No, they really are computers. They are computers connected to a wide area wireless network. Hence there are millions of computers using slide to unlock.
Now who's splitting hairs? We were clearly talking about a comparison of smart phones to desktop computers. Come on.
"Exactly: Apple added the animation, something that Neonode didn't do. Therefore, Neonode doesn't show each and every step of the patent claim, and therefore, the patent claim is valid over Neonode's implementation and patent. At the minimum, you'd have to find another prior art reference that describes the animation that you could combine with Neonode to show that Apple's claim is obvious."
I've spent some time already showing adding animation is self evident.
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.
Swiping left to right is easily achievable by a human without animation. The Neonode proves this. If they were having trouble achieving a left to right swipe they would have added user feedback to rectify it. But they didn't. Because you don't need it.
Maybe you don't, but I sure like it, and every smart phone manufacturer has added it. That seems to indicate that they think it's valuable.
"You could be swiping over and over, not knowing if the phone is frozen and needs to be rebooted".
Not related and not necessarily so. An OS can still give limited functionality while being "frozen" and needing reboot. But in any case, the animation isn't intended to indicate if a process is hung or not. Just like the blinking cursor in front of me is not intended to indicated a hung process but it potentially could as an unintended consequence. BTW, a blinking text cursor is one of the earliest examples of an animated on screen user interactive function.
But it's a valuable clue, particularly when - unlike a mere blinking cursor - the visual feedback is dynamically related to the user's input. If you click in different locations, but that blinking cursor doesn't move to the new locations, then you know that something is wrong, no?
"they provide this "eye candy" for the same non-arbitrary reason."
Nope, they provide it because "they can", it looks cool and everyone else is doing it.
Or, everyone else is doing it because it's valuable and users like it.
"If you want to claim that the patent is obvious, then you have to show that someone else had thought of that eye candy before, too."
User interactive functions on computers have been animated for decades before this patent.
Great, then you should be able to find some relevant prior art that meets the element in the patent claim. Quick, to the google.com/patents, Batman! I'll wait here with bated breath.
To understand how arbitrary and self evidently obvious it is you'll need to learn to program first (to a reasonable level). Once you've mastered the basics you'll see how obvious it is. Until then I doubt you'll see it.
I believe you mean "to understand how trivial it is to program." I mean, how could learning how to program now, in 2014, possibly show whether something was obvious in 2005? Isn't that the very definition of hindsight? 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?
Basically, you're confusing difficulty of implementation, which isn't required for a patent, with non-obviousness, which is.
Simple point. Everything on the computer's output to the screen can be animated. Everything. But there comes a point where it becomes a distraction in the OS (and mark my words, phones are small computers with an OS). E.g. if one animated the text as someone was typing, with colours and swirls and coalescing characters, it would annoy the crap out of you. So we don't do that. But you could. So an OS programmer chooses what will be animated or not on an aesthetic basis (taking into account whether it will annoy the user or not).
And yet, everyone now includes the animation, and the Neonode didn't. Are you saying that the only reason for that was because the Neonode people were terrible programmers? Isn't it less of an abuse of Occam's Razor to admit that they simply hadn't thought of it?