US 8050233

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent, including any litigation or CAFC docket activity.

Let me try more targeted searches for any litigation or docket records.

Summary of US Patent No. 8,050,233 B2

Search scope and a note on dockets: I searched for the specific number "8050233" and for litigation/Federal Circuit activity. Public web results returned no matching CAFC 2026 docket entries and no district-court litigation referencing this patent. The hits I retrieved were for numerically adjacent but different patents (e.g., RE43,0233 and 9,233,023), which I did not substitute for the target. I cannot confirm the absence of docket activity from a general web search — a PACER/CAFC docket lookup would be needed for an authoritative negative. Treat the docket finding as "not found," not "confirmed none." All bibliographic and claim content below comes from the authoritative patent text supplied.

Bibliographic data

Family (same invention): CN 101090351B (titled "A Migration Method of Functional Entity in WiMAX Network"), KR 101023461B1, WO 2007147361A1.

Abstract (as issued)

A method and apparatus for shifting functional entity in WiMAX network is disclosed. A functional entity at the network side is set to be master functional entity or slave functional entity. The method includes: setting a binding relationship between a master functional entity and at least one slave functional entity; triggering the master functional entity to shift, combining a context of the slave functional entity bound with the master functional entity and a context of the master functional entity to form a context message that is required by the master functional entity for the shift, and forwarding the context message according to the course of shifting the master functional entity.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

There are exactly two independent claims: claim 1 (method) and claim 20 (apparatus). Claims 2–19 depend on claim 1; claims 21–24 depend on claim 20.

Claim 1 — Method (the core concept). In a WiMAX network, network-side functions (e.g., Authenticator, Foreign Agent, PMIP Client, ASN-GW entities) are classified either as a "master functional entity" or a "slave functional entity." The method has three steps:

1. Set a binding relationship between a master entity and at least one slave entity.
2. Trigger a shift of the master entity (e.g., because the mobile station moves or for network-resource optimization).
3. Build a context message by combining the master entity's own context with the context of the bound slave entity, and transmit that combined context message as part of the master-shift procedure.

The point: when one function relocates from one ASN-GW to another, its dependent functions' state moves with it in a single bundled transfer, rather than being shifted piecemeal — reducing cross-ASN-GW signaling complexity.

Claim 20 — Apparatus (the same concept embodied in modules). A functional-entity-shifting apparatus in a WiMAX network, comprising:

• a functional entity binding module that stores the master/slave binding relationship;
• a context message generating module that, when it detects a master-entity shift has been triggered, generates a context message containing both the master's context and the context of the bound slave entity, per the stored binding relationship; and
• a context message transmitting module that sends the generated message according to the master-shift procedure.

Notable dependent-claim substance (context for the independents)

• Master entities: Authenticator and/or Foreign Agent (claim 2).
• Slave entities: Authenticator, PMIP Client, Foreign Agent, Service Flow Authorization (SFA), Data Channel/DPF, DHCP Proxy/Relay, Accounting Client, Accounting Client Agent (claim 3).
• Example bindings (claim 4): FA as master bound to DPF, SFA, PMIP Client, DHCP Proxy/Relay, and/or Accounting Client Agent; Authenticator as master bound to SFA, Accounting Client, and/or PMIP Client. (Note: the description lists some alternative groupings that differ slightly from the claim language — e.g., the description binds PMIP Client to Authenticator while claim 4 also lists it under FA — but I am reporting the claims literally.)
• Idle mode: PC/LR (Paging Controller/Location Register) may be a slave that shifts with the master or independently (claim 5); paging context = paging group ID, cycle, offset, duration (claim 6).
• Context contents: DHCP, DPF, SFA, Accounting Client context and MIP capability info (claim 7); MIP keys (MN-FA-KEY, MN-HA-KEY, FA-HA-KEY, MIP-RK, FA-RK, MSK, PMK) plus lifetimes when Authenticator is master (claims 8–9); PMIP Client registration context (HoA, CoA, MIP-register lifetime, HA IP address/NAI, FA IP address) (claim 10).
• IP address release/renewal flows for the terminal, incl. proxy-MIP release-register (claims 11–13).
• Embodiment-specific shift procedures: FA shift via target ASN-GW request / anchor ASN-GW notification (claims 14–15); R3 shift request in PMIP mode (claims 16–17); Authenticator shift via re-authentication (claims 18–19).
• Apparatus add-ons: bind setting module (claim 21), specific binding sets (claim 22), context acquisition unit (claim 23), IP address release and renewal module (claim 24).

Uncertainty flags

• Docket/litigation: No CAFC 2026 or district-court activity for US 8,050,233 was found; this is a null result from web search, not an authoritative clearance.
• Claim-binding inconsistency: The claim set and the specification describe the master/slave groupings slightly differently (see claim 4 vs. the detailed description). I have quoted the claims as issued rather than harmonizing them.
• Assignee/ownership: Assignee is per Google Patents' listing (Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.); no recorded reassignment beyond the original assignment from the inventors appears in the provided record.
• Title terminology: The US family uses "shifting," while the CN family member (CN101090351B) is titled "Migration Method…" — same disclosure, differing terminology.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 8050233 across litigation databases and court records.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases.

The initial results contain a lot of noise (including a different patent, 8,035,233). Let me search litigation-specific databases more precisely.

Litigation Search: US Patent 8,050,233

Bottom Line

I found no evidence of any litigation involving US Patent 8,050,233. Based on the database searches I was able to run, this patent does not appear in any known patent infringement case, ITC investigation, or Federal Circuit appeal. I am stating this as "no known litigation," not as proof of a negative — my searches were limited and I could not obtain direct PACER/Unified Patents caselist access before hitting my search limit.

Critical Caveat on Similarly-Numbered Patents

My searches repeatedly surfaced results for different patents that must not be conflated with US 8,050,233 (per the strict instruction to interpret patent numbers literally):

None of these involve US 8,050,233. I explicitly did not report them as though they did.

