From Micron's patent's first claim "a touch screen upon which a user is to enter, by drawing, a geometric pattern in a specified direction to gain access to the system; and a processing circuit coupled to the touch screen to compare the user entered geometric pattern to a predefined geometric pattern stored in a memory."
Apple's first claim is clearly encompassed in Micron's first claim.
Again, I ask where you see an "unlock image" in what you just said. I also ask where you see Micron's device "continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display." In Micron's patent, you draw a pattern on a static screen. No unlock image is displayed, and nothing follows your finger. It's just not there. Micron describes part of the first step - detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display - and the last step, but does not describe the rest of the first step or the second step.
In the Neonode video at 4:13 their is an image of a lock icon. The presenter performs an action synonymous with the claims in Apple's (and Micron's) patent which unlocks the phone. The only difference is the background icon is not animated and is a lock versus an unlock icon.
Thank you for admitting that you haven't yet addressed this part of the claim.
Changing icons is not novel (clearly). So does changing the icon and making it animated make for a novel invention? I say no.
All you've said is: "Micron describes everything in the patent!
And sorry, your word about whether it's novel or not isn't enough, just like you can't claim someone is guilty without any evidence. If you haven't found the evidence, you haven't proven jack squat.
You're boring me.
People frequently get "bored" when someone calls them out for making unsupported conclusory statements. "Bored", of course, meaning "frustrated and ashamed".