UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`STODGE, INC. D/B/A POSTSCRIPT
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ATTENTIVE, INC.
`
`(record) Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`———————
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. HENRY HOUH
`
`POSTSCRIPT 1002
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`V.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... 2
`I.
`ENGAGEMENT AND COMPENSATION ................................................... 4
`II.
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ........................................................................... 6
`III. QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 6
`IV. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE RELEVANT LAW ................................ 8
`A.
`Claim Construction................................................................................ 8
`B.
`Anticipation ........................................................................................... 9
`C.
`Obviousness ........................................................................................... 9
`TECHNICAL INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 13
`Two-tap example: U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2015/0178784 to Oliver
`(Ex. 1011) .................................................................................. 19
`Two-tap example: U.S. Pat. No. 8,532,283 to Haggerty
`(Ex. 1007) .................................................................................. 20
`Two-tap example: U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2015/0142568 To Hsu
`(Ex. 1013) .................................................................................. 23
`Two-tap example: U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2009/0247140 to Gupta
`(Ex. 1017) .................................................................................. 24
`Deeplinking technologies were well-established ................................ 26
`Basic Ad-Network Technology ........................................................... 30
`Basic Web Site Technology ................................................................ 32
`VI. CLAIMS OF the ’074 PATENT ................................................................... 42
`VII. EXAMINATION HISTORY OF THE ’074 PATENT. ................................ 44
`VIII. RELEVANT TIMEFRAME FOR DETERMINING OBVIOUSNESS ....... 45
`IX. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 46
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`X. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY ........................................................................ 46
`Ground 1. Claims 1-30 were obvious over Oliver, Agrawal, and Khanna. ......... 46
`A. Overview of the Ground ...................................................................... 47
`1.
`Overview of Oliver (two-tap method) ...................................... 48
`2.
`Overview of Agrawal (ad network) .......................................... 52
`3.
`Overview of Khanna (mobile app deeplinking) ....................... 54
`Rationale (Motivation) Supporting Obviousness ................................ 56
`B.
`Graham Factors ................................................................................... 60
`C.
`Reasonable Expectation of Success .................................................... 61
`D.
`Analogous Art ..................................................................................... 62
`E.
`Claim Mapping .................................................................................... 62
`F.
`Ground 2. Claims 1-2, 11-14, and 20 were obvious as in Ground 1, in further
`view of Molinet. ................................................................................ 111
`XI. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................... 116
`XII. OATH .......................................................................................................... 118
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`1.
`
`I, Henry Houh, hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`ENGAGEMENT AND COMPENSATION
`I have been retained by Stodge, Inc. d/b/a Postscript (“Petitioner”) as
`2.
`
`an expert in the inter partes review proceeding described above. I have been asked
`
`to provide my technical review, analysis, insights, and opinions regarding the
`
`references that form the basis for the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the
`
`Petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,553,074 (“the ’074 Patent”).
`
`For this service, my billing rate is an hourly consulting fee of $720/hour, and I am
`
`reimbursed for actual expenses. My compensation in no way depends on the
`
`outcome of this matter.
`
`3.
`
`This declaration sets forth my analyses and opinions based on the
`
`materials I have considered thus far and the bases for my opinions. I understand
`
`that this declaration will be used in the above mentioned inter partes review. In
`
`forming my opinions, I have considered the following Exhibits:
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1004
`
`1005
`1006
`1007
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 11,553,074 (“the ’074 patent”).
`File History of U.S. App. Ser. No. 17/496590 (issued as the ’074
`patent).
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,015,615 (“Agrawal”).
`U.S. Pat. App. Ser. No. 10/375,900 (“Anderson”).
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,532,283 (“Haggerty”).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`1008
`
`1009
`1010
`
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`1015
`1016
`
`1017
`1019
`
`1020
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`U.S. Pat. App. Ser. No. 13/461,541 (“the Haggerty ’541
`application”).
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2016/0142858 A1 (“Molinet”).
`U.S. Prov. App. Ser. No. 62/079,512 (“The Molinet ’512
`Provisional”).
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2015/0178784 A1 (“Oliver”).
