`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2024-00129
`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.200 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`NOTICE OF THE REAL-PARTIES-IN-INTEREST ............................................... 7
`NOTICE OF RELATED MATTERS ........................................................................ 7
`NOTICE OF SERVICE INFORMATION ................................................................ 7
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................................................................. 7
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .............................................. 8
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ........................ 8
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 8
`A.
`Technical Background ........................................................................... 8
`B.
`Examination History of the ’074 patent. ............................................. 10
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 10
`II.
`III. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY ........................................................................ 11
`Ground 1. Claims 1-30 were obvious over Oliver, Agrawal, and Khanna. ......... 11
`A.
`Prior Art Status .................................................................................... 11
`B.
`Overview of the Ground ...................................................................... 11
`1.
`Overview of Oliver (two-tap method) ...................................... 12
`2.
`Overview of Agrawal (ad network) .......................................... 15
`3.
`Overview of Khanna (mobile-app deeplinking) ....................... 17
`Rationale (Motivation) Supporting Obviousness ................................ 19
`C.
`D. Graham Factors ................................................................................... 23
`E.
`Reasonable Expectation of Success .................................................... 24
`F.
`Analogous Art ..................................................................................... 24
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`G.
`Claim Mapping .................................................................................... 25
`Ground 2. Claims 1-30 were obvious as in Ground 1, in further view of
`Molinet. ............................................................................................... 68
`Prior Art Status .................................................................................... 68
`A.
`Overview of the Ground ...................................................................... 69
`B.
`Overview of Molinet ........................................................................... 69
`C.
`D. Analogous Art ..................................................................................... 69
`E.
`Reasonable Expectation of Success .................................................... 70
`F.
`Claim Mapping .................................................................................... 70
`IV. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................... 73
`V. DISCRETIONARY INSTITUTION ............................................................. 73
`A.
`The Board should not deny the petition under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) ..... 73
`B.
`The Board should not deny the petition under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) ...... 74
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 76
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 77
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ...................................................................... 78
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 11,553,074 (“the ’074 patent”).
`Declaration of Dr. Henry Houh.
`C.V. of Dr. Henry Houh.
`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”).
`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”).
`Plaintiff’s Answering Brief in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion
`to Dismiss Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6) in
`Attentive Mobile Inc. v. Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript, Case, No. 1-
`23-cv-00087 (D. Del., Filed March. 15, 2023).
`File History of U.S. App. Ser. No. 15/986,569 (abandoned).
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`1010
`
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`1014
`
`1015
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`1016
`
`1017
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`Firtman, M., “Programming the Mobile Web, Second Edition”,
`O’Reilly (2013).
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2009/0247140 (“Gupta”).
`Plaintiff’s Preliminary Identification of Terms and Phrases for
`Construction and Preliminary Proposed Constructions, Attentive
`Mobile Inc. v. Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript, Case No. 1-23-cv-
`00087 (D. Del. Served September 29, 2023).
`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/
`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/
`United States District Courts — National Judicial Caseload
`Profile, available at https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/
`files/data_tables/fcms_na_distprofile0630.2023.pdf
`Scheduling Order in in Attentive Mobile Inc. v. Stodge Inc. d/b/a
`Postscript, Case No. 1-23-cv-00087 (D. Del. March 8, 2023).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`1033
`
`1034
`1035
`
`
`
`at
`
`Mobile Marketing Association, “US Consumer Best Practices
`for Messaging”,
`version
`7.0,
`(2012),
`available
`https://www.mmaglobal.com/documents/us-consumer-best-
`practices.
`317 Labs, Inc. d/b/a Emotive’s and Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript’s
`Joint Proposed Claim Terms and Constructions, Attentive Mobile
`Inc. v. Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript, Case No. 1-23-cv-00087 (D.
`Del. Served September 29, 2023).
`available
`Excerpt
`from
`Amazon.com
`https://www.amazon.com/Serving-Technology-Understand-
`revelation-commercialized/dp/1484867572/
`Excerpt
`from Google Books available at https://www.
`google.com/books/edition/Ad_Serving_Technology/PHNHnwE
`ACAAJ?hl=en
`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
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §311 of
`
`claims 1-30 of U.S. Pat. No. 11,553,074 (“the ’074 patent”).
