Ex Parte Sun

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 18, 2013

11530853 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SHIJUN SUN
____________________

Appeal 2010-011685
Application 11/530,853
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-011685
Application 11/530,853

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A method for picture up-sampling from a lower
resolution picture to a higher resolution picture said method
comprising:
a) determining a lower resolution picture location
corresponding to a sample position in said higher resolution picture;
b) determining a phase offset position for said lower resolution
picture location, wherein said phase offset position denotes the
position of said lower resolution picture location relative to said
sample position in said higher resolution picture;
c) selecting a first filter coefficient for a first interpolation filter
based on said phase offset position;
d) selecting a second filter coefficient for a second interpolation
filter;
e) selecting a weighting factor to control the relative influence
of said first interpolation filter and said second interpolation filter; and
f) calculating a picture value for said sample position using a
weighted combination of said first interpolation filter and said second
interpolation filter, said weighted combination being controlled by
said weighting factor.

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Breeuwer (US 5,182,645) and
Sun (“Extended Spatial Scalability with Picture-Level Adaptation” Joint
Appeal 2010-011685
Application 11/530,853

3
Video Team (JVT) of ISO/IEC MPEG & ITU-T VCEG (ISO/IEC
JTC1/SC29/WG11 and ITU-T SG16 Q.6) 15th Meeting: Busan, KR, Apr.
16-22, 2005).
Appellant’s Contention
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), because:
Breeuwer et al teaches a method for splitting an
interlaced high-definition television signal into parts including
an interlaced TV signal having a lower definition. This is
performed using a series of quadrature mirror filters. The
process of Breeuwer et al reduces the resolution of the signal by
one half. The filters used in the method of Breeuwer et al split
the image into a lower spatial frequency range and higher
spatial frequency range with each range having half the total
bandwidth (col. 3, lines 5-10). These filters do not have any
relation to a phase offset position related to a position in the
image. Because some of the filters have an odd length and some
have an even length, a delay is introduced to coordinate the
phases of the filters, however, the phase coordination described
in Breeuwer et al is not related to the spatial phase offset
between positions in lower and higher resolution pictures as
claimed in claims 1, 11 and 20.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 comprise an element comprising
"determining a phase offset position for a lower resolution
picture location wherein said phase offset position denotes the
position of said lower resolution picture location relative to
said sample position in a higher resolution picture." This
element clearly distinguishes the phase offset position as being
related to a spatial position in a lower resolution picture relative
to the position in a higher resolution picture. This "phase offset"
is clearly very different than the "phase" delay taught in
Breeuwer et al that relates to filter timing and has no
relationship to a position in an image.
(App. Br. 7).
Appeal 2010-011685
Application 11/530,853

4
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-20 as being obvious?

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Appellant’s above contention.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) On this record, claims 1-20 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 is reversed.

REVERSED

msc