You seem to imply you've read the patent. Could you find the specific claims and then show us some prior art for them?
Many things become "obvious" after they have entered commercial production, but are not obvious at the time they are invented. The car is obvious now, for instance.
Your comment about the jury assumes there were touch interfaces 20 years ago (of a type relevant to this case.) Apple started in the 1990s, but even Jeff Han is using a completely different method.
This seems to imply that you're confusing patents for a "right to sell a feature". On this site I've seen many claims that Apple's patents are covered by "prior art" but the "art" cited is generally nonsensical (eg: 2001: a space odessy having square tablets) and indicate that people think patents cover ideas or features, rather than inventions used to bring them to life.
Just because the TiVo exists, does not mean that I can't, today, invent a novel method of solving similar problems to the TiVo that is legitimately patentable.
TiVo's existence doesn't make patentable inventions in the same space impossible.
The rotary engine was patentable even though other internal combustion engines were already on the market.