`
`NOTICE OF LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL
`Lead Counsel
`Backup Counsel
`Matthew A. Smith
`Andrew S. Baluch
`Reg. No. 49,003
`Reg. No. 57,503
`SMITH BALUCH LLP
`SMITH BALUCH LLP
`700 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, 2nd Floor
`700 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, 2nd Floor
`Washington, DC 20003
`Washington, DC 20003
`(202) 669-6207
`(202) 880-2397
`smith@smithbaluch.com
`baluch@smithbaluch.com
`
`
`NOTICE OF THE REAL-PARTIES-IN-INTEREST
`The real-party-in-interest for this petition is Stodge, Inc. d/b/a Postscript.
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF RELATED MATTERS
`The ’074 patent has been asserted in the following litigations:
`
`• Attentive Mobile Inc. v. 317 Labs, Inc. d/b/a Emotive, Case No. 1-22-
`
`cv-01163 (D. Del. Filed Sep. 01, 2022).
`
`• Attentive Mobile Inc. v. Stodge Inc. d/b/a Postscript, Case, No. 1-23-
`
`cv-00087 (D. Del. Filed Jan. 25, 2023).
`
`NOTICE OF SERVICE INFORMATION
`Please address all correspondence to the lead counsel at the addresses shown
`
`above.
`
`Petitioner
`
`consents
`
`to
`
`electronic
`
`service
`
`by
`
`email
`
`at:
`
`smith@smithbaluch.com, baluch@smithbaluch.com.
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`Petitioner hereby certifies that the patent for which review is sought is
`
`available for inter partes review, and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped
`
`from requesting an inter partes review on the grounds identified in the petition.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioner respectfully requests that claims 1-30 of the ’074 patent be canceled
`
`based on the following Grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-30 were obvious over Oliver, Agrawal and Khanna.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-30 were obvious as in Ground 1, in view of Molinet.
`
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`The information presented herein, if unrebutted, demonstrates that “it is more
`
`likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`A. Technical Background
`The ’074 patent is directed to a known business method, implemented using
`
`known Internet advertising technology. (Ex. 1002, ¶23). As explained by Dr. Houh
`
`in the attached declaration, the known business method involved a way to obtain a
`
`contact mobile phone number in order to later send marketing text messages. (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶23-40). In the method of the ’074 patent, a mobile phone user views a Web
`
`advertisement in a browser, where the ad has a link. (Ex. 1001, 6:62-7:15)(Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶27-30). Clicking the link opens another mobile app, using known “deeplinking”
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`technology. (Ex. 1001, 8:44-48)(Ex. 1002, ¶¶27-30, 41-46)(citing Ex. 1016, pp.
`
`557-558; Ex. 1013, ¶0040; Ex. 1011, ¶¶0027-0029; Ex. 1020, pp. 009:33-010:33;
`
`Ex. 1010, pp. 015, 021; Ex. 1019, pp. 007-008). This causes a text messaging app
`
`to open, with a pre-filled text message. (Ex. 1001, Figs. 2A-2B, 6:62-7:15)(Ex.
`
`1002, ¶27). By clicking “send” on this pre-filled message, the user can send a text
`
`to the advertiser, which signs the user up for further promotional texts. (Ex. 1001,
`
`6:62-7:15)(Ex. 1002, ¶¶27-28). Because only two actions (clicking a link and
`
`clicking ‘send’) are required, the ’074 patent refers to this method as having two
`
`“taps”. (Ex. 1001, 6:53-57)(Ex. 1002, ¶29). Such “two-tap” business methods were
`
`well-known in the relevant timeframe. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶31-41)(Ex. 1011, ¶¶0029, 0034,
`
`0048, 0007)(Ex. 1007, 10:1-5, 9:48-55, 13:12-18)(Ex. 1013, ¶0042)(Ex. 1017,
`
`¶¶0026, 0069, 0088)(Ex. 1002, ¶¶31-41).
`
`The ads that the user views are, in the ’074 patent, served using standard ad-
`
`network technology. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶47-66). Such “ad networks” worked by placing
`
`small pieces of JavaScript code into webpages. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶47-50). When a user
`
`downloaded the webpage, the code would execute, contacting an advertising server.
`
`The advertising server would send back an ad for display on the webpage. (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶60-65). Because the ad was chosen after the user downloaded the page, the
`
`advertising server could receive information from the mobile device about the
`
`identity of the user and the device, and choose the ad accordingly. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶60-
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`65).
