UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
`
`
`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 IPR2017-00698
`
`
`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
`
`Page
`
`BeiraI ose ccccsrcseceranencreememescaecrcemcunseneumoosneaunmemncunacnenared a
`Ac,—-ArticHOI... ecer er cerarnnerrasihssnishanneysnalmens deinSeen MibmataNE CNUs 6
`B,
`Obwiottines8isviices esstcisttcicicscceaiscicaninnnienmnnnnnieans t
`
`IL.
`
`Hl.
`
`IV.
`
`VI.
`
`VIL.
`
`SAE TEAReseccccerecoecirscasercaesinnesammamrncaunmeuran nkaeeeeaRaNaeS am mmnare 11
`Level of Ordinary Skill In The Art............ccccececeeeceeeceseeesseeeneeeeesserseneeaeeenens 1]
`Summary of Opis ,)¢32s2cssceccncncnanicaaaemanmaanans 1]
`Technology Bachegerntedscsisscnsscaiicestsnosunsneneransnnesnestnaesnenccanessensuenaenecnceneagnenss 11
`A.
`Charging and Billing in Telecommunication Networks.................-.-. 1]
`B.—Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)...........2.:c:ccecceeseeeeererees 13
`C.
`Charging and Quality of Service (QoS) Control ............::c.ccccsceeseeeeeees 14
`D.
`Dynamic Charging Rules and QoS Policies.............000.cccceeeeeeeteteeee 19
`E.
`Event Triggers for Dynamic Policy and Charging Control..
`suavaca b
`Overview of the "971 patent siisissicesscssansccnnncsancnuennaeansanceramnnnreaniananconnesngnvens 26
`A.
`The Claimed Invention .............cccccccccseceesseeeneceescetneetennantnsesesseeseeseeeses 26
`B.
`Challenged Claims jecuainecccansenccnnnnnawn, 31
`C.-Presecwitctt Figy assessscssesscsonesevccnevennsniccarenrsnernemenereemeannarsenancess 33
`Summary of the Prior Art References...............::cecceccsseeeeteeeceeseeneaseennnesasensees 35
`A.
`Summary of TS 23.125 (Bx, 1103)ccsssccccccssssicssccscctnctassvecsseniceieiccnsas 36
`B.
`Sunumary of TS 29.207 (Fac, LL OS) occ cccsenscacscnsucnacessnereanvesrerensnneencncers 39
`C.
`Summary of Chaskar (Ex. 1106).......0....cccccscesscessesecsseseseneseeeseeeeeseseees43
`Invalidity of the Challenged Clatmssij.jsicccascncicamiinamen 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
`NEL COUa srececnecennennneserensynsennrenanaperonsnemespnnssnnneindsenssennins vesbsel saprolite 44
`Availability for Cross-Examination ............2.:c:cceccesseccesseseeseeseenssesenaneennaenesees 71
`Right to Supplement siisisiiccsinasisonscrneravenacacceensnsonnnccncncancaniniascranetaneenniasicenes 72
`
`VI.
`
`IX.
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11
`
`Il, Ozan Tonguz, declare as follows:
`
`l.
`
`a
`
`My nameis 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 Departmentof Electrical and Computer Engineering
`
`from Rutgers University from 1985-1987.
`
`3.
`
`From 1988-1990, I was a Memberofthe 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.
`
`Myresearch has focused on telecommunications and networking.
`
`Moreparticularly, 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,I
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11]
`
`introduced courses on data networks, mobile and cellular telecommunication
`
`systems, advancedtopics 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 numerouspublications in the area of telecommunications and
`
`networking.
`
`I 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 numberof technical reports.
`
`if
`
`I have been active in a numberofprofessional organizations and
`
`conferences.
`
`I am a Senior Memberof the IEEE, a Memberof the IEEE
`
`Communications Society, and a Memberof the Optical Society of America.
`
`I have
`
`had editorial roles on a numberof IEEE journals, and participated as a member,
`
`chair, or organizer for a numberof professional meetings.
`
`8.
`
`I have received several awards, prizes, and honors. These include:
`
`invited to be a memberofthe U.S. delegation of 30 professional representing the
`
`wireless communications research of the IEEE Vehicular TechnologySociety;
`
`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
`Claims1-2, 4-6, 8, 11
`
`America; memberof the National Electrical Engineering Honorsociety; and
`
`referee for Tenure and Promotion Cases for a numberof universities.
