§
Luxuse
Patent Intelligence
Sign In
Patent US6345361B1 successfully refreshed from Google Patents.
← Back to Patent Explorer
US6345361B1 Expired / Lapsed US ⏱️ 0.0 years remaining

Directional set operations for permission based security in a computer system

Assignee: Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC
•
Filing: 1998-07-15
•
Granted: 2002-02-05
•
Expires: 2018-07-15
📄 Original PDF 🌐 Google Patents 🔄 Sync Now

Abstract

Abstract Computer-based systems and methods are disclosed for a comprehensive security model for managing active content downloaded from a computer network. The security model includes the configuration of a system security policy that is stored on a host computer. The system security policy is configured by security zone in progressively “finer grain” levels with each level associated with and defining the previous level. These levels may include: protected operations; user permission sets, permissions, parameters and primitives associated with parameters. A requested permission set is provided by the publisher of active content that lists the permissions that the active content requires in order to run on the host system. The requested permission set is automatically compared to one or more user permission sets to determine the permissions, if any that will be granted on the host system. The automated set comparisons includes determining a directional permissions sets comparison result, which is “directional” in that it maintains the distinction between the “superior” user-defined set and the “inferior” requested set. Determining the directional permissions sets comparison result may include determining directional primitive comparison results and merging them into a directional parameter comparison result; and determining directional parameter comparison results and merging them into a directional permission comparison result; and, determining directional permission comparison results and merging them into a directional permissions sets comparison result. The disclosed method may be practiced in the comparison of any two sets where a directional result is desirable.

Inventors

  • 👤 Michael S. Jerger
  • 👤 Jeffrey A. Bisset
  • 👤 Craig T. Sinclair
  • 👤 Michael J. Toutonghi

Bibliographic Details

Application Number —
Jurisdiction US
Data Source google_patents
Last Synchronized 2026-11-08 23:22
CPC Classifications
G; G06; G06F; G06F21/00; G06F21/60; G06F21/62