`
`The ’074 patent purports to claim the use of the known business method (pre-
`
`populating a text message to an advertiser to request later marketing texts) with
`
`standard ad-delivery technology, as explained below. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶66-68).
`
`B. Examination History of the ’074 patent.
`During prosecution of the application that issued as the ’074 patent, the
`
`Examiner rejected the claims several times over prior art not pertinent here. (Ex.
`
`1004, pp. 147-101, 269-303). After an interview (Ex. 1004, p. 059) and a thirteen-
`
`page Examiner’s amendment that substantially modified the claims (Ex. 1004, pp.
`
`043-055), the Examiner allowed certain claims, stating
`
`“[t]he known prior art fails to disclose or suggest each and every
`limitation together as claimed. Additionally, the examiner cannot
`determine a reasonable motivation, either in the known prior art or
`the existing case law, to combine the known limitations to render the
`claimed invention.”
`
`(Ex. 1004, p. 55).
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`The parties have exchanged proposed claim constructions in related
`
`litigations. (Exs. 1018, 1029). Petitioner submits that the Board need not construe
`
`any claim terms to consider the prior art presented herein.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`III. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY
`
`Ground 1.
`
`Claims 1-30 were obvious over Oliver, Agrawal, and
`Khanna.
`
`Claims 1-30 were obvious under post-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over U.S. Pat.
`
`App. Pub. 2015/0178784 (“Oliver”)(Ex. 1011) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 8,015,615
`
`(“Agrawal”)(Ex. 1005) and U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2013/0111328 (“Khanna”)(Ex.
`
`1034).
`
`Agrawal and Khanna were not of record during the prosecution of the
`
`application leading to the ’074 patent. Oliver was of record, but was not used in a
`
`rejection. As discussed in §V.A, below, Oliver was used in rejections, and not
`
`overcome, in the parent of the ’074 patent.
`
`A. Prior Art Status
`Oliver, Agrawal, and Khanna are U.S. patent publications with publication
`
`and effective filing dates before May 26, 2017, and are thus prior art under post-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. §§102(a)(1) and (2).
`
`B. Overview of the Ground
`Oliver teaches a “two-tap” method for enrolling users in promotions, where a
`
`single user action opens a pre-filled text message, which then only needs to be sent.
`
`This ground posits that it would have been obvious to implement Oliver’s business
`
`method using well-known ad-serving technology, described in two publications:
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`Agrawal and Khanna. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶74-75).
`
`1. Overview of Oliver (two-tap method)
`Oliver teaches a two-tap method where a consumer accesses a “passive entity”
`
`associated with an advertisement. (Ex. 1011, ¶¶0034, 0007)(Ex. 1002, ¶76). The
`
`“passive entity” is sometimes a scannable QR code, but Oliver makes clear that a
`
`passive entity can be anything that stores link information and is activated by a user’s
`
`mobile device. (Ex. 1011, ¶0007, Abstract)(Ex. 1002, ¶76). Activating the passive
`
`entity creates a pre-populated text message, such as the one shown in Fig. 2 of
`
`Oliver, reproduced below:
`
`
`(Ex. 1011, Fig. 2, ¶¶0027-0029)(Ex. 1002, ¶77). The pre-populated text message is
`
`12
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`created using a link in the passive entity, such as the link shown in ¶0028 of Oliver:
`
`(Ex. 1011, ¶¶0028, see also 0027-0029)(Ex. 1002, ¶77).
`
`Oliver explains—just like the ’074 patent—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)(Ex. 1002, ¶78).
`
`When the message is sent to the server, Oliver teaches that the user receives
`
`responses offering discounts, rewards, incentives, etc., as shown in Fig. 10 of Oliver,
`
`reproduced here with highlighting added:
`
`13
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`(Ex. 1011, Fig. 10, ¶¶0051-0053)(Ex. 1002, ¶79).
`
`While Oliver assumes user interaction with an ad, and teaches that the
`
`advertisement can be on the Internet, Oliver does not concern itself with the
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`technology to deliver ads on the Internet. (See Ex. 1011, ¶¶0008, 0034, 0036, 0077).
`
`This standard technology, however, was disclosed in two Google patent
`
`publications: Agrawal and Khanna. (Ex. 1002, ¶80).
