Ex Parte Lim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2013

11064128 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SUK HWAN LIM and D. AMNON SILVERSTEIN
____________________

Appeal 2011-001534
Application 11/064,128
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001534
Application 11/064,128

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19, 20, and 24-26. Claims 4, 11, and 18 have been
canceled, and claims 21-23 are indicated as containing allowable subject
matter. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to the field of digital
imaging, and more specifically, to deblurring an image (Spec. 1, ll. 3-5)

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method, comprising:

capturing a first image;

capturing a second image, wherein said second image is
more blurred and more exposed than said first image;

generating a blur kernel based on said first image and
said second image, wherein the blur kernel models blur in said
second image; and

deblurring said second image with said blur kernel based
on said first image.

C. REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:

Appeal 2011-001534
Application 11/064,128

3
Clark US Patent 4,720,637 Jan. 19, 1988
Larkin US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2001/0021224 A1 Sep. 13, 2001

D. REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 12-16, 19, 20, and 24-26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Larkin.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Larkin in view of Clark.

II. ISSUES
The issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in finding
that Larkin discloses “generating a blur kernel based on said first image and
said second image” and “deblurring said second image with said blur kernel
based on said first image” (Claim 1).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Larkin
1. Larkin discloses generating an error function as a function of a
first blurred image and a second blurred image (p. 1, [0016]).
2. Once the blur parameters have been estimated from the two
sub-frame images, a new, de-blurred image is generated (p. 11, [0174]).

Appeal 2011-001534
Application 11/064,128

4
IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 12-16, 19, 20 and 24-26
With respect to claim 1, Appellants contend that “Larkin does not
expressly nor inherently disclose ‘deblurring said second image with said
blur kernel based on said first image’” (App. Br. 4). Although Appellants
concede that Larkin discloses a new de-blurred image generated once blur
parameters have been estimated , Appellants argue that there is “no basis for
the Examiner’s assumption that this disclosure means that that the second
image g2 is deblured with a blur kernel based on the first image g1” (App.
Br. 6).
However, the Examiner finds that, in Larkin, “blur images are…
processed to determine motion parameters across the pair of images” and
then “motion parameters may then be associated with one of the images,
usually the second of the two, to provide an image with corresponding
motion parameters obtained during the generation of the (second) image”
(Ans. 10, emphasis omitted). The Examiner concludes that “[w]ith a
broadest interpretation, blur parameters comprising auto-correlation and
cross-correlation are equivalent to said blur kernel” and thus finds that
“Larkin discloses that the second image is DEBLURED with said blur
kernel based on the first image” (Ans. 12). That is, the Examiner finds that
“Larkin discloses deblurring said second image with said blur kernel based
on said first image” (id.).
We give the phrase “based on” its broadest reasonable interpretation,
consistent with the Specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75
USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Although Appellants argue that there is “no
basis for the Examiner’s assumption that this disclosure means that that the
Appeal 2011-001534
Application 11/064,128

5
second image g2 is deblured with a blur kernel based on the first image g1”
(App. Br. 6), Appellants appear to be arguing that deblurring “based on” an
image requires that the image is directly input to the deblurring function.
However, such argument is not commensurate in scope with the recited
language of claim 1. Contrary to Appellants’ argument, we give “based on
said first image” its broadest interpretation as any application of the first
image to bring about the deblurring.
Larkin discloses generating an error function as a function of a first
blurred image and a second blurred image (FF 1). We find that Larkin
discloses “generating a blur kernel based on said first image and said second
image” as required by claim 1.
Further, the blur parameters from the images are used to generate a
de-blurred image (FF 2). That is, blur parameter estimated from the images,
including the first image, is used to generate a deblurred image. In other
words, the images are deblurred based on blur parameters obtained from
the first and second images. Thus, we find that Larkin discloses deblurring
an image, such as the second image, with a blur kernel based on blur
parameters, and thus based on the images, including the first image.
Accordingly, we find no error with the Examiner’s rejection of claim
1 over Larkin. Appellants do no provide arguments for claims 2, 5-9, 12-16,
19, 20, 25 and 26 separate from those of claim 1 (App. Br. 7-8). Thus,
claims 2, 5-9, 12-16, 19, 20, 25 and 26 fall with claim 1.
As for claim 24, Appellants merely repeat that the Examiner fails to
show how “the summer 10 shown in FIG. 15 is used to modify the image g2
Appeal 2011-001534
Application 11/064,128

6
based on the first image g1” and that “none of the parts of Larkin’s
disclosure cited by the Examiner explains how the blur parameters are used
to generate the new deblurred image” (App. Br. 7).
Contrary to Appellants’ argument that Larkin must describe “how”
parameters are used (App. Br. 7), the claim merely requires that the image is
used, i.e., “based upon” the image in any way. As discussed above with
respect to claim 1, we find no error with the Examiner’s findings that Larkin
discloses using the blurred images.
Accordingly, we find Appellants fail to show error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 24 over Larkin.
Claims 3, 10, and 17
As to claims 10, 20, and 30, Appellants merely argue that “Clark does
not make-up for the failure of Larkin” (App. Br. 110). However, as
discussed above with respect to claim 1, and claim 8 and 15, from which
claims 3, 10, and 17 respectively depend, we find no deficiencies with
respect to Larkin. Accordingly, we find Appellants also fail to show error
in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 10 and 17 over Larkin in further
view of Clark.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-9, 12-16, 19, 20 and
24-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and of claims 3, 10 and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
Appeal 2011-001534
Application 11/064,128

7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Vsh