No, all of that prior art & obvious stuff was done (allegedly) in the original patent approval process. The AIA was NOT created to "invalidate patents". It allegedly was created to save time & money over the previous reexamination process. The USPTO/PTAB is a tag team, self enrichment scheme. They are a 1 - 2 punch tag team. They play both ends against the middle in order to collect tremendous fees from the inventots and the challengers.
During the USPTO process of validating the patents, all you heard here in this board was "LOOK AT THE USPTO ACTIVITY.... USPTO ACTIVITY.....USPTO ACTIVITY! And, there was also the extolling of the virtue and expertise of the examiners as doing the ultimate job of DD. And so, that means allegedly, the USPTO did a bang up job, according to the sentiment thst was here at the time, which finally, after a long & arduous process, resulted in the patent awards. So at the PTAB, years later, Apple challenged, because often, the PTAB seemed to be in their pocket. In this case (and I can see all sorts of reasons for ptab to decide one way or the other depending on different factors) the PTAB ruled not FOR vplm, but AGAINST Apple. Allegedly, the ruling was based on merit of each individual claim. Well, for one thing, there were not the alleged 125 claims because many were duplicate claims for the same thing, so that part is dishonestly stated. Also, having read some of the so called claim merits a long time ago, I was not convinced they were fully completed merit determinations. It's not hard to make reference to the claims and rule against the claim using certain language that doesnt necessarily completely analyze and resolve each claim. Some could be just rubberstamled merit badges. I'm not saying they did or did not do such rubberstamping. I just think it's possible and easy to get away with. Regardless of such, even if the merits are legit, they still are not new determinations because that's what the USPTO was supposed to do in the 1st place.
Even the IPWatchdog article on this, not too long ago, stipulated the same exact thing I'm saying about the assumption that all the proper DD was done by the USPTO in the 1st place, therefore there was no win or gain at the PTAB. Again, there may be some gainy attained in the estoppel rules, but I'm not clear on that. The market did not reflect all that much belief in added value. There was only modest gain aftern ptab decision announcement. Then, after a month long series of pumping & hyping & promoting, did it finally take of to 45. And the most EXPECTED thing if the PTAB decision was such a profound gain, wouldve been enough of a catalyst to cause a buyout or at least some licensing, or a settlements, but none came.....snd it's been 8 mos now. That say ALOT! And then followed by the usual slip sliding away of the price.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
