DOCSLIB.ORG

(12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 7920,898 B2 Callaghan Et Al

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 7920,898 B2 Callaghan Et Al USOO7920898B2 (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 7920,898 B2 Callaghan et al. (45) Date of Patent: *Apr. 5, 2011 (54) DATA ENTRY SYSTEMS 455/554.1, 554.2, 555; 379/100.02, 100.12, 93.12, 93.25: 235/462.46, 472.02, 375, 380 (75) Inventors: Francis John Callaghan, St. Helier See application file for complete search history. (GB); Paul Marshall Doran, St. Helier (GB); Gary Douglas Robb, St. Brelades (56) References Cited (GB) U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS (73) Assignee: Dataquill Limited, Tortola (VG) 3,810,101 A 5/1974 Avery 3,906,166 A 9/1975 Cooper (*) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended or adjusted under 35 (Continued) U.S.C. 154(b) by 57 days. FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS This patent is Subject to a terminal dis DE 273.9157 A1 3, 1979 claimer. (Continued) (21) Appl. No.: 12/348,051 OTHER PUBLICATIONS (22) Filed: Jan. 2, 2009 "Always in Touch: The EO Personal Computer 440”, undated, Bates Stamped p. HSD0004018. Prior Publication Data (65) (Continued) US 2009/O 111521 A1 Apr. 30, 2009 US 2009/O247225A2 Oct. 1, 2009 Primary Examiner — Jean A Gelin (74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm — Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Related U.S. Application Data Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. (63) Continuation of application No. 1 1/515,152, filed on Aug. 31, 2006, now Pat. No. 7,505,785, which is a (57) ABSTRACT continuation of application No. 10/869,215, filed on A data entry system includes a hand held data entry unit Jun. 15, 2004, now Pat. No. 7,139,591, which is a having a reading sensor for sensing commands and/or data, continuation of application No. 09/548,565, filed on rewritable storage for storing information relating to select Apr. 13, 2000, now abandoned, which is a continuation able items, a controller (a microprocessor or other processing of application No. 08/619,682, filed as application No. circuitry) and a display screen for displaying a user readable PCT/GB94/02101 on Sep. 27, 1994, now Pat. No. representation of the commands and/or stored information for 6,058,304. a selected item, and a telecommunication interface for the telephonic transmission of information relating to a selected (30) Foreign Application Priority Data item or items from the storage to a remote processing center and for the telephonic information relating to selectable items Oct. 13, 1993 (GB) ................................... 93.21.1332 from the remote processing center to the storage. Preferably a telecommunications interface is provided in the hand held (51) Int. C. unit for cellular or other wireless telephony systems. The H04M I/00 (2006.01) hand held unit can be configured to combine the data entry (52) U.S. Cl. ................... 455/557; 455/556.1; 455/556.2 functions with those of audio telephony. (58) Field of Classification Search ............... 