UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`T—Mobile US, Inc. and T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`Petitioners
`
`V.
`
`Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, and 11
`
`Case IPRZO I 7-00698
`
`DECLARATION OF OZAN TONGUZ, PH.D.
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
`
`T-MOBILE EXHIBIT 1102
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11
`
`£21.22
`
`Legal Principles ............................................................................................. ..5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Anticipation ......................................................................................... ..6
`
`Obviousness ......................................................................................... ..7
`
`Claim Construction ...................................................................................... ..11
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill In The Art .............................................................. .. 11
`
`Summary of Opinions .................................................................................. ..11
`
`Technology Background .............................................................................. ..l1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Charging and Billing in Telecommunication Networks ................... .. 11
`
`Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) ................................... .. 13
`
`Charging and Quality of Service (QoS) Control ............................... .- 14
`
`Dynamic Charging Rules and QoS Policies ...................................... ..19
`
`Event Triggers for Dynamic Policy and Charging Control
`
`VI.
`
`Overview of the ’97l patent ........................................................................ ..26
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Claimed Invention ...................................................................... ._26
`
`Challenged Claims ............................................................................ ..3l
`
`Prosecution History ........................................................................... ..33
`
`VII.
`
`Summary of the Prior Art References ......................................................... ..35
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Summary of TS 23.125 (Ex. 1103) ................................................... .-36
`
`Summary of TS 29.207 (Ex. 1105) ................................................... ..39
`
`Summary of Chaskar (Ex. 1106) ....................................................... __43
`
`VIII.
`
`Invalidity of the Challenged Claims ............................................................ ..44
`
`A.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8 and 11 are rendered obvious by TS
`23.125 in view of TS 29.207, alone or alternatively in combination
`with Chaskar ...................................................................................... ..44
`
`IX.
`
`Availability for Cross-Examination ............................................................ ..71
`
`Right to Supplement .................................................................................... ..72
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11
`
`l, Ozan Tonguz, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`My name is Ozan Tonguz.
`
`I received a PhD and MSc in Electrical Engineering in 1990 and 1986
`
`from Rutgers University.
`
`In 1980, I received a BSc degree in Electronic
`
`Engineering from the University of Essex in England.
`
`I was a Research and
`
`Teaching Assistant in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
`
`from Rutgers University from 1985-1987.
`
`3.
`
`From 1988-1990, I was a Member of the Technical Staff/Visiting
`
`Scientist at Bell Communications Research (Bellcore).
`
`4.
`
`From 1990-2000, I was an Assistant Professor (from 1990-1995), then
`
`a Tenured Associate Professor (from 1995-1998), and then a Full Professor (from
`
`1998-2000), of Electrical Engineering at the State University of New York (SUNY)
`
`at Buffalo. From 2000-2001, I was a Visiting Professor of Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU). Since 2001, I have
`
`been a tenured Full Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at CMU.
`
`5.
`
`My research has focused on telecommunications and networking.
`
`More particularly, my research has focused on the areas of optical networks,
`
`wireless networks and communications systems, and high speed networking. At
`
`CMU, I have taught courses on packet switching and computer networks, wireless
`
`networks, optical networks, and applied stochastic processes. At SUNY, 1
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11
`
`introduced courses on data networks, mobile and cellular telecommunication
`
`systems, advanced topics in optical networks, probability and stochastic processes
`
`for engineers, and circuit theory.
`
`I have supervised, or are currently supervising,
`
`21 PhD students, more than 30 Masters students, and several postdocs.
`
`6.
`
`I have numerous publications in the area of telecommunications and
`
`networking.
`
`1 co-authored a book entitled “Ad Hoc Wireless Network: A
`
`Communication—Theoretic Perspective,” which was published in May 2006 by
`
`Wiley.
`
`I have also co-authored 106 archival journal papers and 152 papers in
`
`symposium or conference proceedings and invited papers.
`
`I have also authored or
`
`co-authored a number of technical reports.
`
`7.
`
`I have been active in a number of professional organizations and
`
`conferences.
`
`I am a Senior Member of the IEEE, a Member of the IEEE
`
`Communications Society, and a Member of the Optical Society of America.
`
`I have
`
`had editorial roles on a number of IEEE journals, and participated as a member,
`
`chair, or organizer for a number of professional meetings.
`
`8.