What the Patent Is

• Patent: US 8,050,233 B2 — "Method and apparatus of shifting functional entity in WiMAX network"
• Assignee: [[Huawei Technologies Co.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Huawei%20Technologies%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Huawei%20Technologies%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.)
• Inventors: Liang Gu; Jianjun Wu
• Application: US 12/335,005 (filed Dec. 15, 2008); continuation of PCT/CN2007/070118
• Priority: June 14, 2006 (CN 200610092207.1); also Nov. 9, 2006 (CN 200610138592.9)
• Granted: Nov. 1, 2011
• Legal status (per Google Patents): Active, adjusted expiration Dec. 4, 2028
• Family: also published as US 2009/0092099 A1, WO 2007/147361 A1, CN 101090351 B, KR 101023461 B1

Post-Grant / Related Activity Found

• Forward citations (NOT litigation): The patent has been cited by Huawei's own US 8,345,628 B2 and by Apple's US 8,761,122 B2 ("SIP-enabled framework for multi-domain roaming…"). Citation is not assertion.
• No PTAB proceedings, IPRs, or ITC Section 337 investigations referencing 8,050,233 were identified.
• This is a Huawei-held WiMAX/ASN-GW architecture patent, and it is not a standard-essential-patent (SEP) that I could tie to any known enforcement campaign (Huawei's documented litigation campaigns — e.g., InterDigital disputes, Netgear v. Huawei, ZTE-related actions — involved different patents).

Summary Table

Recommended Verification Steps

Because a "no results" finding is only as good as its sources, I recommend confirming directly on:

1. Unified Patents litigation portal — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist (search "8050233" exactly)
2. PACER / CourtListener RECAP — https://www.courtlistener.com (filter by patent number)
3. USPTO Patent Center / Litigation Search — to confirm no reexamination or assignment-driven assertion
4. ITC EDIS — to rule out Section 337 investigations
5. Huawei SEC-adjacent disclosures / US 8,050,233 reassignment record — to confirm the patent has never been sold to a litigation entity

Disclaimer

This reflects search results available as of the research date. I could not complete the full set of targeted queries (search limit reached), so treat this as "no litigation found" rather than an affirmative guarantee that none exists. A formal clearance/portfolio search (e.g., Lex Machina, Darts-ip, or STN) would be warranted before relying on this conclusion.

I'll verify the canonical "no proceedings" signal against the public record before drafting.

Important: the CourtListener hit references 8,035,233 — a different patent number from 8,050,233. Per operating rules I won't auto-correct. Let me pin down both.

Proceedings overview

Zero (0) AIA trial proceedings are on file for US 8,050,233 — the USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and my web search surfaced nothing to contradict that. Breakdown by status is therefore all zeros: 0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denied.

Bottom line for a defendant: there is no PTAB roadmap and no PTAB estoppel. Unlike a troll-battered patent that has "survived two IPRs and is hardened" (or conversely been gutted), US 8,050,233 is completely untested at the Board — all 24 claims stand exactly as issued on 2011-11-01, and no petitioner has ever been estopped under § 315(e)(2). That cuts both ways: you get a clean slate on grounds, but you also get no free claim-construction rulings, no institution decision telling you which claims are weak, and no FWD to lean on. If you are building an invalidity theory, you are building it from scratch.

Proceedings

None to itemize. There is no proceeding number, petitioner, panel, institution decision, FWD, settlement, or appeal to report for US 8,050,233. I will not manufacture one.

⚠️ Near-miss flag — do not conflate this with your patent

One web result looks alarming at a glance and needs to be ruled out. A joint status letter filed 2016-10-10 in a District of Delaware case (Frederick L, D. Del. docket 56152) reports that on 2016-06-30 and 2016-07-01 the PTAB instituted IPR on all asserted claims for eight of thirteen patents-in-suit, listing among them U.S. Patent No. 8,035,233:

• Source: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.56152.150.0.pdf
• Verbatim from that letter: "U.S. Patent Nos. 8,841,778, 7,193,239, 8,410,617, 7,504,732, 8,035,233, 8,796,862, 8,653,672, and 8,629,542."

8,035,233 ≠ 8,050,233. These are different patent numbers with different owners and different subject matter (the Delaware group is a 13-patent family sharing a common ancestor, litigated in a multi-defendant campaign; it is not a Huawei WiMAX portfolio). Per my operating rules I am not auto-correcting that digit string. I was unable to confirm the title or owner of 8,035,233 before exhausting my search budget, so I will state plainly: I do not know with high confidence what 8,035,233 covers, and I have no evidence any of those IPRs touched 8,050,233. Treat that hit as a false positive unless you independently verify the number against the PTAB docket.

Strategic summary

Claim status. All 24 claims are UNTESTED. Nothing is canceled, nothing is sustained, nothing has been construed by the Board. Independent claim 1 (method of shifting a functional entity: set master/slave, bind master to at least one slave, trigger a shift, form a context message from the master context plus the bound slave context, transmit per the shift process) and independent claim 20 (the apparatus counterpart, with functional-entity binding module, context message generating module, and context message transmitting module) are both intact, along with dependents 2–19 and 21–24. Practically, a demand letter citing claims 1–4 and 7–10 — the substantive ones covering FA-master and Authenticator-master bindings and the enumerated context payloads (DHCP relay address list, DPF head-compression parameters, SFA QoS/FID-SFID mappings, MIP capability flags, MN-FA/MN-HA/FA-HA keys, PMIP register context) — is citing claims that no tribunal has ever weakened.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR, PGR, or CBM was ever instituted, § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to no one. There is no petitioner, no privy, and no "raised or reasonably could have raised" bar binding any current defendant. Every ground remains available: § 102 and § 103 combinations over any pre-2006-06-14 art, plus § 112 challenges (which are more naturally litigated in district court or the ITC anyway, since the Board's IPR jurisdiction is limited to §§ 102/103 on patents and printed publications). This is a favorable estoppel posture — you are not boxed out of art that a prior petitioner used or should have used.

Pattern signals. No repeat petitioner, because there has been no petitioner at all. No patent-owner PTAB appeal history. No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) is in the chain. The most likely explanation for the total absence of PTAB activity is structural, not accidental: the patent is owned by [Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Huawei%20Technologies%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) (original and current assignee per the structured record), a large operating company rather than a litigating NPE. Operating companies rarely generate the serial-assertion pattern that attracts IPRs. Google Patents shows no litigation section for this patent, and the "Cited By"/"Families Citing" lists are ordinary technical citations, not evidence of assertion. Legal status is Active, adjusted expiration 2028-12-04 — roughly two years of runway, which is enough to make an IPR economically rational for a defendant but also means you should move promptly.

One post-priority-date trap to avoid. The file lists a non-patent citation to WiMAX Forum Network Architecture (Stage 3: Detailed Protocols and Procedures), NWG Approved, Release 1, Version 1.3.0, Nov. 2, 2008. That document is dated after the 2006-06-14 priority date and therefore cannot be prior art to this patent. Same caution for the cited US 2007/0258414 A1 (published 2007-11-08) — pre-AIA § 102(e) may reach it via its 2004-03-02 filing date, but do not assume; verify. Any IPR must be built on art that predates 2006-06-14: earlier WiMAX Forum NWG drafts, IEEE 802.16e/D-specs, and the examiner-cited references (WO 2000011885 A2; US 6,732,177; US 6,775,255; US 6,859,448; US 2003/0021252; US 6,985,464; WO 2003107600 A1; US 2005/0088994 A1; US 2004/0103282 A1).

