Specifically as to each of the factors, the Federal Circuit pointed out that (1) the iPhone slide-to-unlock was not copied in its entirety, rather the only similarity was the use of a fixed starting and ending point of the slide, which are taught in the prior art; (2) praise and approval by Apple fans (who may not have been skilled in the art), during its presentation is not legally sufficient; (3) Apple's assertion that its method is better than previous methods does not demonstrat the existence of a long-felt but unmet need; and (4) evidence that customers prefer to purchase a device with the slide-to-unlock feature does not show a nexus to the claimed invention, when the evidence does not show alternative devices consumers were comparing that device to.
For such secondary evidence to be probative of nonobviousness, a patentee must provide evidence that demonstrates a nexus between the patented features and the particular evidence of secondary considerations.
For more on the case -- http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1171.Opinion.2-24-2016.1.PDF