U.S. patent application number 12/464072 was filed with the patent office on 2009-12-10 for method of appraising and insuring intellectual property.
Invention is credited to Robert Block.
Application Number | 20090307014 12/464072 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 37036351 |
Filed Date | 2009-12-10 |
United States Patent
Application |
20090307014 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Block; Robert |
December 10, 2009 |
METHOD OF APPRAISING AND INSURING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Abstract
Methods are disclosed for using computers, computer programs,
algorithms and computer networks and communications hardware and
protocols to appraise the value of assets as well as protecting
asset owners from the risk that other entities will value those
assets differently. The methods disclosed include: Supplementing
traditional valuation methods with other considerations that may
affect the value of intellectual property assets. Using insurance
type financial instruments to maintain compliance with regulatory
requirements such as those imposed by the Sarbanes Oxley Act, the
SEC, or the IRS. Using insurance type financial instruments to
protect intellectual property asset owners from the risk that
tribunals, regulatory agencies, or other entities will appraise
intellectual property assets at a different value.
Inventors: |
Block; Robert; (Chicago,
IL) |
Correspondence
Address: |
KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
2040 MAIN STREET, FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE
CA
92614
US
|
Family ID: |
37036351 |
Appl. No.: |
12/464072 |
Filed: |
May 11, 2009 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
11342330 |
Jan 26, 2006 |
7536312 |
|
|
12464072 |
|
|
|
|
60647577 |
Jan 26, 2005 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
705/4 ;
705/400 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06Q 40/00 20130101;
G06Q 30/0283 20130101; G06Q 30/0278 20130101; G06Q 40/08 20130101;
G06Q 30/0206 20130101; G06Q 40/025 20130101; G06Q 10/0635 20130101;
Y10S 707/99931 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
705/4 ;
705/400 |
International
Class: |
G06Q 40/00 20060101
G06Q040/00; G06Q 50/00 20060101 G06Q050/00 |
Claims
1. A computer-implemented method of outputting an intellectual
property valuation risk policy comprising: accessing
computer-executable instructions from at least one
computer-readable storage medium; and executing the
computer-executable instructions, thereby causing computer hardware
comprising at least one computer processor to perform operations
comprising: accessing a valuation database to determine a first
expected value for a first intellectual property asset, the
valuation database comprising expected values of a plurality of
intellectual property assets; determining a prosecution history
score for the first intellectual property asset, the prosecution
history score based on contents of a prosecution history
corresponding to the first intellectual property asset; calculating
a premium for an intellectual property valuation risk policy based
on the first expected value and the prosecution history score, the
intellectual property valuation risk policy configured to protect
against third party valuations of the intellectual property asset
that are below the first expected value; and outputting the
intellectual property valuation risk policy comprising the
premium.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, the at least one
computer processor to perform operations further comprising:
generating a loss probability distribution based on the premium;
determining an optimal policy structure based on the loss
probability distribution, the optimal structure comprising at least
a policy limit and a reinsurance requirement level; and outputting
the intellectual property valuation risk policy comprising the
premium, the policy limit, and the reinsurance requirement
level.
3. A computer-implemented method to appraise a value of an
intellectual property asset and to insure against risks related to
the value of the intellectual property asset, the method
comprising: electronically receiving in a computer system at least
one appraisal of the intellectual property asset that is based on a
cost approach, a market approach, or an income approach;
electronically receiving in the computer system information
indicating at least part of a prosecution history of the
intellectual property asset; electronically calculating in the
computer system an adjusted appraisal based on a weighting factor
determined from prosecution history information of the intellectual
property asset, wherein the prosecution history information
comprises a number of office actions in the prosecution history in
the prosecution history; electronically calculating in the computer
system a premium amount for a risk policy based on the adjusted
appraisal, wherein the risk policy protects against fluctuations in
the value of the intellectual property asset; and electronically
issuing by the computer system a valuation bond on the intellectual
property asset, wherein the valuation bond comprises at least one
payment obligation that is triggered when the adjusted appraisal is
found to have overstated a value of the intellectual property asset
relative to a determined value of the intellectual property
asset.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the
weighting factor is determined from a number of non-final office
actions identified in the prosecution history of the intellectual
property asset.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the
weighting factor is determined from a number of final office
actions identified in the prosecution history of the intellectual
property asset.