455/422.1, 455/412.1, 41.4.1, 426.1, 426.2, 462, 465, 71 Claims, 11 Drawing Sheets i4 28 22 24 28 70 ( ( ( ? A. BATERY i? 30 PCM i? 31 No PROCESSOR t 74 N Rom RAM / 78 89 RSE IEEE Y' 20 g- 32 ( DSAY 34 US 7920,898 B2 Page 2 U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS 4,928,300 5, 1990 Ogawa et al. 4.947,028 8, 1990 Gorog 3,956,740 5, 1976 Jones et al. 4,961,043 10, 1990 Koenck 4,004,133 1, 1977 Hannan et al. 4,965,821 10, 1990 Bishop et al. 4,016,542 4, 1977 AZure 4.969,830 11, 1990 Daly et al. 4,071,697 1, 1978 Bushnell et al. 4,972.457 11, 1990 O'Sullivan 4,153,937 5, 1979 Poland 4,974, 170 11, 1990 Bouve et al. 4,241,409 12, 1980 Nolf 4,983,318 1, 1991 Matsumoto et al. 4,251,798 2, 1981 Swartz et al. 4,991, 197 2, 1991 Morris RE30,671 T. 1981 Poland 4,991,199 2, 1991 Parekh et al. 4.279,021 T. 1981 See et al. 4,995.402 2, 1991 Smith 4,295,181 10, 1981 Chang et al. 5,003, 164 3, 1991 Barkan 4,399,331 8, 1983 Brown et al. 5.003472 3, 1991 Perrill 4.415,065 11, 1983 Sandstedt 5,008,927 4, 1991 Weiss et al. 4,482,802 11, 1984 Aizawa et al. 5,008,952 4, 1991 Davis et al. 4490,853 12, 1984 Nally et al. 5,019,764 5, 1991 Chang 4,503,288 3, 1985 Kessler 5,019,974 5, 1991 Beckers 4,545,023 10, 1985 Mizzi et al. 5,020,090 5, 1991 Morris 4,569.421 2, 1986 Sandstedt 5,020, 135 5, 1991 Kasparian et al. 4.575,621 3, 1986 Dreifus et al. 5,021,640 6, 1991 Muroi 4,587,630 5, 1986 Straton et al. 5,021,642 6, 1991 Chadima, Jr. et al. 4,591.974 5, 1986 Dornbush et al. 5,023,438 6, 1991 Wakatsuki et al. 4,607,156 8, 1986 Koppenaal et al. D317,910 7, 1991 Hawkins et al. 4,621, 189 11, 1986 Kumar et al. 5,029, 183 7, 1991 Tymes 4,622.437 11, 1986 Bloom et al. 5,031,098 7, 1991 Miller et al. 4,653,086 3, 1987 Laube 5,031,119 7, 1991 Dulaney et al. 4,654,281 3, 1987 Anderman et al. 5,046,082 9, 1991 Zicker et al. 4,654,482 3, 1987 DeAngelis 5,046,084 9, 1991 Barrett et al. 4,654,514 3, 1987 Watson et al. 5,047,614 9, 1991 Bianco 4,654,867 3, 1987 Labedz et al. 5,047,617 9, 1991 Shepard et al. 4,688,026 8, 1987 Scribner et al. 5,055,660 10, 1991 Bertagna et al. 4,697.281 9, 1987 O'Sullivan 5,059,778 10, 1991 Zouzoulas et al. 4,706,090 11, 1987 Hashiguchi et al. 5,065,003 11, 1991 Wakatsuki et al. 4,712,242 12, 1987 Rajasekaran et al. 5,067, 164 11, 1991 Denker et al. 4,724,521 2, 1988 Carron et al. 5,068,838 11, 1991 Klausner et al. 4,725,694 2, 1988 Auer et al. 5,070,536 12, 1991 Mahany et al. 4,725,977 2, 1988 Izumi et al. 5,075,538 12, 1991 Swartz et al. 4,731,726 3, 1988 Allen 5,077,784 12, 1991 Fujita et al. 4,734,858 3, 1988 Schlafy 5,080.456 1, 1992 Katz et al. 4,757,022 T. 1988 Shults 5,081,343 1, 1992 Chadima, Jr. et al. 4,760,387 T. 1988 Ishii 5,095, 197 3, 1992 Chadima, Jr. et al. 4,775,928 10, 1988 Kendall et al. 5,095,503 3, 1992 Kowalski 4,776,003 10, 1988 Harris 5,095,538 3, 1992 Durboraw 4,777,646 10, 1988 Harris 5,100,098 3, 1992 Hawkins 4,785,420 11, 1988 Little 5,101,439 3, 1992 Kiang 4,800,255 1, 1989 Imran 5,103,080 4, 1992 Barkan 4,800,505 1, 1989 Axelrod et al. 5,107,100 4, 1992 Shepard et al. 4,803,652 2, 1989 Maeser et al. 5,110,226 5, 1992 Sherman et al. 4,805,134 2, 1989 Calo et al. 5, 111498 5, 1992 Guichard et al. 4,806,742 2, 1989 Swartz et al. 5,117,098 5, 1992 Swartz 4,812,843 3, 1989 Champion et al. 5,121,115 6, 1992 Andros et al. 4,816,660 3, 1989 Swartz et al. 5, 122,914 6, 1992 Hanson 