Claims Analysis

Total Claims: 52
Claim 1
Independent Claim 119 words
A computer based method for comparing a dominant set of elements to a subordinate set of elements, comprising: retrieving an element from a subordinate set of elements derived from an electronic document and a corresponding element from a dominant set of elements stored in a computer memory; comparing the element from the subordinate set of elements and the corresponding element from the dominant set of elements to each other to determine a directional set comparison result; using the directional set comparison result to make a determination of a directional relationship between the subordinate set of elements and the dominant set of elements; and using the directional relationship to determine if the electronic document is downloadable to a host computer.
Claim 2
Dependent Claim 119 words
A computer based method for comparing a dominant set of elements to a subordinate set of elements, comprising: retrieving an element from a subordinate set of elements derived from an electronic document and a corresponding element from a dominant set of elements stored in a computer memory; comparing the element from the subordinate set of elements and the corresponding element from the dominant set of elements to each other to determine a directional set comparison result; using the directional set comparison result to make a determination of a directional relationship between the subordinate set of elements and the dominant set of elements; and using the directional relationship to determine if the electronic document is downloadable to a host computer.
Claim 3
Dependent Claim 283 words
The method of claim 1 , wherein the directional set comparison result is indicative of one of the following directional relationships between the dominant set of elements and the subordinate set of elements: EMPTY, wherein there are no elements in both the dominant set of elements and the subordinate set of elements; EQUAL, wherein the elements in the dominant set of elements are identical to the elements in the subordinate set of elements; SUBSET, wherein the dominant set of elements contains all of the elements in the subordinate set of elements, but there are some elements in the dominant set of elements that are not in the subordinate set of elements; SUPERSET, wherein the subordinate set of elements contains all of the elements in the dominant set of elements, but there are some elements in the subordinate set of elements that are not in the dominant set of elements; EMPTY SUBSET, wherein the subordinate set of elements does not have any elements and the dominant set of elements does have some elements; EMPTY SUPERSET, wherein the subordinate set of elements has some elements, but the dominant set of elements does not have any elements; DISJOINT, wherein the subordinate set of elements has some elements and the dominant set of elements has some elements but the subordinate set of elements and the dominant set of elements have no elements in common; and OVERLAP, wherein the subordinate set of elements has some elements and the dominant set of elements has some elements but the subordinate set of elements and the dominant set of elements have only some elements in common and each set contains at least one element that is not in the other set.
Claim 4
Dependent Claim 30 words
The method of claim 2 , wherein the directional set comparison result is based on whether the subordinate set of elements is a subset of the dominant set of elements.
Claim 5
Dependent Claim 55 words
The method of claim 3 , wherein the subordinate set of elements is a subset of the dominant set of elements when the directional set comparison result is indicative is of one of the following directional relationships between the dominant set of elements and the subordinate set of elements: SUBSET, EMPTY SUBSET, EMPTY and EQUAL.
Claim 6
Dependent Claim 31 words
The method of claim 2 , wherein the directional set comparison result is based on whether the subordinate set of elements intersects the dominant set of elements directional set comparison result.
Claim 7
Dependent Claim 50 words
The method of claim 5 , wherein the subordinate set of elements intersects with the dominant set of elements when the directional set comparison result is indicative of one of the following directional relationships between the dominant set of elements and the subordinate set of elements: OVERLAP, SUBSET, EQUAL, SUPERSET.
Claim 8
Dependent Claim 30 words
The method of claim 2 , wherein the directional set comparison result is based on whether the subordinate set of elements is a superset of the dominant set of elements.
Claim 9
Dependent Claim 55 words
The method of claim 7 , wherein the subordinate set of elements is a superset of the dominant set of elements when the directional set comparison result is indicative is of one of the following directional relationships between the dominant set of elements and the subordinate set of elements: SUPERSET, EMPTY SUPERSET, DISJOINT and OVERLAP.
Claim 10
Dependent Claim 201 words
The method of claim 2 , wherein comparing the element from the subordinate set of elements and the corresponding element from the dominant set of elements to each other to determine a directional set comparison result comprises: determining if an element is present in the dominant set of elements and a corresponding element is present in the subordinate set of elements; if the element is not present in the subordinate set of elements and not present in the dominant set of elements, setting the directional set comparison result to EMPTY; if the element is not present in the subordinate set of elements but is present in the dominant set of elements, setting the directional set comparison result to EMPTY SUBSET; if the element is present in the subordinate set of elements but is not present in the dominant set of elements, setting the directional set comparison result to EMPTY SUPERSET; and if the element is present in the subordinate set of elements and is not present in the dominant set of elements, comparing the element from the subordinate set of elements and the corresponding element from the dominant set of elements to each other to determine a directional set comparison result.