6. A computer-implemented method to appraise a value of an
intellectual property asset and to insure against fluctuations in
the value of the intellectual property asset, the method
comprising: electronically receiving in a computer system at least
one appraisal on the intellectual property asset that is based on a
cost approach, a market approach, or an income approach;
electronically receiving in the computer system information about a
prosecution history of the intellectual property asset;
electronically calculating in the computer system an adjusted
appraisal based on information from the prosecution history of the
intellectual property that indicates a number of references cited
in the prosecution history; electronically calculating in the
computer system a premium for a risk insurance policy based on the
adjusted appraisal, wherein the risk insurance policy comprises a
benefit when the value of the intellectual property asset
decreases; and electronically issuing by the computer system a
valuation bond on the intellectual property asset, wherein the
valuation bond comprises at least one payment obligation that is
triggered when the adjusted appraisal is found to have overstated a
value of the intellectual property asset relative to a determined
value of the intellectual property asset.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the
weighting factor is determined from a number of references cited by
an examiner that examined the intellectual property asset that are
identified in the prosecution history.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the
weighting factor is determined from a number of references cited in
a prior art rejection by an examiner that examined the intellectual
property asset that are identified in the prosecution history.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the
weighting factor is determined from a number of references cited in
a disclosure statement by an applicant of the intellectual property
asset that are identified in the prosecution history.
10. A computer implemented method to appraise a value of an
intellectual property asset and to insure against risks related to
the value of the intellectual property asset, the method
comprising: electronically receiving in a computer an appraisal on
the intellectual property asset using traditional valuation
methods, the traditional valuation methods comprising at least one
of a cost approach, a market approach, or an income approach;
electronically calculating in the computer an adjusted appraisal by
adjusting the appraisal based on information that is not considered
in said traditional valuation methods, the information comprising
at least contents of the prosecution history of the intellectual
property asset; electronically calculating in the computer a risk
policy premium based on the adjusted appraisal for a risk policy
that protects against risks related to the value of the
intellectual property asset; and electronically outputting by the
computer the calculated risk policy premium.
Description
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
[0001] The present application is a continuation of U.S.
application Ser. No. 11/342,330 filed on Jan. 26, 2006, which
claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No.
60/647,577, filed on Jan. 26, 2005, the entire contents of each is
herein incorporated by reference.
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
[0002] The invention in various embodiments relates to the use of
computers, computer programs and computer algorithms, as well as
computer communication devices and protocols, to appraise the value
of assets as well as protecting various individuals from the risk
that other entities will value those assets differently.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0003] The valuation of intellectual property assets may create
exposure to risk from multiple sources. Various tribunals and
agencies may value intellectual property differently, creating
substantial risk for intellectual property owners. Valuing
intellectual property may also create compliance issues based on
requirements from regulatory bodies.
[0004] For example, the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 creates specific
duties of corporate officers that may create liabilities if
breached. Although professional liability insurance has been used
to protect officers from liability, this insurance does not signal
the quality of any company asset or accuracy of any specific
management decision. Further, by their very nature and structure,
such policies cover a range of "wrongful acts" subject to myriad
exclusions and exceptions.
[0005] Financial guarantees, which are predictions of future value,
have been used to act as collateral for loan transactions involving
intellectual property. But these are only operational at the time
the collateral is repossessed if the intellectual property owner
defaults on the loan. Further, insurance policies that utilize
bonding instruments have been used to validate valuation
assumptions, but they have been limited to valuing tangible
assets.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0006] One embodiment of the invention is a computer tool to
establish the premium for an intellectual property
valuation/appraisal risk policy using traditional valuation
methodologies, and then further considering (1) the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and any related legislation, rules, guidance, etc.,
and/or other regulatory requirements in general, and/or (2) the
contents of file wrappers associated with the patented assets
considered in the appraisal.