`Cristal, G., “Ad Serving Technology, Understand the marketing
`revelation that commercialized the internet”, ISBN:
`1484867572 (2014)(“Ad Serving Technology”).
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2015/0142568 (“Hsu”).
`File History of U.S. App. Ser. No. 15/986,569 (abandoned).
`Firtman, M., “Programming the Mobile Web, Second Edition”,
`O’Reilly (2013).
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2009/0247140 (“Gupta”).
`RFC 5724, “URI Scheme for Global System for Mobile
`Communications (GSM) Short Message Service (SMS)”,
`January 2010.
`WO 2005/062596A1 (“Helkio”).
`Flanagan, D. “JavaScript: The Definitive Guide, Sixth Edition”,
`O’Reilly Media, Inc. (2011).
`Complaint for Patent Infringement in Attentive Mobile Inc. v.
`Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript, Case No. 1-23-cv-00087 (D. Del.
`Filed Jan. 25, 2023).
`Scheiner, M., Attentive Gets the Message Out, available at
`https://crm.org/news/attentive-gets-the-message-out
`Levine, B., Led by TapCommerce founders, startup Attentive
`launches SMS/MMS marketing platform,
`available
`at
`https://martech.org/led-tapcommerce-founders-startup-attentive-
`launches-smsmms-marketing-platform/
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`1025
`
`1028
`
`1032
`1033
`
`1034
`1035
`
`Ha, A, TapCommerce’s founders are back with Attentive, a
`messaging
`startup
`that’s
`raised $13M,
`available
`at
`https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/08/attentive-launch/
`Mobile Marketing Association, “US Consumer Best Practices
`for Messaging”,
`version
`7.0,
`(2012),
`available
`https://www.mmaglobal.com/documents/us-consumer-best-
`practices.
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2014/0379482 (“Demsey”).
`RFC 3986, “Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic
`Syntax”, January 2005.
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2013/0111328 A1 (“Khanna”).
`Excerpt from assignment database for Khanna.
`
`at
`
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`It is my opinion that:
`4.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Claims 1-30 were obvious over Oliver in view of Agrawal and
`
`Khanna.
`
`Claims 1-30 were obvious as in Ground 1, in further view of
`
`Molinet.
`
`III. QUALIFICATIONS
`I hold a Ph.D. in electrical engineering and computer science from the
`5.
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”), awarded in 1998. I also hold a
`
`Master’s Degree in electrical engineering and computer science from MIT,
`
`awarded in 1991, and two Bachelor’s degrees (the first in electrical engineering
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`and computer science and the second in physics) also from MIT, awarded in 1989
`
`and 1990, respectively.
`
`6.
`
`I have approximately 25 years of work experience related to topics in
`
`networking, Internet communications, Web development, and Internet advertising.
`
`I am currently a technical consultant specializing in Social Networking, Web 2.0,
`
`Web Site Development, Data Networking, Optical Networking,
`
`Telecommunications, Media Streaming and Voice over IP.
`
`7.
`
`I have extensive experience with Web programming and
`
`advertisement technologies in particular. From 1994-1996, I was the founder and
`
`CEO of Agora Technology Group, where I conceived and oversaw development of
`
`targeted advertising-supported web sites. From 1997-1999, I was a Software
`
`Engineer and Senior Scientist and Engineer for NBX (acquired by 3Com), where I
`
`worked on IP telephony (telephony using Internet protocol). From 1999-2004, I
`
`worked for Teradyne and later its spinout (Empirix). During this period, I held the
`
`position of Chief Technologist, Engineering Manager, of the Web Application Test
`
`Group. In that position, I was the Chief Architect for all Web testing products, re-
`
`architected the core testing product, and helped write a JavaScript interpreter.
`
`8.
