`
`Filed on behalf of Cisco Systems, Inc.
`By:
`Lori A. Gordon
`
`Daniel S. Block
`
`Tyler J. Dutton
`
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
`1100 New York Avenue, NW
`
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`Tel: (202) 371-2600
`
`
`Fax: (202) 371-2540
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOF INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,531,971
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,531,971
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction. ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. Mandatory notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)). ................................................... 2
`
`III. Grounds for standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)). ............................................... 3
`
`IV.
`
`Identification of challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)). ....................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Citation of prior art. ............................................................................... 3
`
`Statutory grounds for the challenge. ..................................................... 5
`
`V.
`
`Background. ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`The 3rd Generation Partnership Project. ............................................... 6
`
`The ’971 patent. ...................................................................................11
`
`Prosecution history. .............................................................................18
`
`Level of ordinary skill in the art. .........................................................19
`
`Claim construction. .............................................................................20
`
`Patent Owner is not entitled to the priority benefit of the 2004
`Chinese applications. ...........................................................................21
`
`VI. Ground 1: Claims 1–8 and 11 are obvious over Körling and 3GPP
`23.825 V1.2.0. ...............................................................................................28
`
`A. Overview of the applied references. ....................................................28
`
`B.
`
`Körling in view of 3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0 renders independent
`claims 1 and 5 obvious. .......................................................................35
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The combination of Körling and 3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0 teaches
`or suggests “[a method / communication system] for
`controlling charging of packet data service.” ................................35
`
`The combination of Körling and 3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0 teaches
`or suggests “a Traffic Plane Function (TPF) which is in
`
`i
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,531,971
`
`
`communication with a Charging Rule Function (CRF)” as
`recited in claim 5 and a TPF and CRF as recited in claim 1..........36
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`The combination of Körling and 3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0 teaches
`or suggests the “receiv[ing/e]” limitation of independent claims
`1 and 5. ...........................................................................................42
`
`The combination of Körling and 3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0 teaches
`or suggests “wherein the event triggers are determined by the
`CRF,” as recited in claims 1 and 5. ................................................46
`
`The combination of Körling and 3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0 teaches
`or suggests the “determin[ing/e]” limitation of independent
`claims 1 and 5. ................................................................................47
`
`The combination of Körling and 3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0 teaches
`or suggests the “send[ing]” limitations of independent claims 1
`and 5. ..............................................................................................48
`
`The combination of Körling and 3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0 teaches
`or suggests the “event triggers” limitation of independent
`claims 1 and 5. ................................................................................52
`
`C.
`
`Körling in view of 3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0 renders claims 2 and 6
`obvious. ...............................................................................................53
`
`D. Körling in view of 3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0 renders claims 3 and 7
`obvious. ...............................................................................................56
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Körling in view of 3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0 renders claims 4 and 8