Claim 11
Dependent Claim 90 words
The method of claim 1 , wherein each element in the subordinate set of elements comprises a subordinate subset of elements and each corresponding element in the dominant set of elements comprises a dominate subset of elements, the method further comprising: retrieving an element from the subordinate subset of elements and a corresponding element from the dominant subset of elements; and comparing the element from the subordinate subset of elements and the corresponding element from the dominant subset of elements to each other to determine a directional subset comparison result.
Claim 12
Dependent Claim 34 words
The method of claim 10 , further comprising using the directional subset comparison result to make a determination of a directional relationship between the subordinate set of elements and the dominant set of elements.
Claim 13
Dependent Claim 283 words
The method of claim 11 , wherein the directional subset comparison result is indicative of one of the following directional relationships between the dominant subset of elements and the subordinate subset of elements: EMPTY, wherein there are no elements in both the dominant subset of elements and the subordinate subset of elements; EQUAL, wherein the elements in the dominant subset of elements are identical to the elements in the subordinate subset of elements; SUBSET, wherein the dominant subset of elements contains all of the elements in the subordinate subset of elements, but there are some elements in the dominant subset of elements that are not in the subordinate subset of elements; SUPERSET, wherein the subordinate subset of elements contains all of the elements in the dominant subset of elements, but there are some elements in the subordinate subset of elements that are not in the dominant subset of elements; EMPTY SUBSET, wherein the subordinate subset of elements does not have any elements and the dominant subset of elements does have some elements; EMPTY SUPERSET, wherein the subordinate subset of elements has some elements, but the dominant subset of elements does not have any elements; DISJOINT, wherein the subordinate subset of elements has some elements and the dominant subset of elements has some elements but the subordinate subset of elements and the dominant subset of elements have no elements in common; and OVERLAP, wherein the subordinate subset of elements has some elements and the dominant subset of elements has some elements but the subordinate subset of elements and the dominant subset of elements have only some elements in common and each subset contains at least one element that is not in the other set.
Claim 14
Dependent Claim 30 words
The method of claim 12 , wherein the directional set comparison result is based on whether the subordinate subset of elements is a subset of the dominant subset of elements.
Claim 15
Dependent Claim 55 words
The method of claim 13 , wherein the subordinate subset of elements is a subset of the dominant subset of elements when the directional subset comparison result is indicative is of one of the following directional relationships between the dominant subset of elements and the subordinate subset of elements: SUBSET, EMPTY SUBSET, EMPTY and EQUAL.
Claim 16
Dependent Claim 31 words
The method of claim 12 , wherein the directional set comparison result is based on whether the subordinate subset of elements intersects the dominant subset of elements directional subset comparison result.
Claim 17
Dependent Claim 50 words
The method of claim 15 , wherein the subordinate subset of elements intersects with the dominant subset of elements when the directional subset comparison result is indicative of one of the following directional relationships between the dominant subset of elements and the subordinate subset of elements: OVERLAP, SUBSET, EQUAL, SUPERSET.
Claim 18
Dependent Claim 30 words
The method of claim 12 , wherein the directional set comparison result is based on whether the subordinate subset of elements is a superset of the dominant subset of elements.
Claim 19
Dependent Claim 56 words
By The method of claim 17 , wherein the subordinate subset of elements is a superset of the dominant subset of elements when the directional subset comparison result is indicative is of one of the following directional relationships between the dominant subset of elements and the subordinate subset of elements: SUPERSET, EMPTY SUPERSET, DISJOINT and OVERLAP.
Claim 20
Dependent Claim 201 words