Recommended next steps

1. Do not cite this file's "no proceedings" finding as a merits finding. It is a docket-status finding. Zero PTAB activity means zero claim-level adjudication — it does not mean the claims are strong. Re-run the ODP query yourself before relying on it, because ODP ingest lags and a recently filed petition can take time to appear.
2. If you have been served with a complaint asserting 8,050,233, calendar the § 315(b) one-year bar immediately. That date is the outside limit for an IPR petition; missing it is unrecoverable.
3. Run a fresh prior-art search rather than recycling prosecution art. With no IPR record, there is no petitioner work product to borrow. The best candidates are the pre-2006 WiMAX Forum NWG drafts and 802.16e drafts that the specification's own discussion of ASN-GW functional entities (Authenticator, PMIP Client, FA, PC/LR, SFA, DPF, DHCP Proxy/Relay, Accounting Client) implicitly maps onto. Claims 1 and 20 are broadly worded ("binding relationship," "context message," "process of the shift"), so a strong § 103 combination against the master/slave binding plus joint context transfer concept is the highest-value target.
4. Keep ex parte reexamination (§ 302) in reserve. It is not subject to § 315(e)(2) estoppel and not subject to the one-year § 315(b) bar, and where no IPR exists it is a viable, cheaper alternative that can be filed even while litigation proceeds.
5. Verify the 8,035,233 near-miss yourself at the PTAB docket before drawing any conclusion in either direction, and check the patent's own family members (CN 101090351 B; KR 101023461 B1; WO 2007147361 A1) to confirm no foreign counterpart generated a US proceeding you have not seen.

Provenance and confidence. The "0 proceedings" conclusion rests on the structured ODP block supplied in the prompt plus negative web results; I have high confidence in it. Everything about the Delaware letter's 8,035,233 references is quoted verbatim from the CourtListener PDF and is high confidence as a quotation; my inability to identify that patent's owner or subject matter is a stated gap, not a finding. I did not locate any Federal Circuit appeal, FWD, institution decision, panel composition, or settlement involving US 8,050,233, and I have not invented any.

I'll research the assignment record for US 8050233 and cross-reference the available sources.

Let me dig deeper into the assignment record and any litigation involving this patent.

Let me verify the correspondent of record and check for any additional assignment activity.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 8,050,233 B2

Patent: US 8,050,233 B2 — "Method and apparatus of shifting functional entity in WiMAX network"
Application: 12/335,005 · filed 2008-12-15 · granted 2011-11-01
Priority: 2006-06-14 (CN 200610092207.1) and 2006-11-09 (CN 200610138592.9); continuation of PCT/CN2007/070118 filed 2007-06-14.

Source caveat up front: I was unable to establish a direct, live session against assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov for this patent in this run. The assignment data below is reconstructed from (a) the Google Patents legal-events record for US 8,050,233 (which mirrors the USPTO Assignment Center abstract of title), (b) the Google Patents legal events for the sibling publication US 2009/0092099 A1, and (c) a secondary patent-database index of the same assignment. Where I could not confirm a field at the USPTO record itself, I say so. Verify at: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search patent number 8050233).

Inventors

Both individuals are the named inventors on the face of the patent and both appear as the assignors on the sole recorded assignment (REEL/FRAME 021980/0208), each signing between 2008-11-24 and 2008-11-26 — i.e., in the three weeks immediately preceding the 2008-12-15 US national-phase filing. This is the standard "assign-before-filing" pattern for a PCT national-phase continuation, not an anomaly.

Unusual-pattern check: Not determinable. I found no evidence either inventor departed Huawei within 12 months of filing, and no evidence of a subsequent portfolio divestiture. There is no fire-sale precursor here.

Original assignee

Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (Shenzhen, Guangdong, China) — named assignee on the assignment recorded at REEL/FRAME 021980/0208 and the current assignee per Google Patents.

• Primary line of business: Global telecommunications network equipment and consumer devices (base stations, core network gear, handsets). A Fortune Global 500 operating company; one of the world's largest telecom equipment vendors.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? As a WiMAX-network vendor, Huawei built ASN-GW / ASN equipment to the WiMAX Forum Network Architecture; this patent is directed to the internetwork control-plane problem of relocating ASN functional entities (FA, Authenticator, and their bound "slave" entities such as SFA, DPF, DHCP Proxy/Relay, Accounting Client, Paging Controller/LR) during handover — exactly the ASN-GW gateway product space Huawei sold in the 2006–2010 WiMAX build-out. So yes, plausibly practiced in their WiMAX ASN-GW line. (This is a product-space inference, not a documented product mapping.)
• Current status: Operating. No bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition of the assignee. The patent remains in force under Huawei with maintenance fees paid at the 4th, 8th, and 12th-year intervals (2015-04-15, 2019-04-18, 2023-04-19), and an adjusted expiration of 2028-12-04. Huawei is an active patent asserter in its own name (e.g., Huawei v. Verizon, Huawei v. Samsung, Huawei's FRAND litigation with Conversant), which is operating-company assertion, not NPE conduct.

Assignment timeline

Chronological list of every recorded assignment. There is exactly one. No post-issuance assignments are recorded — neither a transfer to an NPE/assertion vehicle, nor a defensive-aggregator transfer, nor any security interest.

• 2008-11-24 → 2008-11-26 (executed) / recorded 2008-12-15 — Reel 021980 / Frame 0208
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (see document for details)
  • Assignor: GU, LIANG; WU, JIANJUN (the two named inventors)
  • Assignee: HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. (Shenzhen, CN)
  • Correspondent: Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. — the firm of record appearing on the assignment/prosecution paperwork for this family in the secondary patent index for US 2009/0092099 A1. ⚠️ Flag with caution: I could confirm Harness Dickey as an agent-of-record on this family via the secondary index, but I could not independently confirm the "correspondent" field on the USPTO assignment record itself, and I have no evidence this name recurs as a correspondent on any other assignment in this chain (there are no other links). A single appearance is expressly not a repeat-correspondent finding.
  • Context: Internal/perfection — inventors' pre-filing assignment of rights to their employer, executed just before the US national-phase filing. Not an acquisition, fire-sale, securitization, or transfer-to-asserter.

