Obviousness

To analyze the obviousness of US Patent 9615192 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is necessary to identify specific prior art references published before the patent's priority date of January 28, 2009, that collectively teach or suggest the elements of the claims and would have provided a motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) to combine them.

However, the "Prior art section" provided in the patent document only lists "Prior art keywords: service, network, message, agent, usage" and a "Prior art date: 2009-01-28." It does not identify any specific prior art references (e.g., patent numbers, publication numbers, or academic papers) that can be combined for an obviousness analysis.

Therefore, I cannot identify specific combinations of prior art references to render the claims obvious as requested, because no such references are provided in the authoritative text for this task.

Were specific prior art references available, an obviousness analysis would focus on the following aspects of the independent claims (1, 10, and 15) of US9615192:

• Claim 1 (Computer-implemented method):

  • Receiving multiple messages from a wireless communication device, each having an associated message type.
  • Determining a first message delivery trigger for a first message type.
  • Determining a second message delivery trigger for a second message type.
  • Delivering a response message to the wireless communication device based on both the first and second message delivery triggers.

• Claim 10 (Message link server):

  • A processor and memory configured to perform the method steps of Claim 1.

• Claim 15 (Computer program product):

  • A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions to perform the method steps of Claim 1.

A hypothetical obviousness argument would likely seek prior art references that demonstrate:

1. Network communication systems capable of receiving messages from wireless devices and sending response messages.
2. Message typing and classification in network environments.
3. Trigger-based message delivery mechanisms, especially those that activate based on certain conditions or message types.
4. The concept of using multiple conditions or triggers to control a single response or action.

Potential Motivation for Combination (Hypothetical):
If prior art existed that, for example, taught a network server receiving messages from wireless devices (element 1) and separately taught using distinct triggers for different message types to control network behavior (elements 2, 3), a motivation to combine these would likely stem from the common engineering goal of improving network efficiency, flexibility, or control. A POSA might be motivated to combine such elements to:

• Enhance service differentiation: By using different triggers for different message types, network operators could offer more granular control over various services, such as prioritizing emergency messages over regular data traffic, or applying different billing policies to different application usage (e.g., based on the "service activity" examples provided in the patent like content downloads, application usage, or e-commerce transactions).
• Optimize resource utilization: Implementing plural message delivery triggers could allow for more dynamic and adaptive network resource allocation, responding differently to different types of user demands.
• Improve user experience and billing: As noted in the patent, "managing service consumption in a user friendly manner the overall service capacity required to satisfy the user device needs can be tailored more closely to the needs of a given user thereby reducing user service costs and increasing service provider profits." A system that uses multiple message types and triggers could directly support such refined management and billing.

Without specific prior art references, this discussion on motivation remains theoretical and cannot be tied to concrete evidence of obviousness.