They are really talking about this patent?
Because how is this even relevant to an upscale tech
It's describing image reconstruction - which is what every upscaler also does. It 'is' a functional superset (patent is generalized to reconstructing 'any' type of gaps - not just the ordered grid you get from eg. 1080p->2160p upscales) but to say the two aren't in closely-related solution space would be disingenuous.
However...
1) The patent is concerned with a particular reconstruction needs - and indeed - not really resolution upscales (and definitely not AA, which the popular upscalers also perform). What I read in the patent - this was targeted at VR (specifically wireless/remote rendered). Basically what a few other posters mentioned above.
2) DF for some reason looked at it as 'the' resolution upscaling patent - which it's clearly not. And it's very clearly not a derivation of CBR either.
With that in mind - regarding things DF stated:
-2x upscaling vs 4x with DLSS
Nothing in the patent is suggesting reconstruction of 2x (or CB or even rectangular grid). It actually implies reconstructing arbitrary sized blocks (which is relevant for the VR usecase more so than upscaling, but it applies either way).
Also - CBR was never limited to 2x - it was just the ratio chosen at the time that gave best IQ/perf tradeoff. In fact - 4x CBR is basically identical to standard 4x upscaler just with added benefit of ID/depth buffer at full resolution (so slightly more expensive to render).
-First flowchart sounds a lot like checkerboarding
So would any other upscaler if you broke it down into a similar flow-chart. Basically this is 'reader sees what they want to see' thing.
-Patent sounds like a "grab bag of different buzzwords"
That's just standard patent language. I thought DF would have been familiar with that by now.