program products.
[0006] The details of one or more implementations of the subject matter described in this specification are set forth in the accompanying drawings and the description below. Other features and advantages of the subject matter will become apparent from the description, the drawings, and the claims.
Description of Drawings
[0007] FIG. 1A is a block diagram illustrating an example network topology including reputation based routing systems.
[0008] FIG. 1B is a block diagram illustrating an example network topology for distribution of reputation information.
[0009] FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating an example reputation based routing system receiving reputation information from a reputation system.
[0010] FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a reputation based routing system including a local cache of reputation information.
[0011] FIG. 4 is a block diagram illustrating another example of a reputation based routing system including a delay module.
[0012] FIG. 5 is a block diagram illustrating another example of a reputation based routing system including a classification module.
[0013] FIG. 6 is a block diagram illustrating another example of a reputation based routing system including classification retrieval.
[0014] FIG. 7 is a flow diagram illustrating an example reputation based prioritization of network traffic.
[0015] FIG. 8 is a flow diagram illustrating an example prioritization of network traffic based upon reputation and classification information.
Detailed Description
[0016] Reputation based prioritization of network traffic can include providing reputation based policy to routing devices (e.g., routers). Routers typically inspect packets to extract destinations associated with the data packets and retrieve routing information associated with the destinations before communicating the data packets to the recipient (or to another router). During the retrieval of routing information, reputation information associated with an originating entity and/or a destination entity can be retrieved. The reputation information can provide an indication of whether the traffic associated with the data packets is non-reputable (e.g., malicious, unsolicited, etc.). The reputation based prioritization system can then prioritize the traffic based upon reputation information associated with the device.
[0017] FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an example network topology including reputation based routing systems 100a-c. The reputation based routing systems 100a-c can be modules of network 110. The reputation based routing systems can communicate with a reputation system 120, which can be operable to distribute reputation information from a reputation store 130. The reputation based routing systems 100a-c can provide backbone communications facilities for the network 110 to communicate data packets between entities 140a-o.
[0018] In various implementations, the entities 140a-o can include any of internet protocol addresses, domain names, universal resource locators, devices (e.g., as identified by a media access control (MAC) address), or user identity, company identity, among many others. Thus, many different entities can be associated with a single device. For example, a device can perform as a web server for many different URLs and/or domain names, or the device might have several different users resulting in several different user identities. Moreover, the device might be dynamically addressed resulting in the use of several different IP addresses. Thus, in various implementations, the manifestations of a device can be tracked separately from each other (or in combination).
[0019] The entities 140a-o can access the network 110 in a variety of different manners. In some examples, the entities 140a-o can be any type of local area networks (LANs) or wide area networks (WANs). In other examples, the networks can be networks operated by a company, or a school or university to enable workers/students to access the internet for research, communications, acquisition, etc. In still further examples, some entities 140c, 140e, 140h, 140k, 140o can be internet service providers providing internet service to still more entities (not shown).
[0020] The reputation based routing systems 100a-c can include route processing information facilitating routing a communications from one entity to another. For example, Entity A 140a can communicate with Entity I 140i by sending data packets to an associated router (e.g., reputation based routing system 100a). The reputation based routing system 100a can parse the data packets to identify a destination associated with the data packets. The reputation based routing system can identify a second router (e.g., reputation based routing system 100c) based upon routing tables associated with the reputation based routing system 100a. The reputation based routing system 100a can communicate the data packets to the other reputation based routing system 100c based on the reputation associated with the originating entity or destination entity associated with the data packets.
[0021] The reputation of the originating and/or receiving entities can be retrieved from a reputation system 120. In some implementations the reputation system 120 can include a reputation server that can serve reputation information to other reputation based devices (e.g., reputation based routing systems 100a-c). In other implementations, the reputation system 120 can include a distributed reputation system. For example, a distributed reputation system can include a global reputation server and a number of local reputation devices. In various implementations, the reputation server can periodically push reputation updates to other reputation based devices (e.g., reputation based routing systems 100a-c).
[0022] In some implementations, communication of updated reputation information can be relayed from one reputation based routing system (e.g., reputation based routing system 100a) to another reputation based routing system (e.g., reputation based routing system 100c) where there is no direct connection between the reputation system 120 and the reputation based routing system 100c. In such implementations, the updated reputation information can be communicated securely to the reputation based routing system 100c to prevent tampering. In other implementations, updated reputation information can include credentials authenticating the reputation update. For example, the reputation system 120 can generate a CRC checksum of the reputation update which must match a CRC checksum of the reputation update generated by the receiving reputation device before a reputation update is applied.
[0023] In some implementations, the reputation of various entities that are tracked can be derived based upon activities in which those entities take part. For example, if an entity consistently originates spam communications, the entity can be classified with a reputation as a spammer. Alternatively, if the entity consistently originates reputable communications, the entity can be classified with a reputation as a reputable sender.
[0024] In additional implementations, the reputation of the originating and/or receiving devices can be derived based upon relationships derived between the entities. The relationship can be derived based upon any of communications between the entities, traffic patterns (e.g., similar increases and/or decreases in traffic volume) associated with the entities, similar communications originating from the entities independently, sporadic communication patterns, or use of commonly spoofed address (e.g., IP, MAC, URL, domain, etc.), among many others. For example, a first entity that has an indeterminate classification might be identified as communicating consistently with a second entity that has a reputation for originating botnet traffic (e.g., a network of malware infected computers that surreptitiously originate, e.g., spam traffic). Thus, while the reputation of the first entity might be indeterminate, a portion of the reputation of the second entity can be applied to the first entity based upon a relationship identified between the first and second entities. Alternatively, if a first entity with an indeterminate reputation consistently communicates with a second entity having a reputation for originating/receiving reputable traffic the reputation of the first entity can be biased towards classification as a reputable entity.
[0025] In some implementations, the reputation for certain activities can be time or location based. For example, an entity associated with a business might consistently show activity between a period of 6:00 AM and 7:00 PM. Thus, if the entity shows uncommon activity outside of that time period the reputation of the entity might be classified differently during business hours than it is overnight. Similarly, an entity might show consistent origination of traffic from a given geolocation (e.g., based upon a registered location or a first router that receives communications from the entity). Communications received from a different geolocation that claim to be associated with the same entity can be treated as suspect and/or the reputation of an entity can be identified as non-reputable based upon the geolocation associated with the entity. In other implementations, the fact that an entity is being used for non-reputable activities can lead to the determination that the entity is not being properly secured and/or policed by an owner. In such implementations, the reputation of the entity can be biased towards a non-reputable category, even if an owner of the entity acts reputably with regard to the entity.
[0026] In further implementations, the reputation can be based upon multiple entity attributes. For example, a domain might have a reputation for phishing when the domain is associated with a particular IP address. Thus, the correlation of the domain and the IP address can be assigned a reputation for spoofing while the domain separate from the IP address might retain a reputation for reputable traffic. In other implementations, the fact that an entity is being used for non-reputable (e.g., phishing) activities can lead to the determination that an otherwise reputable entity (e.g., the reputable domain) is not being properly secured and/or policed. In such implementations, the reputation of the domain can be biased towards a non-reputable category based upon such activity, even if an otherwise reputable entity takes no part in the non-reputable activity exhibited by someone disguising themselves with the entity.
[0027] A complete description of the reputation derivation processes can be found, for example, in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/142,943, entitled “Systems and Methods for Classification of Messaging Entities,” filed on Jun. 2, 2005, which application is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety. Other descriptions of reputation systems can be found in: U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/626,462, entitled “Correlation and Analysis of Entity Attributes,” filed on Jan. 24, 2007, which application is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/626,470, entitled “Web Reputation Scoring,” filed on Jan. 24, 2007, which application is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/626,479, entitled “Aggregation of Reputation Data,” filed on Jan. 24, 2007, which application is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/626,603, entitled “Multi-Dimensional Reputation Scoring,” filed on Jan. 24, 2007, which application is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety; and, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/020,370, entitled “Reputation based Message Processing,” filed on Jan. 25, 2008, which application is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety. The reputation retrieval module 220, in some examples, can retrieve reputation information provided by a TrustedSource™ database, available from Secure Computing Corporation of San Jose, Calif.
[0028] In some implementations, the analysis of the activities in which an entity participates can take place separately from the reputation based routing system(s) 100a-c. Such separate analysis of the activities associated with the entities can help to facilitate efficient routing of communications by the routing systems 100a-c. The reputation information derived thereby can be pushed to the reputation based device (e.g., including reputation based routing systems 100a-c).
[0029] In other implementations, analysis of the activities in which an entity participates can be provided by the reputation based routing systems 100a-c, or can be distributed to other reputation devices based upon processor utilization by a respective reputation based routing system 100a-c.
[0030] FIG. 1B is a block diagram illustrating an example network topology for distribution of reputation information. The network topology of FIG. 1B illustrates a larger network of reputation based routing systems 100d-n than depicted in FIG. 1A , along with a distributed reputation system 120a-d. In the example of FIG. 1B , the reputation based routing systems 100d-n provide communications paths for network entities (not shown). In some examples, communication between two entities might include several hops (e.g., handling by multiple routers between an originating entity and a destination entity).
[0031] In some implementations, when more than one hop is defined in the path of a communication from originating entity to destination entity, a reputation determination might occur only once between source and destination. Reputation based routing systems 100d-n can notify subsequent reputation based routing systems 100d-n that policy has already been applied to the data packet. In such implementations, a secure notification can be used to communicate the previous application of policy to other reputation based routing systems 100d-n in a path from originating entity to destination entity. In further implementations, notification of the application of policy to a stream can include a temporal limitation. For example, if a new policy or updated reputation is received after a notification that policy has already been applied to the communication, the application of policy to the communication stream is no longer current. Thus, the new policy and/or reputation can be used to determine whether the data is to be communicated to a next hop or destination entity or the data is to be dropped entirely or merely delayed. Such implementations as described above can facilitate the efficient handling of data such that a particular communication is not queried multiple times in the path from originating entity to destination entity.
[0032] In other implementations, when more than one hop is defined in the path of a communication from originating entity to destination entity, each reputation based routing system 100d-n in the path from originating entity to destination entity can retrieve reputation information associated with the originating and/or destination entities and apply policy to the communication. Such implementations can reduce the amount of analysis the reputation based routing systems 100d-n perform on the data to determine whether to apply policy and avoid problems with fraudulent generation of notification of previous application of reputation based policy to the data.
[0033] In some implementations, a distributed reputation system 120a-d can be used to distribute reputation information to reputation based routing systems 100d-n. A distributed reputation system 120a-d can reduce propagation delays in applying reputation updates to reputation based routing systems 100d-n, especially where it eliminates multiple hops between the reputation system 120a-d and the reputation based routing systems 100d-e.
[0034] Local reputation servers 120b-d can be placed throughout the network to provide reputation updates to reputation based routing systems 100d-n. As described previously, the reputation updates can be securely communicated to the reputation based routing systems 100d-n, or provided with a CRC checksum to be independently verified prior to application of the reputation update by the reputation based routing system 100d-n. In those instances when a potentially fraudulent reputation update is received, a notification of the failed reputation update can be communicated to a central reputation server (e.g., global reputation server 120a). In some implementations, the global reputation server 120a can provide a fresh reputation updated to a notifying reputation based routing system 100d-n (e.g., securely, along with credentials, etc.).
[0035] In some implementations, a global reputation server 120a can also provide certain reputation based routing systems (e.g., reputation based routing systems 100a, 100h, 100k) with reputation updates. In some examples, the reputation updates provided by the global reputation system can be provided to nearby reputation based routing systems 100a, 100h, 100k. In other examples, the global reputation server 120a can provide reputation updates to logically important (e.g., high volume) reputation based routing devices.
[0036] The global reputation server 120a can aggregate reputation information received from local reputation servers 120b-d. Aggregation of reputation information is described in detail in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/626,479, entitled “Aggregation of Reputation Data,” filed on Jan. 24, 2107, incorporated by reference above.
[0037] Distributed reputation systems 120a-d can provide for more frequent updates of reputation information. Moreover, because local reputation servers 120b-d update reputation information based upon data observed by the local reputation server 120b-d, the update is likely to be more relevant to the particular data being routed by the reputation based routing system 100d-n. For example, a local reputation server 120b is more likely to see data from entities that communicate often over the reputation based routing systems 100e, 100f, 100i. This is because the reputation based routing systems 100e, 100f, 100i to whom the local reputation server 120b provides reputation updates also provide the local reputation server 120b with data being communicated across the network. Moreover, the local reputation servers 120b can be distributed in a similar logical space or nearby physical space to the reputation based routing systems 100e, 100f, 100i that they serve.
[0038] FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating an example reputation based routing system 200 receiving reputation information from a reputation system 120. The reputation based routing system 200 can receive incoming communications from an originating entity 140a, e.g., directly from the originating entity 140a or indirectly through another reputation based routing system or through another device (e.g., gateway, internet service provider, legacy router, etc.).
[0039] The reputation based routing system 200 can include route processing 210, reputation retrieval 220 and a prioritization module 230. The route processing module 210 can parse incoming data to identify an originating entity associated with the data and a destination entity associated with the data. In some implementations, the route processing module 210 can provide basic functionalities traditionally associated with a router device. The route processing module 210 can also receive a prioritization signal from the prioritization module 230. The prioritization signal can facilitate the prioritization of routing of certain data packets (e.g., those with specified reputation(s)) over other data packets (e.g., those data packets with other reputation(s)).
[0040] In some implementations, the reputation retrieval module 220 can retrieve reputation information from reputation system 120. As discussed above, the reputation system 120, in various implementations, can be provided centrally from a single server or distributed across numerous servers. Reputation can be derived based upon attributes (e.g., observed actions, relationships, etc.) associated with an entity. Actions that occur in recognizable patterns can be abstracted into behaviors. A specified set of behaviors can be associated with reputation classifications. The attributes, behaviors and classifications associated with the various entities can be stored in a reputation store 130 by the reputation system 120. The reputation system 120 can retrieve the reputation information associated with a specified entity from the reputation store 130. In some implementations, the reputation system 120 can provide the reputation information to a reputation retrieval module 220 upon receiving a retrieval request from the reputation retrieval module 220.
[0041] The reputation retrieval module 220, upon receiving reputation information associate with the originating entity and/or receiving entity can forward the reputation information to a prioritization module 230. The prioritization module 230 can prioritize the transmission of data by the route processing module 210 through a prioritization signal provided to the route processing module 210.
