Ex Parte Zhang

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 7, 2011

12100139 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 7, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JIN ZHANG
____________

Appeal 2010-010325
Application 12/100,139
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-010325
Application 12/100,139

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 12-
16, and 18. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134
and 6 (2002).
The claimed invention is directed to radio access networks, and more
particularly to a method and system for accounting, accounting client, and
accounting processing unit in a radio access network (Spec., para. [0002]).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A method for accounting, comprising:
detecting, by an AAA client, a notification of a change
from an old QoS to a new QoS of a session;
obtaining, by the AAA client, accounting information of
the session; and,
reporting, by the AAA client, the accounting information
to an accounting processing unit of an AAA server; wherein
the accounting information is adapted to implement an
accounting operation for a prepaid user of the session by the
accounting processing unit;
wherein the accounting operation comprises:
settling, by the accounting processing unit, a cost
according to the old QoS comprised in the accounting
information; and
deriving, by the accounting processing unit, a new tariff
of the new QoS comprised in the accounting information,
calculating a new quota according to the new tariff; and,
sending, by the accounting processing unit, the new quota to the
AAA client.

Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 12-16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as anticipated by Pruss (US Pub. 2004/0193513 A1, pub. Sep. 30,
2004).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2010-010325
Application 12/100,139

3
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in asserting that Pruss discloses “deriving, by
the accounting processing unit, a new tariff of the new QoS comprised in the
accounting information,” “calculating a new quota according to the new
tariff,” “detecting, by an AAA client, a notification of a change from an old
QoS to a new QoS of a session,” and “settling, by the accounting processing
unit, a cost according to the old QoS comprised in the accounting
information,” as recited in independent claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in asserting that Pruss discloses
the AAA client comprises a QoS change detection unit
and an accounting information unit; wherein, the QoS change
detection unit is adapted to detect a message received by the
AAA client during a session and send an initiation instruction
to the accounting information unit as detecting a QoS change
notification; and, the accounting information unit is adapted to
obtain and save the accounting information as receiving the
initiation instruction[,]
as recited independent claim 8?
Did the Examiner err in asserting that Pruss discloses that the AAA
client is (1) located in a mobile station, (2) located in a base station, and (3),
is an individual network element, as recited in dependent claims 12-14?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact concerning claims 1, 3, 4, 6-
8, 10, 15, 16, and 18, as set forth on pages 4-16 of the Examiner’s Answer.

Appeal 2010-010325
Application 12/100,139

4
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that Pruss
discloses “deriving, by the accounting processing unit, a new tariff of the
new QoS comprised in the accounting information,” “calculating a new
quota according to the new tariff,” “detecting, by an AAA client, a
notification of a change from an old QoS to a new QoS of a session,” and
“settling, by the accounting processing unit, a cost according to the old QoS
comprised in the accounting information,” as recited in independent claim 1
(App. Br. 4-8; Reply Br. 2-5).
Appellant asserts that Pruss does not disclose that the “expiration of
time value brings another QoS and new rate,” because during the re-
authorization the communication traffic is still allowed and thus there is no
change in QoS (App. Br. 4-6; Reply Br. 2-3). However, paragraph [0128] of
Pruss discloses that upon expiration of a time value, the quota is re-evaluated
and re-authorized, for example, due to tariff changes. Furthermore,
paragraph [0135] discloses that these re-evaluations and re-authorizations
may be required for several reasons, for example, due to QoS changes.
Additionally, paragraph [0135] also discloses that multiple interrelated
reasons may support these re-evaluations and re-authorizations, of which
two changes listed, are tariff changes and QoS changes. Finally, paragraph
[0135] discloses that tariff changes may be based on, among other things,
QoS changes (“tariff changes based on time-of-day and/or usage, location
changes, QoS changes, etc.”)
Accordingly, as Pruss discloses that the re-evaluations and re-
authorizations may be due to interrelated tariff changes and QoS changes,
Appeal 2010-010325
Application 12/100,139