`
`In 2006, I was the Vice President of Operations and Technology for
`
`PodZinger Inc. There, I upgraded the capability of a consumer-facing search site
`
`and redeployed a web site from the company to a co-location facility. I was also
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`responsible for evaluating advertisement models of revenue. From 2007-2008, I
`
`was Vice President of Technology for the Delta Division of BBN Technologies,
`
`where I oversaw the development and deployment of a new fully-featured social
`
`networking web site. From 2008-2009, I was the Chief Technology Officer for
`
`Eons. With Eons, I integrated a product I created at BBN that Eons acquired. I
`
`integrated the product into the Eons social networking platform. I also helped
`
`evaluate advertisement platform offerings and brought the “Boom Network”
`
`advertising network to market.
`
`9. My qualifications and publications are set forth more fully in my
`
`curriculum vitae, attached as Ex. 1003.
`
`IV. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE RELEVANT LAW
`A. Claim Construction
` I understand that a claim in an inter partes review is to be interpreted
`10.
`
`according to standards applied by district courts. First, the language of the claims
`
`themselves is of primary importance in the effort to determine precisely what it is
`
`that is patented. The terms used in a claim are generally given the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning that the terms would have to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in question at the time of the alleged invention, unless the term is expressly
`
`defined in the patent. The person of ordinary skill in the art reads the claim in the
`
`context of the entire patent, including the specification. Next to the language of
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`the claims, the specification is the single best source for interpreting the claim
`
`terms. The claims may also be interpreted using the record of correspondence
`
`between the patent applicant and the Patent Office, and also with reference to other
`
`sources of evidence that can help to define the meaning of terms to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant time frame. I define the relevant time frame in ¶68,
`
`below.
`
`B. Anticipation
` I understand that a claim in an issued patent can be invalid if it is
`11.
`
`anticipated. In this case, “anticipation” means that there is a single prior art
`
`reference that discloses every element of the claim, arranged in the way required
`
`by the claim.
`
`12.
`
` I understand that an anticipating prior art reference must disclose
`
`each of the claim elements expressly or inherently. I understand that “inherent”
`
`disclosure means that the claim element, although not expressly described by the
`
`prior art reference, must necessarily be present based on the disclosure. I
`
`understand that a mere probability that the element is present is not sufficient to
`
`qualify as “inherent disclosure”.
`
`C. Obviousness
` I understand that a claim in an issued patent can be invalid if it is
`13.
`
`obvious. Unlike anticipation, obviousness does not require that every element of
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`the claim be in a single prior art reference. Instead, it is possible for claim
`
`elements to be described in different prior art references, so long as there is
`
`motivation or sufficient reasoning to combine the references.
`
`14.
`
` I understand that a claim is invalid for obviousness if the differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the alleged invention was
`
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
`
`pertains.
`
`15.
`
` I understand, therefore, that when evaluating obviousness, one must
`
`consider obviousness of the claim “as a whole”. This consideration must be from
`
`the perspective of the person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, and that such
`
`perspective must be considered as of the “time the invention was made”.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
` The level of ordinary skill in the art is discussed in ¶69 below.
`
` The relevant time frame for obviousness, the “time the invention was
`
`made”, is discussed in ¶68, below.
`
`18.
`
` I understand that in considering the obviousness of a claim, one must
`
`consider four things. These include the scope and content of the prior art, the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time, the differences between the prior art
`
`and the claim, and any “secondary considerations”. I understand that these four
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`things were specified by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case called Graham v. John
`
`Deere, and are therefore called the “Graham factors”.
`
`19.
`
` I understand that “secondary considerations” include real-world
`
`evidence that can tend to make a conclusion of obviousness either more probable
`
`or less probable. For example, the commercial success of a product embodying a
`
`claim of the patent could provide evidence tending to show that the claimed
`
`invention is not obvious. In order to understand the strength of the evidence, one
`
`would want to know whether the commercial success is traceable to a certain
`
`aspect of the claim not disclosed in a single prior art reference (i.e., whether there
`
`is a causal “nexus” to the claim language). One would also want to know how the
`
`market reacted to disclosure of the invention, and whether commercial success
`
`might be traceable to things other than innovation, for example the market power
`
`of the seller, an advertising campaign, or the existence of a complex system having
`
`many features beyond the claims that might be desirable to a consumer. One
`
`would also want to know how the product compared to similar products not
`
`embodying the claim. I understand that commercial success evidence should be
`
`reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claim, but that it is not necessary
`
`for a commercial product to embody the full scope of the claim.
