> Since the patent itself cites prior art, obviously the patent isn't patenting the same thing as the prior art. It should be easy for you, if you are correct,

> Since the patent itself cites prior art, obviously the patent isn't patenting the same thing as the prior art. It should be easy for you, if you are correct, to simply state what is new and novel and patentworthy that Apple did, that is not covered by the prior art mentioned.