5
Pruss discloses “deriving, by the accounting processing unit, a new tariff of
the new QoS comprised in the accounting information,” as recited in
independent claim 1.
Appellant asserts that “Pruss does not describe, implicitly or
explicitly, ‘expiration of time brings another QoS and new rate’….
[because] in Pruss the new quota calculated after the re-authorization is
calculated according to user balance but not to ‘new rate’” (App. Br. 7;
Reply Br. 4-5; emphasis original). However, we agree with the Examiner
that paragraph [0128] discloses that the previous user balance under the old
rate is re-evaluated (i.e., re-calculated) under the new rate (Exam’r’s Ans.
12-13).
Appellant asserts that “[a]lthough Pruss describes the change of QoS,
it does not describe when the QoS is changed a notification of the QoS
change is generated and detected” (App. Br. 7-8). However, Figure 1 of
Pruss discloses AAA server 130, which means a corresponding AAA client
is also present. And as the service re-authorization based on a QoS change,
as set forth in paragraphs [0069] and [0135], requires detection of the QoS
change itself, a notification must be detected by the AAA client in order for
the re-authorization to occur.
Appellant asserts that
paragraph [0068] merely describes that after the service
authorization is successful, accounting for the service starts and
accounting records that reflect user's consumption of services,
audit records, etc., are generated. Pruss, however, does not
explicitly or implicitly teach that after the QoS is changed, the
cost is settled according to the old QoS as in claim 1.
(App. Br. 8). However, we agree with the Examiner that because paragraph
[0068] of Pruss discloses generating on-going accounting records based on
Appeal 2010-010325
Application 12/100,139

6
the use of the service which are audited, the account is being settled in a real
time environment (Exam’r’s Ans. 14). Accordingly, whenever the QoS
change occurs, the accounting records would have “settled” all costs up to
that point in the ordinary course of its operations.
Independent claim 8 recites “settl[ing] a cost according to an old QoS
comprised in the accounting information, derive a tariff from a new QoS
comprised in the accounting information, calculate a new quota according to
the new tariff” (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 5-6). Independent claim 16 recites “a
prepaid service accounting processing unit, adapted to settle a cost according
to an old QoS comprised in the accounting information, derive a tariff from
a new QoS comprised in the accounting information, calculate a new quota
according to the new tariff” (App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 8). For the same
reasons set forth above with respect to independent claim 1, we find that
Pruss discloses the aforementioned aspects of independent claims 8 and 16.

Independent Claim 8
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that Pruss
discloses
“the AAA client comprises a QoS change detection unit
and an accounting information unit; wherein, the QoS change
detection unit is adapted to detect a message received by the
AAA client during a session and send an initiation instruction
to the accounting information unit as detecting a QoS change
notification; and, the accounting information unit is adapted to
obtain and save the accounting information as receiving the
initiation instruction[,]

Appeal 2010-010325
Application 12/100,139

7
as recited independent claim 8 (App. Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 5-7). Specifically,
Appellant asserts that none of router 110, workstation 111, local network
120, AAA server 130, AAA prepaid billing logic 130A, billing server 132,
and service AAA server/rating engine 140 of Pruss corresponds to either of
the recited QoS change detection unit or accounting information unit (App.
Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 5-7). For the QoS change detection unit, we agree with
the Examiner that because paragraphs [0069], [0128], and [0135] disclose a
re-evaluation of quotas based on a QoS change, that the QoS change must be
detected by one of the components set forth above. For the accounting
information unit, paragraphs [0055] and [0056] disclose AAA server 130
and billing server 132 as storing accounting records and billing information,
which would reflect any QoS changes.
Independent claim 16 recites “QoS change detection unit is adapted to
detect a message received by an AAA client during a session and send an
initiation instruction to the accounting information unit as detecting a QoS
change notification” and “accounting information unit is adapted to obtain
and save the accounting information as receiving an initiation command”
(App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 8). For the same reasons set forth above with
respect to independent claim 8, we find that Pruss discloses the
aforementioned aspects of independent claim 16.

Dependent Claims 12-14
We are persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that Pruss discloses
that the AAA client is (1) located in a mobile station, (2) located in a base
station, and (3), is an individual network element, as recited in dependent
claims 12-14 (App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 7-8). The Examiner asserts that
Appeal 2010-010325
Application 12/100,139

8
“Pruss discloses a system where the functionality of AAA client can be
resident in any component as shown in Fig. 1” (Exam’r’s Ans. 15-16;
emphasis added). As this is an anticipation rejection, however, the
Examiner must show that the reference actually discloses that the AAA
client has the aspects set forth in dependent claims 12-14, either expressly or
inherently. The Examiner has not done so.
Specifically, while the Examiner may have shown that a combination
of the components shown in Figure 1 of Pruss can perform the functions of
the AAA client, the Examiner has not shown the AAA client has the aspects
set forth in dependent claims 12-14. For example, paragraph [0062] of Pruss
discloses that “no client software is needed at mobile station 102.”
Accordingly, it is unlikely that “the AAA client is located in a mobile
station,” as recited dependent claim 12. In another example, the Examiner
has not shown that the components in Figure 1 of Pruss other than mobile
station 102 are part of a base station, as recited in dependent claim 13.
Finally, Figure 1 of Pruss does not disclose that “the AAA client is an
individual network element,” as recited in dependent claim 14, as Figure 1
does not shown the AAA client at all.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 15, 16,
and 18 is AFFIRMED.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 12-14 is REVERSED.

Appeal 2010-010325
Application 12/100,139

9
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

hh