Obviousness

I cannot perform a comprehensive obviousness analysis of US patent 12075116 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the information provided.

The provided patent text includes a "Prior art keywords" section listing general terms such as "multimedia," "caching unit," "media stream," "screen captures," and "video." It also lists a "Prior art date" of 2014-12-22, which corresponds to the patent's priority date. However, this information does not constitute a list of specific prior art references (e.g., other patents, scientific publications, industry standards) that can be combined and analyzed to determine obviousness.

To conduct an obviousness analysis, specific prior art documents are required to:

1. Identify the scope and content of the prior art.
2. Ascertain the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art.
3. Determine the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Assess whether the differences would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, considering secondary indicia of obviousness.

Without specific prior art references, I cannot identify combinations of prior art that would render the claims obvious, nor can I explain the motivation for combining them.