`obvious. ...............................................................................................57
`
`Körling in view of 3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0 renders claim 11
`obvious. ...............................................................................................58
`
`VII. Ground 2: Claims 9 and 10 are obvious over Körling, 3GPP 23.825
`V1.2.0, and Duffield. .....................................................................................59
`
`VIII. Grounds 1 and 2 are not redundant. ...............................................................62
`
`IX. Conclusion. ....................................................................................................64
`
`ii
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,531,971
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................ 22
`
`In re Baker,
`559 F.2d 588 (C.C.P.A. 1977) ................................................................................. 23
`
`In re DiLeone,
`436 F.2d 1404 (C.C.P.A. 1971) ............................................................................... 23
`
`In re Gosteli,
`872 F.2d 1008 (Fed. Cir. 1989)................................................................................ 23
`
`Lizardtech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping,
`424 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................ 22
`
`Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................ 22
`
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)................................................................................ 22
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,531,971
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971 to Duan
`
`Ex. 1002 U.S. Patent No. 8,531,971 Prosecution History
`
`Ex. 1003 CN 2004 1 0030955
`
`Ex. 1004 CN 2004 1 0033721
`
`Ex. 1005 WO 2005/096547 (PCT/CN2005/000388)
`
`Ex. 1006 U.S. Patent No. 8,009,573 to Duan
`
`Ex. 1007 U.S. Patent No. 8,009,573 Prosecution History
`
`Ex. 1008 U.S. Patent Application No. 13/190,817 Prosecution History
`
`Ex. 1009 U.S. Patent No. 7,450,591 to Körling et al.
`
`Ex. 1010 U.S. Patent No. 7,450,591 Prosecution History
`
`Ex. 1011 WO 2004/036825 (PCT/SE2003/001122)
`
`Ex. 1012 U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/418,547 to Körling et al.
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`3GPP TR 23.825 (V1.2.0) (2003-11)
`
`Ex. 1014 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0165958 to Duffield et al.
`
`Ex. 1015 Declaration of Dr. Paul Min
`
`Ex. 1016 Declaration of Mark Grayson
`
`Ex. 1017 Dr. Paul Min Curriculum Vitae
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`Internet Archive of 3GPP Database (May 18, 2004), available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20040518183918/http://www.3gpp.org/ft
`p/specs/archive/23_series/23.825/
`
`Internet Archive of 3GPP Database (Mar. 8, 2015), available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20150308024711/http://www.3gpp.org/ft
`p/specs/archive/23_series/23.825/
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Ex. 1020
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,531,971
`
`
`Invitation to Nov. 24-28, 2003 SA2 Meeting in New York, available
`at http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_sa/WG2_Arch/TSGS2_36_New_
`York/Invitation/
`
`Ex. 1021 Meeting Minutes from Nov. 24-28, 2003 SA2 Meeting in New York,
`available at http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_sa/WG2_Arch/TSGS2_36_
`New_York/report/
`
`Ex. 1022
`
`3GPP Meeting Registration for Nov. 24-28, 2003 SA2 Meeting in
`New York, available at http://webapp.etsi.org/3GPPRegistration/
`fViewPart.asp?mid=23040
`
`Ex. 1023
`
`3GPP TS 23.125 (V6.2.0) (2004-09)
`
`Ex. 1024 Change Request Tdoc S2-041454, 3GPP TSG SA WG2 Meeting #39,
`ShenZhen, China, April 19-23, 2004, available at
`http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_sa/wg2_arch/TSGS2_39_Shenzhen/Tdoc
`s/S2-041454.zip
`
`Ex. 1025
`
`Ex. 1026
`
`Internet Archive of 3GPP Database (Mar. 8, 2015), available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20150308020217/http://www.3gpp.org/ft
`p/specs/archive/23_series/23.125/
`
`Invitation to Sept. 7-16, 2004 TSG #25 Meeting in Palm Springs,
`available at http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_sa/TSG_SA/TSGS_25/
`Invitation/
`
`Ex. 1027 Meeting Minutes from Sept. 7-16, 2004 TSG #25 Meeting in Palm
`Springs, available at http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_sa/TSG_SA/
`TSGS_25/Report/
`
`Ex. 1028
`
`Ex. 1029
`
`3GPP Meeting Registration for Sept. 7-16, 2004 TSG #25 Meeting in
`Palm Springs, available at http://webapp.etsi.org/3GPPRegistration/
`fViewPart.asp?mid=22815
`
`3GPP Specifications – Numbering Scheme (Oct. 3, 2003), available
`at https://web.archive.org/web/20031003215125/
`http://www.3gpp.org/specs/numbering.htm
`
`v
`
`