[0042] In some implementations, prioritization of the data can be based upon a prioritization policy provided by an administrator 240. The prioritization policy provided by the administrator 240 can specify that data originating from specified classes of reputations are to be transmitted, for example, with low priority (e.g., after other traffic), dropped, quarantined for further testing or information gathering, etc., and/or that specified classes of reputations are to be transmitted, for example, with high priority (e.g., before other traffic). In some implementations, if a network is bandwidth limited, a connection for traffic with low priority can be dropped in order to provide a connection for traffic with high priority.
[0043] In some implementations, a special entity can be generated that can be recognized by the reputation based routing system and can route traffic associated with the special entity prior to routing other traffic. For example, in states of emergency internet traffic often drastically increases in volume leading to a bandwidth limited situation. Such a rise in traffic can often lead to slower throughput for all traffic. Alternatively, when a network is being clogged by a distributed denial of service attack it can be difficult for an administrator to get the bandwidth necessary in such a bandwidth limited situation to shut the attack down remotely. In such examples, it can often be difficult for those individuals with the means to solve the problem to adequately communicate the solution (e.g., a system administrator might have difficulty remotely communicating with a server/firewall to shut down a distributed denial of service attack because network routers are jammed with denial of service requests). Thus, as described above, a special entity can be generated to provide unimpeded access to the network by those special entities, whereby other users will be dropped in order to provide any requested bandwidth to the special entity.
[0044] In some implementations, the route processing module 210 can operate in parallel to the reputation processing, thereby increasing the efficiency of the reputation lookup and prioritization decision.
[0045] FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a reputation based routing system 300 including a local cache 310 of reputation information. In the example of FIG. 3 , a reputation based routing system 200 can use a local reputation store 310 to locally cache reputation information from the reputation system 120. Such caching with a local reputation store 310 can reduce delays associated with retrieving reputation information from remotely located reputation systems, and provide reputation information locally to reputation based routing systems.
[0046] Routers often have limited resources for additional processing. Thus, the resources within the router can be conserved by limiting the amount of reputation information locally cached at the local reputation store 310 by the reputation based routing system 300. In some implementations, the local cache can include a least recently used (LRU) algorithm operable to push a least recently used reputation information entry out of the cache upon receipt of a new reputation information entry. In some examples, entries that are retrieved from the LRU stack can be re-entered at the top of the stack, thereby preserving their existence in the stack until the stack has been cycled without receipt of data specifying the reputation information associated with the entry. Thus, data which is most commonly requested by the retrieval module remains in the local cache the longest, while data which is not regularly requested by the retrieval module is not stored in the local cache 310. Other stacking algorithms, e.g., including least frequently used stacking algorithms, can be implemented.
[0047] In other implementations, the local reputation store 310 can comprise at least a partial mirror of the reputation data store 130. In those implementations in which only a portion of the reputation data store 130 is mirrored at the local reputation store 310 it can be difficult to accurately determine which portion of the reputation data store 130 should be mirrored by the local reputation store 310.
[0048] In some implementations, the reputation system 120 can use a Bloom filter to provide a probabilistic determination of the particular reputation information which is to be included in the local reputation store 310. Use of a Bloom filter on the reputation dataset can reduce the size of the dataset stored on the reputation based routing system 300 and reduce access time for retrieving the data.
[0049] In some implementations, the reputation system 120 can identify the particular reputation information which is most likely to be used by the reputation based routing system 300. The reputation system 120 can also allow the reputation retrieval module 210 to query the reputation system 120 if a communication associated with an entity not in the local reputation store 310 is received. For example, if reputation information for entities A, C, E, F, and G are stored in the local reputation store 310, and the reputation based routing system receives data originating from entity D, the reputation retrieval module can query the reputation system 120 for reputation information associated with entity D.
[0050] In some implementations, updates to the local reputation store 310 can be performed periodically. Reputation information migrates over time based upon additional data collected by the reputation system 120. Thus, the reputation information stored by the local reputation store 310 can become stale. In some implementations, the reputation system 120 can keep track of the reputation information stored by the local reputation store 310 and can compare the version of the reputation information stored by the local reputation store 310 to the current version and provide a reputation update that includes only reputation information that has changed since a previous update.
[0051] In some implementations, the reputation system 120 can push reputation updates to the local reputation store 310, e.g., during periods of forecasted low activity. The forecasted low activity can be based upon historical usage of the network. In other implementations, the reputation based routing system 300 can signal periods of low activity to the reputation system 120. The reputation system 120 can handle such signals as requests to apply a reputation update. Other reputation update procedures can be used.
[0052] In additional implementations, the reputation system 120 can receive feedback from the reputation retrieval module (e.g., reputation retrieval module 210a). The feedback can indicate how often reputation for various entities is being retrieved. Such feedback can be used to modify the reputation system to provide reputation updates for the most often requested entities. In some implementations, the feedback can be generalized by physical proximity (e.g., region, location, etc.) of the reputation based routing systems. For example, if feedback from a reputation based routing system indicates that entity A is being requested often, the reputation system can provide the reputation for entity A to all reputation based routing systems in the same region or location. In other implementations, the feedback can be generalized by logical proximity of the reputation based routing systems. For example, a reputation based routing system serving a certain type of traffic might identify that a reputation for entity B is being requested frequently. The reputation based routing system can provide a reputation update including entity B to all other reputation based routing systems routing the same type of traffic. In additional implementations, the reputation system can receive information from external sources indicating a rise in activity by specified entities. In still further implementations, the reputation system can analyze the feedback to identify a temporal component/dependency to the activity of certain entities. The reputation system can provide reputation updates that account for the temporal component to the activity of certain entities by providing reputation updates that include those entities only between certain hours of the day, based upon the temporal component associated with the entities' activities.
[0053] FIG. 4 is a block diagram illustrating another example of a reputation based routing system 400 including a delay module 410. In some implementations, the reputation based routing system 400 can include a delay module 410 to delay routing of communications based upon a reputation of one or more entities 140a, 140b associated with the communications. The routing of communications can be delayed based upon application of a prioritization policy associated with a reputation based routing system 400 to the reputation of an entity 140a, 140b associated with the communications.
[0054] In some implementations the prioritization policy can delay routing of communications based on an indeterminate reputation associated with one or more of the entities 140a, 140b associated with the communications. When a reputation is identified as indeterminate by the reputation retrieval module 210a, a prioritization module 220a can apply a prioritization policy to the packet based upon the reputation. In some examples, the prioritization policy can specify that a packet with an indeterminate reputation is sent to a delay module 410.
[0055] The delay module 410 can hold the packet for a period of time before resubmitting the packet to the reputation retrieval module 210a. In some implementations, routing of the packet can be delayed by the prioritization module 220a in conjunction with the delay module 410 until a reputation is determinate. In other implementations, communications can be dropped after a predefined period or number of cycles during which the reputation of one or more entities 140a, 140b associated with the communications remain indeterminate. In still further implementations, communications that are associated with an entity 140a, 140b with a reputation that remains indeterminate after a predefined period of time or number of cycles is communicated to a destination entity 140b.
[0056] FIG. 5 is a block diagram illustrating another example of a reputation based routing system 500 including a classification module 510. In some implementations, the reputation based routing system 500 can include route processing 200, reputation retrieval 520, a classification module 510 and a prioritization module 530. The route processing module 200 can receive incoming communications from an originating entity 140a or some other entity (e.g., including another reputation based route processing system of any of the implementations described herein). The route processing module can extract originating entity 140a and destination entity 140b information associated with the incoming communications and process a route associated with the communications based upon the application of a routing table to the destination entity 140b.
[0057] The route processing module can also forward the packet and identification of the extracted originating entity 140a and destination entity 140b information to a reputation retrieval module 520. The reputation retrieval module 520 can identify reputation information associated with the originating entity 140a and or destination entity 140b.
[0058] In some implementations, if the reputation of an entity 140a, 140b associated with the communications is indeterminate, the reputation retrieval module can notify the prioritization module 530 and send the communications to a classification module 510. The classification module can perform a variety of tests on the communications to identify a class associated with the communication. In various implementations, the classification module can extract features from the communications to derive feature vectors and compare the feature vectors to respective linear classifiers that use those feature vectors to determine whether the feature vector derived from the communications shares features that define the communication as being classified with a classification associated with the respective feature vector. Examples of feature vector classification are described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/020,253, entitled “Granular Support Vector Machine with Random Granularity,” filed on Jan. 25, 2008, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety. Additional classification processes and system are described in detail by: U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/173,941, entitled “Message Profiling Systems and Methods,” filed on Jul. 1, 2005, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety; and, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/383,347, entitled “Content-based Policy Compliance Systems and Methods, filed on May 15, 2006, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety. The classification module 510, in some implementations, can query by a TrustedSource™ database, available from Secure Computing Corporation of San Jose, Calif., which can operate to provide classification definitions against which communications can be compared for classification. Other machine learning classification systems (including other Support Vector Machine (SVM) or Random Forest processes) can be used to classify messages.
[0059] The classification module 510 can communicate the derived classification to the prioritization module 530. The prioritization module 530 can apply a prioritization policy received from an administrator 230 to the reputation and/or classification associated with the communications to identify a priority to provide to the communications. In further implementations, the prioritization policy can instruct the prioritization module 530 to drop communications based upon the classification associated with the communications and/or the reputation of one or more entities associated with the communications.
[0060] The prioritization module 530 can communicate the prioritization of the communications to the route processing module 200. The route processing module 200 can process the communications based on the received prioritization.
[0061] FIG. 6 is a block diagram illustrating another example of a reputation based routing system 600 including classification retrieval 610. In some implementations, the reputation based routing system 500 can include route processing 200, reputation retrieval 210, classification retrieval 610, a prioritization module 620 and an undelivered communications module 630. The route processing module 200 can receive incoming communications from an originating entity 140a or some other entity (e.g., including another reputation based route processing system of any of the implementations described herein). The route processing module can extract originating entity 140a and destination entity 140b information associated with the incoming communications and process a route associated with the communications based upon the application of a routing table to the destination entity 140b.
[0062] The route processing module can also forward the packet and identification of the extracted originating entity 140a and destination entity 140b information to a reputation retrieval module 210. The reputation retrieval module 210 can identify reputation information associated with the originating entity 140a and or destination entity 140b, for example, based upon retrieval of the reputation from a reputation system 120. In other examples, the retrieval of the reputation information can be based upon retrieval of reputation information from a local reputation store (e.g., local reputation store 310 of FIG. 3 ) providing at least a partial mirror of the reputation data store 130.
[0063] The prioritization module 530 can send the communications to the prioritization module 620 along with reputation information for one or more of the entities associated with the communication. The prioritization module 620 can apply a prioritization policy to the communication based upon the reputation information received from the reputation retrieval module 210.
[0064] In some implementations, application of the prioritization policy can determine that the communication(s) should be sent to a classification retrieval module 610. The classification retrieval module 610 can forward the communications to a classification system 640. The classification system 640 can perform a variety of tests on the communications to identify a class associated with the communication. In various implementations, the classification module can extract features from the communications to derive feature vectors and compare the feature vectors to respective linear classifiers that use those feature vectors to determine whether the feature vector derived from the communications shares features that define the communication as being classified with a classification associated with the respective feature vector. Other classification systems and processes can be used to classify messages.
[0065] The classification system 640 can return the identified classification associated with the communication(s) to the classification retrieval module 610. The classification retrieval module 610 can communicate the derived classification to the prioritization module 620. The prioritization module 620 can apply a prioritization policy received from an administrator 230 to the reputation and/or classification associated with the communications to identify a priority for the communications. In further implementations, the prioritization policy can instruct the prioritization module 620 to send the communications to an undelivered communications module 630.
[0066] The prioritization module 620 can communicate the prioritization of the communications to the route processing module 200. The route processing module 200 can process the communications based on the received prioritization.
[0067] FIG. 7 is a flow diagram illustrating an example reputation based prioritization of network traffic. At stage 700, communications can be received. The communications can be received, for example, by a route processing module (e.g., route processing 210 of FIG. 2 ). The communication can include one or more data packets, and each of the one or more data packets can identify a communication stream it belongs to as well as source and destination address for routing purposes.
[0068] In some implementations, the receipt of communications can cause a reputation based routing system to determine whether the routing system is in a bandwidth limited situation. In a bandwidth limited situation, the reputation based routing system can route the communications based upon reputation associated with the communications.
[0069] At stage 710, an originating entity and destination entity of the communications can be identified. The originating entity and destination entity can be identified, for example, by a route processing module (e.g., route processing 200 of FIG. 2 ). In various implementations, data packets associated with the communication can be parsed to identify an originating entity and a destination entity addresses from the data packet headers. The data packet headers can also identify a data stream to which the data packet belongs. In various implementations, the route processing module can use the originating entity and destination entity addresses to identify a routing of the data packets.
[0070] At stage 720, reputation of source entity and destination entity can be retrieved. The source entity and destination entity reputation can be retrieved, for example, by a reputation retrieval module (e.g., reputation retrieval 210 of FIG. 2 ) in conjunction with a local reputation store (e.g., local reputation store 310 of FIG. 3 ) and/or a reputation system (e.g., reputation system 120 of FIG. 2 ). The reputation can be derived remotely from a reputation based routing system using the reputation information. In various implementations, the derived reputation information can be pushed to the reputation based routing system by a reputation system or retrieved from the reputation system directly and locally cached. In those implementations where the reputation information is pushed to the reputation based routing system, a Bloom filter can be used to select the particular dataset of reputation information which is to be pushed to a local reputation store.
[0071] At stage 730 a prioritization policy can be applied. The prioritization policy can be applied, for example, by a prioritization module (e.g., prioritization module 230 of FIG. 2 ). In some implementations, the prioritization policy is applied to all communications. In such implementations, the prioritization policy can be based on identifying a bandwidth limited situation and based upon reputation of the entities associated with the communication. In other implementations, the prioritization policy can be applied to communications when route processing has determined that the network is in a bandwidth limited situation. In further implementations, the prioritization policy can be applied to communications when the communications exceed a threshold usage associated with the reputation based routing system.
[0072] At stage 740 routing of communication is be prioritized based on reputation. The routing of the communication can be prioritized, for example, by a prioritization module (e.g., prioritization module 230 of FIG. 2 ). In some implementations, the prioritization module can be provided with prioritization policy from an administrator (e.g., admin 240 of FIG. 2 ). The prioritization policy can define the handling of communications based upon the reputation of one or more of the entities associated with the communications.