No further records. After REEL/FRAME 021980/0208, the record contains only fee-payment events (FPAY/MAFP), not conveyances. Per your instruction: the Assignment Center shows only the original inventor→Huawei assignment, which is itself the finding — Huawei still owns the patent.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8050233
    2006 : Priority CN filings
    2007 : PCT application filed
    2008 : Inventors assign to Huawei
         : US national phase filed
    2011 : Patent issued to Huawei
    2015 : Maintenance fee year 4 paid
    2019 : Maintenance fee year 8 paid
    2023 : Maintenance fee year 12 paid
    2028 : Scheduled expiration

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Insufficient data — only the original assignment is of record.

The entirety of the recorded chain of title is a single conveyance: inventors Gu and Wu → Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., executed 2008-11-24/26 and recorded 2008-12-15 at REEL/FRAME 021980/0208, as reflected in Google Patents legal events for US 8,050,233. There are no post-issuance assignments, no security agreements, no mergers, and no change-of-name recordings; the only subsequent legal events are maintenance-fee payments (2015, 2019, 2023) and the scheduled 2028-12-04 expiration. The patent therefore remains with its original operating-company assignee, and none of the eight NPE/assertion signals is present. This is the expected profile for a Huawei WiMAX ASN-gateway patent that was retained rather than monetized through an assertion vehicle.

Verification link: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html — search by patent number 8050233 (and cross-check reel 021980, frame 0208), which should return the single inventor→Huawei assignment and no conveyances thereafter.

I'll search for the patent and its prior art citations.

Let me gather details on the key prior art references cited.

Let me verify a couple more references.

Prior‑Art Analysis — US 8,050,233 B2

Patent under review: US 8,050,233 B2 — "Method and apparatus of shifting functional entity in WiMAX network"

• App. No. 12/335,005; filed 2008‑12‑15 (continuation of PCT/CN2007/070118, filed 2007‑06‑14)
• Grant date: 2011‑11‑01; Assignee: [[Huawei Technologies Co.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Huawei%20Technologies%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Huawei%20Technologies%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.); Inventors: Liang Gu, Jianjun Wu
• Priority: 2006‑06‑14 (CN 200610092207.1) and 2006‑11‑09 (CN 200610138592.9)
• Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8050233B2](/patent/US8050233B2)/en
• Independents: claim 1 (method) and claim 20 (apparatus); 24 claims total.

Important methodology caveat. The patent text I was given lists which references were cited (the USPTO/Google "Patent Citations" and "Non‑Patent Citations" tables), but it does not contain the examiner's actual §102/§103 rejection mapping, and I could not open the USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR "Reasons for Allowance" from the sources returned. The claim mapping below is my own analytic assessment of which claims could be challenged under §102 given each reference's disclosure; it is not a record of an examiner rejection. In fact, the '233 patent issued with all 24 claims intact. I also note that a §102 anticipation is a demanding standard — a reference must disclose every limitation of a claim, arranged as claimed. On the face of it, no single cited reference below clearly discloses the core "master/slave functional-entity binding + combined master+slave context message" of claim 1, so most of these references are more naturally §103 (obviousness) material than §102 art. I flag this explicitly rather than overstate.

A. Core Sourcing Note on Admissible §102 Dates

Because the critical date is the priority date of 2006‑06‑14, only references publicly available (or with a §102(e) effective date) before that date can serve as §102 prior art:

• All twelve cited patent documents have §102(b) or §102(e) effective dates well before 2006‑06‑14 except the two Chinese/Starent entries which are family duplicates, and US 2007/0258414 A1, whose publication date (2007‑11‑08) postdates the priority date but whose filing/priority date (2004‑03‑02) is §102(e)‑eligible.
• The WiMAX Forum Stage 3 Release 1 v1.3.0 document dated 2008‑11‑02 postdates the priority date and therefore is not prior art under §102(b); it is a NPL citation of evidentiary/background value only.

B. Cited Patent References (the "Patent Citations (12)")

1. US 6,985,464 B2 — Starent Networks (Harper et al.)

• Full citation: US 6,985,464 B2, "Managing packet data interconnections in mobile communications," Harper, Matthew Hayden; Janakiraman, Senthilnathan; assigned to Starent Networks Corporation. (Family: US 2003/0021252 A1; WO 03/013060 A2/A3; CN 1572120 A.)
• Dates: Priority 2001‑07‑30; published (US 2003/0021252 A1) 2003‑01‑30; granted 2006‑01‑10.
• Description: Manages PCF (Packet Control Function)/PDSN selection in cdma2000 so that a Mobile Subscriber keeps the same PDSN ("anchor") as it moves from one PCF area to another; executes a PDSN-selection protocol repeatedly to re‑select the same serving node. Also addresses IP/PPP link maintenance across inter‑PCF handover and key‑space partitioning among PDSNs.
• URL: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/0a/ff/79/b29259a71327a4/US6985464.pdf
• Potential §102 mapping: Directed at anchoring a packet-data gateway while a terminal moves — conceptually adjacent to claim 1's "shift of the functional entity that serves the user terminal." Realistically it can only be argued against the mobile‑IP/IP‑session continuity aspects of claim 11 (releasing/renewing IP address) and, weakly, the anchoring idea underlying claims 14–15 (FA/context handling on move). It does not disclose a master/slave class of functional entities, a binding relationship, or a combined master+slave context message, so it does not anticipate claim 1.

2. CN 1,572,120 A — Starent (Chinese counterpart of the above)

• Full citation: CN 1572120 A, "Managing packet data interconnections in mobile communications" (思达伦特网络公司 / Starent Networks), 2005‑01‑26.
• Dates: Priority 2001‑07‑30; published 2005‑01‑26.
• Description: Chinese family member of US 6,985,464 (same PCF/PDSN anchoring disclosure).
• Potential §102 mapping: Same as item 1 — at most relevant to claim 11; it is a duplicate disclosure, not independent art.

3. US 2003/0021252 A1 — Harper (Starent) — published application

• Full citation: US 2003/0021252 A1, "Managing packet data interconnections in mobile communications," Harper, Matthew Hayden, 2003‑01‑30.
• Dates: Priority 2001‑07‑30; published 2003‑01‑30.
• Description: Pre‑grant publication of item 1.
• Potential §102 mapping: Identical substance to item 1; same limited relevance (claim 11).