`
`2. Overview of Agrawal (ad network)
`Agrawal describes a known ad-network system. Ad-network systems
`
`(explained by Dr. Houh, Ex. 1002, ¶¶47-65) generally have a central ad-network
`
`server to coordinate activities, advertisers who wish to place ads, publishers who
`
`have websites on which to place ads, and users who download the websites and see
`
`the ads. (Ex. 1002, ¶81). Such a system is shown in Fig. 1 of Agrawal, reproduced
`
`here:
`
`
`(Ex. 1005, Fig. 1, 3:62-35)(Ex. 1002, ¶81). In Fig. 1, the central coordinating server
`
`is the “advertising system 120”. (Ex. 1005, 1:62-65, 10:5-6)(Ex. 1002, ¶81). The
`
`15
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`users are the “client” devices 110, which can be mobile devices. (Ex. 1005, 4:10-
`
`16)(Ex. 1002, ¶81). The various publishers of webpages are represented by servers
`
`130. (Ex. 1005, 4:18-20)(Ex. 1002, ¶81).
`
`In Agrawal’s system, a user will download a webpage. (Ex. 1005, 5:29-32,
`
`3:46-58)(Ex. 1002, ¶82). The webpage has code (e.g., JavaScript) that is executed
`
`when the user’s device loads the webpage. (Ex. 1005, 5:34-39, 3:52-55)(Ex. 1002,
`
`¶82). When this happens, the user’s browser sends to advertising system 120 an “ad
`
`query request”. (Ex. 1005, 5:29-39)(Ex. 1002, ¶82). Along with the ad query
`
`request, the browser sends data about the user and the device to advertising system
`
`120. (Ex. 1005, 5:64-6:46)(Ex. 1002, ¶82). Advertising system 120 stores the user
`
`data, selects one or more ads, and sends the ads back to the browser for display. (Ex.
`
`1005, 5:45-63, 7:54-58)(Ex. 1002, ¶82). The ads will typically have links that the
`
`user can click, as shown in Fig. 4 (links 410) of Agrawal, reproduced here:
`
`16
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1005, Fig. 4, 8:12-37)(Ex. 1002, ¶82).
`
`Agrawal does not teach specifically that its advertising links can be links that
`
`would open mobile apps, but this functionality was provided by another Google
`
`patent publication, Khanna. (Ex. 1002, ¶83).
`
`3. Overview of Khanna (mobile-app deeplinking)
` A natural extension of Agrawal’s ad-network is provided by Khanna. (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶84). Khanna teaches a way to allow mobile-app deeplinking using links in
`
`ads that are served by an ad network (like Agrawal’s). (Ex. 1034, ¶¶0031-0044)(Ex.
`
`1002, ¶84). Like Agrawal’s system, Khanna’s system also has a central server,
`
`called the Advertisement Management System 110 (“AMS 110”), shown in Fig. 1,
`
`reproduced here:
`
`17
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`
`(Ex. 1034, Fig. 1, ¶0031)(Ex. 1002, ¶84). The system also has user devices 106
`
`(e.g., smartphones), which can download “resources” 105 (e.g., websites). (Ex.
`
`1034, ¶¶0033-0035, 0103)(Ex. 1002, ¶84). The websites have advertisement slots
`
`that are intended to be filled with ads. (Ex. 1034, ¶0035)(Ex. 1002, ¶84). When a
`
`user views a webpage on a browser, the webpage—just as in Agrawal—makes a
`
`request to the central server for advertisements to fill the ad slots. (Ex. 1034,
`
`¶0038)(Ex. 1002, ¶84). And just as in Agrawal, the central server sends back a
`
`response with the ads. (Ex. 1034, ¶0040)(Ex. 1002, ¶84).
`
`To this basic ad-network system, Khanna adds mobile-app deeplinking
`
`18
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`capability. (Ex. 1034, Abstract, ¶0025)(Ex. 1002, ¶85). Specifically, Khanna allows
`
`the ads to have links that specify a target mobile app, and a target product. (Ex.