The method of claim 12 , wherein comparing the element from the subordinate subset of elements and the corresponding element from the dominant subset of elements to each other to determine a directional subset comparison result comprises: determining if an element is present in the dominant subset of elements and a corresponding element is present in the subordinate subset of elements; if the element is not present in the subordinate subset of elements and not present in the dominant subset of elements, setting the directional element comparison result to EMPTY; if the element is not present in the subordinate subset of elements but is present in the dominant subset of elements, setting the directional element comparison result to EMPTY SUBSET; if the element is present in the subordinate subset of elements but is not present in the dominant subset of elements, setting the directional element comparison result to EMPTY SUPERSET; and if the element is present in the subordinate subset of elements and is not present in the dominant subset of elements, comparing the element from the subordinate subset of elements and the corresponding element from the dominant subset of elements to each other to determine a directional element comparison result.
Claim 21
Dependent Claim 47 words
The method of claim 10 , further comprising merging the directional subset comparison result into the directional set comparison result before using the directional set comparison result to make a determination of a directional relationship between the subordinate set of elements and the dominant set of elements.
Claim 22
Dependent Claim 241 words
The method of claim 20 , wherein the directional subset comparison result is merged into the directional set comparison result according to a relationship illustrated in the following table: NEW MERGE RESULTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PREVIOUS/ A OVERLAP DISJOINT SUBSET EQUAL SUPERSET EMPTY EMPTY ACCUMULATED SUBSET MERGE B EMPTY OVERLAP DISJOINT SUBSET EQUAL SUPERSET EMPTY EMPTY RESULTS SUBSET C EMPTY OVERLAP DISJOINT SUBSET SUBSET OVERLAP DISJOINT EMPTY SUBSET SUBSET D EMPTY OVERLAP DISJOINT OVERLAP SUPERSET SUPERSET EMPTY EMPTY SUPERSET SUBSET SUPERSET E DISJOINT OVERLAP DISJOINT OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP DISJOINT DISJOINT F OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP G SUBSET OVERLAP OVERLAP SUBSET SUBSET OVERLAP OVERLAP SUBSET H SUPERSET OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP SUPERSET SUPERSET SUPERSET SUPERSET I EQUAL OVERLAP OVERLAP SUBSET EQUAL SUPERSET SUPERSET EQUAL wherein a previous/accumulated merge result is obtained from the directional set comparison result and used to select a row (B-I) in the table, a new merge result is obtained from the directional subset comparison result and used to select a column ( 2 - 8 ) of the table, and a new value indicative of a directional relationship between the dominant set of elements and the subordinate set of elements is: (i) determined from the intersection of the selected row and the selected column (B 2 through I 8 ) and (ii) assigned to the directional set comparison result as the directional set comparison result's new value following the merger.
Claim 23
Dependent Claim 27 words
The method of claim 10 , wherein the dominant set of elements are host computer permission sets and the subordinate set of elements are requested permission sets.
Claim 24
Dependent Claim 27 words
The method of claim 22 , wherein the dominant subset of elements is a host computer parameter and the subordinate subset of elements is a requested parameter.
Claim 25
Independent Claim 19 words
The method of claims 23 , wherein the directional set comparison result is a directional permission sets comparison result.
Claim 26
Dependent Claim 19 words
The method of claim 24 , wherein the directional subset comparison result is a directional permission set comparison result.
Claim 27
Dependent Claim 50 words
The method of claim 25 , further comprising merging the directional permission set comparison result into the directional permission sets comparison result before using the directional permission sets comparison result to make a determination of a directional relationship between the subordinate set of elements and the dominant set of elements.
Claim 28
Dependent Claim 243 words
The method of claim 26 , wherein the directional permission comparison result is merged into the directional permission set comparison result according to a relationship illustrated in the following table: NEW MERGE RESULTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PREVIOUS/ A OVERLAP DISJOINT SUBSET EQUAL SUPERSET EMPTY EMPTY ACCUMULATED SUBSET MERGE B EMPTY OVERLAP DISJOINT SUBSET EQUAL SUPERSET EMPTY EMPTY RESULTS SUBSET C EMPTY OVERLAP DISJOINT SUBSET SUBSET OVERLAP DISJOINT EMPTY SUBSET SUBSET D EMPTY OVERLAP DISJOINT OVERLAP SUPERSET SUPERSET EMPTY EMPTY SUPERSET SUBSET SUPERSET E DISJOINT OVERLAP DISJOINT OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP DISJOINT DISJOINT F OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP G SUBSET OVERLAP OVERLAP SUBSET SUBSET OVERLAP OVERLAP SUBSET H SUPERSET OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP SUPERSET SUPERSET SUPERSET SUPERSET I EQUAL OVERLAP OVERLAP SUBSET EQUAL SUPERSET SUPERSET EQUAL wherein a previous/accumulated merge result is obtained from the directional permission sets comparison result and used to select a row (B-I) in the table, a new merge result is obtained from the directional permission set comparison result and used to select a column ( 2 - 8 ) of the table, and a new value indicative of a directional relationship between the host computer permission sets and the requested permission sets is: (i) determined from the intersection of the row and the column (B 2 through I 8 ) and (ii) assigned to the directional permission sets comparison result as the directional permission sets comparison result's new value following the merger.
Claim 29
Dependent Claim 29 words
The method of claim 10 , wherein the dominant set of elements is a host computer permission set and the subordinate set of elements is a requested permission set.
Claim 30
Dependent Claim 27 words