[0073] FIG. 8 is a flow diagram illustrating an example prioritization of network traffic based upon reputation and classification information. At stage 800 network communications are received. The communications can be received, for example, by a route processing module (e.g., route processing 210 of FIG. 2 ). The communication can include one or more data packets, and each of the one or more data packets can identify a communication stream it belongs to as well as source and destination address for routing purposes. In some implementations, receipt of communications can cause a reputation based routing system to determine whether the route processing is in a bandwidth limited situation.
[0074] At stage 810, the network communications can be parsed to identify an originating entity and destination entity. The originating entity and destination entity can be parsed, for example, by a route processing module (e.g., route processing 200 of FIG. 2 ). In various implementations, data packets associated with the communication can be parsed to identify an originating entity and a destination entity addresses from the data packet headers. The data packet headers can also identify a data stream to which the data packet belongs. In various implementations, the route processing module can use the originating entity and destination entity addresses to identify a routing of the data packets.
[0075] At stage 820, reputation of source entity and destination entity can be retrieved. The source entity and destination entity reputation can be retrieved, for example, by a reputation retrieval module (e.g., reputation retrieval 210 of FIG. 2 ) in conjunction with a local reputation store (e.g., local reputation store 310 of FIG. 3 ) and/or a reputation system (e.g., reputation system 120 of FIG. 2 ). The reputation can be derived remotely from a reputation based routing system using the reputation information. In various implementations, the derived reputation information can be pushed to the reputation based routing system by a reputation system or retrieved from the reputation system directly and locally cached. In those implementations where the reputation information is pushed to the reputation based routing system, a Bloom filter can be used to select the particular dataset of reputation information which is to be pushed to a local reputation store.
[0076] At stage 830 it is determined whether the entities are reputable. The determination of whether the entities are reputable can be made, for example, by a prioritization module (e.g., prioritization module 230 of FIG. 2 ).
[0077] If the entities are reputable, a prioritization policy can be applied to the communications at stage 840. The prioritization policy can be applied, for example, by a prioritization module (e.g., prioritization module 230 of FIG. 2 ). In some implementations, the prioritization module can be provided with prioritization policy from an administrator (e.g., admin 240 of FIG. 2 ). The prioritization policy can define the handling of communications based upon the reputation of one or more of the entities associated with the communications.
[0078] At stage 850, the data packets can be routed based on priority. The routing of the communication can be routed, for example, by a route processing module (e.g., route processing 200 of FIG. 2 ). In some implementations, the route processing module can retrieve a routing table and identify routing based on the routing table. In further implementations, the route processing module can prioritize routing of communications with higher priority over those with lower priority. For example, if a communication with high priority is identified, a connection associated with a low priority communication can be dropped. In other examples, communications with lower priorities can be delayed until higher priority communications have been routed.
[0079] Returning to the reputable entity determination stage (830), if it is determined that the communication is associated with a non-reputable entity, classification of the communication can be retrieved at stage 860. Classification of communications can be retrieved, for example, by a classification retrieval module (e.g., classification retrieval module 610 of FIG. 6 ). In some implementations, the classification retrieval module can retrieve classification information based upon querying a classification system. In other implementations, the classification retrieval module can retrieve classification definitions (e.g., SVM linear classification vectors), derive feature vectors from the communication, and compare the feature vector to the linear classification vector to determine whether the communication belongs to a classification associated with the linear classification vector. Other classification methods can be used.
[0080] At stage 870 it is determined whether the communication is legitimate. The determination of whether the communication is legitimate can be made, for example, by a prioritization module (e.g., prioritization module 230 of FIG. 2 ).
[0081] If the communication is legitimate, a prioritization policy can be applied to the communications at stage 880. The prioritization policy can be applied, for example, by a prioritization module (e.g., prioritization module 230 of FIG. 2 ). In some implementations, the prioritization module can be provided with prioritization policy from an administrator (e.g., admin 240 of FIG. 2 ). The prioritization policy can define the handling of communications based upon the classification of the communication in lieu of the reputation of the entities associated with the communications.
[0082] At stage 850, the data packets can be routed based on priority. The routing of the communication can be routed, for example, by a route processing module (e.g., route processing 200 of FIG. 2 ). In some implementations, the route processing module can retrieve a routing table and identify routing based on the routing table. In further implementations, the route processing module can prioritize routing of communications with higher priority over those with lower priority. For example, if a communication with high priority is identified, a connection associated with a low priority communication can be dropped. In other examples, communications with lower priorities can be delayed until higher priority communications have been routed.
[0083] Returning to the legitimate communication determination stage (870), if the communication is determined not to be legitimate, the communication can be dropped, quarantined, delayed, etc. at stage 890. The communication can be dropped, quarantined, delayed, etc., for example, by an undelivered message module (e.g., undelivered message module 630 of FIG. 6 ). In some implementations, the particular handling (e.g., drop, quarantine, delay, etc.) can be specified by the prioritization policy applied to the communication. Other communication handling mechanisms can be specified based upon the prioritization policy.
[0084] Use of reputation in prioritization of network traffic as it relates to network routing is also disclosed in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/937,274, entitled “Prioritizing Network Traffic,” filed on Nov. 8, 2007, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
[0085] The systems and methods disclosed herein may use data signals conveyed using networks (e.g., local area network, wide area network, internet, etc.), fiber optic medium, carrier waves, wireless networks (e.g., wireless local area networks, wireless metropolitan area networks, cellular networks, etc.), etc. for communication with one or more data processing devices (e.g., mobile devices). The data signals can carry any or all of the data disclosed herein that is provided to or from a device.
[0086] The methods and systems described herein may be implemented on many different types of processing devices by program code comprising program instructions that are executable by one or more processors. The software program instructions may include source code, object code, machine code, or any other stored data that is operable to cause a processing system to perform methods described herein.
[0087] The systems and methods may be provided on many different types of computer-readable media including computer storage mechanisms (e.g., CD-ROM, diskette, RAM, flash memory, computer's hard drive, etc.) that contain instructions for use in execution by a processor to perform the methods' operations and implement the systems described herein.
[0088] The computer components, software modules, functions and data structures described herein may be connected directly or indirectly to each other in order to allow the flow of data needed for their operations. It is also noted that software instructions or a module can be implemented for example as a subroutine unit of code, or as a software function unit of code, or as an object (as in an object-oriented paradigm), or as an applet, or in a computer script language, or as another type of computer code or firmware. The software components and/or functionality may be located on a single device or distributed across multiple devices depending upon the situation at hand.
[0089] This written description sets forth the best mode of the invention and provides examples to describe the invention and to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. This written description does not limit the invention to the precise terms set forth. Thus, while the invention has been described in detail with reference to the examples set forth above, those of ordinary skill in the art may effect alterations, modifications and variations to the examples without departing from the scope of the invention.
[0090] As used in the description herein and throughout the claims that follow, the meaning of “a,” “an,” and “the” includes plural reference unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. Also, as used in the description herein and throughout the claims that follow, the meaning of “in” includes “in” and “on” unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. Finally, as used in the description herein and throughout the claims that follow, the meanings of “and” and “or” include both the conjunctive and disjunctive and may be used interchangeably unless the context clearly dictates otherwise.
[0091] Ranges may be expressed herein as from “about” one particular value, and/or to “about” another particular value. When such a range is expressed, another embodiment includes from the one particular value and/or to the other particular value. Similarly, when values are expressed as approximations, by use of the antecedent “about,” it will be understood that the particular value forms another embodiment. It will be further understood that the endpoints of each of the ranges are significant both in relation to the other endpoint, and independently of the other endpoint.
[0092] These and other implementations are within the scope of the following claims.
Claims
Certificate of Correction present
The claims shown below may not include correction changes. Use the corrected PDF for authoritative text.
What is claimed is:
1. A computer implemented network traffic prioritization method comprising:
receiving communications, the communications comprising data being communicated from a sending device to a destination device through a network;
parsing the communications based upon one or more transmission protocol associated with the communications, the parsing being operable to identify one or more originating entities and one or more destination entities;
identifying a reputation associated with at least one of the one or more originating entities and a reputation associated with at least one of the one or more destination entities, wherein the identification comprises:
requesting the reputation associated with the at least one of the one or more originating entities from a local reputation store, wherein in response to determining that the request for the reputation associated with the at least one of one or more originating entities from the local reputation store is unsuccessful, querying a reputation system for the reputation associated with the at least one of the one or more originating entities;
requesting the reputation associated with the at least one of the one or more destination entities from the local reputation store, wherein in response to determining that the request for the reputation associated with the at least one of the of the one or more destination entities from the local reputation store is unsuccessful, querying the reputation system for the reputation associated with the at least one of the one or more destination entities;
applying a prioritization policy to the communications, the prioritization policy being operable to prioritize transmissions based upon the reputation associated with the at least one of the one or more originating entities and the reputation associated with the at least one of the one or more destination entities; and
transmitting the communications based upon the applied prioritization policy.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein applying the prioritization policy comprises prioritizing communications associated with entities having a specified reputation.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the prioritization policy is operable to prioritize communications associated with reputable entities over communications associated with non-reputable entities.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the non-reputable entities comprise spamming entities, phishing entities, spyware entities or malware entities.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining whether the network is in a bandwidth limited situation; and
wherein identifying reputations and applying the prioritization policy to the communications is based upon a determination that the network is in a bandwidth limited situation.
6. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
managing a plurality of existing network connections, the plurality of connections being associated with assigned priorities;
receiving a new connection request;
determining that the new connection request cannot be processed because of a bandwidth limitation based on the plurality of existing network connections;
identifying reputations for entities associated with the new connection request, wherein the identification comprises:
requesting reputation information associated with at least one of the entities associated with the new connection request from a local reputation store, wherein in response to determining that the request for the reputation information from the local reputation store failed, querying a reputation system for the reputation information;
identifying a new connection priority for the new connection request based upon application of a prioritization policy to the identified reputations;
identifying an existing connection having a lowest assigned priority;
if the lowest assigned priority is lower than the new connection priority, dropping the existing connection having the lowest assigned priority; and
if a connection is dropped, connecting the new connection request.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein identifying reputations for entities associated with the new connection request comprises parsing the connection request to identify entities associated with the new connection request, the entities comprising one or more originating entities and one or more destination entities associated with the new connection request.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the lowest assigned reputation is one or more of a spamming reputation, a malware reputation, a spyware reputation, or a phishing reputation.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein connections associated with entities identified as non-reputable are disconnected in favor of new connections associated with entities identified as reputable.
10. A system, comprising:
a route processing module operable to receive communications from an originating entity and to route communications to a destination entity based on a prioritization associated with the communications;
a reputation retrieval module operable to request reputation information associated with the originating entity and the destination entity from a local reputation data store and, in response to determining that the request for the reputation information is unsuccessful, operable to retrieve the reputation information from an external reputation system; and
a prioritization module operable to receive a prioritization policy from an administrator and identify the prioritization of the communications based upon the prioritization policy, the prioritization policy specifying policy based upon identifying a bandwidth limited network situation and based upon the retrieved reputation information associated with the originating entity or the destination entity.
11. The system of claim 10, wherein the reputation retrieval module is operable to send a query to the external reputation system for retrieval of reputation information.
12. The system of claim 10, wherein the route processing module is operable to manage a plurality of existing network connections and to receive a new connection request, and the prioritization module is operable to determine whether the new connection request is associated with a high priority communication based upon reputation information associated with the new connection request, the prioritization module being operable to instruct the route processing module to drop any low priority connections from among the existing network connections and to connect the new connection request.
13. The system of claim 12, wherein the low priority connections comprise those connections associated with an entity having a reputation for spamming, phishing, spyware or malware.
14. A system comprising:
one or more processors; and
a computer-readable medium coupled to the one or more processors having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
managing a plurality of existing network connections, the plurality of connections being associated with assigned priorities;
receiving a new connection request;
determining that the new connection request cannot be processed because of a bandwidth limitation based on the plurality of existing network connections;
identifying reputations for entities associated with the new connection request, wherein the identification comprises:
requesting reputation information associated with at least one of the entities associated with the new connection request from a local reputation store, wherein in response to determining that the request for the reputation information from the local reputation store failed, querying a reputation system for the reputation information;
identifying a new connection priority for the new connection request based upon application of a prioritization policy to the identified reputations;
identifying an existing connection having a lowest assigned priority;
if the lowest assigned priority is lower than the new connection priority, dropping the existing connection having the lowest assigned priority; and
if a connection is dropped, connecting the new connection request.
15. At least one machine accessible storage medium having instructions stored thereon, the instructions when executed on a machine, cause the machine to:
manage a plurality of existing network connections, the plurality of connections being associated with assigned priorities;
receive a new connection request;
determine that the new connection request cannot be processed because of a bandwidth limitation based on the plurality of existing network connections;
identify reputations for entities associated with the new connection request, wherein the identification comprises:
requesting reputation information associated with at least one of the entities associated with the new connection request from a local reputation store, wherein in response to determining that the request for the reputation information from the local reputation store failed, querying a reputation system for the reputation information;
identify a new connection priority for the new connection request based upon application of a prioritization policy to the identified reputations;
identify an existing connection having a lowest assigned priority;
if the lowest assigned priority is lower than the new connection priority, drop the existing connection having the lowest assigned priority; and
if a connection is dropped, connect the new connection request.
16. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving from the reputation system the reputation associated with the one or more originating entities.
17. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving from the reputation system updated reputation information associated with the at least one of the one or more originating entities.
18. The method of claim 17, wherein the updated reputation information includes an updated reputation associated with the at least one of the one or more originating entities and credentials authenticating the updated reputation.