`
`I have received several awards, prizes, and honors. These include:
`
`invited to be a member of the U.S. delegation of 30 professional representing the
`
`wireless communications research of the IEEE Vehicular Technology Society;
`
`early promotion to Tenured Associate Professor and Full Professor at SUNY;
`
`service awards by the IEEE Communications Society and Optical Society of
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,531 ,971
`
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11
`
`America; member of the National Electrical Engineering Honor society; and
`
`referee for Tenure and Promotion Cases for a number of universities.
`
`9.
`
`I am the co—inventor of four U.S. patents and a Singapore patent: U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,536,427; U.S. Patent No. 9,524,642; U.S_ Patent No. 9,478,142; U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,972,159; and Singapore Patent No. 102015054991’.
`
`10.
`
`Additional details of my technical education, work experience,
`
`publications, and awards and honors are contained in my curriculum vitae. A copy
`
`of my curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix A.
`
`11.
`
`I have reviewed the specification, claims and file history of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,531,971 (‘"971 patent”). The ’971 patent issued from U.S. Appl. No.
`
`13/277,506 (filed on October 20, 2011) and claims priority as a continuation to
`
`three successive applications—U.S. Application No. 13/190,817 (“’8l7
`
`application”) (filed on July 26, 2011), U.S. Patent No. 8,009,573 (“’573 patent”)
`
`(filed on August 1 1, 2006), and PCT Application No. PCT/CN2005/000388 (“’388
`
`application”) (filed on March 28, 2005)—and two foreign applications#CN 2004
`
`1 0030955 (“’955 application”) (filed on April 1, 2004) and CN 2004 1 0033721
`
`(“’721 application”) (filed on April 9, 2004). ’97l (Ex. 1 101), cover page.
`
`12.
`
`I have reviewed the following patents and publications in preparing
`
`this declaration:
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11
`
`3GPP TS 23.125 V2.0.0 (2004-03), Technical Specification, “3rd
`
`Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group
`
`Services and System Aspects; Overall High Level Functionality and
`
`Architecture Impacts of Flow Based Charging; Stage 2 (Release 6)”
`
`(“TS 23.125”) (Ex. 1103);
`
`Honkasalo et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,826,353 (“Honkasalo”) (Ex. 1104);
`
`3GPP TS 29.207 V5.6.0 (2003-12), Technical Specification, “3rd
`
`Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Core
`
`Network; Policy control over Go interface (Release 5)” (“TS 29.207”)
`
`(Ex. 1105);
`
`Chaskar et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,280,505 (“Chaskar”) (Ex. 1106); and
`
`Cushnie et al., Evolution of Charging and Billing Models for GSM
`
`and Future Mobile Internet Services, Quality of Future Internet
`
`Services, Proceedings of the First COST 263 International Workshop,
`
`QoflS 2000, Berlin, Germany, September 25-26, 2000, pp. 312-323
`
`(“Cushnie”).
`
`13.
`
`I have reviewed the above patents and publications, and any other
`
`publication cited in this declaration.
`
`14.
`
`I have considered certain issues from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as described below at the time the ’971 patent application
`
`was filed.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ’971 patent
`
`would have found claims 1-2, 4-6, 8 and 11 of the ’971 patent invalid.
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11
`
`15.
`
`I have been retained by Petitioners T-Mobile US, Inc. and T—Mobile
`
`USA, Inc. (collectively, “T—Mobile”) as an expert in the field of
`
`telecommunications, cellular systems, and wireless networks.
`
`I have also been
`
`retained as an expert by T—Mobile in the same field for the following District Court
`
`lawsuit: Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v. T—Mobile US, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:16-
`
`cv—OO055 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 15, 2016).
`
`16.
`
`I am working as an independent consultant in this matter and am
`
`being compensated at my normal consulting rate of $485 per hour for my time.
`
`My compensation is not dependent on and in no way affects the substance of my
`
`statements in this Declaration.
`
`17.
`
`I have no financial interest in the Petitioners.
`
`I similarly have no
`
`financial interest in the ’971 patent, and have had no contact with the named
`
`inventor of the ’97l patent.
`
`1.
`
`Legal Principles
`
`18.
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this report I have been
`
`informed by T-Mobile’s counsel about certain legal principles that are relevant to
`
`my analysis and opinions.
`
`I have applied those legal principles in arriving at my
`
`conclusions expressed in this report.
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,531 97]
`
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11
`
`A.
`
`Anticipation
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim can be
`
`invalid if it is anticipated by prior art.
