Patents by Inventor Ralph E. Roland
Ralph E. Roland has filed for patents to protect the following inventions. This listing includes patent applications that are pending as well as patents that have already been granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
-
Publication number: 20230281560Abstract: A method of forming a consensus from a collection of ideas is disclosed. The ideas may be generated by a collection of participants, or may be provided to the collection of participants. The ideas are divided into non-exclusive groups for evaluation, with each group being provided to a participant for voting. Each participant chooses a favorite idea from the group, or selects a first and second choice, or a first, second and third choice. The votes are tallied, and for each idea a “win percentage” is calculated, which is defined as the ratio of the number of groups in which a particular idea wins the voting, divided by the number of groups in which a particular idea appears. Each idea that has a “win percentage” that exceeds a particular threshold is passed on to one or more subsequent rounds of voting. If desired, the voting may continue until a single idea is chosen as the consensus. In some rounds of voting, the groups are configured so that a participant does not vote on his/her own idea.Type: ApplicationFiled: April 26, 2023Publication date: September 7, 2023Inventors: Michael A. MORGIA, Pat A. FONTANA, Jr., Alex M. MORGIA, Pat A. FONTANA, Sr., Ralph E. ROLAND, Shawn M. DAVIS, Mark M. Piwowarski, John F. GAUS
-
Publication number: 20220006875Abstract: A system and method for algorithmic selection of a consensus from a collection of ideas is disclosed. A group of ideas is provided to a group of participants for voting. Voting may occur in a single round or in several successive rounds, optionally until a consensus idea is chosen. Typically, the votes that are cast use discrete levels, such as “approve”, “disapprove”, “positive”, “neutral” or “negative”. For ideas that receive the same votes, a differentiator may be the time spent casting the vote. A relatively long evaluation time may signal some internal conflict in the mind of the participant, when compared with a relatively short evaluation time, which may signal no such conflict. The evaluation time may be combined with the rating of the participant to form a weighted rating. Consequently, a short evaluation time of a positive rating may yield a more positive weighted rating, while a short evaluation time of a negative rating may yield a more negative weighted rating.Type: ApplicationFiled: September 16, 2021Publication date: January 6, 2022Inventors: Michael A. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, JR., Alex M. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, SR., Ralph E. Roland, Shawn M. Davis, Mark M. Piwowarski, John P. Gaus
-
Publication number: 20190124171Abstract: A system and method for algorithmic selection of a consensus from a collection of ideas is disclosed. A group of ideas is provided to a group of participants for voting. Voting may occur in a single round or in several successive rounds, optionally until a consensus idea is chosen. Typically, the votes that are cast use discrete levels, such as “approve”, “disapprove”, “positive”, “neutral” or “negative”. For ideas that receive the same votes, a differentiator may be the time spent casting the vote. A relatively long evaluation time may signal some internal conflict in the mind of the participant, when compared with a relatively short evaluation time, which may signal no such conflict. The evaluation time may be combined with the rating of the participant to form a weighted rating. Consequently, a short evaluation time of a positive rating may yield a more positive weighted rating, while a short evaluation time of a negative rating may yield a more negative weighted rating.Type: ApplicationFiled: December 20, 2018Publication date: April 25, 2019Inventors: Michael A. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, JR., Alex M. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, SR., Ralph E. Roland, Shawn M. Davis, Mark M. Piwowarski, John P. Gaus
-
Publication number: 20180247267Abstract: A method of forming a consensus from a collection of ideas is disclosed. The ideas are divided into non-exclusive groups for evaluation, with each group being provided to a participant for voting. The votes are tallied, and for each idea a “win percentage” is calculated, which is defined as the ratio of the number of groups in which a particular idea wins the voting, divided by the number of groups in which a particular idea appears. Each idea that has a “win percentage” that exceeds a particular threshold is passed on to one or more subsequent rounds of voting. In the first round of voting, the groups are configured so that no two ideas compete against each other more than once.Type: ApplicationFiled: April 30, 2018Publication date: August 30, 2018Applicant: Watertown Software, Inc.Inventors: Michael A. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, JR., Alex M. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, SR., Ralph E. Roland, Shawn M. Davis, Mark M. Piwowarski, John P. Gaus
-
Publication number: 20150046538Abstract: A system and method for algorithmic selection of a consensus from a collection of ideas is disclosed. A group of ideas is provided to a group of participants for voting. Voting may occur in a single round or in several successive rounds, optionally until a consensus idea is chosen. Typically, the votes that are cast use discrete levels, such as “approve”, “disapprove”, “positive”, “neutral” or “negative”. For ideas that receive the same votes, a differentiator may be the time spent casting the vote. A relatively long evaluation time may signal some internal conflict in the mind of the participant, when compared with a relatively short evaluation time, which may signal no such conflict. The evaluation time may be combined with the rating of the participant to form a weighted rating. Consequently, a short evaluation time of a positive rating may yield a more positive weighted rating, while a short evaluation time of a negative rating may yield a more negative weighted rating.Type: ApplicationFiled: October 28, 2014Publication date: February 12, 2015Inventors: Michael A. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, JR., Alex M. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, SR., Ralph E. Roland, Shawn M. Davis, Mark M. Piwowarski, John P. Gaus
-