`
`1034, ¶0025)(Ex. 1002, ¶85). The links are generated when the central server selects
`
`an ad. (Ex. 1034, ¶0044)(Ex. 1002, ¶85). The central server uses an application
`
`URL module 120 (shown above in Fig. 1) to generate or modify the linked URL in
`
`the ad such that it will open a target mobile app to a desired starting point relating to
`
`the desired product (the product could be, for example, information about a song and
`
`artist, ¶0051). (Ex. 1034, ¶0044)(Ex. 1002, ¶85). Khanna also provides code on the
`
`client device to check whether the target application is installed (¶¶0028, 0067), and
`
`if so, to carry out the deeplinking function (¶¶0046-0047). (Ex. 1002, ¶85).
`
`C. Rationale (Motivation) for the Combination
`It would have been obvious to implement Oliver’s business method by
`
`presenting links in Web ads, using an ad system such as Agrawal’s, and to augment
`
`the system with Khanna’s techniques to deeplink to mobile applications. (Ex. 1002,
`
`¶86).
`
`First, it was obvious to implement Oliver’s method using the system of
`
`Agrawal (augmented by Khanna). (Ex. 1002, ¶87). Oliver’s method would have
`
`appealed to businesses seeking a streamlined way to acquire contact information for
`
`potential customers, and to acquire the potential customer’s consent to receive
`
`marketing communications and proof of possession of the mobile device. (Ex. 1011,
`
`19
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`¶¶0004-0006, 0009)(Ex. 1002, ¶87).
`
`A Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (“PHOSITA”) would have found
`
`the combination of Oliver with the system of Agrawal/Khanna advantageous. (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶88). Specifically, a PHOSITA would have desired to enhance the reach of
`
`Oliver’s ads by using a Web-advertising system such as Agrawal’s, which targets
`
`ads to users likely to find the subject matter appealing. (Ex. 1005, 5:45-63)(Ex.
`
`1002, ¶88). To make use of Agrawal in Oliver’s business method, a PHOSITA
`
`would have found it obvious to use the concept of mobile app deeplinks that pre-
`
`populated text messages (like Oliver’s) as links (e.g., links 410) in Agrawal’s web
`
`ads. (Ex. 1005, 8:20-44)(Ex. 1011, ¶¶0027-0029)(Ex. 1002, ¶88). Oliver already
`
`suggests this, by stating the “passive entity” that contains the link can be essentially
`
`anything with which a mobile device can interact. (Ex. 1011, Abstract, ¶¶0007,
`
`0035, 0033, 0048)(Ex. 1002, ¶88). Oliver further teaches that passive entities can
`
`be incorporated into advertising (¶0034), can be incorporated into “electronic visual
`
`media” on the Internet, (¶0034), and encode links configured to open a text-
`
`messaging application and pre-populate a text message. (Ex. 1011, ¶¶0027-
`
`0029)(Ex. 1002, ¶88). A PHOSITA would have recognized that Agrawal’s system
`
`provides electronic visual media in the form of advertisements, and advertisements
`
`have links. (Ex. 1005, 8:20-44, Fig. 4, 1:18-26)(Ex. 1002, ¶¶41-46 (explaining
`
`URIs), ¶88). A PHOSITA further would have found Agrawal’s authentication
`
`20
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`system advantageous to carry out Oliver’s express desire to authenticate the user and
`
`impose limits on the user’s access to promotions. (Ex. 1011, ¶0047)(Ex. 1002, ¶88).
`
`Second, it would have been obvious to augment Agrawal’s system with
`
`Khanna. (Ex. 1002, ¶89). Both references arise from the same company1 (Ex. 1005,
`
`Cover)(Ex. 1035), and (as described in §B) both broadly describe similar ad-network
`
`systems having user mobile devices that download webpages from publisher web
`
`sites, send ad requests to a central advertising management server, and receive ads
`
`in response. (Ex. 1002, ¶89).
`
`Both references are intended for use with web-based advertising and teach
`
`targeting responsive ads to the content of a webpage. (Ex. 1005, 5:45-63)(Ex. 1034,
`
`¶¶0044, 0003, 0038-0039)(Ex. 1002, ¶90). Agrawal describes an ad-network server
`
`that provides ads to webpages that can be read on mobile devices. (Ex. 1005, 4:39-
`
`5:2, 5:25-8:12)(Ex. 1002, ¶90). Khanna picks up at this point, operating on ads, to
`
`be incorporated into a webpage for reading on a mobile device, that are served from
`
`a server based on an ad request. (Ex. 1034, ¶¶0031, 0038-0039)(Ex. 1002, ¶90).
