I quoted you the section from the very start of the statue, "useful improvement".
The statute says "NEW AND useful method etc." and "NEW AND useful improvement thereof". It needs to be both "useful" and "NEW".
Besides, Apple isn't claiming a patent on the iPhone, so whether you think the combination is "new" and patent-worthy doesn't matter. Apple is claiming trademarks and "design patents", and those criteria are different.
Most of the stuff Apple actually tried to patent (e.g. sliding unlock) fails the novelty test.
Apple is abusing intellectual property and trying to claim as theirs what isn't theirs.