4,816,904 3, 1989 McKenna et al. 5,123,064 6, 1992 Hacker et al. 4,823,311 4, 1989 Hunter et al. 5,125,039 6, 1992 Hawkins 4,825,057 4, 1989 Swartz et al. 5,126,545 6, 1992 Barkan 4,831,647 5, 1989 D'Avello et al. 5,127,041 6, 1992 O'Sullivan 4,835,372 5, 1989 Gombrich et al. 5,128,776 7, 1992 Scorse et al. 4,835,374 5, 1989 Swartz et al. 5,130,520 7, 1992 Shepard et al. 4,837,800 6, 1989 Freeburg et al. 5,133,076 7, 1992 Hawkins et al. 4,845,350 7, 1989 Shepard et al. 5,133,081 7, 1992 Mayo 4,845,658 7, 1989 Gifford RE34,034 8, 1992 O'Sullivan 4,845,740 7, 1989 Tokuyama et al. 5,136,147 8, 1992 Metlitsky et al. 4,850,003 7, 1989 Huebeck et al. 5,138,140 8, 1992 Siemiatkowski et al. 4,850,009 7, 1989 Zook et al. 5,142,550 8, 1992 Tymes 4,855,580 8, 1989 Van Maanen, Jr. 5,144,119 9, 1992 Chadima, Jr. et al. 4,857,713 8, 1989 Brown 5,144,121 9, 1992 Chadima, Jr. et al. 4,857,716 8, 1989 Gombrich et al. 5,157.687 10, 1992 Tymes 4,870.402 9, 1989 DeLuca et al. 5,161,248 11, 1992 Bertiger et al. 4,882,757 11, 1989 Fisher et al. 5,168,148 12, 1992 Giebel 4.885,574 12, 1989 Negishi et al. 12, 1992 Morrison 4,887,265 12, 1989 Felix 5,171,977 4,894,523 1, 1990 Chadima, Jr. et al. 5,173,691 12, 1992 Sumner 4,896,026 1, 1990 Krichever et al. 5, 182,441 1, 1993 Chadima, Jr. et al. 4,897.532 1, 1990 Swartz et al. 5,184,314 2, 1993 Kelly et al.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Motion and Context Sensing Techniques for Pen Computing
    Motion and Context Sensing Techniques for Pen Computing Ken Hinckley1, Xiang ‘Anthony’ Chen1,2, and Hrvoje Benko1 * Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA1 and Carnegie Mellon University Dept. of Computer Science2 ABSTRACT We explore techniques for a slender and untethered stylus prototype enhanced with a full suite of inertial sensors (three-axis accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer). We present a taxonomy of enhanced stylus input techniques and consider a number of novel possibilities that combine motion sensors with pen stroke and touchscreen inputs on a pen + touch slate. These Fig. 1 Our wireless prototype has accelerometer, gyro, and inertial sensors enable motion-gesture inputs, as well sensing the magnetometer sensors in a ~19 cm Χ 11.5 mm diameter stylus. context of how the user is holding or using the stylus, even when Our system employs a custom pen augmented with inertial the pen is not in contact with the tablet screen. Our initial results sensors (accelerometer, gyro, and magnetometer, each a 3-axis suggest that sensor-enhanced stylus input offers a potentially rich sensor, for nine total sensing dimensions) as well as a low-power modality to augment interaction with slate computers. radio. Our stylus prototype also thus supports fully untethered Keywords: Stylus, motion sensing, sensors, pen+touch, pen input operation in a slender profile with no protrusions (Fig. 1). This allows us to explore numerous interactive possibilities that were Index Terms: H.5.2 Information Interfaces & Presentation: Input cumbersome in previous systems: our prototype supports direct input on tablet displays, allows pen tilting and other motions far 1 INTRODUCTION from the digitizer, and uses a thin, light, and wireless stylus.