`
`Given the common origin of the patents and the natural technological relationship
`
`between the two references, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to extend
`
`
`1 See Ex parte Mettke, Appeal 2008-0610, 2008 Pat. App. LEXIS 6761, *43-*44
`
`(BPAI Sept. 30, 2008).
`
`21
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`Agrawal’s capability with Khanna’s. (Ex. 1002, ¶90). Both Khanna and Agrawal
`
`also express flexibility in the arrangement of the software and the user and server
`
`devices that make up their systems. (Ex. 1034, ¶¶0108, 0122, 0125)(Ex. 1005, 9:65-
`
`10:43, 4:23-35)(Ex. 1002, ¶90).
`
`Additionally, a PHOSITA with Agrawal’s system would have desired the
`
`mobile-app-deeplinking technology of Khanna, because Khanna states that
`
`“[a]llowing publishers or advertisers to create content items that deep-link directly
`
`to the content within their applications may lead to better user experience as well as
`
`create opportunities for the publisher to drive more business.” (Ex. 1034, ¶0025)(Ex.
`
`1002, ¶91). Similarly, a PHOSITA considering Khanna’s system would have
`
`desired to use the system of Agrawal, in order to be able to serve advertisements and
`
`to track users and user interactions with advertisements (Ex. 1005, 1:27-33), as
`
`expressly desired by Khanna (Ex. 1034, ¶¶0043, 0004)(Ex. 1002, ¶91). A PHOSITA
`
`considering Khanna’s system also would also have desired to use the system of
`
`Agrawal, in order to reduce losses caused by malicious activities. (Ex. 1005, 1:34-
`
`58)(Ex. 1002, ¶91).
`
`It also would have been obvious to carry out the server-based software
`
`techniques of Oliver, Khanna, and Agrawal at Agrawal’s advertising system 120
`
`and/or servers 130, and specifically at a single server, as taught by Agrawal. (Ex.
`
`1005, 4:28-35)(Ex. 1002, ¶92). Agrawal teaches that its server functionality can be
`
`22
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`expanded with other server-based functions. (Ex. 1005, 4:15-35, 9:62-10:13)(Ex.
`
`1002, ¶92). Each of Oliver and Khanna, moreover, provides functionality with a
`
`server (like Agrawal’s advertising system), in the form of Khanna’s Advertisement
`
`Management System 110 and Oliver’s Web service 430. (Ex. 1011, ¶0031)(Ex.
`
`1034, ¶¶0031, 0038-0039)(Ex. 1002, ¶92). Oliver requires no specific hardware and
`
`teaches that its functionality can be implemented via a server. (Ex. 1011, ¶0031,
`
`Fig. 9). Oliver, Agrawal, and Khanna all express flexibility in the arrangement of
`
`their systems. (Ex. 1005, 4:8-35, 9:65-10:43, 5:3-21)(Ex. 1011, ¶¶0101, 0031, 0025,
`
`0033, 0036)(Ex. 1034, ¶¶0108, 0120-0122)(Ex. 1002, ¶92). It would have been
`
`obvious to combine the functionalities of these references into a single “server” as
`
`that term is understood in the ’074 patent (Ex. 1001, 4:13-5:47) in order to obtain
`
`the benefits of each system as described above. (Ex. 1002, ¶92).
`
`The combination further would have been obvious under KSR Int’l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417-21 (2007), as the application of known techniques
`
`(Oliver and Khanna), for their known functions, in order to improve Agrawal, with
`
`no unpredictable results. (Ex. 1002, ¶93).
`
`D. Graham Factors
`This discussion of Graham factors applies to all Grounds.
`
`The level of ordinary skill encompassed a person having a Bachelor’s Degree
`
`in computer science and three years of experience in Web-based programming
`
`23
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`methods, where a higher level of education may substitute for experience and vice-
`
`versa. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶71).
`
`The scope and content of the prior art are discussed throughout the Ground.
`
`The differences between the prior art and the claims are discussed above
`
`and in the claim mapping, below.
`
`Secondary considerations are discussed in §IV, below.
`
`E. Reasonable Expectation of Success
`A PHOSITA in the relevant timeframe would have had a reasonable
`
`expectation of success in using the prior art in the manner discussed in this petition.