`
`9.
`
`I am the co-inventor of four U.S. patents and a Singaporepatent: 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. 10201505499P.
`
`10.
`
`Additional details of my technical education, work experience,
`
`publications, and awards and honorsare contained in my curriculum vitae. A copy
`
`of my curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix A.
`
`11.
`
`Ihave reviewed the specification, claims andfile 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 claimspriority as a continuation to
`
`three successive applications—U.S. Application No. 13/190,817 ¢°°817
`
`application’) (filed on July 26, 2011), U.S. Patent No. 8,009,573 (“573 patent”)
`
`(filed on August 11, 2006), and PCT Application No. PCT/CN2005/000388 (“388
`
`application’) (filed on March 28, 2005)—andtwo foreign applications——-CN 2004
`
`1 0030955 (“955 application”) (filed on April 1, 2004) and CN 2004 | 0033721
`
`(“’721 application’’) (filed on April 9, 2004). °971 (Ex. 1101), cover page.
`
`12.
`
`Ihave reviewed the following patents and publications in preparing
`
`this declaration:
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11
`
`e 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);
`
`e Honkasalo et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,826,353 (“Honkasalo”) (Ex. 1104);
`
`e 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);
`
`e Chaskaret al., U.S. Patent No. 7,280,505 (“Chaskar’’) (Ex. 1106); and
`
`e Cushnieet al., Evolution of Charging and Billing Modelsfor GSM
`
`and Future Mobile Internet Services, Quality of Future Internet
`
`Services, Proceedings of the First COST 263 International Workshop,
`
`QofIS 2000, Berlin, Germany, September 25-26, 2000, pp. 312-323
`
`(“Cushnie”).
`
`13.
`
`Ihave reviewed the above patents and publications, and any other
`
`publication cited in this declaration.
`
`14.
`
`Ihave considered certain issues from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinaryskill in the art as described below atthe time the 971 patent application
`
`wasfiled.
`
`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.
`
`[have been retained by Petitioners T-Mobile US, Inc. and T-Mobile
`
`USA,Inc. (collectively, “T-Mobile”) as an expertin the field of
`
`telecommunications, cellular systems, and wireless networks.
`
`I have also been
`
`retained as an expert by T-Mobile in the samefield for the following District Court
`
`lawsuit: Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:16-
`
`cv-00055 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 15, 2016).
`
`16.
`
`Iam 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 wayaffects the substance of my
`
`statements in this Declaration.
`
`17.
`
`Ihave nofinancial 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 ’971 patent.
`
`I.
`
`Legal Principles
`
`18.
`
`lamnotan attorney. For the purposesof 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. 8,531,971
`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 informedthat 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 knownor embodiedin a single priorart device orpractice.
`
`20.
`
`Ihave been informedthat a claim limitation is inherentin the prior art
`
`if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with,or includes,the claim
`
`limitation.
`
`21.
`
`Ihave been informed and understandthat, 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.
`
`Ihave been informed and understand that under section 102(a) of the
`
`pre-AIA Patent Act, a patentclaim 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.
`
`[have been informed and understand that under section 102(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 UnitedStates.
`
`24.
`
`I further understand that an invention is considered to be “on sale”
`
`underthis provision if a product that was sold or offered for sale inherently
`
`possessed each ofthe limitations of the claims, regardless of whetherthe parties to
`
`the sale or offer for sale recognized that the product possessed the claimed
`
`characteristics.
`
`25.
`
`Ihave been informed and understand that under section 102(e) of the
`
`pre-AIA Patent Act, a claimed inventionis 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.
`
`[have been informed and understandthat a patentis invalid as
`
`obviousif 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 obviousat the
`
`time the invention was madeto a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`
`said subject matter pertains.
`
`27.
`
`Ihave been informed and understand that in analyzing the question of
`
`obviousness,it is improper to use hindsight reconstruction, and that one should not
`
`

`

`US. Patent No. 8,531,971
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11
`
`use the patent as a road map for selecting and combining itemsofprior art. lam
`
`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.