    [Show full text]
  • An Empirical Study in Pen-Centric User Interfaces: Diagramming
    EUROGRAPHICS Workshop on Sketch-Based Interfaces and Modeling (2008) C. Alvarado and M.- P. Cani (Editors) An Empirical Study in Pen-Centric User Interfaces: Diagramming Andrew S. Forsberg1, Andrew Bragdon1, Joseph J. LaViola Jr.2, Sashi Raghupathy3, Robert C. Zeleznik1 1Brown University, Providence, RI, USA 2University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA 3Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA Abstract We present a user study aimed at helping understand the applicability of pen-computing in desktop environments. The study applied three mouse-and-keyboard-based and three pen-based interaction techniques to six variations of a diagramming task. We ran 18 subjects from a general population and the key finding was that while the mouse and keyboard techniques generally were comparable or faster than the pen techniques, subjects ranked pen techniques higher and enjoyed them more. Our contribution is the results from a formal user study that suggests there is a broader applicability and subjective preference for pen user interfaces than the niche PDA and mobile market they currently serve. Categories and Subject Descriptors (according to ACM CCS): H.5.2 [User Interfaces]: Evaluation/Methodology 1. Introduction ficially appears pen-centric, users will in fact derive a sig- nificant benefit from using a pen-based interface. Our ap- Research on pen computing can be traced back at least to proach is to quantify formally, through head-to-head evalua- the early 60’s. Curiously though, there is little formal un- tion, user performance and relative preference for a represen- derstanding of when, where, and for whom pen comput- tative sampling of both keyboard and mouse, and pen-based ing is the user interface of choice.
    [Show full text]
  • Pen Interfaces
    Understanding the Pen Input Modality Presented at the Workshop on W3C MMI Architecture and Interfaces Nov 17, 2007 Sriganesh “Sri-G” Madhvanath Hewlett-Packard Labs, Bangalore, India [email protected] © 2006 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice Objective • Briefly describe different aspects of pen input • Provide some food for thought … Nov 17, 2007 Workshop on W3C MMI Architecture and Interfaces Unimodal input in the context of Multimodal Interfaces • Multimodal interfaces are frequently used unimodally − Based on • perceived suitability of modality to task • User experience, expertise and preference • It is important that a multimodal interface provide full support for individual modalities − “Multimodality” cannot be a substitute for incomplete/immature support for individual modalities Nov 17, 2007 Workshop on W3C MMI Architecture and Interfaces Pen Computing • Very long history … predates most other input modalities − Light pen was invented in 1957, mouse in 1963 ! • Several well-studied aspects: − Hardware − Interface − Handwriting recognition − Applications • Many famous failures (Go, Newton, CrossPad) • Enjoying resurgence since 90s because of PDAs and TabletPCs − New technologies such as Digital Paper (e.g. Anoto) and Touch allow more natural and “wow” experiences Nov 17, 2007 Workshop on W3C MMI Architecture and Interfaces Pen/Digitizer Hardware … • Objective: Detect pen position, maybe more • Various technologies with own limitations and characteristics (and new ones still being developed !) − Passive stylus • Touchscreens on PDAs, some tablets • Capacitive touchpads on laptops (Synaptics) • Vision techniques • IR sensors in bezel (NextWindow) − Active stylus • IR + ultrasonic (Pegasus, Mimeo) • Electromagnetic (Wacom) • Camera in pen tip & dots on paper (Anoto) • Wide variation in form − Scale: mobile phone to whiteboard (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Handwriting Recognition Systems: an Overview
    Handwriting Recognition Systems: An Overview Avi Drissman Dr. Sethi CSC 496 February 26, 1997 Drissman 1 Committing words to paper in handwriting is a uniquely human act, performed daily by millions of people. If you were to present the idea of “decoding” handwriting to most people, perhaps the first idea to spring to mind would be graphology, which is the analysis of handwriting to determine its authenticity (or perhaps also the more non-scientific determination of some psychological character traits of the writer). But the more mundane, and more frequently overlooked, “decoding” of handwriting is handwriting recognition—the process of figuring out what words and letters the scribbles and scrawls on the paper represent. Handwriting recognition is far from easy. A common complaint and excuse of people is that they couldn’t read their own handwriting. That makes us ask ourselves the question: If people sometimes can’t read their own handwriting, with which they are quite familiar, what chance does a computer have? Fortunately, there are powerful tools that can be used that are easily implementable on a computer. A very useful one for handwriting recognition, and one that is used in several recognizers, is a neural network. Neural networks are richly connected networks of simple computational elements. The fundamental tenet of neural computation (or computation with [neural networks]) is that such networks can carry out complex cognitive and computational tasks. [9] In addition, one of the tasks at which neural networks excel is the classification of input data into one of several groups or categories. This ability is one of the main reasons neural networks are used for this purpose.