`

`Ex. 1030
`
`Ex. 1031
`
`Ex. 1032
`
`Ex. 1033
`
`Ex. 1034
`
`Ex. 1035
`
`Ex. 1036
`
`Ex. 1037
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,531,971
`
`
`3GPP Specifications – Numbering Scheme (Feb. 5, 2004), available
`at https://web.archive.org/web/20040205170822/
`http://www.3gpp.org/specs/numbering.htm
`
`3GPP Specification Series: 23 Series (Dec. 6, 2003), available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20031206155155/http://www.3gpp.org/ft
`p/Specs/html-info/23-series.htm
`
`3GPP Specification Series: 23 Series (Feb. 5, 2004), available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20040205130026/http://www.3gpp.org/ft
`p/Specs/html-info/23-series.htm
`
`3GPP ftp – 3GPP 23.825, available at
`http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/23_series/23.825
`
`3GPP ftp – 3GPP 23.825 (Mar. 5, 2004), available at
`http://web.archive.org/web/20040305070631/http://www.3gpp.org/ftp
`/Specs/archive/23_series/23.825
`
`3GPP ftp – 3GPP 23.125, available at
`http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/23_series/23.125
`
`3GPP ftp – 3GPP 23.125 (Oct. 29, 2004), available at
`http://web.archive.org/web/20041029104252/http://www.3gpp.org/ftp
`/Specs/Archive/23_series/23.125/
`
`Internet Archive of 3GPP.org/about (Feb. 6, 2004), available at
`http://web.archive.org/web/20040206082055/http://www.3gpp.org/Ab
`out/about.htm/
`
`Ex. 1038
`
`Seurre, Emmanuel et al., GPRS for Mobile Internet (Artech House
`2003)
`
`Ex. 1039 Certificate of Translation of CN 2004 1 0030955
`
`Ex. 1040 Certificate of Translation of CN 2004 1 0033721
`
`Ex. 1041 Certificate of Translation of WO 2005/096547
`(PCT/CN2005/000388)
`
`Ex. 1042 Affidavit of Christopher Butler Corresponding to Exhibit 1018
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Ex. 1043 Affidavit of Christopher Butler Corresponding to Exhibit 1019
`Affidavit of Christopher Butler Corresponding to Exhibit 1019
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,531,971
`U.S. PATENT No. 8,531,971
`
`
`Ex.
`
`1043
`
`Ex.
`
`Ex. 1044 Affidavit of Christopher Butler Corresponding to Exhibit 1025
`Affidavit of Christopher Butler Corresponding to Exhibit 1025
`
`1044
`
`Ex.
`
`Ex. 1045 Affidavit of Christopher Butler Corresponding to Exhibit 1029
`Affidavit of Christopher Butler Corresponding to Exhibit 1029
`
`1045
`
`Ex.
`
`Ex. 1046 Affidavit of Christopher Butler Corresponding to Exhibit 1030
`Affidavit of Christopher Butler Corresponding to Exhibit 1030
`
`1046
`
`Ex.
`
`Ex. 1047 Affidavit of Christopher Butler Corresponding to Exhibit 1031
`Affidavit of Christopher Butler Corresponding to Exhibit 1031
`
`1047
`
`Ex.
`
`Ex. 1048 Affidavit of Christopher Butler Corresponding to Exhibit 1032
`Affidavit of Christopher Butler Corresponding to Exhibit 1032
`
`1048
`
`Ex.
`
`Ex. 1049 Affidavit of Christopher Butler Corresponding to Exhibit 1034
`Affidavit of Christopher Butler Corresponding to Exhibit 1034
`
`1049
`
`Ex.
`
`Ex. 1050 Affidavit of Christopher Butler Corresponding to Exhibit 1036
`Affidavit of Christopher Butler Corresponding to Exhibit 1036
`
`1050
`
`Ex.
`
`Ex. 1051 Affidavit of Christopher Butler Corresponding to Exhibit 1037
`Affidavit of Christopher Butler Corresponding to Exhibit 1037
`
`1051
`
`Ex.
`
`Ex. 1052
`
`1052
`
`3GPP TS 29.207 (V5.6.0) (2003-12)
`3GPP TS 29.207 (V5.6.0) (2003-12)
`
`Ex.
`
`1053
`
`Ex. 1053 Redlines showing the differences between 3GPP TS 23.125 (V2.0.0)
`Redlines showing the differences between 3GPP TS 23.125 (V2.0.0)
`(2004-03) and 3GPP TS 23.125 (V6.2.0) (2004-09)
`(2004-03) and 3GPP TS 23.125 (V6.2.0) (2004-09)
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`vii
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,531,971
`
`
`Introduction.
`Cisco Systems, Inc. petitions for inter partes review of claims 1–11 of
`
`I.
`
`United States Patent No. 8,531,971, titled “Method for Controlling Charging of
`
`Packet Data Service.” The challenged claims of the ’971 patent recite a method
`
`and system for controlling charging of a packet data service utilizing components
`
`such as a Traffic Plane Function (“TPF”) and Charging Rule Function (“CRF”).
`
`These components were well-known and standardized by the 3rd Generation
`
`Partnership Project (3GPP) organization before the earliest possible priority date of
`
`the ’971 patent. Indeed, over half of the ’971 patent describes existing mechanisms
`
`for controlling charging packet data service that were standardized by 3GPP, an
`
`organization in which Patent Owner actively participated.
`
`The ’971 patent contends that it improved upon the charging mechanisms
`
`defined in the 3GPP specification. However, this alleged improvement is nothing
`
`more than applying the capabilities of conventional charging systems to flexibly
`
`change charging rates based on pre-determined events. As Körling and 3GPP
`
`23.825 both show, sending event triggers from a CRF to a TPF and requesting
`
`charging rules according to the encountered events was a well-known concept
`
`before the ’971 patent’s earliest possible priority date. Further, Petitioner’s expert,
`
`Dr. Min, who has 30 years of experience in the field, explains that both sending
`
`event triggers from a CRF to a TPF and requesting charging rules according to the
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`