4. WO 03/107600 A1 — Nokia — "A method and system for local mobility management"

• Full citation: WO 03/107600 A1, Nokia Corporation; priority FI 20021164 (2002‑06‑14); published 2003‑12‑24. US family member: US 2005/0088994 A1 (published 2005‑04‑28), which issued as US 7,539,164 B2 ("Method and system for local mobility management," Mäenpää et al.).
• Dates: Priority 2002‑06‑14; WO published 2003‑12‑24; US pub. 2005‑04‑28; US 7,539,164 granted 2009‑05‑26.
• Description: Proxy local mobility management — hides IP‑level mobility from the mobile node using proxy/FA‑type functions so no terminal changes are needed; covers localized (proxy) mobility and IPv6/IPv4 handover optimization.
• URLs: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2003107600A1/en ; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/6c/91/44/f92ce7f10203a3/US7539164.pdf
• Potential §102 mapping: This is the most thematically relevant reference because it discloses network‑side proxy mobility anchors and relocating/updating them at handover — conceptually close to claim 1's master entity (=FA/Authenticator) being moved, and to claims 14–17 (FA‑shift/PMIP register flows) and claims 8–10 (MIP register context, keys, CoA/HoA). As §102(e) art it could be argued against claims 2, 3, 8–10, 14–17. It still lacks the claimed binding‑relationship‑between‑master‑and‑slave‑entities construct central to claim 1.

5. US 2005/0088994 A1 — Nokia (Mäenpää et al.)

• Full citation: US 2005/0088994 A1, "Method and system for local mobility management," Mäenpää et al., Nokia Corporation, 2005‑04‑28.
• Dates: §102(e) filing date 2004‑11‑17 (continuation of PCT/FI2003/00389); priority 2002‑06‑14; published 2005‑04‑28.
• Description: US counterpart of item 4 (proxy/local mobility management).
• Potential §102 mapping: Same as item 4 — potentially §102(e) against claims 2, 3, 8–10, 14–17.

6. WO 00/11885 A2 — Telia

• Full citation: WO 00/11885 A2, "Improvements in, or relating to, teleservice management systems," Telia AB (Publ).
• Dates: Priority 1998‑08‑25; published 2000‑03‑02.
• Description: Tele‑service management architecture (managing service/functional components for subscribers in a telecom/tele‑service environment).
• Potential §102 mapping: Generic to "managing network functions for subscribers." At best tangentially relevant to the claim 20 apparatus (corresponding functional‑entity modules); no master/slave binding or WiMAX context message. Not a realistic §102 reference against any claim.

7. AT&T H.323 mobility family — US 6,732,177 B1; US 6,775,255 B1; US 6,859,448 B1; CN 1,310,554 A

• Full citations:
  • US 6,732,177 B1, "Intelligent signaling scheme for computer‑readable medium for H.323 mobility architecture," AT&T Corp., granted 2004‑05‑04 (priority 1999‑09‑16).
  • US 6,775,255 B1, "H.323 mobility architecture for terminal, user and service mobility," AT&T Corp., granted 2004‑08‑10 (priority 1999‑09‑16).
  • US 6,859,448 B1, "H.323 mobility protocol for terminal, user and service mobility," AT&T Corp., granted 2005‑02‑22 (priority 1999‑09‑16).
  • CN 1,310,554 A, "H.323 mobile structure for mobile terminal, customers and business" (美国电报电话公司 / AT&T), published 2001‑08‑29 (priority 1999‑09‑16).
• Dates: All priority 1999‑09‑16; published/granted 2001–2005 — all §102(b) art.
• Description: A family covering H.323‑based mobility that separates terminal, user, and service mobility into distinct mobility functional architectures and signaling within an intelligent network — i.e., a general teaching that different functional/mobility roles can be managed as separate entities.
• Potential §102 mapping: These are the references most likely used only for background/general‑concept support. They could be argued (weakly) against the abstract notion in claim 1 of separating network functions into roles and moving them, but they are H.323/IN architecture, not WiMAX ASN‑GW functional entities, and disclose no master/slave §102‑level identity. Not anticipatory of any specific claim.

8. US 2007/0258414 A1 — Cheng (Hong Cheng)

• Full citation: US 2007/0258414 A1, "System and Method for Negotiation of WLAN Entity," Cheng, Hong, 2007‑11‑08.
• Dates: Priority/filing 2004‑03‑02; published 2007‑11‑08. §102(e) date = 2004‑03‑02 (filing), which precedes the '233 priority date; the 2007 publication date does not, so it is only §102(e)-eligible art.
• Description: Negotiation among WLAN entities (WLAN‑side functional/entity negotiation during association/roaming).
• Potential §102 mapping: Relevant in concept to "different functional entities being negotiated/reached across network elements" — could be cited against the functional‑entity framing of claim 1 and the module framing of claim 20, but it is WLAN, not WiMAX, and lacks master/slave binding and the combined context message. Not anticipatory.

9. US 2004/0103282 A1 — Meier et al. (Cisco)

• Full citation: US 2004/0103282 A1, "802.11 Using a compressed reassociation exchange to facilitate fast handoff," Meier, Robert et al., 2004‑05‑27 (issued as US 7,350,077 B2; family JP/EP 1887758).
• Dates: Priority 2002‑11‑26 (US 60/429,714); §102(e) filing 2003‑04‑17; published 2004‑05‑27.
• Description: Fast 802.11 handoff via a Subnet Context Manager (SCM) that stores and transfers a mobile node's security/key context (NSK, PTK, BTK) so the terminal need not re‑authenticate at every access point; context transfer between network nodes during reassociation.
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20040103282A1
• Potential §102 mapping: Focused on context transfer of key/security information between network nodes at handoff — conceptually relevant to claims reciting the transfer of key context in the "context message," i.e., claims 8 and 9 (MN‑FA‑KEY, MN‑HA‑KEY, FA‑HA‑KEY, MIP‑RK, FA‑RK, MSK, PMK and their lifetimes). It is 802.11 (not WiMAX ASN) and has no master/slave entity binding, so it cannot anticipate claim 1; at most §103 support for key/context transfer claims.

C. Non‑Patent Citations (§102(b) considerations)

1. International Search Report for PCT/CN2007/070118, dated 2007‑09‑11 — procedural document (lists the art searched), not itself anticipatory art.
2. WiMAX Forum Network Architecture (Stage 3: Detailed Protocols and Procedures), NWG Approved, Release 1, Version 1.3.0, 2008‑11‑02, 692 pages — postdates the 2006‑06‑14 priority date, so it is NOT §102(b) art against the '233 claims; it may be cited only for context/evidentiary purposes (or if priority were challenged). Useful only to show what WiMAX ASN‑GW functional entities/relocation procedures came to look like.
3. Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority re PCT/CN2007/070118, mailed 2007‑10‑11 — procedural; the substantive reasoning therein (not reproduced in the text I was given) would be the actual place where any §102/§103 positions were articulated.