    [Show full text]
  • Pen Computing History
    TheThe PastPast andand FutureFuture ofof PenPen ComputingComputing Conrad H. Blickenstorfer, Editor-in-Chief Pen Computing Magazine [email protected] http://www.pencomputing.com ToTo buildbuild thethe future,future, wewe mustmust learnlearn fromfrom thethe pastpast HistoryHistory ofof penpen computingcomputing 1914: Goldberg gets US patent for recognition of handwritten numbers to control machines 1938: Hansel gets US patent for machine recognition of handwriting 1956: RAND Corporation develops digitizing tablet for handwriting recognition 1957-62: Handwriting recognition projects with accuracies of 97-99% 1963: Bell Labs develops cursive recognizer 1966: RAND creates GRAIL, similar to Graffiti Pioneer:Pioneer: AlanAlan KayKay Utah State University Stanford University Xerox PARC: GUI, SmallTalk, OOL Apple Computer Research Fellow Disney Envisioned Dynabook in 1968: The Dynabook will be a “dynamic medium for creative thought, capable of synthesizing all media – pictures, animation, sound, and text – through the intimacy and responsiveness of the personal computer.” HistoryHistory ofof penpen computingcomputing 1970s: Commercial products, including kana/romanji billing machine 1980s: Handwriting recognition companies – Nestor – Communication Intelligence Corporation – Lexicus – Several others Pioneers:Pioneers: AppleApple 1987 Apple prototype – Speech recognition – Intelligent agents – Camera – Folding display – Video conferencing – Wireless communication – Personal Information Manager ““KnowledgeKnowledge NavigatorNavigator””
    [Show full text]
  • Pen Computer Technology
    Pen Computer Technology Educates the reader about the technologies involved in a pen computer Fujitsu PC Corporation www.fujitsupc.com For more information: [email protected] © 2002 Fujitsu PC Corporation. All rights reserved. This paper is intended to educate the reader about the technologies involved in a pen computer. After reading this paper, the reader should be better equipped to make intelligent purchasing decisions about pen computers. Types of Pen Computers In this white paper, "pen computer" refers to a portable computer that supports a pen as a user interface device, and whose LCD screen measures at least six inches diagonally. This product definition encompasses five generally recognized categories of standard products, listed in Table 1 below. PRODUCT TARGET PC USER STORAGE OPERATING RUNS LOCAL EXAMPLE CATEGORY MARKET INTERFACE SYSTEM PROGRAMS Webpad Consumer & No Standard Flash Windows CE, Only via Honeywell Enterprise browser memory Linux, QNX browser WebPAD II plug-ins CE Tablet Enterprise No Specialized Flash Windows CE Yes Fujitsu applications memory PenCentra Pen Tablet Enterprise Yes Windows & Hard drive Windows 9x, Yes Fujitsu specialized NT-4, 2000, Stylistic applications XP Pen-Enabled Consumer Yes Windows Hard drive Windows 9x, Yes Fujitsu & Enterprise 2000, XP LifeBook B Series Tablet PC Consumer Yes Windows Hard drive Windows XP Yes Many under & Enterprise Tablet PC development Edition Table 1: Categories of Pen Computers with LCD Displays of Six Inches or Larger Since the different types of pen computers are often confused, the following paragraphs are intended to help explain the key distinguishing characteristics of each product category. Pen Computers Contrasted Webpad: A Webpad's primary characteristic is that its only user interface is a Web browser.
    [Show full text]
  • Enabling Freehand Sketching Through Improved Primitive Recognition
    RETHINKING PEN INPUT INTERACTION: ENABLING FREEHAND SKETCHING THROUGH IMPROVED PRIMITIVE RECOGNITION A Dissertation by BRANDON CHASE PAULSON Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May 2010 Major Subject: Computer Science RETHINKING PEN INPUT INTERACTION: ENABLING FREEHAND SKETCHING THROUGH IMPROVED PRIMITIVE RECOGNITION A Dissertation by BRANDON CHASE PAULSON Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved by: Chair of Committee, Tracy Hammond Committee Members, Yoonsuck Choe Ricardo Gutierrez-Osuna Vinod Srinivasan Head of Department, Valerie E. Taylor May 2010 Major Subject: Computer Science iii ABSTRACT Rethinking Pen Input Interaction: Enabling Freehand Sketching Through Improved Primitive Recognition. (May 2010) Brandon Chase Paulson, B.S., Baylor University Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Tracy Hammond Online sketch recognition uses machine learning and artificial intelligence tech- niques to interpret markings made by users via an electronic stylus or pen. The goal of sketch recognition is to understand the intention and meaning of a partic- ular user's drawing. Diagramming applications have been the primary beneficiaries of sketch recognition technology, as it is commonplace for the users of these tools to first create a rough sketch of a diagram on paper before translating it into a machine understandable model, using computer-aided design tools, which can then be used to perform simulations or other meaningful tasks. Traditional methods for performing sketch recognition can be broken down into three distinct categories: appearance-based, gesture-based, and geometric-based.