`

`event triggers was widely known and in use in the industry prior to the earliest
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,531,971
`
`
`possible priority date of the ’971 patent. Thus, the alleged improvement upon the
`
`3GPP specification was also well known.
`
`Petitioner demonstrates herein that at least a reasonable likelihood exists that
`
`all 11 claims of the ’971 patent are unpatentable. Accordingly, Petitioner
`
`respectfully requests that the Board institute trial on the grounds set forth herein.
`
`II. Mandatory notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)).
`REAL PARTY IN INTEREST: Cisco Systems, Inc. is the real party in interest.
`
`RELATED MATTERS: The ’971 patent is involved in the following cases that
`
`may affect or be affected by a decision in this proceeding: Huawei Techs. Co. v. T-
`
`Mobile US, Inc., 2:16-cv-00055 (E.D. Tex. 2016) and Cisco Systems, Inc. v.
`
`Huawei Techs. Co., IPR2017-02076 (September 8, 2017) (filed herewith).
`
`LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3) and
`
`42.10(a), Petitioner appoints Lori A. Gordon (Reg. No. 50,633) as its lead counsel
`
`and Daniel S. Block (Reg. No. 68,395) and Tyler J. Dutton (Reg. No. 75,069) as its
`
`back-up counsel, all at the address: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, 1100
`
`New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20005, phone number (202) 371-
`
`2600 and facsimile (202) 371-2540.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,531,971
`
`SERVICE INFORMATION: Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at
`
`the email addresses: lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com, dblock-PTAB@skgf.com, and
`
`tdutton-PTAB@skgf.com.
`
`III. Grounds for standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)).
`The undersigned and Cisco Systems, Inc. certify that the ʼ971 patent is
`
`available for inter partes review. Cisco Systems, Inc. further certifies that it is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting this inter partes review on the grounds
`
`identified herein.
`
`IV.
`
`Identification of challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)).
`A. Citation of prior art.
`The ’971 patent claims priority through a continuation application to U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,009,573 which is the national stage of international application
`
`PCT/CN2005/000388, filed on March 28, 2005. The ’971 patent further claims
`
`priority to two Chinese applications, filed on April 1, 2004 and April 9, 2004. The
`
`references Cisco relies on for Grounds 1 and 2 predate these Chinese applications
`
`and are therefore prior art under §§ 102(a) and 102(e). However, Cisco also
`
`demonstrates in Section V.F. that none of the challenged claims are entitled to
`
`priority benefit of the April 2004 Chinese applications. Therefore, the earliest
`
`possible priority date is the filing date of the PCT application—March 28, 2005,
`
`which is also its U.S. filing date.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,450,591 to Körling et al., titled “System for providing
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,531,971
`
`
`flexible charging in a network” (“Körling”) (Ex. 1009) is prior art under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e) because Körling’s PCT application was filed on June 27, 2003,
`
`designated the U.S., and published in English. (See WO 2004/036825, Ex. 1011,
`
`(26), (81); Prosecution History of Körling, Ex. 1010, pp. 91–127; see also Ex.
`
`1010, pp. 21, 128, 147; Min Decl., ¶¶ 134–135 (showing that Körling is entitled to
`
`an October 15, 2002 priority date based on its U.S. provisional application).)
`
`3GPP TR 23.825 (V1.2.0) (2003-11), titled “Overall Architecture Aspects
`
`of IP Flow Based Bearer Level Charging” (“3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0”) (Ex. 1013),
`
`published in November 2003, is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §102(b) because
`
`this document was published and publicly available no later than December 10,
`
`2003, more than a year before the U.S. filing date of the ’971 patent (i.e., March
`
`28, 2005). 3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0 has a November 2003 date on the face of the
`
`document. (3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0, pp. 1, 24.) 3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0 was presented
`
`and approved during the November 24–28, 2003 meeting in New York City, which
`
`had 71 attendees spanning across the entire industry. (Ex. 1021, pp. 19, 34, 58, 63;
`
`Ex. 1022 (listing the attendees and the organizations represented).) 3GPP 23.825
`
`V1.2.0 was uploaded to the 3GPP ftp server on December 10, 2003. (See Grayson
`
`Decl., ¶¶ 16–18; Ex. 1034.) And, 3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0 has not been modified
`
`since. (See Grayson Decl., ¶¶ 10, 17; Ex. 1019; Ex. 1033.)
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`