`
`(Ex. 1002, ¶99). As Dr. Houh explains, the methods of the prior art are implemented
`
`in software, are compatible, and were predictable in the relevant timeframe (May
`
`2017). (Ex. 1002, ¶99). A PHOSITA would have been able to make any necessary
`
`modifications to implement the Ground, and in particular would have been able to
`
`implement Khanna’s and Agrawal’s software techniques together with Oliver’s
`
`teachings. (Ex. 1002, ¶99).
`
`F. Analogous Art
`Oliver, Agrawal, and Khanna are analogous art because they are in the same
`
`field as the ’074 patent (Internet and mobile device technology). (Ex. 1001, 1:20-
`
`25)(Ex. 1011, Abstract, ¶¶0003-0006)(Ex. 1005, Abstract)(Ex. 1034, Abstract)(Ex.
`
`1002, ¶100). Furthermore, the methods of Oliver, Agrawal, and Khanna as
`
`24
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`described above would have been reasonably pertinent to the problems facing the
`
`named inventors, for example, the problems of providing an application deeplinking
`
`system and a more convenient text-message signup process. (Ex. 1001, 1:20-42)(Ex.
`
`1002, ¶100). See Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010)(“The Supreme Court’s decision in KSR [cite omitted], directs us to construe
`
`the scope of analogous art broadly….”).
`
`G. Claim Mapping
`This section maps the challenged claims to the relevant disclosures of the prior
`
`art, where the claim text appears in bold-italics, and the relevant mapping follows
`
`the claim text. Petitioner has added numbering and lettering in brackets (e.g., 1[a],
`
`[1b]) to certain claim limitations, to facilitate the discussion. Each mapping for a
`
`(narrower) dependent claim also applies to the claim limitation of a superior claim
`
`that is being narrowed.
`
`CLAIM 1
`
`“1[a]. A method, comprising:
`
`The combination renders obvious a method comprising the steps outlined
`
`below. (Ex. 1002, ¶102).
`
`“[1b] receiving, from at least one web server, an integration tag
`included in a webpage;”
`
`Agrawal’s client devices request webpages (called “documents”) that contain
`
`25
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`integration tags. (Ex. 1002, ¶103)
`
`(a) receiving, from at least one web server…a webpage
`Agrawal’s client devices 110 (Fig. 1) download webpages (“documents”)
`
`from the Internet. (Ex. 1005, 3:11-12, 3:46-55, 5:29-32)(Ex. 1002, ¶104).
`
`Webpages downloaded from the Internet are obviously downloaded from
`
`“web servers”, because that was standard functioning of the Internet. (Ex. 1002,
`
`¶105). In Agrawal, there are two kinds of web servers disclosed: server(s) 130 and
`
`advertising system 120, shown in Fig. 1 of Agrawal, reproduced below with added
`
`red-dashed boxes:
`
`(Ex. 1005, Fig. 1)(Ex. 1002, ¶105).
`
`Servers 130 are web servers. (Ex. 1005, 3:62-4:35)(see also Ex. 1006, 011:1-
`
`
`
`26
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,553,074
`
`26).2 Specifically, Agrawal teaches that “servers 130 may include server entities
`
`that gather, process, search and/or maintain documents in a manner consistent with
`
`the principles of the invention” (Ex. 1005, 4:18-20), where “a common document is
`
`a web page” (Ex. 1005, 3:51-52). Agrawal’s advertising system 120 is also a web
`
`server. (Ex. 1005, 4:16-35)(“Advertising system 120 may include a server entity
`
`that maintains and provides advertising links.”)(Emphasis added)(Ex. 1002, ¶106).
`
`Agrawal makes clear that the servers 130 and the advertising system 120 can
`
`be combined into a single server. (Ex. 1005, 4:28-35)(Ex. 1002, ¶107). It would
`
`have been obvious to carry out the server-based software techniques of Oliver,
`
`Khanna, and Agrawal at a single server as taught by Agrawal for the reasons set
`
`forth above in the section entitled “Rationale (Motivation) for the Combination”.
`
`(Ex. 1002, ¶107).
`
`(b) integration tag included in a webpage
`The combination renders obvious receiving, from at least one web server, an
`
`integration tag included in a webpage. (Ex. 1002, ¶108). In Agrawal, an
`
`integration tag is code executed by a user’s (client device 110’s) browser when the
`
`
`2 Citations to Ex. 1006 (the incorporated ’900 application) are in the format
`
`{page}:{li