Microsoft Corp v. IP Learn Focus LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2015-00095
• Patent #: 8,475,174
• Filed: October 20, 2014
• Petitioner(s): Microsoft Corporation
• Patent Owner(s): IpLearn-Focus, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1, 2, 16-18, 22, 37-42, 48, 55, and 56

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Computer Learning System Responsive to User Attention
• Brief Description: The ’174 patent discloses a method and system for adjusting learning materials presented to a user based on their attention and interest. The system uses a detached sensor to monitor user behaviors, analyzes the sensor data to determine the user's state of concentration, and modifies the presented material accordingly.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Hutchinson - Claims 1, 22, 37, 38, 40-42, 48, 55, and 56 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) by Hutchinson.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Hutchinson (a 1989 article titled "Human-Computer Interaction Using Eye-Gaze Input").
• Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that Hutchinson, which discloses a computer workstation controlled by a user's eye-gaze, teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. The system was designed to allow severely handicapped individuals to control a computer, including running programs and reading text, solely with their eyes.
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Hutchinson discloses a computer-implemented method using a display with multiple viewable windows ("menu boxes"). The system acquires data on a user's volitional input (eye-gaze direction) via a detached imaging sensor (an infrared camera) that senses a physical attribute (the user's eye). A computer workstation analyzes this data to determine if the user is paying attention to materials in a specific window and adjusts the display if attention shifts to another window (e.g., selecting a command to turn a page). This was argued to meet all limitations of independent claim 1. For system claim 22, Hutchinson was shown to disclose a controller that uses a rule regarding the speed of eye movement (a gaze fixed for two to three seconds) to analyze behavior. For claims 37 and 55, Petitioner argued Hutchinson teaches a distinct calibration "session" to map eye-gaze locations before a normal use "session."

Ground 2: Anticipation by Black - Claims 1, 2, 16-18, and 22 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) by Black.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Black (Patent 5,774,591).
• Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner contended that Black, which discloses a system for tracking human head and facial features to recognize expressions and gestures, fully anticipates a subset of the challenged claims. Black's system uses this information for human-computer interaction, including determining a user's level of attention.
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Black teaches a method where a detached camera senses a user's head and eye motions to detect which window on a screen the user is looking at. This data is analyzed to determine the user's focus, and Black explicitly describes using this for "attention-dependent processing." An exemplary application cited was educational software that "automatically tailor[s] the presentation of the material to each student's attention level and interests," which allegedly meets the limitations of claim 1. For claim 16, Black was shown to disclose using a second sensor type, such as a voice recognition system. For claim 22, Petitioner asserted that Black's gesture recognition, which requires a "relatively long pause" (near-zero speed) between head motions, satisfies the limitation of using a rule regarding speed.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Black in view of Garwin - Claims 37-42, 48, 55, and 56 are obvious over Black in view of Garwin.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Black (Patent 5,774,591) and Garwin (European Patent Publication No. EP0055338).
• Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that while Black discloses the core attention-tracking system, Garwin teaches a specific calibration method that, when combined with Black, renders the calibration-focused claims obvious. Garwin describes an eye-gaze-operated computer interface that requires calibration.
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Garwin explicitly discloses a calibration "session" where reference data is captured and stored "along with the identity of the subject." This user-specific calibration data is then compared with measurements from a subsequent "normal operation session" to determine gaze direction. Combining Garwin's user-specific calibration with Black's attention-dependent display adjustment system would result in the system claimed in claims 37 and 55.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references because both relate to human-computer interfaces using cameras to track user gaze or head position. Black expressly suggests its system could be used for gaze detection, which would have directed a POSITA to prior art in that specific field, such as Garwin. A POSITA would incorporate Garwin’s known user-specific calibration techniques to improve the accuracy and functionality of a system like Black's.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known technique (user-specific calibration from Garwin) to improve a similar system (the attention-tracking system of Black), leading to a high expectation of success.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted that claims 1, 2, 22, 37, 38, 40-42, 48, 55, and 56 are also obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Hutchinson alone as a fallback position to the anticipation argument.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

Petitioner proposed constructions for several terms, arguing they reflect the broadest reasonable interpretation.

• "session": Construed as "a period or term devoted to a particular activity." This construction was argued as critical for the anticipation arguments over Hutchinson and Garwin, distinguishing a "calibration session" from a subsequent "working session."
• "electronically linked to an identity of the user": Construed as "connected to an identity of the user via electronic means," where "identity" means the "condition or character as to who or what a person or thing is." This was important for showing that Garwin's storing of calibration coefficients "along with the identity of the subject" met this limitation.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 2, 16-18, 22, 37-42, 48, 55, and 56 of the ’174 patent as unpatentable.