`
`20.
`
` Other kinds of secondary considerations are possible. For example,
`
`evidence that the relevant field had a long-established, unsolved problem or need
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`that was later provided by the claimed invention could be indicative of non-
`
`obviousness. Evidence that others had tried, but failed to make an aspect of the
`
`claim might indicate that the art lacked the requisite skill to do so. Evidence of
`
`copying of the patent owner’s products before the patent was published might also
`
`indicate that its approach to solving a particular problem was not obvious.
`
`Evidence that the art recognized the value of products embodying a claim, for
`
`example, by praising the named inventors’ work, might tend to show that the claim
`
`was non-obvious.
`
`21.
`
` I further understand that prior art references can be combined where
`
`there is an express or implied rationale to do so. Such a rationale might include an
`
`expected advantage to be obtained, or might be implied under the circumstances.
`
`For example, a claim is likely obvious if design needs or market pressures existing
`
`in the prior art make it natural for one or more known components to be combined,
`
`where each component continues to function in the expected manner when
`
`combined (i.e., when there are no unpredictable results). A claim is also likely
`
`invalid where it is the combination of a known base system with a known
`
`technique that can be applied to the base system without an unpredictable result.
`
`In these cases, the combination must be within the capabilities of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`22.
`
` I understand that when considering obviousness, one must not refer
`
`to teachings in the specification of the patent itself. One can, however, refer to
`
`portions of the specification admitted to be prior art, including the “Background”
`
`section. Furthermore, a lack of discussion in the patent specification concerning
`
`how to implement a disclosed technique can support an inference that the ability to
`
`implement the technique was within the ordinary skill in the prior art.
`
`V. TECHNICAL INTRODUCTION
`I have reviewed the ’074 patent. It is largely directed to a known
`23.
`
`business method, namely that of automating the process of enrolling customers in
`
`subscriptions using prefilled and preaddressed messages. To do this, the ’074
`
`patent claims the use of known web advertising technology in conjunction with its
`
`business method.
`
`24. By the time the first application leading to the ’074 patent was filed
`
`on May 26, 2017, smartphones had been in widespread use for nearly a decade.
`
`With the rise of smartphone use, text-based messaging (e.g., “SMS” messaging)
`
`became a primary form of communication. This form of communication was
`
`naturally adopted by advertisers, who wanted to send advertising texts to
`
`consumers. Advertising texts, however, could be subject to legal restrictions,
`
`contractual restrictions or standards that require or recommend that an advertiser
`
`first obtain a user’s consent prior to sending advertising texts. (Ex 1001, 6:49-57).
`
`13
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`25. For example, I refer to the Mobile Marketing Association’s 2012
`
`publication entitled “U.S. Consumer Best Practices for Messaging”. (Ex. 1028).
`
`This document states that it “is a compilation of accepted industry practices,
`
`common wireless carrier policies, and regulatory guidance that have been agreed
`
`upon by representative member companies from all parts of the off-deck
`
`ecosystem.” (Ex. 1028, p. 004). The document provides guidance (in 2012)
`
`concerning the need to obtain consent and proof of possession of a mobile device
`
`prior to sending marketing text messages. (Ex. 1028, pp. 008-009). The portion of
`
`table 1.4 shown at the bottom of page 008 is reproduced here:
`
`
`(Ex. 1028, p. 008, Table 1.4). This table provides opt-in guidelines for short code
`
`SMS marketing messages, which are messages to a short code number, rather than
`
`a standard ten-digit telephone number. The guidelines state (1.4-4) that when opt-
`
`in occurs “via the web or other non-mobile point of origination”, then the content
`
`provider must verify that the subscriber is in possession of the handset (smartphone)
`
`14
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`being opt-into. In other words, if someone fills in a web form that signs a phone
`
`number up for marketing messages, the marketer must separately verify that the
`
`owner of the phone actually wants to receive the messages. This was usually done
`
`by sending a confirming text, and asking the user to respond with “y” or “n” to opt-
`
`in. However, this confirming text is not necessary where there is a mobile point of
`
`origin—i.e., where a user does not sign up with a web form, but rather by sending a
`
`text message to the marketer in the first instance. In that case, the marketer receives
`
`the opt-in communication directly from the user’s phone, which also serves as proof
`
`that the user possesses the device for which marketing communications are
`
`requested. For example, such a text message might be sent in response to a “call to
`
`action” or “CTA” (see 1.4-6). A CTA could be an advertisement, as shown on page
`
`016 of the document:
`
`26. Thus, in 2012, five years before the filing of the first application
`
`leading to the ’074 patent, it was already industry-standard to have advertisements
`
`that asked a user to send a text message to a marketing company, and to have the
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`text message serve as both an opt-in communication and proof that the user
`
`possessed the mobile device with the phone number for which marketing messages
`
`were solicited. This is already a short step to the teachings of the ’074 patent.