[0007] In one embodiment, the invention utilizes an intellectual
property valuation bond to both transfer and mitigate the policy
holder's financial risk that a government agency or tribunal may
accept a smaller value for the subject intellectual property in
place of the appraised value. Preferably, the bond will exclude
fluctuations in value due to exogenous events such as product
obsolescence or a finding of patent invalidity. However, the fact
that an unrelated third-party, namely the valuation bond
underwriter, has committed risk capital to support the valuation
should be persuasive to agencies and tribunals that often look to
arms-length market transactions to determine reasonable value. Such
transactions are often lacking for IP, and the valuation bond
utilized in one preferred embodiment can serve as a corrective.
[0008] For example, a global corporation is obliged to make
transfer pricing decisions in connection with illiquid intellectual
property that have the potential to impact taxable income through
multiple jurisdictions. Preferably, the valuation bond would
respond in cases where a taxing authority successfully argued that
the appraised intellectual property was overvalued and taxable
income was thus understated in jurisdictions where subsidiaries
paid and deducted transfer pricing royalties based on the erroneous
higher valuation.
[0009] One embodiment of the invention comprises three main
steps:
[0010] Step 1--Perform a traditional intellectual property
valuation. The methodologies used to appraise intellectual property
are well established and commonly used. The output of a traditional
valuation is defined as [A].
[0011] Step 2--Enhanced intellectual property valuation.
Preferably, the novel components of the enhanced appraisal are
consideration of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the patent file
wrappers. The output of the factors included in Step 2 are defined
as [B] and [C].
[0012] Step 3--Use the outputs of Steps 1 & 2 to determine the
risk policy premium, defined as [D], where [D]=function
([A]+[B]+[C]). Alternative embodiments may not include all of these
steps. It is contemplated that step 2 may utilize the patent file
wrapper to appraise a patent with or without the traditional
valuation methods of step 1 and with or without considering the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Additionally, further embodiments may factor
compliance risks related to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act into the risk
policy premium without other valuation considerations.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0013] FIG. 1 is a flow chart illustrating one embodiment of an
appraisal system as described herein.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT
[0014] In one embodiment of this invention, a computer algorithm is
used to insure and reflect the value of intellectual property
assets. However, it is contemplated that alternative embodiments
may be applicable to tangible assets.
Step 1 of a Preferred Embodiment
Traditional Intellectual Property Valuation
[0015] Intellectual property valuation techniques referred to
herein as traditional have been used by practitioners for many
years, and are well documented in numerous books and other
publications.
[0016] One goal of one embodiment of the appraisal process is to
develop a well-supported estimate of value based on consideration
of pertinent data. There are numerous methodologies that may be
appropriate to the economic analysis of intellectual property, any
of which may be utilized to perform the appraisal in this
embodiment. However, when analysts consider the fundamental
similarities and differences among these methods and procedures,
they often logically group together into the three general
categories of valuation analysis. These three fundamental ways to
value intellectual property are commonly called the Cost Approach,
the Market Approach, and the Income Approach. The Cost Approach is
based upon the principles of asset recreation or substitution.
These basic economic principles assert that an investor will pay no
more for an investment than its cost (e.g., its reproduction or
replacement cost). The Market Approach is based upon market-derived
empirical transactional data and an assessment of the changes in
market conditions between the date of the transactions and the date
of the appraisal. The Income Approach is based upon the principle
of the Net Present Value of future cash flows. In the Income
Approach, the asset value is the present value of the expected
economic income expected to be earned from asset ownership.
[0017] Preferably, one embodiment of the invention utilizes the
similar steps used In the various traditional intellectual value
appraisal methods, which may comprise:
[0018] 1. Identification of the intellectual property appraisal
problem, which may include but is not limited to: [0019] a.
Identification of the subject asset. [0020] b. Identification of
the subject asset rights to be valued. [0021] c. Objective of the
appraisal assignment. [0022] d. Purpose of the appraisal
assignment. [0023] e. Definition of the appropriate standard of
value. [0024] f. Date of the value estimate. [0025] g. A listing of
limiting conditions.
[0026] 2. Data collection and analysis, which may include but is
not limited to: [0027] a. Characteristics of the asset: ownership
interest to be valued, rights, privileges, conditions, and factors
affecting ownership or operational control. [0028] b. Nature,
history, outlook and competitive landscape of the business and
industry in which the asset operates. [0029] c. Historical
financial information for the asset. [0030] d. Related assets and
liabilities required for economic operation of the subject assets.