Patent Citations (771)
| Patent | Date | Inventor | Cited By |
|---|---|---|---|
| US4289930(A) | 1981-09-01 | Connolly et al. | Applicant |
| US4384325(A) | 1983-05-01 | Slechta et al. | Applicant |
| US4386416(A) | 1983-05-01 | Giltner et al. | Applicant |
| US4532588(A) | 1985-07-01 | Foster | Applicant |
| US4713780(A) | 1987-12-01 | Schultz et al. | Applicant |
| US4754428(A) | 1988-06-01 | Schultz et al. | Applicant |
| US4837798(A) | 1989-06-01 | Cohen et al. | Applicant |
| US4853961(A) | 1989-08-01 | Pastor | Applicant |
| US4864573(A) | 1989-09-01 | Horsten | Applicant |
| US4951196(A) | 1990-08-01 | Jackson | Applicant |
| US4975950(A) | 1990-12-01 | Lentz | Applicant |
| US4979210(A) | 1990-12-01 | Nagata et al. | Applicant |
| US5008814(A) | 1991-04-01 | Mathur | Applicant |
| US5020059(A) | 1991-05-01 | Gorin et al. | Applicant |
| US5051886(A) | 1991-09-01 | Kawaguchi et al. | Applicant |
| US5054096(A) | 1991-10-01 | Beizer | Applicant |
| US5105184(A) | 1992-04-01 | Pirani et al. | Applicant |
| US5119465(A) | 1992-06-01 | Jack et al. | Applicant |
| US5136690(A) | 1992-08-01 | Becker et al. | Applicant |
| US5144557(A) | 1992-09-01 | Wang | Applicant |
| US5144659(A) | 1992-09-01 | Jones | Applicant |
| US5144660(A) | 1992-09-01 | Rose | Applicant |
| US5167011(A) | 1992-11-01 | Priest | Applicant |
| US5210824(A) | 1993-05-01 | Putz et al. | Applicant |
| US5210825(A) | 1993-05-01 | Kavaler | Applicant |
| US5235642(A) | 1993-08-01 | Wobber et al. | Applicant |
| US5239466(A) | 1993-08-01 | Morgan et al. | Applicant |
| US5247661(A) | 1993-09-01 | Hager et al. | Applicant |
| US5276869(A) | 1994-01-01 | Forrest et al. | Applicant |
| US5278901(A) | 1994-01-01 | Shieh et al. | Applicant |
| US5283887(A) | 1994-02-01 | Zachery | Applicant |
| US5293250(A) | 1994-03-01 | Okumura et al. | Applicant |
| US5313521(A) | 1994-05-01 | Torii et al. | Applicant |
| US5319776(A) | 1994-06-01 | Hile et al. | Applicant |
| US5355472(A) | 1994-10-01 | Lewis | Applicant |
| US5367621(A) | 1994-11-01 | Cohen et al. | Applicant |
| US5377354(A) | 1994-12-01 | Scannell et al. | Applicant |
| US5379340(A) | 1995-01-01 | Overend et al. | Applicant |
| US5379374(A) | 1995-01-01 | Ishizaki et al. | Applicant |
| US5384848(A) | 1995-01-01 | Kikuchi | Applicant |
| US5404231(A) | 1995-04-01 | Bloomfield | Applicant |
| US5406557(A) | 1995-04-01 | Baudoin | Applicant |
| US5414833(A) | 1995-05-01 | Hershey et al. | Applicant |
| US5416842(A) | 1995-05-01 | Aziz | Applicant |
| US5418908(A) | 1995-05-01 | Keller et al. | Applicant |
| US5424724(A) | 1995-06-01 | Williams et al. | Applicant |
| US5479411(A) | 1995-12-01 | Klein | Applicant |
| US5481312(A) | 1996-01-01 | Cash et al. | Applicant |
| US5483466(A) | 1996-01-01 | Kawahara et al. | Applicant |
| US5485409(A) | 1996-01-01 | Gupta et al. | Applicant |
| US5495610(A) | 1996-02-01 | Shing et al. | Applicant |
| US5509074(A) | 1996-04-01 | Choudhury et al. | Applicant |
| US5511122(A) | 1996-04-01 | Atkinson | Applicant |
| US5513126(A) | 1996-04-01 | Harkins et al. | Applicant |
| US5513323(A) | 1996-04-01 | Williams et al. | Applicant |
| US5530852(A) | 1996-06-01 | Meske, Jr. et al. | Applicant |
| US5535276(A) | 1996-07-01 | Ganesan | Applicant |
| US5541993(A) | 1996-07-01 | Fan et al. | Applicant |
| US5544320(A) | 1996-08-01 | Ålrad | Applicant |
| US5550984(A) | 1996-08-01 | Gelb | Applicant |
| US5550994(A) | 1996-08-01 | Tashiro et al. | Applicant |
| US5557742(A) | 1996-09-01 | Smaha et al. | Applicant |
| US5572643(A) | 1996-11-01 | Judson | Applicant |
| US5577209(A) | 1996-11-01 | Boyle et al. | Applicant |
| US5586254(A) | 1996-12-01 | Kondo et al. | Applicant |
| US5602918(A) | 1997-02-01 | Chen et al. | Applicant |
| US5606668(A) | 1997-02-01 | Shwed | Applicant |
| US5608819(A) | 1997-03-01 | Ikeuchi | Applicant |
| US5608874(A) | 1997-03-01 | Ogawa et al. | Applicant |
| US5619648(A) | 1997-04-01 | Canale et al. | Applicant |
| US5621889(A) | 1997-04-01 | Lermuzeaux et al. | Applicant |
| US5632011(A) | 1997-05-01 | Landfield et al. | Applicant |
| US5638487(A) | 1997-06-01 | Chigier | Applicant |
| US5644404(A) | 1997-07-01 | Hashimoto et al. | Applicant |
| US5657461(A) | 1997-08-01 | Harkins et al. | Applicant |
| US5673322(A) | 1997-09-01 | Pepe et al. | Applicant |
| US5675507(A) | 1997-10-01 | Bobo, II | Applicant |
| US5675733(A) | 1997-10-01 | Williams | Applicant |
| US5677955(A) | 1997-10-01 | Doggett et al. | Applicant |
| US5694616(A) | 1997-12-01 | Johnson et al. | Applicant |
| US5696822(A) | 1997-12-01 | Nachenberg | Applicant |
| US5706442(A) | 1998-01-01 | Anderson et al. | Applicant |
| US5708780(A) | 1998-01-01 | Levergood et al. | Applicant |
| US5708826(A) | 1998-01-01 | Ikeda et al. | Applicant |
| US5710883(A) | 1998-01-01 | Hong et al. | Applicant |
| US5727156(A) | 1998-03-01 | Herr-Hoyman et al. | Applicant |
| US5740231(A) | 1998-04-01 | Cohn et al. | Applicant |
| US5742759(A) | 1998-04-01 | Nessett et al. | Applicant |
| US5742769(A) | 1998-04-01 | Lee et al. | Applicant |
| US5745574(A) | 1998-04-01 | Muftic | Applicant |
| US5751956(A) | 1998-05-01 | Kirsch | Applicant |
| US5758343(A) | 1998-05-01 | Vigil et al. | Applicant |
| US5764906(A) | 1998-06-01 | Edelstein et al. | Applicant |
| US5768528(A) | 1998-06-01 | Stumm | Applicant |
| US5768552(A) | 1998-06-01 | Jacoby | Applicant |
| US5771348(A) | 1998-06-01 | Kubatzki et al. | Applicant |
| US5778372(A) | 1998-07-01 | Cordell et al. | Applicant |
| US5781857(A) | 1998-07-01 | Hwang et al. | Applicant |
| US5781901(A) | 1998-07-01 | Kuzma | Applicant |
| US5790789(A) | 1998-08-01 | Suarez | Applicant |
| US5790790(A) | 1998-08-01 | Smith et al. | Applicant |
| US5790793(A) | 1998-08-01 | Higley | Applicant |
| US5793763(A) | 1998-08-01 | Mayes et al. | Applicant |
| US5793972(A) | 1998-08-01 | Shane | Applicant |
| US5796942(A) | 1998-08-01 | Esbensen | Applicant |
| US5796948(A) | 1998-08-01 | Cohen | Applicant |
| US5801700(A) | 1998-09-01 | Ferguson | Applicant |
| US5805719(A) | 1998-09-01 | Pare, Jr. et al. | Applicant |
| US5812398(A) | 1998-09-01 | Nielsen | Applicant |
| US5812776(A) | 1998-09-01 | Gifford | Applicant |
| US5822526(A) | 1998-10-01 | Waskiewicz | Applicant |
| US5822527(A) | 1998-10-01 | Post | Applicant |
| US5826013(A) | 1998-10-01 | Nachenberg | Applicant |
| US5826014(A) | 1998-10-01 | Coley et al. | Applicant |
| US5826022(A) | 1998-10-01 | Nielsen | Applicant |
| US5826029(A) | 1998-10-01 | Gore, Jr. et al. | Applicant |
| US5835087(A) | 1998-11-01 | Herz et al. | Applicant |
| US5845084(A) | 1998-12-01 | Cordell et al. | Applicant |
| US5850442(A) | 1998-12-01 | Muftic | Applicant |
| US5855020(A) | 1998-12-01 | Kirsch | Applicant |
| US5860068(A) | 1999-01-01 | Cook | Applicant |
| US5862325(A) | 1999-01-01 | Reed et al. | Applicant |
| US5864852(A) | 1999-01-01 | Luotonen | Applicant |
| US5878230(A) | 1999-03-01 | Weber et al. | Applicant |
| US5884033(A) | 1999-03-01 | Duvall et al. | Applicant |
| US5892825(A) | 1999-04-01 | Mages et al. | Applicant |
| US5893114(A) | 1999-04-01 | Hashimoto et al. | Applicant |
| US5896499(A) | 1999-04-01 | McKelvey | Applicant |
| US5898830(A) | 1999-04-01 | Wesinger et al. | Applicant |
| US5898836(A) | 1999-04-01 | Freivald et al. | Applicant |
| US5903723(A) | 1999-05-01 | Beck et al. | Applicant |
| US5911776(A) | 1999-06-01 | Guck | Applicant |
| US5923846(A) | 1999-07-01 | Gage et al. | Applicant |
| US5930479(A) | 1999-07-01 | Hall | Applicant |
| US5933478(A) | 1999-08-01 | Ozaki et al. | Applicant |
| US5933498(A) | 1999-08-01 | Schneck et al. | Applicant |
| US5937164(A) | 1999-08-01 | Mages et al. | Applicant |
| US5940591(A) | 1999-08-01 | Boyle et al. | Applicant |
| US5948062(A) | 1999-09-01 | Tzelnic et al. | Applicant |
| US5958005(A) | 1999-09-01 | Thorne et al. | Applicant |
| US5963915(A) | 1999-10-01 | Kirsch | Applicant |
| US5978799(A) | 1999-11-01 | Hirsch | Applicant |
| US5987609(A) | 1999-11-01 | Hasebe | Applicant |
| US5987610(A) | 1999-11-01 | Franczek et al. | Applicant |
| US5991881(A) | 1999-11-01 | Conklin et al. | Applicant |
| US5999932(A) | 1999-12-01 | Paul | Applicant |
| US6003027(A) | 1999-12-01 | Prager | Applicant |
| US6006329(A) | 1999-12-01 | Chi | Applicant |
| US6012144(A) | 2000-01-01 | Pickett | Applicant |
| US6014651(A) | 2000-01-01 | Crawford | Applicant |
| US6023723(A) | 2000-02-01 | McCormick et al. | Applicant |
| US6029256(A) | 2000-02-01 | Kouznetsov | Applicant |
| US6035423(A) | 2000-03-01 | Hodges et al. | Applicant |
| US6052709(A) | 2000-04-01 | Paul | Applicant |
| US6052784(A) | 2000-04-01 | Day | Applicant |
| US6058381(A) | 2000-05-01 | Nelson | Applicant |
| US6058482(A) | 2000-05-01 | Liu | Applicant |
| US6061448(A) | 2000-05-01 | Smith et al. | Applicant |
| US6061722(A) | 2000-05-01 | Lipa et al. | Applicant |
| US6072942(A) | 2000-06-01 | Stockwell et al. | Applicant |
| US6073142(A) | 2000-06-01 | Geiger et al. | Applicant |
| US6088804(A) | 2000-07-01 | Hill et al. | Applicant |
| US6092114(A) | 2000-07-01 | Shaffer et al. | Applicant |
| US6092194(A) | 2000-07-01 | Touboul | Applicant |
| US6094277(A) | 2000-07-01 | Toyoda | Applicant |
| US6094731(A) | 2000-07-01 | Waldin et al. | Applicant |
| US6104500(A) | 2000-08-01 | Alam et al. | Applicant |
| US6108688(A) | 2000-08-01 | Nielsen | Applicant |
| US6108691(A) | 2000-08-01 | Lee et al. | Applicant |
| US6108786(A) | 2000-08-01 | Knowlson | Applicant |
| US6118856(A) | 2000-09-01 | Paarsmarkt et al. | Applicant |
| US6118886(A) | 2000-09-01 | Baumgart et al. | Applicant |
| US6119137(A) | 2000-09-01 | Smith et al. | Applicant |
| US6119142(A) | 2000-09-01 | Kosaka | Applicant |
| US6119230(A) | 2000-09-01 | Carter | Applicant |
| US6119236(A) | 2000-09-01 | Shipley | Applicant |
| US6122661(A) | 2000-09-01 | Stedman et al. | Applicant |
| US6141695(A) | 2000-10-01 | Sekiguchi et al. | Applicant |
| US6141778(A) | 2000-10-01 | Kane et al. | Applicant |
| US6145083(A) | 2000-11-01 | Shaffer et al. | Applicant |
| US6151675(A) | 2000-11-01 | Smith | Applicant |
| US6161130(A) | 2000-12-01 | Horvitz et al. | Applicant |
| US6165314(A) | 2000-12-01 | Gardner et al. | Applicant |
| US6185314(B1) | 2001-02-01 | Crabtree et al. | Applicant |
| US6185680(B1) | 2001-02-01 | Shimbo et al. | Applicant |
| US6185689(B1) | 2001-02-01 | Todd, Sr. et al. | Applicant |
| US6192360(B1) | 2001-02-01 | Dumais et al. | Applicant |
| US6192407(B1) | 2001-02-01 | Smith et al. | Applicant |
| US6199102(B1) | 2001-03-01 | Cobb | Applicant |
| US6202157(B1) | 2001-03-01 | Brownlie et al. | Applicant |
| US6219714(B1) | 2001-04-01 | Inhwan et al. | Applicant |
| US6223213(B1) | 2001-04-01 | Cleron et al. | Applicant |
| US6247045(B1) | 2001-06-01 | Shaw et al. | Applicant |
| US6249575(B1) | 2001-06-01 | Heilmann et al. | Applicant |
| US6249807(B1) | 2001-06-01 | Shaw et al. | Applicant |
| US6260043(B1) | 2001-07-01 | Puri et al. | Applicant |
| US6266668(B1) | 2001-07-01 | Vanderveldt et al. | Applicant |
| US6269447(B1) | 2001-07-01 | Maloney et al. | Applicant |
| US6269456(B1) | 2001-07-01 | Hodges et al. | Applicant |
| US6272532(B1) | 2001-08-01 | Feinleib | Applicant |
| US6275942(B1) | 2001-08-01 | Bernhard et al. | Applicant |
| US6279113(B1) | 2001-08-01 | Vaidya | Applicant |
| US6279133(B1) | 2001-08-01 | Vafai et al. | Applicant |
| US6282565(B1) | 2001-08-01 | Shaw et al. | Applicant |
| US6285991(B1) | 2001-09-01 | Powar | Applicant |
| US6289214(B1) | 2001-09-01 | Backstrom | Applicant |
| US6298445(B1) | 2001-10-01 | Shostack et al. | Applicant |
| US6301668(B1) | 2001-10-01 | Gleichauf et al. | Applicant |
| US6304898(B1) | 2001-10-01 | Shiigi | Applicant |
| US6304973(B1) | 2001-10-01 | Williams | Applicant |
| US6311207(B1) | 2001-10-01 | Mighdoll et al. | Applicant |
| US6317829(B1) | 2001-11-01 | Van Oorschot | Applicant |
| US6320948(B1) | 2001-11-01 | Heilmann et al. | Applicant |
| US6321267(B1) | 2001-11-01 | Donaldson | Applicant |
| US6324569(B1) | 2001-11-01 | Ogilvie et al. | Applicant |
| US6324647(B1) | 2001-11-01 | Bowman-Amuah | Applicant |
| US6324656(B1) | 2001-11-01 | Gleichauf et al. | Applicant |
| US6330589(B1) | 2001-12-01 | Kennedy | Applicant |
| US6347374(B1) | 2002-02-01 | Drake et al. | Applicant |
| US6353886(B1) | 2002-03-01 | Howard et al. | Applicant |
| US6363489(B1) | 2002-03-01 | Comay et al. | Applicant |
| US6370648(B1) | 2002-04-01 | Diep | Applicant |
| US6373950(B1) | 2002-04-01 | Rowney | Applicant |
| US6385655(B1) | 2002-05-01 | Smith et al. | Applicant |
| US6393465(B2) | 2002-05-01 | Leeds | Applicant |
| US6393568(B1) | 2002-05-01 | Ranger et al. | Applicant |
| US6405318(B1) | 2002-06-01 | Rowland | Applicant |
| US6434624(B1) | 2002-08-01 | Gai et al. | Applicant |
| US6442588(B1) | 2002-08-01 | Clark et al. | Applicant |
| US6442686(B1) | 2002-08-01 | McArdle et al. | Applicant |
| US6453345(B2) | 2002-09-01 | Trcka et al. | Applicant |
| US6460050(B1) | 2002-10-01 | Pace et al. | Applicant |
| US6460141(B1) | 2002-10-01 | Olden | Applicant |
| US6470086(B1) | 2002-10-01 | Smith | Applicant |
| US6487599(B1) | 2002-11-01 | Smith et al. | Applicant |