`
`27. The ’074 patent uses a similar “call to action” in the form of web-
`
`based advertisements. But instead of encouraging a user to text an opt-in message
`
`to a certain telephone number, the advertisement encourages a user to click on a
`
`link. (Ex. 1001, 6:27-34). Clicking the link from a mobile device causes the
`
`device’s text-messaging app to open. (Ex. 1001, 6:27-45). Upon opening, the
`
`text-messaging app presents the user with a pre-filled text message. (Ex. 1001,
`
`6:41-45). The pre-filled text message provides both a destination telephone
`
`number and a message body, such that the user need only click “send” to send the
`
`text. (Ex. 1001, 6:45-57). When sent (to a designated server), the text message
`
`signs a user up for a promotion, such as a further promotional message. (Id.).
`
`28. The process is shown in Figs. 2A and 2B of the ’074 patent,
`
`reproduced here:
`
`16
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, Figs. 2A-2B). Figure 2A on the left shows a mobile device screen 201,
`
`with an ad 202. (Ex. 1001, 6:58-7:41). The ad 202 has a clickable link 203. (Id.).
`
`When the consumer clicks the link, the device opens the text-messaging app (Fig.
`
`2B), which has a pre-filled destination number 214 and a pre-filled body 213. (Id.).
`
`The user need only click the send button (212) to send the text and sign up to receive
`
`marketing texts. (Id.). In this way, the user only needs to take two actions to sign
`
`up: clicking the link 203 in the ad, and then clicking the send button 212 in the text-
`
`messaging app. (Ex. 1001, 6:58-7:41). Because only two user actions are required,
`
`the ’074 patent refers to this approach as a “two-tap” approach. (Ex. 1001, 2:33-37,
`
`17
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`6:53-57).
`
`29.
`
`I understand that the Patent Owner considered this “two-tap” method
`
`to be the point of novelty for the ’074 patent. (Ex. 1014, p. 2). The ’074 patent
`
`states that
`
`“Known methods allow a user to open a vendor’s application or a
`vendor’s website on a mobile device to select a product or service.
`The user can then provide payment information via the vendor’s
`application or website to complete a transaction with the vendor.
`With these known methods, however, the user often pauses its
`previous activities (e.g., viewing a website, reading an email) on the
`mobile device and is redirected to the vendor’s application or website
`to purchase the products and services via many user input (e.g.,
`clicks, or screen taps). This time-consuming and burdensome
`process results in many users leaving the purchase before the
`transaction is completed.”
`
`(Ex. 1001, 1:20-43). The “two-tap” approach allegedly avoided potential mistakes
`
`in typing a text message and provided a record of consent with a single message.
`
`(Ex. 1014, p. 2).
`
`30. Based on my review of the prior art, however, it is clear that the
`
`Patent Owner was not the first to employ a “two-tap” method. Even in the patent
`
`literature, there are several examples of two-tap methods, as I explain here in the
`
`next few paragraphs:
`
`18
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`Two-tap example: U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2015/0178784 to Oliver (Ex. 1011)
`31. Oliver, which is the subject of Ground 1, below, also describes a two-
`
`tap method. Oliver teaches a streamlined method of generating customer leads.
