"Now who's splitting hairs? We were clearly talking about a comparison of smart phones to desktop computers. Come on."
No. Maybe you were. This is the first mention of "desktop computers" in our discussion. I meant they are computers in the purest sense. Educating you on how they are computers is not splitting hairs (it's a chore though). I'm not going to educate you further on how they are the same as their larger brothers (you can even get ARM desktops now - Raspberry Pi being a good example - get into it, it's a great way to learn about coding. Or get an Arduino board).
"Nope, you've claimed it over and over, but you've never provided any evidence showing it. I'm simply asking for your prior art evidence, since, as you admit, neither the Micron nor Neonode patents or systems show animation."
I've had my say. I'm not going to go over it again just for your benefit.
"unlike a mere blinking cursor".
The cursor is an early example. I specified this.
"Great, then you should be able to find some relevant prior art that meets the element in the patent claim."
I've been over this. I'm not going over it again just for your benefit.
'I believe you mean "to understand how trivial it is to program."'
No, I meant what I wrote. It is also trivial - I've pointed that out several times as well.
"I mean, how could learning how to program now, in 2014, possibly show whether something was obvious in 2005?"
Because the concepts of programming have barely changed.
"Isn't that the very definition of hindsight?"
No, it isn't.
"If you learned how to build an internal combustion engine (which most engineers do at some point in school), then would that mean it was suddenly obvious in the 1800s to do it?"
Not a good analogy. It would be more akin to saying that it was obvious to make the head from polished stainless steel. (side note: AFAIK, they don't teach how to build internal combustion engines in engineering anymore).
"Basically, you're confusing difficulty of implementation, which isn't required for a patent, with non-obviousness, which is."
No. I've specified that it is trivial (because it is), that it is obvious (because it is), and that it is not novel (because it isn't). Use your search function to check the thread.
I'm not going to spend any more time on this. Have a nice day. ;)