`
`Ihave been informed and understand that in analyzing obviousness,
`
`one must determine: (1) the scope and content of the priorart; (2) what differences,
`
`if any, exist between the invention of the claims of the patent and the priorart; and
`
`(3) what the level of ordinary skill in the art was at the time the invention was
`
`made.
`
`29.
`
`Ihave been further informed and understand that in determining the
`
`differences between the invention covered by the patent claims andthe priorart,
`
`one should not look at the individual differences in isolation, but rather consider
`
`the claimed invention as a whole and determine whetheror not it would have been
`
`obviousin light of all of the priorart.
`
`30.
`
`I have been informed and understandthat in deciding whetherto
`
`combine whatis described in various itemsof prior art, the relevant questionis
`
`whetherthe prior art combination would have been obvious to a person with
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`I have been further informed
`
`that it can be importantto identify a teaching, suggestion or motivation (in either
`
`the prior art or the knowledge of personsskilled in the art) that would have
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11
`
`prompted a person ofordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in
`
`the way the claimed invention does.
`
`31.
`
`Ihave been informed and understand that the combination of familiar
`
`elements according to known methodsis likely to be obvious whenit 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
`
`knownto perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an
`
`arrangement, the combination is obvious.
`
`32.
`
`Ihave been further informed and understandthat a patent composed
`
`of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each ofits
`
`elements was independently knownin the prior art.
`
`| am informed and understand
`
`that while one must look with care at a patent application that claims as an
`
`innovation the combination of knowndevices 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.
`
`[have been informed and understand that whenthe priorart teaches
`
`away from combining certain known elements, discovery of a successful means of
`
`combining them is more likely to be non-obvious.
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11
`
`34.
`
`Ihave been further informed and understandthat 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 needin the art that was satisfied by the invention;(3)
`
`whetheror not others had tried but failed to make the invention; (4) whetherornot
`
`others copied the invention; (5) whether or not the invention achieved any
`
`unexpected results; (6) whetheror not the invention waspraised by others; (7)
`
`whetherornot 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) whetheror not others
`
`having ordinary skill in the field of the invention independently made the claimed
`
`invention at about the sametime the inventor madethe invention.
`
`35.
`
`[have also been informed and understand that any assertion ofthe
`
`above indicia must be accompanied by a nexus betweenthe 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-obviousnessexists, it may not be compelling enoughto overcomea strong
`
`showing of obviousnessin light of the priorart.
`
`10
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11
`
`II.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`36.
`
`Ihave applied the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification as commonly understood by personsof ordinary skill in the art to the
`
`claim terms.
`
`II. 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, computerscience, 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 opinionthat claims 1-2, 4-6, 8 and 11 would have been
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over TS 23.125 in view of TS 29.207, alone or
`
`alternatively in combination with Chaskar.
`
`V.
`
`Technology Background
`
`A.
`
`Charging andBilling in Telecommunication Networks
`
`39.
`
`The ’971 patent relates generally to charging of packetdata service.
`
`See °971 (Ex. 1101) at Abstract. Charging andbilling 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 weekendcalls, 200
`
`text messages a month). They also allow network providers to collect and process
`
`informationrelating to chargeable events (e.g., an Internationalcall lasting 10
`
`minutes, 5 text messages). They further allow network providers to calculate the
`
`charge for which the user should bebilled (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 subscriberto fixed line telephone
`
`networks is charged on a monthly basis and then for metered usage ofthe service.
`
`The metered usage is measuredin 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 camethe 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 correspondsto a higher data rate, which
`
`is measured by the amountof 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 muchdata they use in the
`
`network, in addition to the amountof talk-time consumed. See, e.g., Cushnie (Ex.
`
`1107) at 315; TS 23.125 (Ex. 1103) at 9 (“Volumebased charging”). Different
`
`charging rates may apply to services of different qualities. Relatedly, subscribers’
`
`data plans maylimit the quality of services (e.g., data rate) they are authorized to
`
`receive from the networkprovider. 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 QoSis applicable.”’); Cushnie (Ex. 1107) at 320 (“The network subscribers
`
`place monetary bidsthat 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. Membersof 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 controlsall of these
`
`documents electronically and retains them on the public 3GPP server indefinitely,
`
`without password protection. Major changes to the 3GPP standardsare introduced
`
`as “Releases,” which comprise Technical Reports and Technical Specifications.