`
`I have been informed that anticipation
`
`requires that each limitation of the claim at issue is found, either expressly or
`
`inherently, in a single prior art reference or that the claimed invention was
`
`previously known or embodied in a single prior art device or practice.
`
`20.
`
`I have been informed that a claim limitation is inherent in the prior art
`
`if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claim
`
`limitation.
`
`21.
`
`I have been informed and understand that, for prior art purposes, the
`
`disclosures of the patents and publications incorporated by reference into another
`
`patent or publication are treated as part of the incorporating reference.
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed and understand that under section l02(a) of the
`
`pre-AIA Patent Act, a patent claim is anticipated if, before the date of the claimed
`
`invention, the claimed invention was: (1) known or used by others in this country;
`
`(2) patented in the United States or a foreign country; or (3) described in a printed
`
`publication in the United States or a foreign country.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed and understand that under section l02(b) of the
`
`pre—AIA Patent Act, a patent claim is also anticipated if, more than one year before
`
`the filing date of the patent application for the claimed invention in the United
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11
`
`States, the claimed invention was: (1) patented in the United States or a foreign
`
`country; (2) described in a printed publication in the United States or a foreign
`
`country; (3) in public use in the United States; or (4) on sale in the United States.
`
`24.
`
`I further understand that an invention is considered to be “on sale”
`
`under this provision if a product that was sold or offered for sale inherently
`
`possessed each of the limitations of the claims, regardless of whether the parties to
`
`the sale or offer for sale recognized that the product possessed the claimed
`
`characteristics.
`
`25.
`
`l have been informed and understand that under section l02(e) of the
`
`pre-AIA Patent Act, a claimed invention is anticipated if the claimed invention was
`
`described in a U.S. patent or a published U.S. patent application filed by another
`
`before the date of the claimed invention.
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness
`
`26.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent is invalid as
`
`obvious if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the
`
`prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
`
`time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`
`said subject matter pertains.
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed and understand that in analyzing the question of
`
`obviousness, it is improper to use hindsight reconstruction, and that one should not
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11
`
`use the patent as a road map for selecting and combining items of prior art.
`
`I am
`
`informed and understand that the relevant question is what a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood at the time the invention was made.
`
`28.
`
`I have been informed and understand that in analyzing obviousness,
`
`one must determine: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) what differences,
`
`if any, exist between the invention of the claims of the patent and the prior art; and
`
`(3) what the level of ordinary skill in the art was at the time the invention was
`
`made.
`
`29.
`
`I have been further informed and understand that in detennining the
`
`differences between the invention covered by the patent claims and the prior art,
`
`one should not look at the individual differences in isolation, but rather consider
`
`the claimed invention as a whole and determine whether or not it would have been
`
`obvious in light of all of the prior art.
`
`30.
`
`I have been informed and understand that in deciding whether to
`
`combine what is described in various items of prior ait, the relevant question is
`
`whether the prior art combination would have been obvious to a person with
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`1 have been further informed
`
`that it can be important to identify a teaching, suggestion or motivation (in either
`
`the prior art or the knowledge of persons skilled in the art) that would have
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, ll
`
`prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in
`
`the way the claimed invention does.
`
`31.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the combination of familiar
`
`elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
`
`than yield predictable results.
`
`I have been further informed that when a patent
`
`simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been
`
`known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an
`
`arrangement, the combination is obvious.
`
`32.
`
`I have been further informed and understand that a patent composed
`
`of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its
`
`elements was independently known in the prior art.
`
`I am informed and understand
`
`that while one must look with care at a patent application that claims as an
`
`innovation the combination of known devices according to their established
`
`functions, it is important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed
`
`new invention does.
`
`33.
`
`I have been informed and understand that when the prior art teaches
`
`away from combining certain known elements, discovery of a successfiil means of
`
`combining them is more likely to be non-obvious.
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, ll
`
`34.
`
`I have been further informed and understand that evidence of
`
`secondary considerations of non-obviousness also must be considered and that
`
`those considerations include: (1) whether or not the invention proceeded in a
`
`direction contrary to accepted wisdom in the field; (2) whether or not there was a
`
`long felt but unresolved need in the art that was satisfied by the invention; (3)
`
`whether or not others had tried but failed to make the invention; (4) whether or not
`
`others copied the invention; (5) whether or not the invention achieved any
`
`unexpected results; (6) whether or not the invention was praised by others; (7)
`
`whether or not others have taken licenses to use the invention; (8) whether or not
`
`experts or those skilled in the art at the making of the invention expressed surprise
`
`or disbelief regarding the invention; (9) whether or not products incorporating the
`
`invention have achieved commercial success; and (10) whether or not others
`
`having ordinary skill in the field of the invention independently made the claimed
`
`invention at about the same time the inventor made the invention.
`
`35.
`
`I have also been informed and understand that any assertion of the
`
`above indicia must be accompanied by a nexus between the claimed invention and
`
`the evidence offered; otherwise the evidence does not actually tend to show that
`
`the invention was non-obvious. Further, I understand that, even where evidence of
`
`non-obviousness exists, it may not be compelling enough to overcome a strong
`
`showing of obviousness in light of the prior art.
`
`10
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11
`
`II.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`36.
`
`I have applied the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification as commonly understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to the
`
`claim terms.
`
`III. Level of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`37.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
`
`have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or
`
`computer engineering with 2-3 years’ experience in the telecommunications
`
`industry, including experience with operating and/or implementing 3GPP networks.
`
`Additional education might substitute for some of the experience, and substantial
`
`experience might substitute for some of the educational background.
`
`IV.
`
`Summary of Opinions
`
`38.
`
`It is also my opinion that claims 1-2, 4-6, 8 and 11 would have been
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § l03(a) over TS 23.125 in View of TS 29.207, alone or
`
`alternatively in combination with Chaskar.
`
`V.
`
`Technology Background
`
`A.
`
`Charging and Billing in Telecommunication Networks
`
`39.
`
`The ’971 patent relates generally to charging of packet data service.
`
`See ’97l (Ex. 1101) at Abstract. Charging and billing have been routine functions
`
`of a telecommunication network from the start. They allow network providers to
`
`11
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11
`
`control the types of services available to a user (e. g., unlimited weekend calls, 200
`
`text messages a month). They also allow network providers to collect and process
`
`information relating to chargeable events (e.g., an International call lasting 10
`
`minutes, 5 text messages). They further allow network providers to calculate the
`
`charge for which the user should be billed (e.g., $10.00 for a 10-minute
`
`International call rated at $1.00 per minute).
`
`40.
`
`The traditional voice-only services are usually charged according to a
`
`time-based pricing model. For example, a subscriber to fixed line telephone
`
`networks is charged on a monthly basis and then for metered usage of the service.
`
`The metered usage is measured in units of time. See, e.g., Cushnie (Ex. 1107) at
`
`318.
`
`41.
`
`The introduction of 3G or third-generation mobile technologies ~ in
`
`particular, the General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) — brought Internet to mobile
`
`subscribers. It provided high-speed Internet data communication services on top of
`
`voice services. With the addition of new data services came the challenge of
`
`charging mobile data. Unlike voice, data usage is not simply a function of time.
`
`The same mobile subscriber may use data services of different “quality.” See, e.g.,
`
`TS 29.207 (Ex. 1105) at 12 (describing different Quality of Services (QoS)
`
`classes). A higher quality of service often corresponds to a higher data rate, which
`
`is measured by the amount of data delivered to the subscriber per second. More
`
`12
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11
`
`network resources which may demand a higher charge. See, e.g., Cushnie (Ex.
`
`1107) at 320 (“This charging model. . .introduces the concept of public auction of
`
`bandwidth or network resources. The network subscribers place monetary bids
`
`that will influence the quality of service they receive from their network-based
`
`applications”).
`
`42.
`
`The telecommunication industry had developed, well before the ’971
`
`patent, a set of solutions for charging mobile data. The industry recognized that
`
`mobile subscribers may be charged based on how much data they use in the
`
`network, in addition to the amount of talk-time consumed. See, e. g., Cushnie (Ex.
`
`1107) at 315; TS 23.125 (Ex. 1103) at 9 (“Volume based charging”). Different
`
`charging rates may apply to services of different qualities. Relatedly, subscribers’
`
`data plans may limit the quality of services (e.g., data rate) they are authorized to
`
`receive from the network provider. See, e.g., TS 23.125 (Ex. 1103) at 10 (“For
`
`example, a service data flow may be charged with different rates depending on
`
`what QoS is applicable”); Cushnie (Ex. 1107) at 320 (“The network subscribers
`
`place monetary bids that will influence the quality of service they receive from
`
`their network-based applications.”).
`
`B.