    [Show full text]
  • A Context for Pen-Based Mathematical Computing
    A Context for Pen-Based Mathematical Computing Elena Smirnova Stephen M. Watt Ontario Research Centre for Computer Algebra Department of Computer Science University of Western Ontario London Ontario, Canada N6A 5B7 {elena,watt}@orcca.on.ca Abstract We report on an investigation to determine an architectural framework for pen-based mathematical computing. From the outset, we require that the framework be integrated with suitable elements for pen computing, document processing and computer algebra. We demonstrate that this architecture is able to provide these interfaces and allows a high degree of platform independence for the development of pen-based mathematical software. Keywords: Pen computing, computer algebra, Java, .Net, Maple, Microsoft Office. 1. Introduction 1.1. Motivation With the recent widespread availability of pen-enabled devices (such as Pocket PCs, Tablet PCs and interactive whiteboards), there is an opportunity for a new generation of natural interfaces for mathematical software packages. The use of the pen to enter, edit and manipulate mathematical expressions can lead to a qualitative improvement in the ease of use of computer algebra systems. On the other hand, mathematical input on pen-enabled devices goes well beyond ordinary hand- written mathematics on paper or chalkboard, simply because it can enjoy the rich functionality of software behind the ink-capturing hardware. We should point out from the beginning that pen-based software for mathematics has unique aspects that distinguish it from text-based applications and that these drive our software architecture with different considerations: First, the set of symbols used in mathematics is much larger than the usual alphabets or syllabaries encountered in natural languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation (PDF)
    The Past and Future of Pen Computing Conrad H. Blickenstorfer, Editor-in-Chief Pen Computing Magazine [email protected] http://www.pencomputing.com Technology has become the international language of progress, of building things rather than destroying them PC Market: Cloudy Future After 20 years of growth, demand leveling off IDC and Dataquest say shipments down first time ever, predict 6% down from 2000 Still 30 million each in Q2 and Q3 2001, but…. – Commodity components make it difficult to make profit – PC prices have come down: – 1981: 4.77MHz PC costs US$4,000 ($7,767 in 2001 money) – 2001: 1.8GHz PC costs US$1,000 Notebook market a bit better Estimate: 26 million units for 2001, same as for 2000 It is clear that PCs and notebooks as we know them represent the past and the present of computing, but not necessarily the future of computing. Many people agree that PDAs and pen tablets or web tablets are a technology with a very promising future. PDA Projections (1) IDC said that Asia Pacific (without Japan) PDA sales were about two million in 2000. Dataquest said there were 2.1 million PDAs sold in Europe in 2000, with Palm and Pocket PC each having a market share of about 40% in Q2/2001. The US PDA market is 7-8 million units this year, and represents 60-70% of worldwide PDA sales right now. Microsoft said in May 2001 that 1.25 million Pocket PCs have sold since the April 2000 introduction. At a August Microsoft conference in Seattle, Washington, Microsoft said that two million Pocket PCs have been sold worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Marketing Planet Media Partners 80
    SUMMARY WELCOME 4 SIDE EVENTS 62-65 EXHIBITION MAP & EXHIBITORS LIST 6-7 INDUSTRY PROGRAMS 66-67 SCHEDULE – GLOBAL AGENDA AT A GLANCE 8-9 DIGITAL DEMOS 68-73 MASTERMINDS CONGRESS 10-24 OPEN INNOVATION MARKETPLACE 74 C-LEVEL AGENDAS 26-49 WELCOME PARTY BY SPOTIFY 76 CIO SUMMIT EUROPEAN DIGITAL MINDSET AWARDS 78 CDO SUMMIT SWEDEN COUNTRY PARTNER 79 HR SUMMIT DIGITAL MARKETING PLANET MEDIA PARTNERS 80 TECH SERIES 50-61 DES COMMUNITY 82 BIG DATA & ANALYTICS BLOCKCHAIN CLOUD INTERNET OF THINGS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE CYBERSECURITY 2 WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME TO DES2017 | DIGITAL BUSINESS WORLD CONGRESS Time goes by really quickly and, one year after, here On May the 23rd you will be able to discover how we are again. Unfortunately, change speed is not machines will design your holidays; how industry the same in all kind of organizations and there is a 4.0 is boosting its effi ciency in innovative factories real need to reinforce some key messages among of today; how the borders between media, sports private and public companies’ leaders. Fortunately, and entertainment are blurring, what are eSports we have thousands of professionals like you, with and how cities and public sector is envisioning the a kind interest in sharing their experience, ideas future of mobility. and success stories to continue inspiring and being inspired in the distributed knowledge era. The second day, you will be inspired with more powerful success stories and continue your At DES2017 we want to help you to better journey in Banking and adapting to mobile habits; understand where your organization is in the connected autonomous vehicles; engage with Digital Maturity Journey, to let you map yourself HCPs and patients; while discovering new services while identifying the best partners for this amazing beyond traditional spectrum in the Utilities sector.
