Ex Parte Maclnnis

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 30, 2012

11270999 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ALEXANDER MACLNNIS
____________________
Appeal 2010-004737
Application 11/270,9991
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before: MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Broadcom Corporation.
Appeal 2010-004737
Application 11/270,999

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant(s) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ invention concerns a system and method for vertical
gradient detection in video processing. Video information may be processed
by calculating an estimate of a vertical gradient of a plurality of vertically
adjacent pixels within a current field. Inter-field motion may be estimated
utilizing a measurement of differences between a plurality of fields. A blend
control value may be generated based at least in part on the calculated at
least one vertical gradient and the calculated two-field difference (Spec. 6).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for processing video information, the method
comprising:

calculating at least one vertical gradient of a plurality of
adjacent pixels within a current field;

calculating a two-field difference between a plurality of
pixels within a first field and a corresponding plurality of pixels
within a second field; and

deinterlacing at least one pixel within said current field
based at least in part on said calculated at least one vertical
gradient and said calculated two-field difference.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Appeal 2010-004737
Application 11/270,999

3
Wredenhagen US 6,788,353 B2 Sep. 7, 2004
Lachine US 7,379,626 B2 May 27, 2008
(Filed Aug. 20, 2004)
Claims 1-4, 7-16, and 19-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Wredenhagen.
Claims 5, 6, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wredenhagen in view of Lachine.

ISSUE
Appellant argues, inter alia, that Wredenhagen does not teach
deinterlacing in the particular manner claimed, i.e., based at least in part on a
calculated vertical gradient and in part on a calculated two-field difference
(App. Br. 6). In particular, Appellant argues, Wredenhagen only generally
discusses deinterlacing, as a prior art technique, and teaches a method for
scaling images to address the “missing” field deficiency resulting from
traditional deinterlacing (App. Br. 7).
Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issue:
Does Wredenhagen teach deinterlacing at least one pixel within a
current field based at least in part on a calculated vertical gradient and a
calculated two-field difference?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and
every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art
reference.” See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
Appeal 2010-004737
Application 11/270,999

4
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1-4, 7-16, AND 19-24
The Examiner finds that Wredenhagen teaches deinterlacing at least
one pixel within a current field, and that Wredenhagen teaches calculating a
two-field difference between a plurality of pixels within a first field and a
corresponding plurality of pixels within a second field (Ans. 3). It is
apparently the Examiner’s position that Wredenhagen’s teaching of
“deinterlacing” per se, taken in combination with Wredenhagen’s teaching
of scaling progressive scanned and computer generated images, amounts to a
teaching of deinterlacing “based at least in part on said calculated at least
one vertical gradient and said calculated two-field difference,” as
independent claims 1 and 13 recite (see Ans. 6-7).
We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding. Rather, we agree with
Appellant, who asserts that Wredenhagen does not disclose any specific
deinterlacing of images (App. Br. 6), and that Wredenhagen is concerned
instead with scaling as a solution for the shortcomings of the two
conventional deinterlacing methods of the prior art (App. Br. 7). We have
reviewed Wredenhagen and while we find a teaching of deinterlacing
generally, we do not find any specific teaching that deinterlacing of at least
one pixel within a current field is based at least in part on a calculated at
least one vertical gradient and a calculated two-field difference.
We find that the Examiner erred in finding that Wredenhagen teaches
all the elements of the claimed invention. We will not sustain the Examiner’s
§ 102 rejection of claims 1-4, 7-16, and 19-24.

Appeal 2010-004737
Application 11/270,999

5
CLAIMS 5, 6, 17, AND 18
As noted supra, we reverse the rejection of independent claims 1 and
13, from which these claims variously depend. We have reviewed Lachine
and find that it does not remedy the deficiencies of Wredenhagen. Therefore,
we will not sustain the §103 rejection of claims 5, 6, 17, and 18, for the same
reasons given supra with respect to the § 102 rejection of claims 1-4, 7-16,
and 19-24.

CONCLUSION
Wredenhagen does not teach deinterlacing at least one pixel within a
current field based at least in part on a calculated vertical gradient and a
calculated two-field difference.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-24 is reversed.

REVERSED

Vsh