`
`Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)
`
`43.
`
`Third Generation Partnership Project or 3GPP is an ongoing,
`
`collaborative project of the telecommunication industry involving many engineers
`
`13
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11
`
`from many companies. Members of the various 3GPP working groups submit
`
`written contributions and discussion documents on various topics (including
`
`charging), and ultimately capture accepted proposals and changes in Technical
`
`Reports and Technical Specifications. 3GPP stores and controls all of these
`
`documents electronically and retains them on the public 3GPP server indefinitely,
`
`without password protection. Major changes to the 3GPP standards are introduced
`
`as “Releases,” which comprise Technical Reports and Technical Specifications.
`
`Certain groups of releases are informally referred to as a generation. See Bishop
`
`Dec1.(Ex. l 113) W16-17.
`
`C.
`
`Charging and Quality of Service (QOS) Control
`
`44.
`
`As explained above, it was well known before the ’97l patent that
`
`selecting an appropriate charging rate and controlling the quality of service (QoS)
`
`go hand in hand. To provide a higher quality of service, more network resources
`
`are often consumed, therefore demanding a higher charging rate.
`
`45.
`
`3GPP had developed, before the ’97l patent, several network
`
`architectures. One architecture was for controlling QoS (labeled “QoS Policy
`
`Control Architecture” in the diagram below). Another architecture was for
`
`controlling charging rates (labeled “Charging Control Architecture” in the
`
`14
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11
`
`diagram below). As shown below, these two architectures paralleled each other. 1
`
`oS Polic Control Architecture
`
`
`sawSm-ov‘.
`«,
`/
`V
`
`than Across
`Nchuort (IAN;
`
`DO‘)
`
`Cort Ncmonx (CN)
`
`1
`
`
`
`Char in Control Architecture
`
`
`«KmMono Aazcu
`
`Notwon «tum;
`
`Core Nemonx (CM
`
` I'_
`
`I
`
`-_ I
`
`
`
`U30!
`Eauvomem (Uta
`
`(as.-crnont tut)
`
`In both architectures, mobile data are transferred in “packet mode” — data is
`
`divided into small packets before transmission and reassembled at their destination.
`
`A user equipment (UE) is connected to the Packet Data Network (PDN) through a
`
`Serving GRPS Support Node (SGSN) and a Gateway GPRS Support Node
`
`(GGSN). This connection activates a Packet Data Protocol (PDP) context, where
`
`1 The network architecture diagrams shown in this section are simplified, and they
`
`omit several components in a 3G packet-switched network.
`
`15
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11
`
`mobile data may be exchanged between the UE and the PDN.
`
`’971 (Ex. 1101) at
`
`1:30-2:53 (illustrating the activation, data transmission, and de-activation of a PDP
`
`context), Fig. 1 (step 106 — “Packet Flow Traffic”).
`
`46.
`
`QOS is controlled according to the following procedure (shown in the
`
`figure below). Each PDP context corresponds to a certain QoS which must be
`
`authorized before the data flow between the UE and the PDN can be established.
`
`TS 29.207 (Ex. 1105) at 9-10. The QoS information includes the data rate at
`
`which mobile data may be transmitted within a given PDP context. Id. at 10
`
`(“Authorised QoS”). QoS authorization is performed by a Policy Decision
`
`Function (PDF), which provides the authorized QoS policy to a Policy
`
`Enforcement Point (PEP) within the GGSN. Id. at 8 (“Policy Decision Function
`
`(PDF)”), 18-19. The GGSN/PEP then enforces the QoS policy on the data flows.
`
`Id. at 11-12.
`
`Q05 Policy Control Architecture
`
`D _((}\)) 9....
`
`..
`
`J" 1
`
`uoao Mats
`Network (M8!
`
`
`
`-»
`
`Con Monet réhy
`
`‘°"'°""'" M’
`
`Context (Authorized Q_9§)
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, ll
`
`47.
`
`Charging control follows a similar procedure (shown in the figure
`
`below). Data flows between the UE and the PDN cannot be established until a set
`
`of “charging rules” have been selected for a PDP context. See, e.g., TS 23.125
`
`(Ex. 1 103) at 21 (“Bearer Service Establishment”). “Charging rules” contain
`
`information regarding a charging rate for a particular data flow (also known as a
`
`flow based “bearer”). Id. at 8 (“Charging key: information used by the online and
`
`offline charging system for rating purposes”), 12 (“Charging rules contain
`
`information on. . .Charging key. .