D. Bottom Line

• Most relevant prior art, in descending order of substantive relevance: (i) the Nokia "local mobility management" family (WO 03/107600 A1 / US 2005/0088994 A1 / US 7,539,164), (ii) the Starent "Managing packet data interconnections" family (US 6,985,464 B2 / US 2003/0021252 A1 / CN 1572120 A), (iii) the Cisco/Meier 802.11 fast‑handoff reference (US 2004/0103282 A1) for key/context transfer, and (iv) the AT&T H.323 mobility family for the "separating mobility functions into distinct entities" concept.
• §102 vs. §103 reality: None of the twelve cited references, on its face, discloses the complete claim‑1 combination — specifically (a) classifying ASN‑GW functions as master or slave, (b) an established binding relationship between a master and at least one slave, and (c) forming a single context message combining both the master's and the bound slave's contexts when the master shifts. Those limitations are what distinguish the '233 claims. The cited art maps most naturally to the dependent claims:
  • Claims 8–10 / 6 (key & MIP/paging context) ← Meier/US 2004/0103282 and Nokia/US 2005/0088994.
  • Claims 11–13 (IP address release/renewal) ← Starent/US 6,985,464.
  • Claims 14–19 (FA‑ and Authenticator‑shift procedures) ← Nokia/US 2005/0088994.
  • Claim 1 / claim 20 (general framing) ← only weak/background support from AT&T H.323 family, Telia WO 00/11885, and Cheng US 2007/0258414.
• I could not confirm from the retrieved sources that any of these was formally applied as a §102 anticipation in a rejection; the patent issued with all 24 claims, which is consistent with these being cited as background or as §103‑type combinations rather than clean anticipations. If you need the actual examiner rejections and the "Reasons for Allowance," those are in the application's file wrapper (USPTO PatentCenter / Global Dossier for App. 12/335,005), which I was unable to open here — I'd recommend pulling that record before relying on any §102 characterization.

I'll ground this obviousness analysis in the actual cited references before building combinations. Let me pull details on the key prior-art references from the patent's front page.

Now let me examine the remaining cited references, especially the ones dealing with context transfer and functional-entity relocation.

Let me check the WiMAX Forum non-patent reference and any prosecution-history record for the '233 patent.

Obviousness Analysis — US 8,050,233 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)

Built on the previously generated summary and claim mapping. This section does not repeat the bibliographic table or the plain-language claim overview; it takes those as given and moves to the § 103 merits, using the references listed in the "Patent Citations," "Non-Patent Citations," and "Family Cites Families" portions of the patent page.

I. Threshold issues that shape the analysis

Before mapping references, four points materially constrain any § 103 theory. I flag them because they are where this analysis is most likely to be wrong if ignored.

(1) Governing law is pre-AIA § 103(a). Application 12/335,005 was filed December 15, 2008 (continuation of PCT/CN2007/070118, filed June 14, 2007), with foreign priority to June 14, 2006 and November 9, 2006. Pre-AIA § 102(a)/(b)/(e) define the prior art; the critical dates are the June 14, 2006 invention/priority date for § 102(a) purposes and the earliest claimed U.S. filing date for § 102(b) purposes. This matters enormously for the non-patent citations below.

(2) The most on-point "prior art" on the page is probably not prior art. The listed Non-Patent Citation is WiMAX Forum Network Architecture (Stage 3: Detailed Protocols and Procedures), NWG Approved, Release 1, Version 1.3.0, Nov. 2, 2008. That date is after the June 14, 2006 priority date and less than one year before the December 15, 2008 U.S. filing. Under pre-AIA § 102(a) it post-dates the invention; under § 102(b) it is outside the one-year window measured from the earliest U.S. filing date. It is therefore not § 102(a) or (b) art on its face. I confirmed the WiMAX Forum's own subsequent Stage 3 documents (Rel. 1.0 v5 and the Rel. 2.2 v3 base document hosted on ARIB's STD-T94 site) describe Authenticator relocation and FA relocation procedures, Relocation_Notify / Relocation_Req / Relocation_Complete messaging, MN-FA and FA-HA key TLVs with lifetimes, and an "Optimized Combined Relocation" of PC, Authenticator and ADPF entities — i.e., squarely the subject matter of claims 4, 8–10 and 14–19:

• https://wimaxforum.org/sites/wimaxforum.org/files/technical_document/2010/12/WMF-T33-001-R010v05_Network-Stage3-Base.pdf
• https://www.arib.or.jp/english/html/overview/doc/STD-T94v3_4/4-5-2_WMF-T33-001-R022v03_Network-Stage3-Base.pdf

But because those documents are dated 2008–2010+, they are usable only as evidence of the level of ordinary skill and of what the industry regarded as a routine design choice — not as § 102/§ 103 references. A § 103 rejection cannot rest on them. Any theory resting on the Nov. 2, 2008 version is vulnerable to a straightforward date objection, and earlier WiMAX Forum drafts (the release history shows the R6/R8 ASN-mobility annex as an "Initial draft" in March 2007) would have to be separately authenticated as pre-June-2006 publications, which the record provided does not do.

(3) No cited reference is WiMAX-specific. Every patent citation on the face of the '233 patent is from an adjacent mobility domain: H.323 multimedia mobility (AT&T), 3GPP2/IS-2000 packet data (Starent), MIPv6 local mobility management (Nokia), and 802.11 fast handoff/context transfer (Cisco/Meier), plus a Telia teleservice-management reference. That means the § 103 case is necessarily a combination case, and the patentee's best defense is the classic one: the references are non-analogous, and none of them discloses the WiMAX-specific master/slave binding. The strength of the rejection therefore rises or falls on (a) whether the art is analogous, and (b) whether the "WiMAX-specific" features are inventive or merely the routine application of a known technique to a known architecture. On (b), the patent's own Background is an admission that supplies motivation: "Currently, there is no solution for shifting the ASN's functional entity in WiMAX network."

(4) A claim-construction wrinkle that expands the target. As flagged in the prior section, claim 4 binds the Proxy Mobile IP Client to Foreign Agent as master, while the detailed description binds the PMIP Client to Authenticator. Claim 4's FA-master list also includes the Service Flow Authorization entity, which the description lists under FA but the "other binding relationships" passage reorganizes under Authenticator. This is not a mere scrivener's issue for a § 103 analysis: the claims as issued are broader and more loosely grouped than the description, so a combination that teaches any master entity with any of the enumerated slaves relocated together will reach the claim even if the specific FA/SFA/PMIP grouping in the specification is not taught. I analyze the claims as issued.

II. What each cited reference actually supplies

Caveat on verification: I confirmed content for the Nokia, Meier, Starent and AT&T H.323 references and for the WiMAX Forum Stage 3 documents via the sources linked above. I did not verify WO 2000/011885 A2, CN 1310554 A, or US 2007/0258414 A1's text; statements about those are limited to their titles and the page metadata, and I say so where it matters.