The method of claim 28 , wherein the dominant subset of elements is a host computer parameter and the subordinate subset of elements is a requested parameter.
Claim 31
Dependent Claim 19 words
The method of claim 29 , wherein the directional set comparison result is a directional permission set comparison result.
Claim 32
Dependent Claim 18 words
The method of claim 30 , wherein the directional subset comparison result is a directional permission comparison result.
Claim 33
Dependent Claim 49 words
The method of claim 31 , further comprising merging the directional permission comparison result into the directional permission set comparison result before using the directional permission set comparison result to make a determination of a directional relationship between the subordinate set of elements and the dominant set of elements.
Claim 34
Dependent Claim 243 words
The method of claim 32 , wherein the directional permission comparison result is merged into the directional permission set comparison result according to a relationship illustrated in the following table: NEW MERGE RESULTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PREVIOUS/ A OVERLAP DISJOINT SUBSET EQUAL SUPERSET EMPTY EMPTY ACCUMULATED SUBSET MERGE B EMPTY OVERLAP DISJOINT SUBSET EQUAL SUPERSET EMPTY EMPTY RESULTS SUBSET RESULTS C EMPTY OVERLAP DISJOINT SUBSET SUBSET OVERLAP DISJOINT EMPTY SUBSET SUBSET D EMPTY OVERLAP DISJOINT OVERLAP SUPERSET SUPERSET EMPTY EMPTY SUPERSET SUBSET SUPERSET E DISJOINT OVERLAP DISJOINT OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP DISJOINT DISJOINT F OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP G SUBSET OVERLAP OVERLAP SUBSET SUBSET OVERLAP OVERLAP SUBSET H SUPERSET OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP SUPERSET SUPERSET SUPERSET SUPERSET I EQUAL OVERLAP OVERLAP SUBSET EQUAL SUPERSET SUPERSET EQUAL wherein a previous/accumulated merge result is obtained from the directional permission set comparison result and used to select a row (B-I) in the table, a new merge result is obtained from the directional permission comparison result and used to select a column ( 2 - 8 ) of the table, and a new value indicative of a directional relationship between the host computer permission set and the requested permission set is: (i) determined from the intersection of the row and the column (B 2 through I 8 ) and (ii) assigned to the directional permission set comparison result as the directional permission set comparison result's new value following the merger.
Claim 35
Dependent Claim 236 words
The method of claim 32 , wherein the directional parameter comparison result is merged into the directional permission comparison result according to a relationship illustrated in the following table: NEW MERGE RESULTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PREVIOUS/ A OVERLAP DISJOINT SUBSET EQUAL SUPERSET EMPTY EMPTY ACCUMULATED SUBSET MERGE B EMPTY OVERLAP DISJONT SUBSET EQUAL SUPERSET EMPTY EMPTY RESULTS SUBSET C EMPTY OVERLAP DISJOINT SUBSET SUBSET OVERLAP DISJOINT EMPTY SUBSET SUBSET D EMPTY OVERLAP DISJOINT OVERLAP SUPERSET SUPERSET EMPTY EMPTY SUPERSET SUBSET SUPERSET E DISJOINT OVERLAP DISJOINT OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP DISJOINT DISJOINT F OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP G SUBSET OVERLAP OVERLAP SUBSET SUBSET OVERLAP OVERLAP SUBSET H SUPERSET OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP SUPERSET SUPERSET SUPERSET SUPERSET I EQUAL OVERLAP OVERLAP SUBSET EQUAL SUPERSET SUPERSET EQUAL wherein a previous/accumulated merge result is obtained from the directional permission comparison result and used to select a row (B-I) in the table, a new merge result is obtained from the directional parameter comparison result and used to select a column ( 2 - 8 ) of the table, and a new value indicative of a directional relationship between the host computer permission and the requested permission is: (i) determined from the intersection of the row and the column (B 2 through I 8 ) and (ii) assigned to the directional permission comparison result as the directional permission comparison results new value following the merger.
Claim 36
Dependent Claim 29 words
The method of claim 10 , wherein the dominant set of elements is a host computer permission set and the subordinate set of elements is a requested permission set.
Claim 37
Dependent Claim 27 words
The method of claim 35 , wherein the dominant subset of elements is a host computer parameter and the subordinate subset of elements is a requested parameter.
Claim 38
Dependent Claim 18 words
The method of claim 36 , wherein the directional set comparison result is a directional permission comparison result.
Claim 39
Dependent Claim 18 words
The method of claim 37 , wherein the directional subset comparison result is a directional parameter comparison result.
Claim 40
Dependent Claim 47 words
The method of claim 38 , further comprising merging the directional parameter comparison result into the directional permission comparison result before using the directional permission comparison result to make a determination of a directional relationship between the subordinate set of elements and the dominant set of elements.
Claim 41
Dependent Claim 27 words
The method of claim 10 , wherein the dominant set of elements is a host computer parameter and the subordinate set of elements is a requested parameter.
Claim 42
Dependent Claim 27 words
The method of claim 40 , wherein the dominant subset of elements is a host computer primitive and the subordinate subset of elements is a requested primitive.
Claim 43
Dependent Claim 18 words
The method of claim 41 , wherein the directional set comparison result is a directional parameter comparison result.