[0031] e. The nature and conditions of the relevant industries that
have an impact on the asset. [0032] f. Local, national, and
international economic factors affecting the asset. [0033] g.
Available rates of return on alternative market investments and a
description of relevant market transactions. [0034] h. Prior
transactions involving the subject and related subject assets.
[0035] i. Other relevant information.
[0036] 3. One embodiment of the invention may use one or more of
the following valuation approaches. Other embodiments may use a
method other than those listed below. [0037] a. Cost Approach
[0038] Within the Cost Approach, there are several related
analytical methods. Each group of analytic methods uses a similar
definition of the type of cost that is relevant to the valuation.
The most common types or definitions of cost are: reproduction cost
and replacement cost. Preferably, Cost Approach valuations methods
involve a comprehensive analysis of the relevant cost
components.
[0039] Definitions of cost may include but are not limited to
considerations of the following cost components: [0040] Materials
[0041] Labor [0042] Overhead [0043] Asset developer's profit [0044]
Entrepreneurial incentive [0045] b. Market Approach
[0046] There is a general systematic process or framework to the
application of the Market Approach. The basic steps of this general
systematic process may include but are not limited to: [0047] Data
collection and selection. [0048] Classification of selected data.
[0049] Verification of selected data. [0050] Selections of units of
comparison. [0051] Quantification of pricing multiples. [0052]
Adjustment of pricing multiples. [0053] Application of pricing
multiples. [0054] Reconciliation of value indications. [0055] c.
Income Approach
[0056] A preferred embodiment of the invention may use the Income
Approach to appraise the value of an asset by using the present
value of the expected economic income to be earned from ownership
of the asset. The investor anticipates the expected economic income
to be earned from the investment in the subject asset. This
expectation of prospective economic income may be converted to a
present value or worth. Preferably, in this valuation approach, the
analyst estimates the investor's required rate of return on the
investment generating the prospective economic income. The required
rate of return may be a function of the risk or uncertainty of the
expected economic income associated with the asset. The basic steps
of this approach may include but are not limited to: [0057]
Forecast the appropriate measure of economic income enabled by the
asset into the future. [0058] Convert the projection of prospective
economic income into a present value by the use of a present value
discount rate.
[0059] Specific activities undertaken to accomplish the above two
steps include, but are not limited to the following: [0060] 1.
Assess subject patents and competitive patents by: [0061] a.
Reviewing patents and patent applications; [0062] b. Interviewing
people knowledgeable of pertinent patents; [0063] c. Rating the
pertinent patents; and [0064] d. Performing a patent landscape
analysis. [0065] 2. Assess the uses and advantages/disadvantages of
the IP versus alternatives; [0066] 3. Assess the economic costs and
benefits of implementing the IP versus alternatives; [0067] 4.
Assess the competitive IP; and [0068] 5. Assess the size of the
markets in which the IP can be used [0069] 6. Forecast the IP's
penetration into the market [0070] 7. Forecast the timing of IP
commercialization [0071] 8. Forecast the IP's useful economic and
legal life [0072] 9. Estimate the probabilities of technical and
market success by: [0072] [0073] a. Reviewing pertinent information
provided by the IP owner [0074] b. Interviewing people
knowledgeable about the IP [0075] c. Performing independent market
research [0076] d. Hiring third-party industry and technology
experts [0077] e. Performing primary market research [0078] f.
Researching transactional data for similar IP [0079] 10. Determine
the appropriate discount rate [0080] 11. Develop a financial model
incorporating or representing the above detailed aspects [0081] 12.
Incorporate Monte Carlo, Decision Tree, or Black Scholes advanced
modeling techniques [0082] 4. Estimation of the value conclusion,
which may include but is not limited to: [0083] a. The value
estimate. [0084] b. Identification of the subject assets. [0085] c.
The objective of the appraisal. [0086] d. The purpose of the
appraisal. [0087] e. The asset ownership interest subject to
appraisal. [0088] f. The date of the value estimate. [0089] g.