Also worth noting for landscape purposes (not part of the rejection): the page's "Similar Documents" list includes JP 6084242 B2, "Method for relocating access service network functional entities during a mobility event in a WiMAX network." I did not verify its assignee, filing or publication date, so I do not treat it as prior art here — but a document with that title existing at all is a signal that the WiMAX-ASN-function-relocation concept was a crowded space, which is relevant to the "predictable design choice" argument below.

III. Claim 1 (method) mapped against the lead combination

Lead combination: Nokia WO 2003107600 A1 / US 2005/0088994 A1 in view of Meier US 2004/0103282 A1, further in view of Starent US 6,985,464 B2, with the WiMAX ASN architecture of record taken as known.

Result: every limitation of claim 1 is met by the combination, with no single reference required to supply more than one or two elements. The only genuinely "missing" element across the whole set is the WiMAX-specific label set (Authenticator, FA, PMIP Client, DPF, SFA, DHCP Proxy/Relay, Accounting Client Agent), and that label set is the known architecture of the field, not something the inventor created — the specification itself introduces those entities as pre-existing ("Each of the above function corresponds to a functional entity in ASN-GW … e.g., an Authenticator, a PMIP Client, an FA …").

IV. Motivation to combine (the KSR/§ 103 rationales)

Answering the question directly — why would a person of ordinary skill have combined these?

1. The problem was known, articulated, and common to all the references. The patent's Background admits there was "no solution for shifting the ASN's functional entity in WiMAX network." The same problem — a mobile's serving/anchor function must move while the session is preserved — is the stated subject of Nokia (local mobility management), Meier (fast handoff without full re-authentication), Starent (re-selecting the same PDSN anchor), and AT&T H.323 (zone change requiring inter-entity communication). Same problem ⇒ motivation. This is the strongest single rationale.

2. Everyone was solving it the same way, and the technique was recognized as generally applicable. Nokia: "Layer 3 context transfer can be triggered optionally from the target CAP"; Meier: deliver the cached security context to the new AP rather than re-running EAP/AAA; AT&T: send registration/binding updates between old and new gatekeepers. As KSR puts it, where a technique has been used to improve one device and a skilled artisan would recognize it would improve similar devices in the same way, the application is obvious. WiMAX ASN-GW relocation is a "similar device" in a "similar way."

3. The stated benefit is exactly the motivation each reference supplies. The patent's own stated advantage is "reduc[ing] the complexity of system when an individual functional entity is shifted." Meier's stated goals are reducing message/computational burden and AAA traffic; Nokia's is "reduc[ing] the MIPv6+ extension signalling" and hiding L3 mobility; Starent's is avoiding re-establishing packet data sessions. Predictable benefit ⇒ motivation (KSR "design choice"/"obvious to try" with predictable results).

4. The mechanism is a predictable two-step engineering exercise. (a) Identify from the WiMAX ASN-GW architecture which functions serve a given mobile and share its lifecycle (authenticator/FA as anchor; SFA, DPF, DHCP proxy/relay, accounting client, PMIP client as dependents). (b) Keep their state in one record and push that record with the anchor when the anchor moves. Both steps are taught by the references' analogous anchor/serving splits and by the ARIB/WiMAX-Forum record showing the industry in fact converged on combined PC/Authenticator/ADPF relocation.

5. The art recognized the need for a principled bundle. RFC 3374, "Problem Description: Reasons for Performing Context Transfers Between Nodes in an IP Access Network" (Kempf, Sept. 2002) — which appears in the reference/citation record of the Meier-related patents (see the citation list surfaced at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8027304B2](/patent/US8027304B2)/zh) — is a document devoted to the question of which state must move between access nodes on handover and why. Caveat: I am relying on my knowledge of RFC 3374 plus its appearance in that citation record, not on a direct fetch; a full invalidity analysis should pull the RFC. If authentic, it is an excellent "reason to combine" reference because it frames context transfer as an architectural necessity rather than a WiMAX-specific insight.

6. Analogous art, not remote art. All of the primary references are in the field of network-side mobility management for packet-switched wireless access — the same field of endeavor as the WiMAX ASN, and reasonably pertinent to the specific problem of relocating the function that serves a mobile (the KSR/SiRRF "reasonably pertinent to the particular problem" test). A POSITA working on WiMAX ASN-GW relocation in 2006 would routinely consult MIPv6 local-mobility, 3GPP2 anchor, and 802.11 fast-handoff work.

V. Claim-group specific combinations

• Claim 2 (master = authenticator and/or FA). Nokia relocates the MA (an FA/proxy-mobility anchor); Starent relocates/re-selects the PDSN anchor; the WiMAX Forum record shows Authenticator and FA are precisely the "anchor" functions relocated in the field. Obvious over Nokia + Starent.
• Claim 3 (enumerated slaves). All are pre-existing WiMAX ASN-GW entities named in the Background of the '233 patent itself. Naming them as slaves is a labelling step once claim 1's concept is supplied.
• Claim 4 (specific bindings). Obvious over Nokia/Meier (anchor + dependent context moved together) in view of the known WiMAX architecture; further corroborated by the industry's "Optimized Combined Relocation of PC, Authenticator and ADPF entities" in WiMAX Forum Stage 3 (skill-level evidence only). Note the internal inconsistency flagged in § I(4) — the claim's FA/PMIP grouping differs from the description, which makes the claim easier to meet.
• Claims 5–6 (PC/LR in idle mode; PGID, paging cycle/offset/duration). Paging/location-register context is standard; the WiMAX Forum R6/R8 ASN-mobility annex lists Paging Information with Paging Cycle and Paging Offset over R6/R8, and Stage 3's relocation messages carry paging parameters. Adding the paging-parameter list is transferring whatever state the moved function maintains.
• Claim 7 (DHCP/DPF/SFA/accounting/MIP-capability context). Each item is the ordinary per-entity state of a function the art already relocates. Meier's SCM teaches session-policy/timeout state; RFC 2131 (DHCP) and RFC 3344 define the DHCP and MIP-capability fields; transferring them is the definition of context transfer per RFC 3374.
• Claims 8–9 (MIP key set + lifetimes). The key hierarchy (MSK → PMK; MIP-RK, FA-RK; MN-FA-KEY, MN-HA-KEY, FA-HA-KEY) is standard WiMAX/MIP security and is disclosed in Meier's counter-mode key-derivation architecture in analogous form. The WiMAX Forum record shows a Context_Rpt pushing MN-FA key, MN-FA SPI, MN-FA key lifetime, FA-HA key/SPI/lifetime to the anchor FA — i.e., keys and lifetimes — again as skill-level corroboration.
• Claim 10 (PMIP client register context: HoA, CoA, MIP-register lifetime, HA IP/NAI, FA IP). This is the contents of a MIP registration binding (RFC 3344, which the '233 specification itself cites). Trivially obvious to carry with a PMIP client relocation.
• Claims 11–13 (IP address release/renewal). Conventional DHCP RELEASE/RENEW/ACK (RFC 2131) plus MIP deregistration (RFC 3344), with the proxy-MIP release-register relay through the FA to the HA. Note that the page's "Cited By" list includes Huawei's own US 2008/0139147 A1, "Method and Apparatus for Mobile Internet Protocol Registrating or Deregistrating" — i.e., this family's own related work is about MIP (de)registration, which underscores that these flows were routine. Caution: this is a family/cited-by item, not a § 102 reference; do not use a later-dated Huawei document in a rejection.
• Claims 14–17 (FA shift: target requests context from anchor; anchor notifies target; R3 shift request in PMIP mode). Nokia's and Starent's pull-from-anchor / target-initiated context retrieval, plus the R3 interface and agent-broadcast/agent-advertisement mechanism of RFC 3344 (cited in the specification). The R3 request/response framing is the WiMAX-specific interface name applied to a known request/response pattern.
• Claims 18–19 (Authenticator shift via re-authentication). AT&T's registration/binding-update-on-zone-change plus Nokia's network-initiated relocation supply triggering relocation through a re-registration/re-authentication exchange; the WiMAX stage documents show re-authentication is the mechanism by which authenticator relocation occurs.
• Claims 20–24 (apparatus). Pure module recitations of the claim 1 steps (binding module; context message generating module; context message transmitting module; plus a bind-setting module, context acquisition unit, IP address release/renewal module). Where a method is obvious, apparatus claims reciting means for performing its steps are obvious for the same reasons; claims 21–24 add only the setting of the binding, the enumerated context sources (which mirror claim 3's entities), and the IP release/renewal function discussed above.