`
`(Ex. 1011, Title, ¶0009). In Oliver, a potential customer interacts with an
`
`advertisement for a business. (Ex. 1011, ¶0034). The advertisement contains
`
`something that the user can interact with (using a mobile device), which Oliver
`
`calls a “passive entity”. (Ex. 1011, Abstract, ¶0007). The “passive entity” is
`
`sometimes a scannable QR code, but Oliver makes clear that a passive entity can
`
`be anything that can store URI information and be activated by a user’s mobile
`
`device. (Ex. 1011, ¶¶0027-0029, 0007, Abstract). The link information that Oliver
`
`encodes in a “passive entity” follows standard URI schemes (e.g., “smsto:”), as
`
`shown in ¶0028 of Oliver, reproduced here:
`
`(Ex. 1011, ¶0028).
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`32.
`
` When the user activates a passive entity containing the smsto: URI (a
`
`first user interaction), the user’s mobile device
`
`creates a pre-populated text message, as shown in
`
`Fig. 2 of Oliver, reproduced again at right. (Ex.
`
`1011, ¶¶0027-0029). If the user then taps the
`
`“send” button on such a message (a second user
`
`interaction), the text will be sent, signing the user
`
`up for a promotion. (Ex. 1011, ¶0007).
`
`33. Oliver explains that limiting the user
`
`actions to two improves the user response process:
`
`“the disclosed principles streamline the response process by
`simply requiring only two actions by the user: the scan or other
`means of activating the passive entity, and the action of sending the
`prepopulated message generated by the activation of the passive
`entity.”
`
`(Ex. 1011, ¶0009)(Emphasis added).
`
`Two-tap example: U.S. Pat. No. 8,532,283 to Haggerty (Ex. 1007)
`34. Haggerty teaches a two-tap method for SMS marketing. Haggerty
`
`teaches a “two-tap” business method similar to that of the ’074 patent. In
`
`Haggerty, a user can interact with an advertisement. (Ex. 1007, 14:41-49). The
`
`interaction can be scanning a QR code, but can also be clicking a hyperlink. (Ex.
`
`20
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`1007, 14:41-49, see also 1:36-62, 2:1-5, 8:51-56, 10:59-11:21, 16:26-31, Fig. 3C,
`
`4G). Once clicked, the link can cause the user’s mobile device to pre-populate an
`
`SMS message. Haggerty states:
`
`“[U]pon reading the QR code using a smart phone, a pre-populated
`text message addressed to the destination address with the contents
`indicated therein is presented to the user, along with a prompt for
`confirmation for sending the message.”
`
`(Ex. 1007, 10:1-5)(Emphasis added). Note that Haggerty teaches that a QR code is
`
`not necessary, and that “[i]n general, any of the actions that may be initiated by a
`
`QR code could also be associated with a link.” (Ex. 1007, 11:19-21)(Emphasis
`
`added). A PHOSITA would understand a “link” to mean a clickable link in a Web
`
`page, implemented, for example, using an HTML anchor tag (<a>) or JavaScript to
`
`open a URI similar to the URIs described in RFC 5724 (Ex. 1019).
`
`35. The pre-populated text message is sent, after confirmation by the user,
`
`to a “call center” for processing, as shown in Fig. 4B. (Ex. 1007, Fig. 4B, 12:39-
`
`47). The “call center” is not limited to handling or dealing with voice calls,
`
`however, and Haggerty also considers an SMS text message to be an “SMS call”.
`
`(Ex. 1007, Figs. 4B-4C, 4:38-56). Upon receiving the SMS text message, the call
`
`center processes the message according to the particular advertising campaign, and
`
`sends a response SMS. (Ex. 1007, 12:39-67). An example message flow is shown
`
`21
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`in Fig. 4B, reproduced below, with yellow highlighting added to show the text
`
`messages:
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1007, Fig. 4B, 12:39-67)(highlighting added).
`
`36.