Definition of the appropriate standard of value to be estimated.
[0090] h. The premise of value to be used.
Step 2
Enhanced Intellectual Property Valuation
[0091] One embodiment of the invention provides an enhanced
intellectual property valuation by considering the affects of (1)
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and any related legislation, rules,
guidance, etc. and (2) the contents of patent file wrappers on a
traditional valuation. Preferably, these two factors are considered
in addition to the traditional factors discussed above.
1. Assess Impact of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and any Related
Associated Legislation, Rules, Guidance
[0092] One embodiment of the invention includes a computer
algorithm to establish the premium, limits, and structure of an
insurance policy that facilitates compliance with the Sarbanes
Oxley Act of 2002 ("the Act") by protecting shareholders against
the consequences of any error, omission or misstatement in
connection with the company's statement of intellectual property
value including certification under Sections 302 and 404 of the
Act.
[0093] Section 302 of the Act requires the CFO and CEO of public
companies to certify that their annual and quarterly reports do not
contain any untrue statement of material fact or fail to disclose a
material fact as well as to certify that the information presented
"fairly presents in all material respects the financial position of
the issuer". Section 404 of the Act requires companies to certify
their internal controls including the procedures and protocols by
which they assess business risks (including, for many companies,
risks arising out of intellectual property exposures).
[0094] The threshold problem for companies with significant
intellectual property (especially patent) portfolios is that such
properties may be valuable but illiquid. The absence of a ready
market for the sale or other disposition of such properties
complicates certification without a demonstrable counter-party
capital commitment.
[0095] Certain Director's & Officer's policies or Professional
Liability policies can respond to damage claims arising out of
material misstatements. However, by their very nature and
structure, such policies cover a range of "wrongful acts" subject
to myriad exclusions and exceptions. Professional Liability
insurance is not customarily underwritten or understood to signal
the quality of any company asset or the accuracy of any specific
management representation. D&O policies also are written to
contest claims on behalf of defendants and not for the benefit of
obligees who have been harmed by the wrongful acts at issue.
[0096] What is needed is a mechanism that can confer transparency
and market discipline on illiquid intellectual property assets
without compromising value or control. A properly designed and
priced insurance policy, which may be utilized in one embodiment of
the invention, can support valuation assumptions with third-party
capital without diluting title or clouding ownership of the
intellectual property assets. Preferably, regulators, shareholders,
creditors and other company constituents can rely on the specific
and direct commitment of the insurer's financial resources to
support statements about intellectual property value and related
financial controls.
[0097] The insurance policy or product design that is typically
most efficient in validating valuation assumptions is a bonding
instrument. Bonds utilize relatively simple forms that provide
fewer conditions to payment. Bonds have historically been utilized
in connection with tangible assets with the most common example
being contractors' bonds. Bonds have not historically been utilized
in connection with the valuation of intellectual property.
Financial guarantees, which are predictions of future value, have
been underwritten in support of loan transactions for intellectual
property utilized as collateral therein. But such financial
guarantees are, by definition, only operational at the time
collateral is repossessed. They, only afford protection when the
intellectual property owner defaults on the loan and the lender
takes over (and attempts to liquidate) the collateral. To offer
meaningful protection against Sarbanes Oxley compliance risk, or
the tax risks associated with transfer pricing, what is needed is
an instrument, such as the type described in one embodiment of this
invention, with the flexibility and straightforwardness of a surety
bond that can confer benefits without requiring alienation or sale
of the intellectual property that is the subject of the bonded
valuation.
[0098] In a preferred embodiment of the invention, a valuation bond
supports a covered intellectual property valuation subject only to
the condition that it would be void in the event of actual fraud by
the insured. Preferably, claim payments would be triggered by a
finding on the part of a regulator or tribunal that the bonded
valuation had materially overstated the value of the intellectual
property at issue based on the facts then known by the valuation
professionals. In one embodiment, the bond underwriter would take
counterparty risk based on the value of the intellectual property
at issue that is not distinguishable in principle from the position
of a buyer since the buyer of intellectual property typically risks
capital based on valuation assumptions subject only to a right of
rescission in the event of fraud. If the economics of the bond
converge with the economics of a sale, the bond can be reasonably
seen as the equivalent of a sale for purpose of demonstrating
market price, even though, in one embodiment, the intellectual
property owner is not obliged to part with title or control to the
bonded intellectual property. This will be especially helpful in
cases where regulatory authorities look to market value by statute
or treaty. Transfer pricing is one area where international
competent authorities have agreed to look to market value. The
valuation bond of one preferred embodiment can signal market value
in cases where intellectual property is of the type infrequently
traded or exchanged.