| US6487666(B1) | 2002-11-01 | Shanklin et al. | Applicant |
| US6502191(B1) | 2002-12-01 | Smith et al. | Applicant |
| US6516411(B2) | 2003-02-01 | Smith | Applicant |
| US6519703(B1) | 2003-02-01 | Joyce | Applicant |
| US6539430(B1) | 2003-03-01 | Humes | Applicant |
| US6546416(B1) | 2003-04-01 | Kirsch | Applicant |
| US6546493(B1) | 2003-04-01 | Magdych et al. | Applicant |
| US6550012(B1) | 2003-04-01 | Villa et al. | Applicant |
| US6574737(B1) | 2003-06-01 | Kingsford et al. | Applicant |
| US6578025(B1) | 2003-06-01 | Pollack et al. | Applicant |
| US6609196(B1) | 2003-08-01 | Dickinson, III et al. | Applicant |
| US6636946(B2) | 2003-10-01 | Jeddelch | Applicant |
| US6650890(B1) | 2003-11-01 | Irlam et al. | Applicant |
| US6654787(B1) | 2003-11-01 | Aronson et al. | Applicant |
| US6661353(B1) | 2003-12-01 | Gopen | Applicant |
| US6662170(B1) | 2003-12-01 | Dom et al. | Applicant |
| US6675153(B1) | 2004-01-01 | Cook et al. | Applicant |
| US6681331(B1) | 2004-01-01 | Munson et al. | Applicant |
| US6687687(B1) | 2004-02-01 | Smadja | Applicant |
| US6697950(B1) | 2004-02-01 | Ko | Applicant |
| US6701440(B1) | 2004-03-01 | Kim et al. | Applicant |
| US6704874(B1) | 2004-03-01 | Porras et al. | Applicant |
| US6711127(B1) | 2004-03-01 | Gorman et al. | Applicant |
| US6711687(B1) | 2004-03-01 | Sekiguchi | Applicant |
| US6725377(B1) | 2004-04-01 | Kouznetsov | Applicant |
| US6732101(B1) | 2004-05-01 | Cook | Applicant |
| US6732157(B1) | 2004-05-01 | Gordon et al. | Applicant |
| US6735703(B1) | 2004-05-01 | Kilpatrick et al. | Applicant |
| US6738462(B1) | 2004-05-01 | Brunson | Applicant |
| US6742116(B1) | 2004-05-01 | Matsui et al. | Applicant |
| US6742124(B1) | 2004-05-01 | Kilpatrick et al. | Applicant |
| US6742128(B1) | 2004-05-01 | Joiner | Applicant |
| US6754705(B2) | 2004-06-01 | Joiner et al. | Applicant |
| US6757830(B1) | 2004-06-01 | Tarbotton et al. | Applicant |
| US6760309(B1) | 2004-07-01 | Rochberger et al. | Applicant |
| US6768991(B2) | 2004-07-01 | Hearnden | Applicant |
| US6769016(B2) | 2004-07-01 | Rothwell et al. | Applicant |
| US6772196(B1) | 2004-08-01 | Kirsch et al. | Applicant |
| US6775657(B1) | 2004-08-01 | Baker | Applicant |
| US6792546(B1) | 2004-09-01 | Shanklin et al. | Applicant |
| US6880156(B1) | 2005-04-01 | Landherr et al. | Applicant |
| US6892178(B1) | 2005-05-01 | Zacharia | Applicant |
| US6892179(B1) | 2005-05-01 | Zacharia | Applicant |
| US6892237(B1) | 2005-05-01 | Gai et al. | Applicant |
| US6895385(B1) | 2005-05-01 | Zacharia et al. | Applicant |
| US6895438(B1) | 2005-05-01 | Ulrich | Applicant |
| US6907430(B2) | 2005-06-01 | Chong et al. | Applicant |
| US6910135(B1) | 2005-06-01 | Grainger | Applicant |
| US6928556(B2) | 2005-08-01 | Black et al. | Applicant |
| US6941348(B2) | 2005-09-01 | Petry et al. | Applicant |
| US6941467(B2) | 2005-09-01 | Judge et al. | Applicant |
| US6968461(B1) | 2005-11-01 | Lucas et al. | Applicant |
| US6981143(B2) | 2005-12-01 | Mullen et al. | Applicant |
| US7051077(B2) | 2006-05-01 | Lin | Applicant |
| US7076527(B2) | 2006-07-01 | Bellegarda et al. | Applicant |
| US7089428(B2) | 2006-08-01 | Farley et al. | Applicant |
| US7089590(B2) | 2006-08-01 | Judge et al. | Applicant |
| US7092992(B1) | 2006-08-01 | Yu | Applicant |
| US7093129(B1) | 2006-08-01 | Gavagni et al. | Applicant |
| US7096498(B2) | 2006-08-01 | Judge | Applicant |
| US7117358(B2) | 2006-10-01 | Bandini et al. | Applicant |
| US7124372(B2) | 2006-10-01 | Brin | Applicant |
| US7124438(B2) | 2006-10-01 | Judge et al. | Applicant |
| US7131003(B2) | 2006-10-01 | Lord et al. | Applicant |
| US7143213(B2) | 2006-11-01 | Need et al. | Applicant |
| US7152105(B2) | 2006-12-01 | McClure et al. | Applicant |
| US7155243(B2) | 2006-12-01 | Baldwin et al. | Applicant |
| US7164678(B2) | 2007-01-01 | Connor | Applicant |
| US7206814(B2) | 2007-04-01 | Kirsch | Applicant |
| US7209954(B1) | 2007-04-01 | Rothwell et al. | Applicant |
| US7213260(B2) | 2007-05-01 | Judge | Applicant |
| US7219131(B2) | 2007-05-01 | Banister et al. | Applicant |
| US7225466(B2) | 2007-05-01 | Judge | Applicant |
| US7254608(B2) | 2007-08-01 | Yeager et al. | Applicant |
| US7254712(B2) | 2007-08-01 | Godfrey et al. | Applicant |
| US7260840(B2) | 2007-08-01 | Swander et al. | Applicant |
| US7272149(B2) | 2007-09-01 | Bly et al. | Applicant |
| US7272853(B2) | 2007-09-01 | Goodman et al. | Applicant |
| US7278159(B2) | 2007-10-01 | Kaashoek et al. | Applicant |
| US7349332(B1) | 2008-03-01 | Srinivasan et al. | Applicant |
| US7376731(B2) | 2008-05-01 | Khan et al. | Applicant |
| US7379900(B1) | 2008-05-01 | Wren | Applicant |
| US7385924(B1) | 2008-06-01 | Riddle | Applicant |
| US7458098(B2) | 2008-11-01 | Judge et al. | Applicant |
| US7460476(B1) | 2008-12-01 | Morris et al. | Applicant |
| US7461339(B2) | 2008-12-01 | Liao et al. | Applicant |
| US7496634(B1) | 2009-02-01 | Cooley | Applicant |
| US7502829(B2) | 2009-03-01 | Radatti et al. | Applicant |
| US7506155(B1) | 2009-03-01 | Stewart et al. | Applicant |
| US7519563(B1) | 2009-04-01 | Urmanov et al. | Applicant |
| US7519994(B2) | 2009-04-01 | Judge et al. | Applicant |
| US7522516(B1) | 2009-04-01 | Parker | Applicant |
| US7523092(B2) | 2009-04-01 | Andreev et al. | Applicant |
| US7543053(B2) | 2009-06-01 | Goodman et al. | Applicant |
| US7543056(B2) | 2009-06-01 | McClure et al. | Applicant |
| US7545748(B1) | 2009-06-01 | Riddle | Applicant |
| US7610344(B2) | 2009-10-01 | Mehr et al. | Applicant |
| US7617160(B1) | 2009-11-01 | Grove et al. | Applicant |
| US7620986(B1) | 2009-11-01 | Jagannathan et al. | Applicant |
| US7624448(B2) | 2009-11-01 | Coffman | Applicant |
| US7644127(B2) | 2010-01-01 | Yu | Applicant |
| US7647411(B1) | 2010-01-01 | Shiavone et al. | Applicant |
| US7668951(B2) | 2010-02-01 | Lund et al. | Applicant |
| US7693947(B2) | 2010-04-01 | Judge et al. | Applicant |
| US7694128(B2) | 2010-04-01 | Judge et al. | Applicant |
| US7711684(B2) | 2010-05-01 | Sundaresan et al. | Applicant |
| US7716310(B2) | 2010-05-01 | Foti | Applicant |
| US7731316(B2) | 2010-06-01 | Baccash | Applicant |
| US7739253(B1) | 2010-06-01 | Yanovsky et al. | Applicant |
| US7748038(B2) | 2010-06-01 | Olivier et al. | Applicant |
| US7779156(B2) | 2010-08-01 | Alperovitch et al. | Applicant |
| US7779466(B2) | 2010-08-01 | Judge et al. | Applicant |
| US7870203(B2) | 2011-01-01 | Judge et al. | Applicant |
| US7899866(B1) | 2011-03-01 | Buckingham et al. | Applicant |
| US7903549(B2) | 2011-03-01 | Judge et al. | Applicant |
| US7917627(B1) | 2011-03-01 | Andriantsiferana et al. | Applicant |
| US7937480(B2) | 2011-05-01 | Alperovitch et al. | Applicant |
| US7941523(B2) | 2011-05-01 | Andreev et al. | Applicant |
| US7949716(B2) | 2011-05-01 | Alperovitch et al. | Applicant |
| US7949992(B2) | 2011-05-01 | Andreev et al. | Applicant |
| US7966335(B2) | 2011-06-01 | Slater et al. | Applicant |
| US8042149(B2) | 2011-10-01 | Judge | Applicant |
| US8042181(B2) | 2011-10-01 | Judge | Applicant |
| US8045458(B2) | 2011-10-01 | Alperovitch et al. | Applicant |
| US8051134(B1) | 2011-11-01 | Begeja et al. | Applicant |
| US8069481(B2) | 2011-11-01 | Judge | Applicant |
| US8079087(B1) | 2011-12-01 | Spies et al. | Applicant |
| US8095876(B1) | 2012-01-01 | Verstak et al. | Applicant |
| US8132250(B2) | 2012-03-01 | Judge et al. | Applicant |
| US8160975(B2) | 2012-04-01 | Tang et al. | Applicant |
| US8179798(B2) | 2012-05-01 | Alperovitch et al. | Applicant |
| US8185930(B2) | 2012-05-01 | Alperovitch et al. | Applicant |
| US8214497(B2) | 2012-07-01 | Alperovitch et al. | Applicant |
| US2001/0037311(A1) | 2001-11-01 | McCoy et al. | Applicant |
| US2001/0049793(A1) | 2001-12-01 | Sugimoto | Applicant |
| US2002/0004902(A1) | 2002-01-01 | Toh et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0009079(A1) | 2002-01-01 | Jugck et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0013692(A1) | 2002-01-01 | Chandhok et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0016824(A1) | 2002-02-01 | Leeds | Applicant |
| US2002/0016910(A1) | 2002-02-01 | Wright et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0023089(A1) | 2002-02-01 | Woo | Applicant |
| US2002/0023140(A1) | 2002-02-01 | Hile et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0026591(A1) | 2002-02-01 | Hartley et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0032871(A1) | 2002-03-01 | Malan et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0035683(A1) | 2002-03-01 | Kaashoek et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0042876(A1) | 2002-04-01 | Smith | Applicant |
| US2002/0046041(A1) | 2002-04-01 | Lang | Applicant |
| US2002/0049853(A1) | 2002-04-01 | Chu et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0051575(A1) | 2002-05-01 | Myers et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0059454(A1) | 2002-05-01 | Barrett et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0062368(A1) | 2002-05-01 | Holtzman et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0078382(A1) | 2002-06-01 | Sheikh et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0087882(A1) | 2002-07-01 | Schneier et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0095492(A1) | 2002-07-01 | Kaashoek et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0112013(A1) | 2002-08-01 | Walsh | Applicant |
| US2002/0112185(A1) | 2002-08-01 | Hodges | Applicant |
| US2002/0116627(A1) | 2002-08-01 | Tarbotton et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0120853(A1) | 2002-08-01 | Tyree | Applicant |
| US2002/0133365(A1) | 2002-09-01 | Grey et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0138416(A1) | 2002-09-01 | Lovejoy et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0138755(A1) | 2002-09-01 | Ko | Applicant |
| US2002/0138759(A1) | 2002-09-01 | Dutta | Applicant |
| US2002/0138762(A1) | 2002-09-01 | Horne | Applicant |
| US2002/0143963(A1) | 2002-10-01 | Converse et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0147734(A1) | 2002-10-01 | Shoup et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0152399(A1) | 2002-10-01 | Smith | Applicant |
| US2002/0165971(A1) | 2002-11-01 | Baron | Applicant |
| US2002/0169954(A1) | 2002-11-01 | Bandini et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0172367(A1) | 2002-11-01 | Mulder et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0178227(A1) | 2002-11-01 | Matsa et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0178383(A1) | 2002-11-01 | Hrabik et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0178410(A1) | 2002-11-01 | Haitsma et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0188732(A1) | 2002-12-01 | Buckman et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0188864(A1) | 2002-12-01 | Jackson | Applicant |
| US2002/0194469(A1) | 2002-12-01 | Dominique et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0199095(A1) | 2002-12-01 | Bandini et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0005326(A1) | 2003-01-01 | Flemming | Applicant |
| US2003/0005331(A1) | 2003-01-01 | Williams | Applicant |
| US2003/0009554(A1) | 2003-01-01 | Burch et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0009693(A1) | 2003-01-01 | Brock et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0009696(A1) | 2003-01-01 | Bunker et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0009699(A1) | 2003-01-01 | Gupta et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0014664(A1) | 2003-01-01 | Hentunen | Applicant |
| US2003/0023692(A1) | 2003-01-01 | Moroo | Applicant |
| US2003/0023695(A1) | 2003-01-01 | Kobata et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0023736(A1) | 2003-01-01 | Abkemeier | Applicant |
| US2003/0023873(A1) | 2003-01-01 | Ben-Itzhak | Applicant |
| US2003/0023874(A1) | 2003-01-01 | Prokupets et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0023875(A1) | 2003-01-01 | Hursey et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0028406(A1) | 2003-02-01 | Herz et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0028803(A1) | 2003-02-01 | Bunker et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0033516(A1) | 2003-02-01 | Howard et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0033542(A1) | 2003-02-01 | Goseva-Popstojanova et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0041264(A1) | 2003-02-01 | Black et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0046253(A1) | 2003-03-01 | Shetty et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0051026(A1) | 2003-03-01 | Carter et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0051163(A1) | 2003-03-01 | Bidaud | Applicant |
| US2003/0051168(A1) | 2003-03-01 | King et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0055931(A1) | 2003-03-01 | Cravo De Almeida et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0061506(A1) | 2003-03-01 | Cooper et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0065943(A1) | 2003-04-01 | Geis et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0084280(A1) | 2003-05-01 | Bryan et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0084320(A1) | 2003-05-01 | Tarquini et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0084323(A1) | 2003-05-01 | Gales | Applicant |