`

`A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,531,971
`
`
`(“POSITA”) would have been able to easily search for and find 3GPP 23.825
`
`V1.2.0. (Grayson Decl., ¶¶ 13–15; Min Decl., ¶¶ 19, 34–35.) The 3GPP standards
`
`organization provided standards—including 3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0—online without
`
`restriction. (Grayson Decl., ¶ 5; Min Decl., ¶ 35.) A POSITA would have known to
`
`look at the 3GPP website, as such practice was customary in the art at the time of
`
`the invention. (Min Decl., ¶ 35.) For at least these reasons, 3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0
`
`was publicly available well before the earliest possible priority date of the ’971
`
`patent and therefore prior art.
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0165958 A1 to Duffield et al., titled “Apparatus
`
`for size-dependent sampling for managing a data network” (“Duffield”) (Ex. 1014)
`
`is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it was published on
`
`November 7, 2002, more than one year before the earliest possible effective filing
`
`date of the ’971 patent. (Ex. 1014, face page (43).)
`
`Statutory grounds for the challenge.
`
`B.
`Cisco requests review of claims 1–11 on the following grounds:
`
`GROUND 1: Claims 1–8 and 11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`obvious over Körling in view of 3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`

`

`GROUND 2: Claims 9 and 10 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,531,971
`
`
`obvious over Körling in view of 3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0, and in further view of
`
`Duffield.
`
`V. Background.
`A. The 3rd Generation Partnership Project.
`The ’971 patent spends over five columns (more than it spends describing its
`
`purported invention) explaining the charging-flow systems disclosed in prior-art
`
`3rd Generation Partnership Project (“3GPP”) specifications. As this Section
`
`explains, 3GPP was (and still is) a collaboration of organizational partners with the
`
`goal of standardizing telecommunications systems—including charging-flow
`
`systems—and was widely known and respected in the industry.
`
`Established in 1998, 3GPP consists of a global collaboration of industry
`
`leaders in wireless technologies ranging from service providers to equipment
`
`manufacturers. (Ex. 1037, p. 1.) 3GPP also includes representatives from core
`
`telecommunications-standards organizations including the Alliance for
`
`Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) from the United States
`
`(responsible for the T1 standards), the European Telecommunications Standards
`
`Institute (ETSI), the Association of Radio Industries and Businesses (ARIB) from
`
`Japan, the China Communications Standards Association (CCSA), the
`
`Telecommunications Technology Association (TTA) from Korea, and the
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`

`

`Telecommunication Technology Committee (TTC) from Japan. (See Ex. 1037,
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,531,971
`
`
`p. 1.) Representatives from 3GPP met, typically quarterly, to draft specifications
`
`and reports. (See Ex. 1037, p. 1; Ex. 1038, pp. 56–57; Min Decl., ¶ 34.) These
`
`specifications and reports served as the blueprint for global standardization in
`
`mobile telecommunications. (See Ex. 1037, p. 1; Min Decl., ¶ 34.)
`
`The 3GPP specifications provide end-to-end requirements for mobile
`
`networks and applications. Several of these 3GPP specifications and reports deal
`
`with the subject matter of the ’971 patent, charging-flow systems (i.e., how
`
`communications systems would charge users for different services). The ability to
`
`offer flexible charges to customers was important because prior to the 3GPP
`
`23.825 standard, mobile-network technologies were evolving to offer users greater
`
`access to a diverse set of services (e.g., voice, data, and multimedia services). (See
`
`Min Decl., ¶ 31.) This evolution in service drove a corresponding need for service
`
`providers to charge users for these services in a dynamic and flexible way. (See
`
`Min Decl., ¶ 31.) And, 3GPP 23.825, as detailed in V1.2.0, provided this solution.
`
`3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0 describes a system architecture that enables service
`
`providers to differentiate services and in turn, to charge users based on service-
`
`driven, flexible pricing models. (See 3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0, p. 8; Min Decl., ¶ 37.)
`
`3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0 discloses two categories of charging systems: (1) online
`
`charging systems and (2) offline charging systems:
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`