Claim 44
Dependent Claim 18 words
The method of claim 42 , wherein the directional subset comparison result is a directional primitive comparison result.
Claim 45
Dependent Claim 47 words
The method of claim 43 , further comprising merging the directional primitive comparison result into the directional parameter comparison result before using the directional parameter comparison result to make a determination of a directional relationship between the subordinate set of elements and the dominant set of elements.
Claim 46
Dependent Claim 236 words
The method of claim 44 , wherein the directional primitive comparison result is merged into the directional parameter comparison result according to a relationship illustrated in the following table: NEW MERGE RESULTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PREVIOUS/ A OVERLAP DISJOINT SUBSET EQUAL SUPERSET EMPTY EMPTY ACCUMULATED SUBSET MERGE B EMPTY OVERLAP DISJOINT SUBSET EQUAL SUPERSET EMPTY EMPTY RESULTS SUBSET C EMPTY OVERLAP DISJOINT SUBSET SUBSET OVERLAP DISJOINT EMPTY SUBSET SUBSET D EMPTY OVERLAP DISJOINT OVERLAP SUPERSET SUPERSET EMPTY EMPTY SUPERSET SUBSET SUPERSET E DISJOINT OVERLAP DISJOINT OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP DISJOINT DISJOINT F OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP G SUBSET OVERLAP OVERLAP SUBSET SUBSET OVERLAP OVERLAP SUBSET H SUPERSET OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP SUPERSET SUPERSET SUPERSET SUPERSET I EQUAL OVERLAP OVERLAP SUBSET EQUAL SUPERSET SUPERSET EQUAL wherein a previous/accumulated merge result is obtained from the directional parameter comparison result and used to select a row (B-I) in the table, a new merge result is obtained from the directional primitive comparison result and used to select a column ( 2 - 8 ) of the table, and a new value indicative of a directional relationship between the host computer parameter and the requested parameter is: (i) determined from the intersection of the row and the column (B 2 through I 8 ) and (ii) assigned to the directional parameter comparison result as the directional parameter comparison result's new value following the merger.
Claim 47
Dependent Claim 27 words
The method of claim 10 , wherein the dominant set of elements is a host computer primitive and the subordinate set of elements is a requested primitive.
Claim 48
Dependent Claim 35 words
The method of claim 46 , wherein the dominant subset of elements is a component group from the host computer primitive and the subordinate subset of elements is a component group from the requested primitive.
Claim 49
Dependent Claim 18 words
The method of claim 47 , wherein the directional set comparison result is a directional primitive comparison result.
Claim 50
Dependent Claim 19 words
The method of claim 48 , wherein the directional subset comparison result is a directional component group comparison result.
Claim 51
Dependent Claim 37 words
The method of claim 49 , further comprising merging the directional component group comparison result into the directional primitive comparison result before using the directional primitive comparison result to make a determination of an action to take.
Claim 52
Dependent Claim 237 words
The method of claim 50 , wherein the directional primitive comparison result is merged into the directional parameter comparison result according to a relationship illustrated in the following table: NEW MERGE RESULTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PREVIOUS/ A OVERLAP DISJOINT SUBSET EQUAL SUPERSET EMPTY EMPTY ACCUMULATED SUBSET MERGE B EMPTY OVERLAP DISJOINT SUBSET EQUAL SUPERSET EMPTY EMPTY RESULTS SUBSET C EMPTY OVERLAP DISJOINT SUBSET SUBSET OVERLAP DISJOINT EMPTY SUBSET SUBSET D EMPTY OVERLAP DISJOINT OVERLAP SUPERSET SUPERSET EMPTY EMPTY SUPERSET SUBSET SUPERSET E DISJOINT OVERLAP DISJOINT OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP DISJOINT DISJOINT F OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP G SUBSET OVERLAP OVERLAP SUBSET SUBSET OVERLAP OVERLAP SUBSET H SUPERSET OVERLAP OVERLAP OVERLAP SUPERSET SUPERSET SUPERSET SUPERSET I EQUAL OVERLAP OVERLAP SUBSET EQUAL SUPERSET SUPERSET EQUAL wherein a previous/accumulated merge result is obtained from the directional primitive comparison result and used to select a row (B-I) in the table, a new merge result is obtained from the directional component group comparison result and used to select a column ( 2 - 8 ) of the table, and a new value indicative of a directional relationship between the host computer primitive and the requested primitive is: (i) determined from the intersection of the row and the column (B 2 through I 8 ) and (ii) assigned to the directional primitive comparison result as the directional primitive comparison result's new value following the merger.

References Cited (Backward Citations)

US5828893A Cited
US5835726A Cited
US5963142A Cited
US5678041A Cited
US5684951A Cited
US5809145A Cited
US5987440A Cited
US5919247A Cited
US5930792A Cited
US5796942A Cited
US5784539A Cited
US5958051A Cited
US6141325A Cited
US5987611A Cited
US5996076A Cited
US5937064A Cited
US5987608A Cited
US5958005A Cited
US5991878A Cited
US5940843A Cited
US6101539A Cited

USPTO Annuity & Maintenance Windows

Annuity Stage Window Opens Payment Deadline Surcharge Period Until Estimated Fee Status
3.5 Years (Year 4) 2005-02-04 2005-08-06 2006-02-05 $2000.00 Window Closed / Lapsed
7.5 Years (Year 8) 2009-02-04 2009-08-06 2010-02-05 $3760.00 Window Closed / Lapsed
11.5 Years (Year 12) 2013-02-04 2013-08-06 2014-02-05 $7700.00 Window Closed / Lapsed

Assigned Categories & Tags

No categories assigned to this patent yet.

Assign Category Tag