| US2003/0084347(A1) | 2003-05-01 | Luzzatto | Applicant |
| US2003/0088792(A1) | 2003-05-01 | Card et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0093518(A1) | 2003-05-01 | Hiraga | Applicant |
| US2003/0093667(A1) | 2003-05-01 | Dutta et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0093695(A1) | 2003-05-01 | Dutta | Applicant |
| US2003/0093696(A1) | 2003-05-01 | Sugimoto | Applicant |
| US2003/0095555(A1) | 2003-05-01 | McNamara et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0097439(A1) | 2003-05-01 | Strayer et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0097564(A1) | 2003-05-01 | Tewari et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0105976(A1) | 2003-06-01 | Copeland, III | Applicant |
| US2003/0110392(A1) | 2003-06-01 | Aucsmith et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0110396(A1) | 2003-06-01 | Lewis et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0115485(A1) | 2003-06-01 | Milliken | Applicant |
| US2003/0115486(A1) | 2003-06-01 | Choi et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0123665(A1) | 2003-07-01 | Dunstan et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0126464(A1) | 2003-07-01 | McDaniel et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0126472(A1) | 2003-07-01 | Banzhof | Applicant |
| US2003/0135749(A1) | 2003-07-01 | Gales et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0140137(A1) | 2003-07-01 | Joiner et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0140250(A1) | 2003-07-01 | Taninaka et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0145212(A1) | 2003-07-01 | Crumly | Applicant |
| US2003/0145225(A1) | 2003-07-01 | Bruton, III et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0145226(A1) | 2003-07-01 | Bruton, III et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0149887(A1) | 2003-08-01 | Yadav | Applicant |
| US2003/0149888(A1) | 2003-08-01 | Yadav | Applicant |
| US2003/0152076(A1) | 2003-08-01 | Lee et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0152096(A1) | 2003-08-01 | Chapman | Applicant |
| US2003/0154393(A1) | 2003-08-01 | Young | Applicant |
| US2003/0154399(A1) | 2003-08-01 | Zuk et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0154402(A1) | 2003-08-01 | Pandit et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0158905(A1) | 2003-08-01 | Petry et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0159069(A1) | 2003-08-01 | Choi et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0159070(A1) | 2003-08-01 | Mayer et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0167308(A1) | 2003-09-01 | Schran | Applicant |
| US2003/0167402(A1) | 2003-09-01 | Stolfo et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0172166(A1) | 2003-09-01 | Judge et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0172167(A1) | 2003-09-01 | Judge et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0172289(A1) | 2003-09-01 | Soppera | Applicant |
| US2003/0172291(A1) | 2003-09-01 | Judge et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0172292(A1) | 2003-09-01 | Judge | Applicant |
| US2003/0172294(A1) | 2003-09-01 | Judge | Applicant |
| US2003/0172301(A1) | 2003-09-01 | Judge et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0172302(A1) | 2003-09-01 | Judge et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0182421(A1) | 2003-09-01 | Faybishenko et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0187936(A1) | 2003-10-01 | Bodin et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0187996(A1) | 2003-10-01 | Cardina et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0204596(A1) | 2003-10-01 | Yadav | Applicant |
| US2003/0204719(A1) | 2003-10-01 | Ben | Applicant |
| US2003/0204741(A1) | 2003-10-01 | Schoen et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0212791(A1) | 2003-11-01 | Pickup | Applicant |
| US2003/0233328(A1) | 2003-12-01 | Scott et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0015554(A1) | 2004-01-01 | Wilson | Applicant |
| US2004/0025044(A1) | 2004-02-01 | Day | Applicant |
| US2004/0034794(A1) | 2004-02-01 | Mayer et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0054886(A1) | 2004-03-01 | Dickinson et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0058673(A1) | 2004-03-01 | Irlam et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0059811(A1) | 2004-03-01 | Sugauchi et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0088570(A1) | 2004-05-01 | Roberts et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0098464(A1) | 2004-05-01 | Koch et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0111519(A1) | 2004-06-01 | Fu et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0111531(A1) | 2004-06-01 | Staniford et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0122926(A1) | 2004-06-01 | Moore et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0122967(A1) | 2004-06-01 | Bressler et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0123157(A1) | 2004-06-01 | Alagna et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0128355(A1) | 2004-07-01 | Chao et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0139160(A1) | 2004-07-01 | Wallace et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0139334(A1) | 2004-07-01 | Wiseman | Applicant |
| US2004/0165727(A1) | 2004-08-01 | Moreh et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0167968(A1) | 2004-08-01 | Wilson et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0177120(A1) | 2004-09-01 | Kirsch | Applicant |
| US2004/0203589(A1) | 2004-10-01 | Wang et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0205135(A1) | 2004-10-01 | Hallam-Baker et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0221062(A1) | 2004-11-01 | Starbuck et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0236884(A1) | 2004-11-01 | Beetz | Applicant |
| US2004/0249895(A1) | 2004-12-01 | Way | Applicant |
| US2004/0255122(A1) | 2004-12-01 | Ingerman et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0267893(A1) | 2004-12-01 | Lin | Applicant |
| US2005/0021738(A1) | 2005-01-01 | Goeller et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0021997(A1) | 2005-01-01 | Beynon et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0033742(A1) | 2005-02-01 | Kamvar et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0052998(A1) | 2005-03-01 | Oliver et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0060295(A1) | 2005-03-01 | Gould et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0060643(A1) | 2005-03-01 | Glass et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0065810(A1) | 2005-03-01 | Bouron | Applicant |
| US2005/0086300(A1) | 2005-04-01 | Yeager et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0091319(A1) | 2005-04-01 | Kirsch | Applicant |
| US2005/0091320(A1) | 2005-04-01 | Kirsch et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0102366(A1) | 2005-05-01 | Kirsch | Applicant |
| US2005/0120019(A1) | 2005-06-01 | Rigoutsos et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0141427(A1) | 2005-06-01 | Bartky | Applicant |
| US2005/0149383(A1) | 2005-07-01 | Zacharia et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0159998(A1) | 2005-07-01 | Buyukkokten et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0160148(A1) | 2005-07-01 | Yu | Applicant |
| US2005/0192958(A1) | 2005-09-01 | Widjojo et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0193076(A1) | 2005-09-01 | Flury et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0198159(A1) | 2005-09-01 | Kirsch | Applicant |
| US2005/0204001(A1) | 2005-09-01 | Stein et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0216564(A1) | 2005-09-01 | Myers et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0256866(A1) | 2005-11-01 | Lu et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0262209(A1) | 2005-11-01 | Yu | Applicant |
| US2005/0262210(A1) | 2005-11-01 | Yu | Applicant |
| US2005/0262556(A1) | 2005-11-01 | Waisman et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0007936(A1) | 2006-01-01 | Shrum et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0009994(A1) | 2006-01-01 | Hogg et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0015563(A1) | 2006-01-01 | Judge et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0015942(A1) | 2006-01-01 | Judge et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0021055(A1) | 2006-01-01 | Judge et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0023940(A1) | 2006-02-01 | Katsuyama | Applicant |
| US2006/0031314(A1) | 2006-02-01 | Brahms et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0031483(A1) | 2006-02-01 | Lund et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0036693(A1) | 2006-02-01 | Hulten et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0036727(A1) | 2006-02-01 | Kurapati et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0041508(A1) | 2006-02-01 | Pham et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0042483(A1) | 2006-03-01 | Work et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0047794(A1) | 2006-03-01 | Jezierski | Applicant |
| US2006/0059238(A1) | 2006-03-01 | Slater et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0095404(A1) | 2006-05-01 | Adelman et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0095586(A1) | 2006-05-01 | Adelman et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0112026(A1) | 2006-05-01 | Graf et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0123083(A1) | 2006-06-01 | Goutte et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0129810(A1) | 2006-06-01 | Jeong et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0149821(A1) | 2006-07-01 | Rajan et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0155553(A1) | 2006-07-01 | Brohman et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0168024(A1) | 2006-07-01 | Mehr et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0174337(A1) | 2006-08-01 | Bernoth | Applicant |
| US2006/0174341(A1) | 2006-08-01 | Judge | Applicant |
| US2006/0179113(A1) | 2006-08-01 | Buckingham et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0184632(A1) | 2006-08-01 | Marino et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0191002(A1) | 2006-08-01 | Lee et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0212925(A1) | 2006-09-01 | Shull et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0212930(A1) | 2006-09-01 | Shull et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0212931(A1) | 2006-09-01 | Shull et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0225136(A1) | 2006-10-01 | Rounthwaite et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0230039(A1) | 2006-10-01 | Shull et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0230134(A1) | 2006-10-01 | Qian et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0248156(A1) | 2006-11-01 | Judge et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0251068(A1) | 2006-11-01 | Judge et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0253447(A1) | 2006-11-01 | Judge | Applicant |
| US2006/0253458(A1) | 2006-11-01 | Dixon et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0253578(A1) | 2006-11-01 | Dixon et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0253579(A1) | 2006-11-01 | Dixon et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0253582(A1) | 2006-11-01 | Dixon et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0253584(A1) | 2006-11-01 | Dixon et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0265747(A1) | 2006-11-01 | Judge | Applicant |
| US2006/0267802(A1) | 2006-11-01 | Judge et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0277259(A1) | 2006-12-01 | Murphy et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0002831(A1) | 2007-01-01 | Allen et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0019235(A1) | 2007-01-01 | Lee | Applicant |
| US2007/0025304(A1) | 2007-02-01 | Leelahakriengkrai et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0027992(A1) | 2007-02-01 | Judge et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0028301(A1) | 2007-02-01 | Shull et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0043738(A1) | 2007-02-01 | Morris et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0078675(A1) | 2007-04-01 | Kaplan | Applicant |
| US2007/0124803(A1) | 2007-05-01 | Taraz | Applicant |
| US2007/0130350(A1) | 2007-06-01 | Alperovitch et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0130351(A1) | 2007-06-01 | Alperovitch et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0168394(A1) | 2007-07-01 | Vivekanand | Applicant |
| US2007/0195753(A1) | 2007-08-01 | Judge et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0195779(A1) | 2007-08-01 | Judge et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0199070(A1) | 2007-08-01 | Hughes | Applicant |
| US2007/0203997(A1) | 2007-08-01 | Ingerman et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0208817(A1) | 2007-09-01 | Lund et al. | Examiner |
| US2007/0214151(A1) | 2007-09-01 | Thomas et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0233787(A1) | 2007-10-01 | Pagan | Applicant |
| US2007/0239642(A1) | 2007-10-01 | Sindhwani et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0253412(A1) | 2007-11-01 | Batteram et al. | Examiner |