`

`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,531,971
`
`
`3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0: Online Charging
`
`(3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0, p. 12.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,531,971
`
`
`3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0: Offline Charging
`
`
`
`(3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0, p. 13.)
`
`
`
`Online charging systems allow both prepaid and postpaid subscribers to be
`
`charged in real time. (See Min Decl., ¶ 33.) Offline charging systems collect
`
`charging records and then send the records to a billing system after the services are
`
`delivered. (See Min Decl., ¶ 32.) As shown in 3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0, the online
`
`system (above top) includes a TPF coupled to both a CRF (labeled “service Data
`
`Flow Based Charging Rules Function”) and an Online Charging System. The
`
`offline system (above bottom) includes a TPF coupled to both a CRF an offline
`
`charging system (labeled “Charging Gateway Function/Charging Collection
`
`Function”). Thus, both categories of charging systems use a CRF and a TPF.
`
`(3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0, pp. 12–14.)
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`

`

`The CRF is responsible for calculating charging rules1 to apply for a user.
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,531,971
`
`
`(3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0, p. 13; Min Decl., ¶ 38.) The CRF sends these charging rules
`
`to the TPF, which, in turn, enforces the rules. (3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0, pp. 13–14;
`
`Min Decl., ¶ 38.) To enable service providers to offer dynamic and flexible
`
`charging on a per-user basis, the TPF differentiates user data traffic, identifies the
`
`invoked service, and charges a user based on the charging rules received from the
`
`CRF that relate to that service. (3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0, p. 14; Min Decl., ¶ 37.) In
`
`this manner, both the online and offline charging systems provide customized and
`
`flexible charging on a user-by-user basis and service-by-service basis. (Min Decl.,
`
`¶ 37.) For example, a service provider can charge a particular user differently
`
`based on whether a service is invoked when in the home network or in a visited
`
`network (i.e., the user is roaming). (Min Decl., ¶ 31.) As a further example, the
`
`techniques of 3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0 allow a service provider to charge differently
`
`based on the quality of service the user desires. (Min Decl., ¶ 31.)
`
`
`1 Charging rules contain information that allow a service provider to identify
`
`the packets belonging to a particular service data flow and to define how the
`
`identified service data flow is to be charged. (3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0, p. 9.)
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,531,971
`
`
`The ’971 patent.
`
`B.
`The ’971 patent acknowledges that online and offline charging systems were
`
`well known and standardized by 3GPP years before the earliest possible priority
`
`date of the ’971 patent. (See ’971 patent, 3:12–6:50.) The ’971 patent also
`
`references and discusses these standardized online and offline charging systems in
`
`detail.
`
`Figure 2A of the ’971 patent (reproduced below) depicts the structure of an
`
`admitted prior art online charging system. (’971 patent, 7:52–53.) The online
`
`charging system in Figure 2A was part of the existing 3GPP specification, as
`
`shown in the comparison of Figure 2A and 3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0 below.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,531,971
`
`
`’971 Patent: Online Charging
`
`(’971 patent, Figure 2A.)
`
`
`
`3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0: Online Charging
`
`(3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0, p. 12.)
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Figure 2B of the ’971 patent (reproduced below) depicts the structure of an
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,531,971
`
`
`admitted prior art offline charging system. (’971 patent, 7:54–55.) Like the online
`
`charging system, the offline charging system in Figure 2B was part of the existing
`
`3GPP specification, as shown in the comparison of Figure 2B and 3GPP 23.825
`
`V1.2.0 below.
`
`
`
`’971 Patent: Offline Charging
`
`(’971 patent, Figure 2B.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,531,971
`
`
`3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0: Offline Charging
`
`
`
`(3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0, p. 13.)
`
`
`The background section of the ’971 patent explains that in the 3GPP
`
`architecture, the TPF “bears IP Flows.”2 (’971 patent, 3:57–58.) “During the
`
`establishment of the IP Flow bearer, the TPF 205 sends a Charging Rule Request
`
`to the CRF 203.” (’971 patent, 3:58–61.) The CRF 203 then selects a proper
`
`
`2 A bearer is an information transmission path of defined capacity, delay,
`
`and bit error rate. A bearer service is a type of telecommunication service that
`
`provides the capability of transmission of signals between access points. (See Min
`
`Decl., ¶ 54.)
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,531,971
`
`charging rule and “returns the selected charging rule to the TPF 205.” (’971 patent,
`
`4:7–9.) Following receipt of the proper charging rule(s), the TPF 205 enforces the
`
`charging rules on the different IP flows. (See ’971 patent, 4:18–21.) Thus, based on
`
`the charging rules supplied by the CRF 203 to the TPF 205, the TPF 205 can apply
`
`pricing models for different service flows: “for instance, Send/Receive email
`
`service may be charged based on trigger times of Sending and Receiving events,
`
`WAP browse service may be charged according to flow, file transfer service may
`
`also be charged according to flow, [etc.].” (’971 patent, 3:1–8.)
`
`The ’971 patent then describes the use of event triggers in the online and
`
`offline-system architectures to request a change to the existing charging rules.
`
`(’971 patent, 3:66–4:29.) Specifically, an event trigger determines when the TPF
`
`signals the CRF that the TPF encountered a specific pre-defined event. (3GPP
`
`23.825 V1.2.0, p. 20; Min Decl., ¶¶ 39–43.) When an event trigger is met, the TPF
`
`reauthorizes or requests updated charging rules. (3GPP 23.825 V1.2.0, p. 20; Min
`
`Decl., ¶¶ 42–44.)
`
`The ’971 patent acknowledges that event triggers were already included in
`
`the 3GPP standard: “[a]t present, the interactive mode concerning charging rule
`
`between TPF and the CRF is defined in 3GPP Specification like this: The TPF
`
`sends a Charging Rule Request to the CRF when a certain trigger event is met. The
`
`trigger event may be an event of establishing, modifying or deleting the bearer.”
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`