`
`. .”). Charging rules are determined by a Charging
`
`Rules Function (CRF), which provides the selected charging rules to a Traffic
`
`Plane Function (TPF) within the GGSN. See, e.g., id. at 21 (“Bearer Service
`
`Establishment”). The GGSN/TPF then enforces the charging rules on the data
`
`flows. Id. at 16-17.
`
`Chargig; Control Architecture
`
`hcnucns
`N«wovt(|lAN1
`
`can N¢twovt((M
`
`DI1)I__.((}\)) Em'-'-'-r
`\"
`#15:)‘.M
`/
`
`
`lIlt'F"\U1l\lI
`
`3913 Context
`
`l7
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11
`
`48.
`
`Both QoS and charging control were well known before the ’971
`
`patent. Indeed, Figs. 3A-3C of the ’971 patent, labeled as “prior art,” illustrate the
`
`issuance of charging rules when an IP flow is established, modified, or deleted.
`
`’97l (Ex. 1101) at 7:56-61 (shown below on the left-hand side). They are almost
`
`identical to the flowcharts in Figs. 7.1-7.3 of 3GPP Technical Specification (TS)
`
`23.125 (shown below on the right-hand side):
`
`Bearer Service Establishment
`
`' UE
`-5.]A Etukhnuusaviu
`
`11'?
`
`CR1?
`‘ l
`h 3.02‘ 3°?“ chygllg Rules,‘
`
`Cu
`In
`11:
`I. Establish Beale: Sm‘ Rcq I
`
`2 Request charging rules
`
`|dcn11fyChanngRu|¢s
`_to 1113111
`=
`304». ProvisionRulcs{
`,,,,,_.1,g'3,;,,,,,,,,,
`1
`
`“"17-‘ _ .
`‘MA Establish Bqagr|
`
`l
`
`&
`
`mks '0 install
`4. Provision Charging Ruksl
`
`
`E»\.C1:tp21'bhsh Beam Sen‘
`
`I
`
`Fixwe M (Prior an)
`
`rigun 7.1: Beam Sank: Emblmamenr
`
`’971 (Ex. 1101) at Fig. 3A
`
`TS 23.125 (Ex. 1103) at Fig. 7.1
`
`Bearer Service Modification
`
`18
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11
`
`11:
`
`In
`1 Modify Bearer Sen‘ Req
`
`car
`
`2. Request charging mles
`
`
`
`
`:1 Identify charging
`
`rules to apply
`
`
`
`l
`
`I
`
`5 InsIallRc1nm'e
`
`
`charging rules
`
`6. Modify Bearer Sen’ Acc 1|
`
`T15]
`NIB
`
`'n.'1F
`'
`Service Rnqnuu
`
`3023 Request Charging Rules_
`
`Fcfiil
`'1'
`l
`1
`‘l
`30311 §e|:a0ugimR1fles«
`kbmify Changing
`Rules to A_gp_lx _
`
`_
`
`I
`
`.
`l
`
`359 Pto:isionClmgingRu3sVj
`
`3035
`lnsull I Runovethuitg
`W95
`3
`
`1 353 Modigsuiusqvioeieeqx l
`
`l
`
`Fi8“|'° 33(Pfi°f In)
`
`Figure ‘.2: Bearer Senke .\IodI1knIlon
`
`’971 (Ex. 1101) at Fig. 313
`
`TS 23.125 (Ex. 1103) at Fig. 7.2
`
`Bearer Service Deletion/Termination
`
`l'E
`
`TPF
`1. Remove Beam" Sen‘ Req
`
`CR!’
`I
`
`
`2. IndicationofBearerTeruiinatiou
`3. Identify charging
`
`rules to apply
`
`
`4
`'
`I 5. lnstall:Remo\'e
`
`.._°.h"______.___13‘"3ml“
`i
`
`i
`k
`
`
`
`
`4. Prmision Charging Ruiesl
`
`I
`
`i UEl
`301C Remove Bearer ':-uric: Rap.-‘I me Rcqum Chqindula
`— ilndicalmn of B-c§c—r"l;ern\inI1ion)
`3036 Selena Chughg RE
`ldcnlify Clnrging
`1
`__
`. Rules to Apply
`.1949 _|*_°V.i='£- 0-sin:w_=-_ l
`. .7“ ...._...,
`sosc
`lmtlll I Remove Clwin
`Rules
`
`'
`
`.30“-'
`
`l
`
`Piw" Sc (9'l°' "“
`
`Figure 7.3: Enter Sonia Termination
`
`’97l (Ex. 1101) at Fig. 3C
`
`TS 23.125 (Ex. 1103) at Fig. 7.3
`
`D.