| US2008/0005223(A1) | 2008-01-01 | Flake et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0022384(A1) | 2008-01-01 | Yee et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0047009(A1) | 2008-02-01 | Overcash et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0077517(A1) | 2008-03-01 | Sappington | Applicant |
| US2008/0082662(A1) | 2008-04-01 | Dandliker et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0091765(A1) | 2008-04-01 | Gammage et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0103843(A1) | 2008-05-01 | Goeppert et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0104180(A1) | 2008-05-01 | Gabe | Applicant |
| US2008/0123823(A1) | 2008-05-01 | Pirzada et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0159632(A1) | 2008-07-01 | Oliver et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0175226(A1) | 2008-07-01 | Alperovitch et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0175266(A1) | 2008-07-01 | Alperovitch et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0177684(A1) | 2008-07-01 | Laxman et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0177691(A1) | 2008-07-01 | Alperovitch et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0178259(A1) | 2008-07-01 | Alperovitch et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0178288(A1) | 2008-07-01 | Alperovitch et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0184366(A1) | 2008-07-01 | Alperovitch et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0301755(A1) | 2008-12-01 | Sinha et al. | Examiner |
| US2008/0303689(A1) | 2008-12-01 | Iverson | Applicant |
| US2009/0003204(A1) | 2009-01-01 | Okholm et al. | Applicant |
| US2009/0089279(A1) | 2009-04-01 | Jeong et al. | Applicant |
| US2009/0103524(A1) | 2009-04-01 | Mantripragada et al. | Applicant |
| US2009/0113016(A1) | 2009-04-01 | Sen et al. | Examiner |
| US2009/0119740(A1) | 2009-05-01 | Alperovitch et al. | Applicant |
| US2009/0122699(A1) | 2009-05-01 | Alperovitch et al. | Applicant |
| US2009/0125980(A1) | 2009-05-01 | Alperovitch et al. | Applicant |
| US2009/0164582(A1) | 2009-06-01 | Dasgupta et al. | Applicant |
| US2009/0192955(A1) | 2009-07-01 | Tang et al. | Applicant |
| US2009/0254499(A1) | 2009-10-01 | Deyo | Applicant |
| US2009/0254572(A1) | 2009-10-01 | Redlich et al. | Applicant |
| US2009/0282476(A1) | 2009-11-01 | Nachenberg et al. | Examiner |
| US2010/0115040(A1) | 2010-05-01 | Sargent et al. | Applicant |
| US2010/0306846(A1) | 2010-12-01 | Alperovitch et al. | Applicant |
| US2011/0053513(A1) | 2011-03-01 | Papakostas et al. | Applicant |
| US2011/0280160(A1) | 2011-11-01 | Yang | Applicant |
| US2011/0296519(A1) | 2011-12-01 | Ide et al. | Applicant |
| US2012/0011252(A1) | 2012-01-01 | Alperovitch et al. | Applicant |
| US2012/0084441(A1) | 2012-04-01 | Alperovitch et al. | Applicant |
| US2012/0110672(A1) | 2012-05-01 | Judge et al. | Applicant |
| US2012/0174219(A1) | 2012-07-01 | Hernandez et al. | Applicant |
| US2012/0204265(A1) | 2012-08-01 | Judge | Applicant |
| US2012/0216248(A1) | 2012-08-01 | Alperovitch et al. | Applicant |
| US2012/0239751(A1) | 2012-09-01 | Alperovitch et al. | Applicant |
| US2012/0240228(A1) | 2012-09-01 | Alperovitch et al. | Applicant |
| US2012/0271890(A1) | 2012-10-01 | Judge et al. | Applicant |
| AU2003230606 | 2003-10-01 | Applicant | |
| AU2005304883 | 2006-05-01 | Applicant | |
| AU2006315184 | 2007-05-01 | Applicant | |
| AU2008207924 | 2008-07-01 | Applicant | |
| AU2008207926 | 2008-07-01 | Applicant | |
| AU2008207930 | 2008-07-01 | Applicant | |
| AU2008323779 | 2009-05-01 | Applicant | |
| AU2008323784 | 2009-05-01 | Applicant | |
| AU2008323922 | 2009-05-01 | Applicant | |
| AU2009203095 | 2009-08-01 | Applicant | |
| CA2478299 | 2003-09-01 | Applicant | |
| CA2564533 | 2005-12-01 | Applicant | |
| CA2586709 | 2006-05-01 | Applicant | |
| CA2628189 | 2007-05-01 | Applicant | |
| CA2654796 | 2007-12-01 | Applicant | |
| CN10140166 | 2009-04-01 | Applicant | |
| CN101443736 | 2009-05-01 | Applicant | |
| CN101730892 | 2010-06-01 | Applicant | |
| CN101730904 | 2010-06-01 | Applicant | |
| CN101730903 | 2012-11-01 | Applicant | |
| CN103095672 | 2013-05-01 | Applicant | |
| EP375138 | 1990-06-01 | Applicant | |
| EP420779 | 1991-04-01 | Applicant | |
| EP413537 | 1991-12-01 | Applicant | |
| EP720333 | 1996-07-01 | Applicant | |
| EP838774 | 1998-04-01 | Applicant | |
| EP869652 | 1998-10-01 | Applicant | |
| EP907120 | 1999-04-01 | Applicant | |
| EP1271846 | 2003-01-01 | Applicant | |
| EP1326376 | 2003-07-01 | Applicant | |
| EP1488316 | 2004-12-01 | Applicant | |
| EP1672558 | 2006-06-01 | Applicant | |
| EP1819108(A2) | 2007-08-01 | Applicant | |
| EP1820101 | 2007-08-01 | Applicant | |
| EP1982540 | 2008-10-01 | Applicant | |
| EP2036246 | 2009-03-01 | Applicant | |
| EP2115642 | 2009-11-01 | Applicant | |
| EP2115689 | 2009-11-01 | Applicant | |
| EP2213056 | 2010-08-01 | Applicant | |
| EP2218215 | 2010-08-01 | Applicant | |
| EP2223258 | 2010-09-01 | Applicant | |
| EP2562975 | 2013-02-01 | Applicant | |
| EP2562976 | 2013-02-01 | Applicant | |
| EP2562986 | 2013-02-01 | Applicant | |
| EP2562987 | 2013-02-01 | Applicant | |
| GB2271002 | 1994-03-01 | Applicant | |
| GB2357932 | 2001-07-01 | Applicant | |
| IN3279-DELNP-2007 | 2007-08-01 | Applicant | |
| IN4233-DELNP-2007 | 2008-08-01 | Applicant | |
| IN4842/CHENP/2009 | 2010-01-01 | Applicant | |
| IN4763/CHENP/2009 | 2010-07-01 | Applicant | |
| JP2000-148276 | 2000-05-01 | Applicant | |
| JP2000-215046 | 2000-08-01 | Applicant | |
| JP2001-028006 | 2001-01-01 | Applicant | |
| JP2003-150482 | 2003-05-01 | Applicant | |
| JP2004-533677 | 2004-11-01 | Applicant | |
| JP2004-537075 | 2004-12-01 | Applicant | |
| JP2005-520230 | 2005-07-01 | Applicant | |
| JP2006-268544 | 2006-10-01 | Applicant | |
| JP2006350870 | 2006-12-01 | Applicant | |
| JP2007-540073 | 2008-06-01 | Applicant | |
| JP2009-516269 | 2009-04-01 | Applicant | |
| KR2006-0012137 | 2006-02-01 | Applicant | |
| KR2006-028200 | 2006-03-01 | Applicant | |
| KR1020060041934 | 2006-05-01 | Applicant | |
| KR10-699531 | 2007-03-01 | Applicant | |
| KR699531 | 2007-03-01 | Applicant | |
| KR10-737523 | 2007-07-01 | Applicant | |
| KR737523 | 2007-07-01 | Applicant | |
| KR10-750377 | 2007-08-01 | Applicant | |
| KR750377 | 2007-08-01 | Applicant | |
| KR10-447082 | 2009-12-01 | Applicant | |
| KR447082 | 2009-12-01 | Applicant | |
| SG106744 | 2004-11-01 | Applicant | |
| SG142513 | 2008-06-01 | Applicant | |
| WO96/35994 | 1996-11-01 | Applicant | |
| WO99/05814 | 1999-02-01 | Applicant | |
| WO99/33188 | 1999-07-01 | Applicant | |
| WO99/37066 | 1999-07-01 | Applicant | |
| WO/07312 | 2000-02-01 | Applicant | |
| WO/08543 | 2000-02-01 | Applicant | |
| WO/42748 | 2000-07-01 | Applicant | |
| WO/59167 | 2000-10-01 | Applicant | |
| WO1/17165 | 2001-03-01 | Applicant | |
| WO1/22686 | 2001-03-01 | Applicant | |
| WO1/50691 | 2001-07-01 | Applicant | |
| WO1/76181 | 2001-10-01 | Applicant | |
| WO1/80480 | 2001-10-01 | Applicant | |
| WO1/88834 | 2001-11-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2/13469 | 2002-02-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2/13489 | 2002-02-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2/15521 | 2002-02-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2/075547 | 2002-09-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2/82293 | 2002-10-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2/091706 | 2002-11-01 | Applicant | |
| WO3/077071 | 2003-09-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2004/061698 | 2004-07-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2004/061703 | 2004-07-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2004/081734 | 2004-09-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2004/088455 | 2004-10-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2005/006139 | 2005-01-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2005/086437 | 2005-09-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2005/116851 | 2005-12-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2005/119485 | 2005-12-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2005/119488 | 2005-12-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2006/029399 | 2006-03-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2006/119509 | 2006-03-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2006/052736 | 2006-05-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2007/030951 | 2007-03-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2007/059428 | 2007-05-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2007/146690 | 2007-12-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2007/146696 | 2007-12-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2007/146701 | 2007-12-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2008/008543 | 2008-01-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2008/091980 | 2008-07-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2008/091982 | 2008-07-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2008/091986 | 2008-07-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2009/146118 | 2009-02-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2009/061893 | 2009-05-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2009/062018 | 2009-05-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2009/062023 | 2009-05-01 | Applicant |
Non-Patent Literature (115)
- PCT Notification of International Search Report & Written Opinion, PCT/US2009/039401, mailed Nov. 16, 2009, 14 pages.Applicant
- PCT Notification Concerning Transmittal International Preliminary Report on Patentability, PCT/US2009/039401, mailed Oct. 14, 2010, 9 pages.Applicant
- EPO Communication Pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC in EP Application Serial No. 09755480.2-2416 mailed on Dec. 11, 2012.Applicant
- EP Supplementary European Search Report in EP Application Serial No. 09755480.2-2416 mailed on Dec. 3, 2012.Applicant
- Lewis et al., “A Comparison of Two Learning Algorithms for Text Categorization”, Third Annual Symposium on Document Analysis and Information Retrieval, Apr. 11-13, 1994, pp. 81-92.Applicant
- Sahami, “Learning Limited Dependence Bayesian Classifiers”, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 335-338, 1996.Applicant
- Lewis, “An Evaluation of Phrasal and Clustered Representations on a Text Categorization Task”, 15th Ann Int'l Sigir, Jun. 1992, pp. 37-50.Applicant
- Michell, “Machine Learning” (Book), 1997, pp. 180-184.Applicant
- Cohen, “Learning Rules that Classify E-mail”, pp. 1-8; Conference Machine Learning in Information Access-Spring Symposium-Technical Report-American Association for Artificial Intelligence SSS, AAAI Press, Mar. 1996.Applicant
- Koller, et al., “Hierarchically classifying documents using very few words”, in Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, 1997.Applicant
- Li et. al., “Classification of Text Documents”, The Computer Journal, vol. 41, No. 8, 1998, pp. 537-546.Applicant
- Palme et. al., “Issues when designing filters in messaging systems”, 19 Computer Communications, 1996, pp. 95-101.Applicant
- Joachins, “Text Categorization with Support Vector Machines: Learning with Many Relevant Features”, Machine Learning: ECML-98, Apr. 1998, pp. 1-14.Applicant
- Iwayama et al., “Hierarchical Bayesian Clustering for Automatic Text Classification”, Department of Computer Science, Tokyo Institute of Technology, ISSN 0918-2802, Aug. 1995, 10 pages.Applicant
- Spertus, “Smokey: Automatic Recognition of Hostile Messages”, Innovative Applications 1997, pp. 1058-1065.Applicant
- Schutze, “A Comparison of Classifiers and Document Representations for the Routing Problem”, pp. 229-237; Publication 1996.Applicant
- Takkinen et al., “Cafe: A Conceptual Model for Managing Information in Electronic Mail”, Proc. 31st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1998, pp. 44-53.Applicant
- Yang et al., “A Comparative Study on Feature Selection in Text Categorization”, Machine learning-International Workshop Then Conference, p. 412-420, Jul. 1997.Applicant
- Cranor et al., “Spam!”, Communications of the ACM, vol. 41, No. 8, Aug. 1998, pp. 74-83.Applicant
- LeFebvre, “Sendmail and Spam”, Performance Computing, Aug. 1998, pp. 55-58.Applicant
- Ranum et al, “Implementing a Generalized Tool for Network Monitoring”, Lisa Xi, Oct. 26-31, 1997, pp. 1-8.Applicant
- “Method for Automatic Contextual Transposition Upon Receipt of item of Specified Criteria” printed Feb. 1994 in IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 37, No. 2B, p. 333.Applicant
- Koller et al., “Toward Optimal Feature Selection”, Machine Learning: Proc. of the Thirteenth International Conference, 1996.Applicant
- Website: Technical Focus—Products—Entegrity AssureAccess. www2.entegrity.com, Published prior to May 2006 (pp. 1-4).Applicant
- Website: Create Secure Internet Communication Channels—Atabok Homepage. www.atabok.com, Published Feb. 19, 2002, pp. 1-3.Applicant
- Website: ATABOK VCNMAIL™ Secure Email Solution—Atabok Related Produces. www.atabok.com, Published Feb. 19, 2002, pp. 1-2.Applicant
