http://bit.ly/U9S6RS

Here, some of the rejections are based on rather far-fetched theories, such as combinations of up to three prior art references. But claim 8, which is the one that matters in the first California Apple v. Samsung case, has been tentatively rejected on two different grounds: it's presently considered invalid for anticipation (non-novelty) by one prior art reference as well as obviousness (novel but not inventive) in light of a combination of two prior art references. Apple needs to overcome both invalidity theories and even a third one: even if it successfully countered the anticipation theory, it would then also have to establish non-obviousness over the prior art reference previously deemed to have anticipated the '915 patent.

由這段看起來，結合兩個先前技藝並不能視為一個新的發明。
不過這兩個先前技藝並不是我描述的那樣。
原文下一段有更多的細節，不過我還沒看明白。

哈哈∼這不是我照的，不過之前照的人有歡迎轉貼

10億鎂賠償金已經蒸發了四成...

Apple's $1B USD Win Over Samsung Slashed by 40 Percent, App Settlement Nears

http://bit.ly/13gX9We

USPTO Final Office Action Finds All 21 Claims of Apple's '915 Patent Invalid.

Apple didn't invent gestures.

http://bit.ly/13gXsk3
USPTO hands down final (but not really final) rejection of Apple's pinch-to-zoom API patent