Obviousness

The provided patent text and the previously generated sections do not contain a list of specific prior art references (e.g., patent numbers, journal articles, or other publications) that can be combined for an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The "Prior art keywords" (rcg, remote, communications device, communications, data) are descriptive terms associated with the patent rather than specific documents or inventions to be cited and combined.

To perform an obviousness analysis, it is necessary to identify:

1. Specific prior art references (e.g., a patent, a publication) that disclose elements of the claimed invention.
2. The differences between the claimed invention (as defined by US8228801's independent claims) and the disclosures of the prior art references.
3. A motivation, suggestion, or teaching in the prior art, or a known problem/solution in the art, that would have led a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to combine the identified references to arrive at the claimed invention with the observed differences.

Without explicit prior art references, it is not possible to conduct this analysis. The "BACKGROUND OF INVENTION" section of US8228801 describes the general state of the art at the time (e.g., challenges faced by CLECs, existing VoIP services over DSL/cable modems, issues with QoS on the Internet, and high costs of DSL infrastructure). While this background informs the problem the RCG aims to solve, it does not provide the specific documents required for an obviousness combination.

Therefore, I cannot identify combinations of prior art references that would render the claims obvious or explain the motivation to combine them, as the foundational prior art references have not been provided.