    [Show full text]
  • Active Pen Input and the Android Input Framework
    ACTIVE PEN INPUT AND THE ANDROID INPUT FRAMEWORK A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Electrical Engineering by Andrew Hughes June 2011 c 2011 Andrew Hughes ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP TITLE: Active Pen Input and the Android Input Framework AUTHOR: Andrew Hughes DATE SUBMITTED: June 2011 COMMITTEE CHAIR: Chris Lupo, Ph.D. COMMITTEE MEMBER: Hugh Smith, Ph.D. COMMITTEE MEMBER: John Seng, Ph.D. iii Abstract Active Pen Input and the Android Input Framework Andrew Hughes User input has taken many forms since the conception of computers. In the past ten years, Tablet PCs have provided a natural writing experience for users with the advent of active pen input. Unfortunately, pen based input has yet to be adopted as an input method by any modern mobile operating system. This thesis investigates the addition of active pen based input to the Android mobile operating system. The Android input framework was evaluated and modified to allow for active pen input events. Since active pens allow for their position to be detected without making contact with the screen, an on-screen pointer was implemented to provide a digital representation of the pen's position. Extensions to the Android Soft- ware Development Kit (SDK) were made to expose the additional functionality provided by active pen input to developers. Pen capable hardware was used to test the Android framework and SDK additions and show that active pen input is a viable input method for Android powered devices.
    [Show full text]
  • Charles C. Tappert, Ph.D
    Charles C. Tappert, Ph.D. CSIS, Pace University, Goldstein Center 861 Bedford Road, Pleasantville NY 10570 E-mail: [email protected] Office: Phone: 914-773-3989 Fax: x3533 Google Scholar Publication Citations Extensive experience in computer science, specializing in artificial intelligence, big data analytics, quantum computing, pattern recognition, machine learning, deep learning, brain modeling, biometrics, pen computing and speech applications, cybersecurity, forensics, and project management. Taught graduate and undergraduate courses, supervised dissertations, and secured government contracts. Over 100 peer reviewed publications in prestigious international journals and conferences. Education Ph.D. Electrical Eng., Cornell, ECE Fulbright Scholar, Royal Inst. Tech., Stockholm M.S. Electrical Eng., Cornell, ECE B.S. Engineering Sciences, Swarthmore Academic Experience Pace University, Seidenberg School of CSIS, Computer Science Professor 2000-present Director, Doctor of Professional Studies (D.P.S.) in Computing Program; Director, Pervasive Computing Lab; Supervised three M.S. Theses, thirty Doctoral Dissertations; Teaches Quantum Computing, Machine Learning, Big Data Analytics, Capstone Projects, Emerging IT U.S. Military Academy, Computer Science Associate Professor 1993-2000 Taught courses in Computer Graphics, Languages, Databases, Capstone Projects, Intro to Computing SUNY Purchase and Pace University, Adjunct Associate Professor 1990-1993 Taught undergraduate courses in Computer Operating Systems and Data Structures North Carolina
    [Show full text]