I readily already admit there is no unlock image. As I clearly wrote, changing a graphic from a lock to a graphic representing unlock is not novel. It's two sides of the same coin. "Oh ours is unique, it says 'unlock', not 'locked'' doesn't fly. Images themselves are covered under copyright.
But the function of changing the image is covered under utility patents. And simply pounding your fist on the table and saying "As I clearly wrote, it's not novel!" is not persuasive. If you believe it's not novel, then find some prior art showing it. Otherwise, you're just making an unsupported conclusion.
"Thank you for admitting that you haven't yet addressed this part of the claim."
It's pretty clear that I did address it when I pointed out that if that is the only claim to novelty then they are clutching at straws.
You can clearly see that the actions of the Apple patent are described under the Micron patent, sans the changed animated graphic.
Translation: "I did address it, but I admit that it doesn't show it."
I'll repeat that changing the graphic and making it animated are not novel. Additionally they are completely obvious (and not just because they'd been previously implemented in various forms on other computing devices).
Prior art is just that, prior art. Having shown clear prior art you deny that it is for some unknown reason.
Allow me to help, since you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Prior art is anything in the relevant art that is prior. The Model T is prior art for the Tesla Roadster. Da Vinci's parachute is prior art for the Space Shuttle. The wheel is prior art for rollerblades. By saying you've shown "clear prior art", you've said nothing.
What you intended to say is that you've shown "anticipatory prior art". Anticipatory prior art is a single piece of prior art that discloses each and every element of the claimed invention - i.e. it anticipates the patent application, rendering it invalid under 35 USC 102. Now, as you've admitted repeatedly, neither of the two pieces of prior art that you showed describe displaying or moving an unlock image in coordination with a contact. Therefore, neither of them is anticipatory prior art.
Now, you can show that something is obvious or invalid under 35 USC 103 by showing a combination of pieces of prior art that, together, show everything in the patent claims. So, if the patent claims A+B+C, and one piece of art shows A+B and another shows C and you could combine them, then it's obvious. But you haven't done that. Even combined, the two references don't show moving an unlock image. Therefore, you've got A, you've got C, but there's no B.
You can deny it until the cows come home, but there are a whole lot of people (as in almost everyone else who sees it) who agree that it is prior art.
As explained above, everyone who knows what they're talking about agrees that it's prior art. Everyone who knows what they're talking about also agree that it's not anticipatory prior art, nor does that combination show that the patent is obvious.
"Micron describes everything in the patent!
Oh wait, no I didn't write that. I wrote Apple's first claim is "encompassed in Micron's first claim". Learn to copy and paste. When enough of the claims are covered by proven claims in other patents there is no claim to be had.
"enough of"? Sorry, but no - the legal standard is everything. Not "enough".
Hey look, you can believe it's novel and non-obvious if you like and I'm pretty sure nobody is going to convince you otherwise. You stick to it. Keep believing.
Hey, look, you can use hindsight and claim it's obvious and not novel all you want, but until you show some evidence that pre-dates the application, and not just your repeated unsupported assertion, you've proven nothing. It's like you're calling someone guilty without requiring any evidence. If you find due process to be so boring, then maybe this isn't a debate you should be having.
In conclusion I'll take it a step further. All software patents are complete crap and deserve zero protection at all. Zero.
Hey look, I'll formulate your reply to save you the trouble (and it will save me the trouble of reading your reply).
"You still haven't shown me anything at all. The Micron patent doesn't cover any of the Apple patent at all. The Neonode doesn't show someone using a 99% similar version of sliding to unlock. Nobody understands this patent like me!!!".
Close, but no cigar:
"You still haven't shown prior art that teaches everything in the patent. The Micro patent does not show the second step of the patent claim, as you freely and repeatedly admitted. The Neonode also doesn't show that step, as you also admitted. And yet, despite that, you somehow think they show that it's obvious. Clearly, you have no understanding of patent law."
If you can't support a conclusion with evidence, then legally, you have nothing.