`
`Certain groups ofreleases are informally referred to as a generation. See Bishop
`
`Decl. (Ex. 1113) 9916-17.
`
`C.
`
`Charging and Quality of Service (QoS) Control
`
`44. Asexplained above,it was well knownbefore the ’971 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 chargingrate.
`
`45.
`
`3GPP had developed, before the 971 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
`
`

`

`US. Patent No. 8,531,971
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11
`
`diagram below). As shownbelow,these two architectures paralleled eachother. :
`
`0S Policy Control Architecture
`
`
`artAR BaseStation
`HHe ysS
`
`i
`
`
`
`User
`Eoutoment (UE)
`
`
`
`Oats
`
`Radio Access
`Network (RAN)
`
`Core Network (CN)
`
`Charging Control Architecture
`
`
`
`
`Radic Access
`Network (RAN}
`
`Core Network (CN}
`
`texspment(UE)
`
`In both architectures, mobile data are transferred in “packet mode”— datais
`
`divided into small packets before transmission and reassembledattheir 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
`
`' The network architecture diagrams shownin 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 (shownin the
`
`figure below). Each PDP context correspondsto a certain QoS which must be
`
`authorized before the data flow between the UE and the PDN canbeestablished.
`
`TS 29.207 (Ex. 1105) at 9-10. The QoS information includesthe datarate at
`
`which mobile data may be transmitted within a given PDP context. Jd. at 10
`
`(“Authorised QoS”). QoS authorization is performed by a Policy Decision
`
`Function (PDF), which provides the authorized QoSpolicy to a Policy
`
`Enforcement Point (PEP) within the GGSN. Jd. at 8 (“Policy Decision Function
`
`(PDF)”), 18-19. The GGSN/PEPthen enforces the QoS policy on the data flows.
`
`Td. at 11-12.
`
`
`
`QoS PolicyControlArchitecture
`
`(J.LEanBe:
`-«i =")
`
`
`User
`ates
`
`Network (RAN)
`
`PDPContext (Authorized QoS)
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11
`
`47.
`
`Charging control follows a similar procedure (shownin the figure
`
`below). Data flows between the UE and the PDN cannotbe established until a set
`
`of “charging rules” have been selected for a PDP context. See, e.g., TS 23.125
`
`(Ex. 1103) at 21 (“Bearer Service Establishment”). “Charging rules” contain
`
`information regarding a chargingrate for a particular data flow (also knownas a
`
`flow based “bearer’”). Jd. 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.
`
`
`
`ChargingControlArchitecture
`
`[)..{|)ee-(aieRadio Access
`
`PDP Context
`
`
`
`Equipment (UE)
`
`Network (RAN)
`
`Core Network (CN)
`
`17
`
`

`

`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 “priorart,”illustrate the
`
`issuance of charging rules when an IP flow is established, modified, or deleted.
`
`°971 (Ex. 1101) at 7:56-61 (shown below ontheleft-hand side). They are almost
`
`identical to the flowcharts in Figs. 7.1-7.3 of 3GPP Technical Specification (TS)
`
`23.125 (shownbelow onthe right-handside):
`
`Bearer Service Establishment
`
`UE
`SOLA. Establish BearerService Rs
`
`TPE
`CRE
`UE
`TPF
`CRF
`
` 1. Estabhsh Bearer Serv Req | -
`.
