Ex Parte Shaked

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 3, 2009

10675944 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 3, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DORON SHAKED
____________

Appeal 2009-004911
Application 10/675,944
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: December 3, 2009
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, THOMAS S. HAHN,
CARL W. WHITEHEAD, Jr., Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134 from the final
rejection of claims 1 to 3, 14, 15, and 23. We will reverse.
The disclosed invention relates to a color vision correction apparatus
using Retinex-type algorithms (Spec. 1:3-4). In Retinex-type processing a
perceived image S is equal to a reflectance R multiplied by an illumination L
(S=R*L), and the illumination L can be estimated from an input image S
Appeal 2009-004911
Application 10/675,944

2
(Spec. 1:25-32). Appellant claims and discloses a Retinex-type image
processing method and apparatus (claims 1 and 14). The apparatus includes
(i) a down-sampling module to produce sub-sampled images of an input
image, (ii) a non-linear illumination estimation module producing an interim
illumination estimation, and (iii) an up-sampling module that receives the
input image and the interim illumination estimation and estimates a final
illumination (Figs. 1, 2; claim 1; Spec. 5:26-6:33; Abstract).
Claims 1 and 14 are representative of the claims on appeal, and read
as follows:
1. An apparatus for speeding up Retinex-type processing of an input
image, comprising:
a down-sampling module configured to produce one or more sub-
sampled images of the input image;
a non-linear illumination estimation module that receives the sub-
sampled images and produces corresponding interim illumination
estimations;
an up-sampling module configured to receive the input image and to
interpolate the interim illumination estimations to produce an illumination
estimation by using the input image as a guide in the interpolation, and
wherein the illumination estimation is usable to perform a Retinex-type
correction to the input image.
14. A method for speeding up Retinex processing of a high resolution
input image, comprising:
producing one or more low resolution input images by sub-sampling
the high resolution input image;
generating an interim illumination estimation for each of the one or
more low resolution input images;
Appeal 2009-004911
Application 10/675,944

3
generating an illumination estimation suitable for Retinex-type
correction by up-sampling the interim illumination estimations, wherein
generating the illumination estimation comprises combining the input image
and the interim illumination estimations; and
producing a Retinex-corrected output from the combined input image
and the illumination estimation.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Sakatani US 2004/0091164 A1 May 13, 2004
Kimmel WO 02/089062 A2 Nov. 7, 2002
Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (APA), Figure 2 of the Drawings,
Specification at pages 2 and 3

The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 3, 14, 15, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Kimmel, APA, and Sakatani.
Kimmel describes a non-linear iterative illumination estimation
module (Fig. 2; Log 102, iterative estimator 104, summer 108, and Exp 110;
p. 3, ll. 19-27).
APA describes and shows a down-sampling module 32, a linear
illumination estimation module 30, an up-sampling module 34, and an
illumination manipulation module 20 for receiving an input image S
interpolating a reflectance R based on the illumination estimation L´´ (Fig.
2).
Sakatani describes a Retinex image processing program and device
that performs down-sampling (i.e., lowering an image resolution) of an
original input image to produce a blurred image (¶¶ [0114]-[0118]).
Appeal 2009-004911
Application 10/675,944

4
The Examiner acknowledges (Ans. 4) that “Kimmel does not
explicitly disclose a down-sampling module, an up-sampling module, and an
illumination manipulation module.” The Examiner relies on APA as
disclosing a down-sampling module, up-sampling module, and an
illumination manipulation module.
The Examiner then cites Sakatani for a disclosure that “the resolution
of the blurred image produced by the formula (7) is changed to match with
the resolution of the original image Ii (x, y) by interpolation” (¶ [0118]; Ans.
6); and cites page 3 of APA as disclosing that a high resolution input image
S is used to select output pixels when interpolation is performed on a low
resolution intermediate image (Ans. 6).
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner contends (Ans. 6) that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to have an upsampling
module that uses the input image as a guide in the interpolation for the
benefit of performing Retinex type processing as taught by both the admitted
prior art and Sakatani.” With respect to claim 14, the Examiner contends
(Ans. 7) that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
“to generate the illumination estimation by combining the input image and
the interim illumination estimations for the benefit of performing Retinex
type processing as taught by both the admitted prior art and Sakatani.”
Appellant argues inter alia (App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 8-9), that the
skilled artisan would not have made the modification suggested by the
Examiner because neither APA nor Sakatani discloses or suggests an up-
sampling module that receives an input image and uses the input image to
Appeal 2009-004911
Application 10/675,944

5
interpolate interim illumination estimations to produce an illumination
estimation, as set forth in apparatus claim 1.
Appellant also argues inter alia (App. Br. 14-15; Reply Br. 11-12),
that the skilled artisan would not have made the modification suggested by
the Examiner because neither APA nor Sakatani discloses or suggests
generating the illumination estimation by combining the input image and the
interim illumination estimations, as set forth in method claim 14.
As indicated supra, neither APA nor Sakatani discloses using a high
resolution input image as a guide or input at the up-sampling module. At
most APA discloses using the input image in the illumination manipulation
module 20, but this input is at the illumination estimation stage after the
interim illumination estimation and up-sampling have already occurred (see
Fig. 2). And, although Sakatani may match resolution of a blurred image to
an input image using interpolation, there is no disclosure or suggestion in
Sakatani that the input image is applied at an up-sampling stage of a Retinex
process such as in APA.
We agree with Appellant (Reply Br. 8) that the Examiner’s citation of
page 3 of APA (see Ans. 6), for a disclosure of a high resolution input image
S being used to select output pixels when interpolation is performed,
pertains to illumination manipulation module 20 and not to the up-sampling
module 34. We agree with Appellant (Reply Br. 9) that the Examiner’s
statement that APA “does not preclude an engineer or ordinary skill in the
art from using the original image as a guide in the interpolation performed
by the up-sampling module 34, as taught by Sakatani in paragraph 117”
(Ans. 11) is confusing. As a result, we agree with Appellant’s contentions
Appeal 2009-004911
Application 10/675,944

6
(App. 12-15; Reply Br. 8-12) that neither APA nor Sakatani discloses or
suggests using a high resolution input image as a guide or input at the up-
sampling module as set forth in claims 1 and 14.
The Examiner’s “articulated reasoning . . . in the rejection must
possess a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In the
instant case, the Examiner has not provided a rational underpinning showing
that either APA or Sakatani discloses or suggests the feature missing from
Kimmel of using an input image in the up-sampling module or process of
generating an illumination estimate.
Thus, we agree with the Appellant’s argument that the skilled artisan
would not have combined the teachings of the applied references to arrive at
the claimed invention. In summary, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 to
3, 14, 15, and 23 is reversed because the Examiner’s articulated reasons for
combining the teachings of the references to Kimmel, APA, and Sakatani do
not support a legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED
KIS

HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
PO BOX 272400
3404 E. HARMONY ROAD
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
FORT COLLINS, CO 80527-2400