`
`Dynamic Charging Rules and QoS Policies
`
`49.
`
`Both charging and QoS control faced a similar issue with their
`
`respective processes. After a data flow is established between a UE and the PDN,
`
`certain characteristics of the data flow might change, resulting in inconsistency
`
`with the initial authorization. A typical scenario is when the mobile user requests a
`
`different QoS than initially authorized. See, e.g., TS 29.207 (Ex. 1105) at 17
`
`19
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, ll
`
`(“Requested QoS exceeds ‘Authorised QoS’”); TS 23.125 (Ex. 1103) at 10 (“[A]
`
`service data flow may be charged with different rates depending on what QoS is
`
`applicable. The charging rate may thus be modified when a bearer is created or
`
`removed, to change the QoS provided for a service data flow.”); see also ’971 (Ex.
`
`1101) at 3:67-4:2 (“[W]hen QoS parameters of the same service are different,
`
`charging rules may be different accordingly”).
`
`50.
`
`To address the dynamic nature of a data flow, a similar solution was
`
`adopted for both policy and charging control.
`
`In essence, this solution allows the
`
`modification of a previously authorized QoS level or previously provided charging
`
`rules.
`
`51. Dynamic policy control implementation. The GGSN/PEP notifies
`
`the PDF when a previously authorized PDP context is modified and sends an
`
`authorization request to the PDF if the newly requested QoS exceeds previous
`
`authorization. The PDF then authorizes a new QoS policy for the modified PDP
`
`context and conveys its decision back to the GGSN. TS 29.207 (Ex. 1105) at 16-
`
`17.
`
`52. Dynamic charging control implementation. The GGSN/TPF notifies
`
`the CRF when an IP flow bearer is modified and sends a request for charging rules
`
`to the CRF based on the modified bearer information (e. a modified QoS). TS
`
`23.125 (Ex. 1 103) at 10 (“The flow based bearer level charging can support
`
`20
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11
`
`dynamic selection of charging to apply. . .a service data flow may be charged with
`
`different rates depending on what QoS is applicable”); ’97l (Ex. 1101) at 4:2-4
`
`(“[T]he charging rate may [] decrease as QoS parameters decrease. Therefore it is
`
`necessary to re-confer on QoS parameters.’’). The CRF then determines what
`
`charging rules should apply to the modified bearer and sends its determinations
`
`back to the GGSN/TPF. TS 23.125 (Ex. 1103) at 22.
`
`53.
`
`For both policy and charging control, the modified data flow cannot
`
`be established until the GGSN receives the new QoS policies or charging rules.
`
`54. Dynamic control of QoS policies and charging rules was well known
`
`before the ’971 patent. See, e.g., TS 29.207 (Ex. 1105) at 16-17 (“Modification of
`
`previously authorized PDP context”); TS 23.125 (Ex. 1 103) at 22 (“Bearer Seivice
`
`Modification”).
`
`E.
`
`Event Triggers for Dynamic Policy and Charging Control
`
`55. Dynamic control of QoS policies and charging rules brought
`
`flexibility to mobile subscribers, who can now modify key characteristics of a data
`
`flow, such as QoS, without the need to establish a new flow. With this dynamic
`
`control came the additional signaling between the GGSN and PDF/CRF (as
`
`described above). If implemented in the most straightforward way, these
`
`procedures would require the GGSN (PEP/TPF) to request a new QoS policy or
`
`charging rule from the PDF/CRF whenever a data flow is modified—even in the
`
`21
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, ll
`
`slightest. This would often unnecessarily burden the network resources. See also
`
`’971 (Ex. 1101) at 6:29-50.
`
`56.
`
`A -solution had been developed, before the ’97l patent, to address this
`
`issue. Basically, this solution limits the conditions (or “eVents”) that trigger the
`
`GGSN/PEP to request a new QoS policy from the PDF to those situations where a
`
`new policy or charging rule is likely necessary:
`
`The GGSN on receiving the PDP context modification request from the UE
`
`will verify the authorisation. If the GGSN does not have sufficient
`
`information to authorize the PDP context modification request then the
`
`GGSN shall interrogat