`302A Request Charging Rules,
`2. Request charging rules
`
`_to Install
`
`303A Select Charging Rules
`3. Identify charging
`IdentifyCharingRules
`|
`tules to install
`-
`4. Provision Charging Ruled
`{044 ProvisionCharging=
` :
`§. Install‘Remove
`bestall tenceCharing
`\
`chargingrules
`Rules |
`|
`[gba EstablishBearerServiceAnceps |
`|
`6. EstablishBearer Serv
`
`:
`
`Accept
`
`Figure 3A (prior ast)
`
`Figure 7.1: Bearer Service Establishment
`
`°971 (Ex. 1101) at Fig. 3A
`
`TS 23.125 (Ex. 1103) at Fig. 7.1
`
`Bearer Service Modification
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`|UE| TPF [CRF UE TPF CRF
`
`1. Modify Bearer Serv Req
`T
`
`301B Modify Bearer Service Reques||
`
`2. Request charging rules
`302B Request Charging Rules
`|
`
`3. Identify charging
`
`niles to apply
`
`
`|
`4. Provision Charging Rule
`|
` 5. Install. Remove
`
`chargingrules
`
`
`|
`305B
`Install / Remove Charing
`Rules
`|
`
`i
`|
`
`|
`
`[6B ModifyBearerServiceAocept
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11
`
`6. Modify Bearer Serv Accept
`
`1038 Select Charging Rules |
`Identify Charging
`
`Rulesto Apply
`
`QB ProvisionChargingRules
`
`|
`
`Figure 38(prior art)
`
`Figure 7.2: Bearer Service Modification
`
`°971 (Ex. 1101) at Fig. 3B
`
`TS 23.125 (Ex. 1103) at Fig. 7.2
`
`Bearer Service Deletion/Termination
`
`| UE}
`
`ur
`
`oa
`
`LE
`
`TPF
`1. Remove Bearer Serv Req
`
`CRF
`|
`
`
`2. IndicationofBearerTermination
`
`
`301C RemoveBearer Service Reque!|
`_302C_ Request ChargingRules
`3. Identify charging
`(Indication of Bearer Termination)
`rules to apply
`
`303C Select Charging Ruled
`
`4. Provision Charging Rules
`Identify Charging
`_____ Rules to Apply
`
`
`“¢204C_ProvisionChargingRules |
`
`| 5. Install/Remove
`——EEE
`+
`|
`
`‘se|chargingrules |
`
`Install / Remove Charin;
`6. Remove Bearer Serv Acc
`
`
`Rules
`
`
`gilC RemoveBearer Service Accept
`
`Figur 3€
`
`(prior a)
`
`Figare 7.3: Bearer Service Termamation
`
`971 (Ex. 1101) at Fig. 3C
`
`TS 23.125 (Ex. 1103) at Fig. 7.3
`
`D.
`
`Dynamic Charging Rules and QoSPolicies
`
`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 thaninitially 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, 11
`
`(“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 QoSis
`
`applicable. The charging rate may thus be modified when a beareris 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 sameservice 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 QoSlevel or previously provided charging
`
`rules.
`
`51. Dynamic policy control implementation. The GGSN/PEPnotifies
`
`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 PDFthen authorizes a new QoS policy for the modified PDP
`
`context and conveysits 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 anIP flow bearer is modified and sends a request for charging rules
`
`to the CRF based on the modified bearer information (e.g., a modified QoS). TS
`
`23.125 (Ex. 1103) 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 QoSis applicable.”); °971 (Ex. 1101) at 4:2-4
`
`(“[T]he charging rate may [] decrease as QoS parameters decrease. Thereforeit is
`
`necessary to re-confer on QoS parameters.”). The CRF then determines what
`
`charging rules should apply to the modified bearer and sendsits 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. 1103) at 22 (“Bearer Service
`
`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 camethe 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 QoSpolicy or
`
`charging rule from the PDF/CRF whenevera data flow is modified—evenin the
`
`21
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971
`Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11
`
`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 ’971 patent, to addressthis
`
`issue. Basically, this solution limits the conditions (or “events”) that trigger the
`
`GGSN/PEPto request a new QoSpolicy from the PDFto those situations where a
`
`new policy or charging rule is likely necessary:
`
`The GGSNonreceiving the PDP context modification request from the UE
`
`will verify the authorisation. If the GGSN doesnot have sufficient
`
`information to authorize the PDP context modification request then the
`
`GGSNshall interrogate the PDF for modification request authorisation.
`
`Ifthe requested QoSis within the already “Authorized QoS” and the
`
`binding information is not changed, the GGSN need not send an
`authorization request to the PDF.’
`
`TS 29.207 (Ex. 1105) at 17.
`
`The COPSclient (PEP) can request a policy decision from the PDFtriggered
`
`by a QoSsignalling request. One PEP request may be followed by oneor
`
`more asynchronous PDF decisions. Each of th