`

`(’971 patent, 6:29–35.) According to the ’971 patent, “[t]he event trigger of the
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,531,971
`
`
`Charging Rule Request shall be set in the TPF in advance.” (’971 patent, 6:37–40.)
`
`The ’971 patent considers these predefined event triggers to be static because, after
`
`the event triggers are set during bearer establishment, the event triggers are not
`
`updated. (’971 patent, 7:29–33, 8:30–47.)3 However, according to the ’971 patent,
`
`static event triggers lack flexibility, leading to inefficiency. For example, “for
`
`some cases, the QoS parameters modified have little differences compared with
`
`original QoS parameters when the QoS parameters are modified during the
`
`modification of the bearer, and it is not necessary to modify the charging rules.”
`
`(’971 patent, 6:42–46.) In these cases, the ’971 contends “the CRF may select a
`
`charging rule similar to an original one to send to the TPF when the TPF sends the
`
`Charging Rule Request, thereby creating a great [sic] of redundant information.”
`
`(’971 patent, 6:47–50.)
`
`The ’971 patent’s alleged improvement over the existing 3GPP event
`
`triggers is the introduction of “dynamic” triggers. According to the ’971 patent,
`
`static triggers are set in advance in the TPF, and “[w]hen a static event trigger is
`
`met, the TPF sends the Charging Rule Request to the CRF....” (’971 patent, 8:33–
`
`36.) In contrast, dynamic triggers are determined by the CRF, which communicates
`
`3 Cisco does not acquiesce that the 3GPP event triggers are “static.”
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`

`

`the triggers to the TPF. (’971 patent, 6:62–64.) Specifically, “the CRF is able to
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,531,971
`
`
`flexibly set event triggers according to the charging-relevant input information and
`
`send the current event triggers to the TPF so that the TPF requests new charging
`
`rules from the CRF when a certain event trigger is met.” (’971 patent, 8:39–42.)
`
`For example, the CRF can use a different set of factors to determine and set an
`
`event trigger such as “self-stored information in the CRF, or charging-relevant
`
`input information provided by an Application Function (AF), an Online Charging
`
`System (OCS), the TPF, or any combinations of the AF, the OCS, and the TPF.”
`
`(’971 patent, 6:64–7:1.)
`
`By allowing the CRF to define “event triggers” based on its rules, the ’971
`
`patent system purportedly avoids sending unwanted Charging Rule Requests to the
`
`CRF. (’971 patent, 7:25–26.) In operation, when an event trigger is met, the TPF
`
`requests an updated charging rule from the CRF. (’971 patent, 8:18–22.) The CRF
`
`then selects an updated charging rule and returns the updated charging rule to the
`
`TPF:
`
`When one of the event triggers is me