Obviousness

Based on my analysis of the prior art of record for U.S. Patent 9,112,934, the following is an assessment of the obviousness of the patent's independent claims (1 and 7) under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a patent claim is obvious if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). An obviousness rejection typically involves combining two or more prior art references or supplementing a single reference with the general knowledge of a PHOSITA.

Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA):
At the time of the invention (priority date of April 5, 2012), a PHOSITA would possess a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science or Electrical Engineering, coupled with several years of professional experience in network engineering, particularly in the design, implementation, and management of content delivery networks (CDNs) and large-scale distributed systems. This individual would be knowledgeable about overlay networks, video streaming protocols, VOD systems, and the prevailing "Infrastructure-as-a-Service" (IaaS) cloud computing models of the era.

Core inventive Concept of US 9,112,934:
The central thrust of the '934 patent is not merely the creation of a CDN, but rather a management apparatus that dynamically configures and allocates a bespoke content delivery overlay network for a specific service provider, for a predetermined period, based on a detailed configuration request. This essentially describes a "CDN-as-a-Service" platform.

Combination of Prior Art Rendering Claims Obvious

The independent claims of the '934 patent would likely be rendered obvious by a combination of prior art that teaches the structure of a CDN with the principles of dynamic resource allocation, viewed through the lens of the well-established cloud computing service models of the time.

Primary Argument: U.S. Patent 7,926,079 ('079) in view of U.S. Patent 5,673,253 ('253) and Knowledge of Cloud Computing Models

1. U.S. Patent 7,926,079 ('079) teaches a sophisticated, tiered CDN for a VOD service. It discloses the core architectural elements claimed in the '934 patent:

   • A plurality of network nodes (servers) arranged in a tiered or hierarchical structure.
   • The establishment of a path for content to be delivered from a source to end-users via these nodes.
   • This reference directly teaches the fundamentals of a content delivery overlay network and a transfer path as recited in claims 1 and 7.

2. U.S. Patent 5,673,253 ('253) teaches the dynamic allocation and management of telecommunications resources. It discloses:

   • A system for monitoring network resource usage.
   • Allocating and de-allocating resources based on demand to maintain quality of service.
   • This reference provides the explicit teaching of a resource manager that manages resource information (element C of the claim analysis).

Motivation to Combine '079 and '253:
A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the VOD delivery architecture of the '079 patent with the dynamic resource management techniques of the '253 patent for the predictable goal of improving efficiency. By actively monitoring and managing the resources of the VOD servers and network paths described in '079, a network operator could ensure better performance, handle load spikes more effectively, and reduce operational costs. This combination represents a straightforward enhancement of the '079 system.

Addressing the Remaining Claim Element (The Provider Request):
The combination of '079 and '253 teaches an operator-managed, efficient CDN. The missing element is the request receiver configured to receive a network configuration request from an external service provider to build a bespoke overlay network on-demand.

This final element would have been obvious to a PHOSITA in 2012 in light of the widespread adoption of cloud computing and IaaS models (e.g., Amazon Web Services). By 2012, the concept of provisioning virtual infrastructure (servers, storage, and networks) via an API or a management console based on specific user configuration parameters was common knowledge.

• Motivation to Add the "As-a-Service" Model: There was a clear and predictable market need for flexible, scalable CDN services for a growing number of content providers ("smart TV and web TV" developers mentioned in the patent's background) who lacked the capital or expertise to build their own CDN. A PHOSITA would have found it an obvious business and technical step to adapt the operator-managed CDN (taught by '079 and '253) into a multi-tenant, on-demand service.
  • The network configuration request from a service provider is directly analogous to a cloud customer using an API to request a set of virtual resources.
  • The network configuration information (service times, bit rate, storage capacity, etc., as detailed in the '934 patent's specification) are the necessary parameters for such an API call to define the scope and characteristics of the requested service.

Therefore, applying the known "as-a-service" business model to the known technology of a dynamically managed CDN would have been an obvious innovation to meet a clear market demand.

---

Secondary Argument: KR20100059638A ('638) in view of General Knowledge

Alternatively, one could argue obviousness based on KR '638 alone or in combination with '253.

1. KR '638 teaches an overlay network system specifically for IPTV services. This reference discloses the technical setup of a network of nodes configured for delivering video content, which is the core technology of the '934 patent.

2. Obvious Modification: As with the primary argument, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to take the IPTV overlay network technology taught by KR '638 and offer it as a configurable, on-demand service to third-party content providers. The motivation remains the same: leveraging the established "as-a-service" cloud model to provide scalable, flexible CDN solutions to a market of providers who cannot build their own infrastructure. The specific parameters of the network configuration information are simply the details needed to properly provision such a service for a given customer.

Conclusion

The independent claims of U.S. Patent 9,112,934 appear to be vulnerable to an obviousness challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The prior art establishes the foundational technology of content delivery overlay networks with hierarchical nodes and dynamic resource management. The allegedly novel element—configuring this network on-demand based on a service provider's request—represents the application of a well-known and widely adopted cloud computing business model ("as-a-service") to this existing technology. This application would have been a predictable, common-sense step for a person of ordinary skill in the art in 2012 seeking to address the clear market need for more flexible content delivery solutions.