PTAB

IPR2017-02076

Cisco Systems Inc v. Huawei Technologies Co Ltd

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Method for Controlling Charging of Packet Data Service
Brief Description: The ’971 patent relates to a method and system for controlling charging for packet data services in telecommunications networks. The invention utilizes a Traffic Plane Function (TPF) and a Charging Rule Function (CRF) to dynamically manage charging based on various "event triggers."

Prior Art Relied Upon: 3GPP TS 23.125 V6.2.0 (published Sep. 2004).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the September 2004 version of the 3GPP standard discloses every element of the challenged independent and dependent claims. The standard allegedly describes a system with a TPF in communication with a CRF. Petitioner asserted that 3GPP teaches that the CRF determines which event triggers shall be monitored by the TPF, and the TPF receives these triggers to control its function. The reference also explicitly discloses the specific event triggers recited in the claims, including changes in SGSN, QoS, RAT type, and TFT.

Prior Art Relied Upon: 3GPP TS 23.125 V6.2.0 (published Sep. 2004) and Duffield (Application # 2002/0165958).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed the dependent claim limitation requiring the TPF to perform "charging information statistics according to the charging rule." Petitioner argued that 3GPP discloses a TPF that collects statistics on data volumes and enforces charging rules. Duffield, in turn, teaches a system for creating usage-measurement summaries by forming flow statistics according to a "charging policy," which is analogous to a charging rule.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing the flow-based charging system of 3GPP would have been motivated to look to references like Duffield for well-known methods of performing detailed statistical analysis.
- Expectation of Success: Because the TPF in 3GPP already enforces charging rules and collects basic statistics, a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the TPF to perform more detailed statistics according to the charging rules, as taught by Duffield.

Prior Art Relied Upon: 3GPP TS 23.125 V6.2.0 (published Sep. 2004).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground served as an alternative, arguing that if the Board finds 3GPP does not explicitly disclose that the "request for charging rule carries an event identifier," it would have been obvious to include one. 3GPP teaches that the TPF sends a request to the CRF upon a met trigger, and the CRF must identify if new rules are needed.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated by efficiency and common design principles. Explicitly including an event identifier in the request from the TPF to the CRF is the most direct and efficient way to signal the occurrence of a specific event, allowing the remote CRF to select the correct charging rules without ambiguity. This would prevent unnecessary processing and network traffic.
- Expectation of Success: Including an identifier in a message between network elements to specify the reason for the message was a well-known and routine practice, ensuring a high expectation of success.

Petitioner stated that for the purposes of the IPR under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, it does not dispute the constructions for three key terms as addressed in a dissent from a prior proceeding (IPR2017-00673):
- "event triggers": construed as "network events that cause a charging decision to be made."
- "CRF" (Charging Rule Function): construed as "a logical network entity that receives a charging request and responds with a charging rule."
- "TPF" (Traffic Plane Function): construed as "a logical network entity that bears IP flows and executes charging rules, including the GGSN in GPRS networks."

Priority Date Challenge: A central contention was that the ’971 patent is not entitled to the priority date of its April 2004 Chinese applications. Petitioner argued that these earlier applications fail the written description requirement of §112 because they do not disclose the full scope of the claimed "event triggers." While the Chinese applications disclosed triggers like QoS changes and bearer service modifications, they allegedly omitted any mention of other triggers explicitly claimed in the ’971 patent, such as a change of SGSN, PLMN, or RAT type. This argument was critical to establishing the September 2004 3GPP publication as valid prior art under §102(a).

Petitioner argued that the grounds presented are not redundant under §325(d) with those in prior IPRs filed against the ’971 patent (IPR2017-00673 and IPR2017-00698). The argument was that those prior petitions used an earlier, March 2004 version of the 3GPP specification. This petition, in contrast, relies on the "materially different" September 2004 version, which allegedly contains explicit disclosures for the key claim limitations (e.g., the CRF determining event triggers) that the Patent Owner used to overcome prior art during prosecution and that were absent from the earlier version.

Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-11 of the ’971 patent as unpatentable.