Ex Parte SilversteinDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201310982459 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte D. AMNON SILVERSTEIN _____________ Appeal 2010-007621 Application 10/982,459 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and BRYAN F. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-007621 Application 10/982,459 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-26 and 35-40 which represent all the pending claims. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. INVENTION The invention is directed to reduction of blur in a multichannel image by comparing first and second color channels of a high frequency feature in the image to derive information that is missing from the second channel due to the blur; and using the information to adjust the feature in the second channel so that sharpness of the feature is similar in both the first and second channels.. See Spec. 3:3-5. Claim 1 is exemplary of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method of reducing blur in a multi-channel digital image, the method comprising: comparing at least first and second pixels from first and second color channels, respectively, of a high frequency feature in the image to derive information that is missing from the second channel due to the blur; and using the information to adjust the second pixel in the second channel so that sharpness of the feature is similar in both the first and second channels. REFERENCES Edgar US 5,509,086 Apr. 16, 1996 Juenger US 5,778,106 Jul. 7, 1998 Enomoto US 6,323,934 B1 Nov. 27, 2001 Bueno US 2004/0247167 A1 Dec. 9, 2004 Zhang US 6,894,720 B2 May 17, 2005 Katscher US 2006/0013459 A1 Jan. 19, 2006 Appeal 2010-007621 Application 10/982,459 3 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1-2, 13, 20-23, 35-36, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Juenger. Ans. 3-7. Claims 3 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Juenger and Bueno. Ans. 7-8. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Juenger, Bueno, and Zhang. Ans. 8-9. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Juenger, Bueno, and Katscher. Ans. 9. Claims 6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Juenger and Zhang. Ans. 9-11. Claims 10-11, 14-16, 19, 25-26 and 37-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Juenger and Edgar. Ans. 11-14. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Juenger and Enomoto. Ans. 14. Claim 241 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Juenger and well known art. Ans. 14-15. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Juenger, Edgar, and Katscher. Ans. 15. 1 The Examiner refers to claim 23, but this appears to be a typographical error because the analysis is clearly directed at claim 24. Appeal 2010-007621 Application 10/982,459 4 ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that Juenger describes “comparing at least first and second pixels ... to derive information” and “using the information to adjust the second pixel in the second channel” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Appellant argues Juenger fails to disclose the above limitation. App. Br. 10-11. Specifically, Appellant argues that the information, in the form of interpolated pixels, is “not used to adjust the original raw RGB data [,]” thus the second pixel is not adjusted as required by the claims. Id. at 11. This argument is not persuasive. Juenger teaches “interject interpolated image signals in each of the color planes that correspond to the image signal locations left void by the separation step. This now forms a triplet for each color location in the image. Previously, a single pixel location would contain only information on one color, red for example.” Juenger, 4:10-16. Therefore, a pixel can be defined as both the original pixel location as well as each “pixel” of the triplet. Each color pixel within the triplet is linearly interpolated such that each pixel, i.e. Red (“R”), Blue (“B”), and Green (“G”), has three color channels also representing Red, Blue and Green. Juenger, Fig. 2A, 2B; 6:10-17, 33-47. Thus, R (or R1 if there are multiple Red pixels such as R1, R2, and R3) represents the red channel of the red pixel, r´ represents the green channel of the red pixel, and r´´ represents the blue channel of the red pixel. Juenger then teaches that a first pixel R1 and a second pixel G1 are compared to and filtered generate a difference (R-G)´. Juenger, 7:42-50. Appeal 2010-007621 Application 10/982,459 5 Juenger then teaches that the original pixel G is reconstructed using the following formulas: R@R=R; R@G=G+(R-G)´; R@B=B-(B-G)´+(R-G)´ (where R@G means the red channel of the green pixel). Juenger, 7:51-8:3. The Examiner finds that “first pixel from first color channel” corresponds to the R1 pixel (the entire pixel with each of the three channels) with the red color channel and the “second pixel from second color channel” corresponds to G1 pixel with the green color channel. The Examiner refers to the R1 pixel which has a red, blue, and green channel. Then the Examiner finds that using the formula above the second pixel, i.e., the G1 pixel is adjusted in the red channel. Claim 1 recites adjusting the second pixel “in the second channel.” In this case the G1 green pixel, second pixel, is adjusted in the red channel, second channel. Appellant appears to argue that the G1 “pixel” must refer to only the portion of the green pixel that is in the green channel. Reply Br. 2- 3. We conclude that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “second pixel” includes the entire green pixel. Therefore, we find ample support for the Examiner’s findings. As noted above, Appellant does not substantively argue the rejection of claims 2-26 and 35-40. Thus, for the reasons stated above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-26 and 35-40. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-26 and 35-40 is affirmed. 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 Appeal 2010-007621 Application 10/982,459 6 msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation