Prior art

As a senior US patent analyst, I have reviewed the prior art cited in the prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. 11,677,798. The following analysis details the most relevant references and their potential impact on the patent's claims, particularly independent claims 1, 9, and 15, under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (Anticipation).

The core, claimed invention of US 11,677,798 involves three main concepts:

1. Segmenting media content into small portions ("streamlets").
2. Encoding each portion into a set of files, where each file represents the same portion at a different bitrate.
3. A distributed encoding system where a "master module" assigns these encoding tasks to multiple "host" computers based on an "encoding job completion bid" from the hosts.

A prior art reference would need to disclose all of these elements to anticipate the claims.

Analysis of Key Prior Art References

Here are the most relevant prior art references and an assessment of the elements they disclose.

---

1. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0103203 A1 (MeLampy et al.)

• Full Citation: US 2004/0103203 A1, "Distributed processing of streaming media." Filed November 21, 2003. Published May 27, 2004.
• Brief Description: MeLampy describes a system for processing streaming media across a distributed network of "service elements" (nodes). A central "management element" directs media processing tasks, such as transcoding a stream into different bitrates, to specific service elements. The selection of a service element is based on factors like server load and defined policies, ensuring efficient resource allocation.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims (1, 9, 15):
  • Teaches segmentation and multiple bitrates: MeLampy explicitly discusses processing and transcoding a "stream of media data" to different bitrates to accommodate varying client bandwidths (see paragraphs,). This aligns with the '798 patent's concept of creating sets of streamlets with unique bitrates.
  • Teaches a master/host architecture: The "management element" in MeLampy acts as a master controller, while the "service elements" function as the host computing modules described in the '798 patent. The management element is responsible for assigning processing jobs to the service elements (paragraph).
  • Teaches job assignment based on host status: MeLampy discloses that the management element selects a service element based on "load information" (paragraph). This is a form of dynamic task assignment based on the current capability of the host.
  • What is missing for anticipation: MeLampy does not explicitly describe the hosts submitting a "bid." The assignment is based on the master module collecting or receiving load information. While functionally similar, the absence of a formal "bid" from the host means MeLampy likely does not fully anticipate the claims under a strict interpretation of § 102. However, it presents a very strong case for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

---

2. U.S. Patent No. 7,487,251 B2 (Cherkasova)

• Full Citation: US 7,487,251 B2, "System and method for resource management of streaming media services on a server cluster." Filed June 29, 2001. Issued February 3, 2009.
• Brief Description: Cherkasova details a system for managing streaming media delivery from a server cluster. A "gatekeeper" module performs admission control, deciding which server node in the cluster should handle a new client streaming request. This decision is based on monitoring the real-time CPU, disk, and network load of each server node to prevent overload and maintain quality of service.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims (1, 9, 15):
  • Teaches a master/host architecture: The "gatekeeper" is analogous to the '798 patent's master module, and the server "nodes" are analogous to the host modules. The gatekeeper manages the workload across the cluster (Column 3, lines 17-21).
  • Teaches job assignment based on host status: The core of Cherkasova's method is assigning streaming jobs to the node best-suited to handle them based on its current load (Abstract). This is functionally equivalent to the '798 patent's goal of efficient job assignment. The patent assumes the existence of content at different bitrates for delivery (Column 6, lines 3-6).
  • What is missing for anticipation: Like MeLampy, Cherkasova focuses on assigning delivery jobs (streaming to a client) rather than encoding jobs. More importantly, it does not disclose a "bid" from the host nodes. The gatekeeper makes a decision based on monitored load data. This reference, therefore, does not anticipate the claims but would be a cornerstone of an obviousness argument, as it clearly teaches load-based assignment of streaming-related tasks in a master-slave server cluster.

---

3. U.S. Patent No. 7,155,515 B2 (Jasrasaria et al.)

• Full Citation: US 7,155,515 B2, "Method and apparatus for selecting a source for streaming media." Filed May 1, 2000. Issued December 26, 2006.
• Brief Description: This patent focuses on a client-side method for selecting the best stream from multiple available sources. It discloses a system where a content provider makes the same media available at different bitrates. The client device then tests the network connection to various servers and selects the stream that offers the best quality based on current network conditions.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims (1, 9, 15):
  • Teaches segmentation and multiple bitrates: The patent explicitly states that a "content provider may provide the same content at different bit rates (e.g., 28.8 kbps, 56 kbps, etc.)" (Column 2, lines 52-57). This directly teaches a foundational element of adaptive bitrate streaming.
  • What is missing for anticipation: Jasrasaria is entirely silent on the server-side process for creating these multiple bitrate streams. It does not disclose a master/host encoding architecture or any form of bidding mechanism for assigning encoding jobs. Its focus is on the client's consumption of already-prepared streams. Therefore, it does not anticipate the key limitations of claims 1, 9, and 15.

---

4. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0149764 A1 (Shanklin et al.)

• Full Citation: US 2003/0149764 A1, "Method and system for streaming digital content from a distributed network of content servers." Filed February 7, 2002. Published August 7, 2003.
• Brief Description: Shanklin describes a content delivery network (CDN) where media files are stored on a distributed network of servers. A "provisioning system" populates the servers with content, and a "request routing system" directs user requests to an appropriate server based on load or location.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims (1, 9, 15):
  • Teaches multiple bitrates: The system is designed to handle "content object[s]" that "may exist in a variety of different formats and bit-rates" (paragraph).
  • What is missing for anticipation: The system described by Shanklin is for the distribution and delivery of content that has already been encoded. The "provisioning system" distributes files; it does not assign encoding tasks to a plurality of hosts based on bids. The architecture is for a CDN, not a distributed media encoding farm. Therefore, this reference does not anticipate claims 1, 9, or 15.