`
`Just like the ’074 patent, Haggerty teaches a user response to an
`
`advertisement with only two actions: activating a link, and then sending a pre-
`
`populated SMS. (Ex. 1007, 10:1-5, 14:41-49, 1:36-62, 2:1-5, 8:51-56, 10:59-
`
`11:21, 16:26-31, Figs. 3C, 4G). Haggerty further states that its method provides a
`
`22
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`convenient way for a user to respond to an advertisement (Ex. 1007, 1:53-62) with
`
`lowered risk of mistyping information in the SMS (Ex. 1007, 9:48-55).
`
`Two-tap example: U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2015/0142568 To Hsu (Ex. 1013)
`37. Hsu also teaches a two-tap method. In Hsu, a user downloads an ad to
`
`a browser. (Ex. 1013, ¶0031). When the user clicks on the ad, an advertising
`
`server determines whether there is a “landing page” for the ad, and if there is not,
`
`receives user agent data from the mobile device. (Ex. 1013, ¶0032-0038). Using
`
`the user agent data, the server sends a “message launching command” to the
`
`mobile device, which will launch a message app with a pre-populated message and
`
`telephone number. (Ex. 1013, ¶¶0038-0040). Hsu states:
`
`“In this embodiment, the selected message launching command may
`be
`implemented
`using
`program
`syntax
`such
`as:
`smsto:?phonenumber=”0987654321"&body="I am interested in xxx
`product. Please provide detailed information". In the program
`syntax, "phonenumber" is used to place the preset telephone port
`number, and "body" is used to place the preset text, but the present
`disclosure is not limited in this respect. Program syntax of the
`message launching command may vary with the different operating
`systems installed at the mobile devices.”
`
`(Ex. 1013, ¶0040). Hsu further states:
`
`“Accordingly, upon a user trigger (e.g., clicking/ touching) of an
`advertisement displayed by the mobile device 1, messaging function
`that corresponds to the operating system (e.g., iOS, android,
`
`23
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`Windows Phone, etc.) or the brand of the mobile phone (particularly,
`a smart phone) may thus be launched, and a text that corresponds to
`the advertising activity may be loaded from a variety of preset texts.
`The user only needs to trigger a "send" button of the messaging
`interface for expressing interest in the specific product shown in the
`landing page, or in the advertisement displayed by the mobile device
`1. After completion of message transmission, the phone number of
`the user is automatically acquired by the advertising server 2, and the
`relevant information may be provided to the host advertiser 4 for
`subsequent sale activities or services.”
`
`(Ex. 1013, ¶0042).
`
`Two-tap example: U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2009/0247140 to Gupta (Ex. 1017)
`38. Gupta also teaches a “two-tap” method. In Gupta, advertisements can
`
`be paired with “mobile advertisement actions”. (Ex. 1017, ¶0034). As Gupta
`
`states,
`
`“[a] mobile advertisement action may be a clickable interactive
`object embedded in an advertisement, such as a button or a link. The
`mobile advertisement action may represent one or more operations
`that may be performed by a mobile device, such as email, text
`messaging, phone calling, or generally any operation that may be
`performed by a mobile device and may provide may provide [sic]
`enhanced advertising capabilities to a revenue generator A 110A.
`The mobile advertisement action may include data specific to the
`revenue generator A 110A, such as the phone number, address, or
`generally any information specific to the revenue generator A 110A.
`
`24
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`The mobile advertisement action may include a description such as
`‘Click to call,’ ‘Click to SMS,’ ‘Click to coupon,’ ‘Click to
`download,’ ‘Click to survey,’ ‘Click to make reservation,’ ‘Click to
`attend event,’ ‘Click to buy,’ or generally any description that may
`describe the functionality provided by them mobile advertisement
`action.”
`
`(Ex. 1017, ¶0035)(Emphasis added).
`
`39. When a user clicks on a mobile advertisement action, “the service
`
`provider 130 may cause the mobile device of the user AA 120AA to perform the
`
`specified action, such as by providing instructions to the mobile device and causing
`
`the instructions to be executed.” (Ex. 1017, ¶0036). For example, the device may
`
`open a pre-populated text message:
`
`“If the mobile device supports more than one messaging protocol,
`the service provider 130 may attempt to determine a default or
`preferred protocol. At block 425 the service provider 130 may
`determine the messaging address of the