VI. Where a § 103 challenge is weak — the patentee's counterarguments

A defensible analysis must state the other side. Five points:

1. No reference discloses the master/slave binding as such in WiMAX. The references disclose anchor/serving splits and context transfer; none discloses pre-registering a dependency relationship between an anchor and specific named dependents so that the dependents' context is automatically gathered and moved. A patentee will argue this is the inventive contribution, and it is the element the examiner apparently found lacking (the claims issued over this art). The rejection's weakest link is the jump from "transfer context to the new access node" to "transfer the context of bound slave entities with the master's context in one message."
2. WiMAX-specific NPL likely cannot be used. As set out in § I(2), the Nov. 2, 2008 WiMAX Forum Stage 3 document post-dates the June 14, 2006 priority date and is outside the § 102(b) window. Strip it out and the remaining art is entirely non-WiMAX, which strengthens the non-analogous-art and "no motivation to modify WiMAX specifically" arguments.
3. Gap between "mobility anchor" and "ASN-GW functional entity." Nokia's MA and Meier's SCM are single-purpose network elements; the ASN-GW is a collocated set of functional entities (Authenticator, FA, PMIP Client, SFA, DPF, DHCP proxy/relay, accounting client). A patentee will argue that recognizing which of those many entities should be bound to which master, and that the shift "means the shift of the functional entity that serves the user terminal, rather than the functional entity per se," is a non-obvious architectural insight.
4. No express teaching/ suggestion/ motivation in the references themselves. None of the cited references cites another, and none addresses WiMAX. The motivation is supplied by the applicant's own problem statement plus common sense — which is exactly what KSR permits, but which invites the counter that the combination is hindsight-driven.
5. Potential secondary considerations. The patent was granted and has been maintained through the 12th-year fee (2023, per the Legal Events). If the patentee can show industry adoption of this specific bundling approach — e.g., that later WiMAX Forum releases adopted a combined-relocation scheme — that could be argued as copying/industry praise. However, the more likely reading cuts against the patentee: the WiMAX Forum was working the same problem contemporaneously (the R6/R8 annex initial draft dates to March 2007, months after the June 2006 priority), which is evidence of independent parallel development and predictable design, i.e., objective indicia of obviousness rather than non-obviousness.

VII. Bottom line

• Claim 1 and claim 20 are, in my assessment, vulnerable to a well-constructed § 103(a) rejection built on Nokia WO 2003107600 A1 / US 2005/0088994 A1 as the primary reference (network-initiated relocation of the anchor function + L3 context transfer from the target side), in view of Meier US 2004/0103282 A1 (a network-side holder of a bundle of mobile-specific security/session/accounting context delivered to the newly serving node, expressly to reduce re-authentication and AAA signaling), and optionally Starent US 6,985,464 B2 (per-user anchor selection/re-selection across serving-node changes) and the AT&T H.323 family (the "functional entity" relocation vocabulary and coordinated inter-entity relocation signaling across a domain boundary). The motivation is the admitted, common problem plus the references' own stated efficiency goals; the mechanism is a recognized context-transfer technique applied to the known WiMAX ASN-GW functional partition.
• The dependent claims fall in tiers of difficulty. Claims 2, 5–7, 10, 13, 20–24 look the easiest (labelling, standard per-entity state, conventional DHCP/MIP flows, apparatus recitations of the method). Claims 4 and 8–9 are moderately easy. Claims 14–19 (the specific FA- and Authenticator-shift signaling flows) are the hardest, because they depend on WiMAX interface specifics (R3, Context-Request/Context-Report, re-authentication-triggered relocation) the non-WiMAX art teaches only in analogous form, and the WiMAX-specific evidence is date-barred.
• The single most important caveat for any real challenge: the one reference on the page that most closely matches the claims — the WiMAX Forum NWG Stage 3 document — appears not to qualify as prior art on its face date (Nov. 2, 2008), and the ISR/Written Opinion are prosecution documents, not teachings. A serious invalidity case must either (a) authenticate an earlier WiMAX Forum draft as a pre-June-2006 printed publication, or (b) rely entirely on the non-WiMAX mobility art plus the background WiMAX architecture, and be prepared to litigate analogous-art and motivation-to-modify.

Uncertainty flags carried forward: I did not verify the content of WO 2000/011885 A2 (Telia), CN 1310554 A, or US 2007/0258414 A1; RFC 3374 is asserted from my own knowledge plus its appearance in the Meier-family citation record, not a direct fetch; the identification of US 7,539,164 as the granted member of the Nokia WO 2003107600 family is my inference from the matching title and PCT/FI03/00389, and should be confirmed against the family record before being relied on; and JP 6,084,242 B2 is noted only as a "Similar Document" and was not verified as prior art.