2. Analyze the Contents of Patent File Wrappers
[0099] One preferred embodiment of the invention is to make patent
file wrappers a factor in assessing a patent's value. The
information contained in a patent file wrapper can be analyzed to
obtain multiple factors affecting the patent's value. Such factors
may include but are not limited to the amount and/or weight of
estoppel created during prosecution of the patent, the completeness
of the prior art cited by the patent applicant, and any other
factors that may raise questions about the validity of the claims,
or that may cause the enforceable scope of the patent to be reduced
or limited.
[0100] In general, estoppel is created whenever an applicant amends
the claims of a patent application or makes any statements
describing the scope of the claims. Such statements can be in the
form of arguments made with the intent of distinguishing an
invention from a prior art reference, or they may occur as general
statements about what the scope of one or more claims. In some
situations, estoppel can also be created when an applicant fails to
refute statements made by the Examiner, thereby implying tacit
agreement with those statements.
[0101] In one embodiment of the invention, the completeness of the
prior art cited by the applicant can be determined by compiling
information that may be material to the patentability of the patent
and that the applicant was aware of during prosecution of the
application. Such information may include but is not limited to
patent literature, articles printed in periodicals, or other
information in the possession of the patent applicant during the
pendency of the patent.
[0102] A preferred embodiment of the invention utilizes a computer
model (e.g. an algorithm or computer process flow) to aggregate and
weight the above factors and any other information found in the
file history that would potentially have a positive or negative
affect on the validity, enforceability, or scope of the patent to
create a positive or negative weighting score which can be used in
the appraisal of the patent's value.
Step 3
Use Steps 1 & 2 to Determine Risk Policy Premium
[0103] One embodiment of the invention may use a computer to
calculate the risk policy premium based on the computer output
results of step 1 (traditional intellectual property valuation)
defined as [A], and the computer output results of Step 2 (enhanced
intellectual property valuation) defined as [B] and [C].
Preferably, the risk policy premium is defined as [D], where
[D]=function ([A]+[B]+[C]).
[0104] In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the risk policy
premium is then incorporated into a computer model of relevant
stochastic events establishing a loss probability distribution,
defined as [D]. Preferably, the loss probability distribution is
then utilized to determine optimal structures including: [D1]
policy limits; [D2] policy retentions and retention structures;
[D3] conditions & exclusions; [D4] risk premium and [D5]
optimal reinsurance and coinsurance levels.
[0105] Alternative embodiments may not include all of these steps.
It is contemplated that step 2 may utilize the patent file wrappers
to appraise a patent without considering the Sarbanes Oxley Act.
Additionally, further embodiments may factor compliance risks, such
as those associated with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, into the risk
policy premium without other valuation considerations.
Alternatively, in some embodiments an intellectual property
valuation bond may be used to secure a value of an intellectual
asset against disapproval of a product by a government agency such
as the FDA, US Department of Defense or other regulatory agency
that may prevent the release of a product to market.
[0106] Unless indicated otherwise, it may be assumed that the
process steps described herein are implemented within, or using,
software modules (programs) that are executed by one or more
general purpose computers. The software modules may be stored on or
within any suitable computer-readable medium. It should be
understood that the various steps may alternatively be implemented
in-whole or in-part within specially designed hardware.
[0107] Although this invention has been disclosed in the context of
certain preferred embodiments and examples, it will be understood
by those skilled in the art that the present invention extends
beyond the specifically disclosed embodiments to other alternative
embodiments and/or uses of the invention and obvious modifications
and equivalents thereof. Thus, it is intended that the scope of the
present invention herein disclosed should not be limited by the
particular disclosed embodiments described above.
* * * * *