Publication number: 20130302778Abstract: A system and method for algorithmic selection of a consensus from a collection of ideas is disclosed. A group of ideas is provided to a group of participants for voting. Voting may occur in a single round or in several successive rounds, optionally until a consensus idea is chosen. Typically, the votes that are cast use discrete levels, such as “approve”, “disapprove”, “positive”, “neutral” or “negative”. For ideas that receive the same votes, a differentiator may be the time spent casting the vote. A relatively long evaluation time may signal some internal conflict in the mind of the participant, when compared with a relatively short evaluation time, which may signal no such conflict. The evaluation time may be combined with the rating of the participant to form a weighted rating. Consequently, a short evaluation time of a positive rating may yield a more positive weighted rating, while a short evaluation time of a negative rating may yield a more negative weighted rating.Type: ApplicationFiled: July 22, 2013Publication date: November 14, 2013Inventors: Michael A. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, Jr., Alex M. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, Sr., Ralph E. Roland, Shawn M. Davis, Mark M. Piwowarski, John P. Gaus
-
Patent number: 8494436Abstract: A system and method for algorithmic selection of a consensus from a collection of ideas is disclosed. A group of ideas is provided to a group of participants for voting. Voting may occur in a single round or in several successive rounds, optionally until a consensus idea is chosen. Typically, the votes that are cast use discrete levels, such as “approve”, “disapprove”, “positive”, “neutral” or “negative”. For ideas that receive the same votes, a differentiator may be the time spent casting the vote. A relatively long evaluation time may signal some internal conflict in the mind of the participant, when compared with a relatively short evaluation time, which may signal no such conflict. The evaluation time may be combined with the rating of the participant to form a weighted rating. Consequently, a short evaluation time of a positive rating may yield a more positive weighted rating, while a short evaluation time of a negative rating may yield a more negative weighted rating.Type: GrantFiled: May 28, 2009Date of Patent: July 23, 2013Assignee: Watertown Software, Inc.Inventors: Michael A. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, Jr., Alex M. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, Sr., Ralph E. Roland, Shawn M. Davis, Mark M. Piwowarski, John P. Gaus
-
Publication number: 20130060605Abstract: A method of forming a consensus from a collection of ideas is disclosed. The ideas are divided into non-exclusive groups for evaluation, with each group being provided to a participant for voting. The votes are tallied, and for each idea a “win percentage” is calculated, which is defined as the ratio of the number of groups in which a particular idea wins the voting, divided by the number of groups in which a particular idea appears. Each idea that has a “win percentage” that exceeds a particular threshold is passed on to one or more subsequent rounds of voting. In the first round of voting, the groups are configured so that no two ideas compete against each other more than once.Type: ApplicationFiled: September 4, 2012Publication date: March 7, 2013Applicant: Watertown Software, Inc.Inventors: Michael A. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, JR., Alex M. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, SR., Ralph E. Roland, Shawn M. Davis, Mark M. Piwowarski, John P. Gaus
-
Publication number: 20090239205Abstract: A system and method for algorithmic selection of a consensus from a collection of ideas is disclosed. A group of ideas is provided to a group of participants for voting. Voting may occur in a single round or in several successive rounds, optionally until a consensus idea is chosen. Typically, the votes that are cast use discrete levels, such as “approve”, “disapprove”, “positive”, “neutral” or “negative”. For ideas that receive the same votes, a differentiator may be the time spent casting the vote. A relatively long evaluation time may signal some internal conflict in the mind of the participant, when compared with a relatively short evaluation time, which may signal no such conflict. The evaluation time may be combined with the rating of the participant to form a weighted rating. Consequently, a short evaluation time of a positive rating may yield a more positive weighted rating, while a short evaluation time of a negative rating may yield a more negative weighted rating.Type: ApplicationFiled: May 28, 2009Publication date: September 24, 2009Inventors: Michael A. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, JR., Alex M. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, SR., Ralph E. Roland, Shawn M. Davis, Mark M. Piwowarski, John P. Gaus
-
Publication number: 20080254436Abstract: A method of forming a consensus from a collection of ideas is disclosed. The ideas may be generated by a collection of participants, or may be provided to the collection of participants. The ideas are divided into non-exclusive groups for evaluation, with each group being provided to a participant for voting. Each participant chooses a favorite idea from the group, or selects a first and second choice, or a first, second and third choice. The votes are tallied, and for each idea a “win percentage” is calculated, which is defined as the ratio of the number of groups in which a particular idea wins the voting, divided by the number of groups in which a particular idea appears. Each idea that has a “win percentage” that exceeds a particular threshold is passed on to one or more subsequent rounds of voting. If desired, the voting may continue until a single idea is chosen as the consensus. In some rounds of voting, the groups are configured so that a participant does not vote on his/her own idea.Type: ApplicationFiled: November 5, 2007Publication date: October 16, 2008Inventors: Michael A. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, Alex M. Morgia, Pat A. Fontana, Ralph E. Roland, Shawn M. Davis, Mark M. Piwowarski, John P. Gaus
-
Patent number: 5321805Abstract: A graphics engine receives commands or items in high-level graphics, translates these items to primitive codes representing primitive graphics, converts the primitive codes to individual pixel codes and addresses associated therewith and stores the pixel codes in an image memory according to priority in the pixel code. When a new pixel code is received for storing, the stored pixel code in the storage location associated with the new pixel code is read. The stored priority of the stored pixel code is compared with a display priority of the new pixel code and the pixel code having the higher priority is selected for storing at the storage location. The pixel codes are read from the image memory and in a conventional manner are converted using a video look-up table to produce output to a display device. The conversion from primitive graphics to pixel codes includes the process of converting symbol codes into an array of pixels using a symbol font memory.Type: GrantFiled: February 25, 1991Date of Patent: June 14, 1994Assignee: Westinghouse Electric Corp.Inventors: Mark C. Hayman, Ralph E. Roland