- Website: ATABOK VCN Auto-Exchange™—Atabok Related Produces. www.atabok.com, Published Feb. 19, 2002, 1 page.Applicant
- Website: Controlling Digital Assets Is a Paramount Need for All Business—Atabok Related Produces. www.atabok.com, Published Feb. 19, 2002, 1 page.Applicant
- Website: Control Your Confidential Communications with Atabok—Atabok Related Produces. www.atabok.com, Published prior to May 2006, 1 page.Applicant
- Website: Entrust Entelligence—Entrust Homepage. www.entrust.com, Published prior to May 2006, 1 page.Applicant
- Website: E-mail Plug-in—Get Technical/Interoperability—Entrust Entelligence. www.entrust.com, Published Feb. 19, 2002, 1 page.Applicant
- Website: E-mail Plug-in—Get Technical/System Requirements—Entrust Entelligence. www.entrust.com, Published Feb. 19, 2002, 1 page.Applicant
- Website: E-mail Plug-in—Features and Benefits—Entrust Entelligence. www.entrust.com, Published Feb. 19, 2002, 1 page.Applicant
- Website: Internet Filtering Software—Internet Manager Homepage. www.elronsw.com, Published Feb. 19, 2002, 1 page.Applicant
- Website: ESKE—Email with Secure Key Exchange—ESKE. www.danu.ie, Published prior to May 2006, 1 page.Applicant
- Website: Terminet—ESKE. www.danu.ie, Published Feb. 19, 2002, 1 page.Applicant
- Website: Baltimore Focus on e-Security—Baltimore Technologies. www.baltimore.com, Published Feb. 19, 2002, pp. 1-2.Applicant
- Website: Go Secure! for Microsoft Exchange—Products/Services—Verisign, Inc. www.verisign.com, Publshed prior to May 2006, p. 2.Applicant
- Avery, “MIMEsweeper defuses virus network, 'net mail bombs”, info World, May 20, 1996, vol. 12, No. 21, p. N1.Applicant
- Wilkerson, “Stomping out mail viruses”, in PC Week, Jul. 15, 1996, p. N8.Applicant
- Serenelli et al., “Securing Electronic Mail Systems”, Communications-Fusing Command Control and Intelligence: MILCOM '921992, pp. 677-680.Applicant
- Kramer et. al., “Integralis' Minesweeper defuses E-mail bombs”, PC Week, Mar. 18, 1996, p. N17-N23.Applicant
- Ranum et. al., “A Toolkit and Methods for Internet Firewalls”, Proc. of USENIX Summer 1994 Technical Conference Jun. 6-10, 1994, pp. 37-44.Applicant
- McGhie, “Firewall Systems: The Next Generation”, Integration issues in Large Commerical Media Delivery Systems: Proc. of SPIE-The International Society for Optical Engineering, Oct. 23-24, 1995, pp. 270-281.Applicant
- Rose et. al., “Design of the TTI Prototype Trusted Mail Agent”, Computer Message Systems-85: Proc. of the IFIP TC 6 International Symposium on Computer Message Systems, Sep. 5-7, 1985, pp. 377-399.Applicant
- Greenwald et. al., “Designing an Academic Firewall: Policy, Practice, and Experience with Surf”, Proc. of the 1996 Symposium on Network and Distributed Systems Security, 1996, pp. 1-14.Applicant
- Tresse et. al., “X Through the Firewall, and Other Application Relays”, Proc. of the USENIX Summer 1993 Technical Conference, Jun. 21-25, 1993, pp. 87-99.Applicant
- Bryan, “Firewalls for Sale”, BYTE, Apr. 1995, pp. 99-104.Applicant
- Cheswick et al., “A DNS Filter and Switch for Packett-filtering Gateways”, Proc. of the Sixth Annual USENIX Security Symposium: Focusing on Applications of Cryptography, Jul. 22-25, 1996, pp. 15-19.Applicant
- Kahn, “Safe Use of X Window System Protocol Across a Firewall”, Proc. of the Fifth USENIX UNIX Security Symposium, Jun. 5-7, 1995, pp. 105-116.Applicant
- Pavlou et al., “Automating the OSI to Internet Management Conversion Through the Use of an Object-Oriented Platform”, Proc. of the IFIP TC6/WG6.4 International Conference on Advanced Information Processing Techniques for LAN and MAN Management, Apr. 7-9, 1993, pp. 245-260.Applicant
- Krishnaswamy et al—Verity: A QoS Metric for Selecting Web Services and Providers, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering Workshops (WISEW'03), IEEE, 2004.Applicant
- Kamvar et al., The EigenTrust Algorithm for Reputation Management in P2P Networks, ACM, WWW2003, Budapest, Hungary, May 20-24, 2003, pp. 640-651.Applicant
- Luk, W., et al. “Incremental Development of Hardware Packet Filters”, Proc. International Conference on Engineering of Reconfigurable Systems and Algorithms (ERSA). Jan. 1, 2001. pp. 115-118. XP055049950. Retrieved from the Internet: URL:www.doc.ic.ac.uk/-sy99/c1.ps.Applicant
- Georgopoulos, C. et al., “A Protocol Processing Architecture Backing TCP/IP-based Security Applications in High Speed Networks”. Interworking 2000. Oct. 1, 2000. XP055049972. Bergen. Norway Available online at <URL:http://pelopas.uop.gr/-fanis/html—files/pdf—files/papers/invited/I2—IW2002.pdf>.Applicant
- “Network Processor Designs for Next-Generation Networking Equipment”. White Paper Ezchip Technologies. XX. XX. Dec. 27, 1999. pp. 1-4. XP002262747.Applicant
- Segal, Richard, et al. “Spam Guru: An Enterprise Anti-Spam Filtering System”, IBM, 2004 (7 pages).Applicant
- Yang et al., “An Example-Based Mapping Method for Text Categorization and Retrieval”, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Jul. 1994, vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 252-277.Applicant
- Okumura, Motonobu, “E-Mail Filtering by Relation Learning”, IEICE Technical Report, vol. 103, No. 603, The Institute of Electronics, Information and Communication Engineers, Jan. 19, 2004, vol. 103, p. 1-5 [English Abstract Only].Applicant
- Inoue, Naomi, “Computer and Communication: Recent State of Filtering Software,” ISPJ Magazine, vol. 40, No. 10, Japan, The Institute of Electronics, Information and Communication Engineers, Oct. 15, 1999, vol. 40 p. 1007-1010 [English Abstract Only].Applicant
- Nilsson, Niles J., “Introduction to Machine Learning, an Early Draft of a Proposed Textbook”, Nov. 3, 1998; XP055050127; available online at <URL http://robotics.stanford.edu/˜nilsson/MLBOOK. pdf >.Applicant
- Androutsopoulos, Ion et al., “Learning to Filter Spam E-Mail: A Comparison of a Naive Bayesian and a Memory-Based Approach”; Proceedings of the Workshop “Machine Learning and Textual Information Access”; 4th European Conference on Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases (PKDD-2000). Sep. 1, 2000 [XP055050141] Lyon, France; available online at <URL http://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0009/0009009.pdf>.Applicant
- Rennie, J D M, “iFile: An application of Machine Learning to E-Mail Filtering”; Workshop on Text Mining; Aug. 1, 2000. [XP002904311]. pp. 1-6.Applicant
- Blum, Richard, Open Source E-Mail Security, SAMS XP009166200, ISBN 978-0-672-32237-2, pp. 139-158 Oct. 20, 2001.Applicant
- Clayton, Richard, “Good Practice for Combating Unsolicited Bulk Email,” Demon Internet, May 18, 1999 (16 pages).Applicant
- Smith, “A Secure Email Gateway (Building an RCAS External Interface)”, in Tenth Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, Dec. 5-9, 1994, pp. 202-211.Applicant
- Wiegel, “Secure External References in Multimedia Email Messages”, 3rd ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security Mar. 14-16, 1996, pp. 11-18.Applicant
- Leech et. al., Memo entitled “SOCKS Protocol Version 5”, Standards Track, Mar. 1996, pp. 1-9.Applicant
- Farrow, “Securing the Web: fire walls, proxy, servers, and data driven attacks”, InfoWorld, Jun. 19, 1995, vol. 17, No. 25, p. 103.Applicant
- Ando, Ruo, “Real-time neural detection with network capturing”, Study report from Information Processing Society of Japan, vol. 2002, No. 12, IPSJ SIG Notes, Information Processing Society of Japan, 2002, Feb. 15, 2002, p. 145-150.Applicant
- Aikawa, Narichika, “Q&A Collection: Personal computers have been introduced to junior high schools and accessing to the Internet has been started; however, we want to avoid the students from accessing harmful information. What can we do?”, DOS/V Power Report, vol. 8, No. 5, Japan, Impress Co., Ltd., May 1, 1998, p. 358 to 361.Applicant
- Shishibori, Masami, et al., “A Filtering Method for Mail Documents Using Personal Profiles”, IEICE Technical Report, The Institute of Electronics, Information and Communication Engineers, vol. 98, No. 486, Dec. 17, 1998, pp. 9-16.Applicant
- Lane, Terran et al., “Sequence Matching and Learning in Anomaly Detection for Computer Security,” AAAI Technical Report WS-97-07, 1997, p. 43 to 49.Applicant
- Abika.com, “Trace IP address, email or IM to owner or user” http://www.abika.com/help/IPaddressmap.htm, 3 pp. (Jan. 25, 2006).Applicant
- Abika.com, “Request a Persons Report”, http://www.abika.com/forms/Verifyemailaddress.asp, 1 p. (Jan. 26, 2006).Applicant
- Lough et al., “A Short Tutorial on Wireless LANs and IEEE 802.11”, printed on May 27, 2002, in the IEEE Computer Society's Student Newsletter, Summer 1997, vol. 5, No. 2.Applicant
- Feitelson et al., “Self-Tuning Systems”, Mar./Apr. 1999, IEEE, 0740-7459/99, pp. 52-60.Applicant
- Natsev, Apostol et al., “Walrus: A Similarity Retrieval Algorithm for Image Databases,” Mar. 2004.Applicant
- Schleimer, Saul, et al., “Winnowing: Local Algorighms for Document Fingerprinting.” Jun. 2003.Applicant
- Sobottka, K., et al., “Text Extraction from Colored Book and Journal Covers”, 2000 (pp. 163-176).Applicant
- Thomas, R., et al., “The Game Goes On: An Analsysi of Modern SPAM Techniques,” 2006.Applicant
- Anklesaria, F. et al., “The Internet Gopher Protocol”, RFC 1436, Mar. 1993.Applicant
- Berners-Lee, T. et al., “Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax”, RFC 2396, Aug. 1998.Applicant
- Crispin, M., “Internet Message Access Protocol-Version 4rev1”, RFC 2060, Dec. 1996.Applicant
- Franks, J. et al., “HITP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication”, RFC 2617, Jun. 1999.Applicant
- Klensin, J. et al., “SMTP Service Extensions”, RFC 1869, Nov. 1995.Applicant
- Moats, R., “URN Syntax”, RFC 2141, May 1997.Applicant
- Moore, K., “SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifications”, RFC 1891, Jan. 1996.Applicant
- Myers, J. et al., “Post Office Protocol-Version 3”, RFC 1939, May 1996.Applicant
- Nielsen, H., et al., “An HTTP Extension Framework”, RFC 2774, Feb. 2000.Applicant
- Postel, J., “Simple Mail Transfer Protocol”, RFC 821, Aug. 1982.Applicant
- IronMail™ Version 2.1, User's Manual. © 2001, published by CipherTrust, Inc., 114 pp. [U.S. Appl. No. 10/361,067].Applicant
- IronMail™ version 2.5, User's Manual, © 2001, published by CipherTrust, Inc., 195 pp. [U.S. Appl. No. 10/361,067].Applicant
- IronMail™ version 2.5.1, User's Manual, © 2001, published by CipherTrust, Inc., 203 pp. [U.S. Appl. No. 10/361,067].Applicant
- IronMail™ version 3.0, User's Manual, © 2002, published by CipherTrust, Inc., 280 pages.Applicant
- IronMail™version 3.0.1, User's Manual, © 2002, published by CipherTrust, Inc., 314 pages.Applicant
- IronMailTM version 3.1, User's Manual, published by CipherTrust, Inc., 397 pages [Cited in U.S. Appl. No. 10/361,067], 2006.Applicant
- Website: Exchange Business Information Safely & Quickly —Without Compromising Security or Reliability—Atabok Secure Data Solutions, Feb. 19, 2002, 2 pages.Applicant
- Braden, R., “Requirements for Internet Hosts—Application and Support”, RFC 1123, Oct. 1989, 98 pages.Applicant
- Fielding, R. et al., “Hypertext Transfer Protocol—HTTP/1.1”, RFC 2616, Jun. 1999, 114 pages.Applicant
- Klensin, J. et al., “SMTP Service Extensions”, RFC 1869, Nov. 1995, 11 pages.Applicant
- Yuchun Tang, “Granular Support Vector Machines Based on Granular Computing, Soft Computing and Statistical Learning.” Georgia State University: May 2006.Applicant
- Drucker et al; “Support Vector Machines for Spam Categorization”; 1999; IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks; vol. 10, No. 5; pp. 1048-1054.Applicant
- Graf et al.; “Parallel Support Vector Machines: The Cascade SVM”; 2005; pp. 1-8.Applicant
- Rokach, Lior et al.; “Decomposition methodology for classification tasks”; 2005; Springer-Verlag London Limited; Pattern Analysis & Applications; pp. 257-271.Applicant
- Wang, Jigang et al.; “Training Data Selection for Support Vector Machines”; 2005; ICNC 2005, LNCS 3610; pp. 554-564.Applicant
- Skurichina, Marina et al.; Bagging, Boosting and the Random Subspce Method for Linear Classifiers; 2002; Springer-Verlag London Limited; pp. 121-135.Applicant
- Tao, Dacheng et al.; “Asymmetric Bagging and Random Subspace for Support Vector Machines-Based Relevance Feedback in Image Retrieval”; 2006; IEEE Computer Society; pp. 1088-1099.Applicant
- Kotsiantis, S. B. et al.; “Machine learning: a review of classification and combining techniques”; 2006; Springer; Artificial Intelligence Review; pp. 159-190.Applicant
- Kane, Paul J. et al. “Quantification of Banding, Streaking and Grain in Flat Field Images”, 2000.Applicant
- Kim, JiSoo et al. “Text Locating from Natural Scene Images Using Image Intensities”, 2005 IEEE.Applicant
- Gupta, et al., “A Reputation System for Peer-to-Peer Networks,” ACM (2003).Applicant
- Golbeck, et al., “Inferring Reputation on the Semtantic Web,” ACM, 2004.Applicant
- Australian Patent Office First Examination Report in Australian Patent Application Serial No. 2009251584 dated Feb. 7, 2013.Applicant
- China Patent Office First Office Action in Chinese Patent Application Serial No. 200980120009.3 mailed on Mar. 26, 2013.Applicant