the assumption would have to be made that every examiner in the room was wrong.

Not at all.

The examiner had to convince his peers, based on the evidence he presented, that his analysis was correct. If it can be shown that that evidence was factually flawed it makes convincing his peers so much easier. It enables distancing from the final rejection, by his peers, while saving face.

This is the reason I hope an Appeal is filed as it then enables the examiner to also save face by incorporating facts from the Appeal Brief in the final confirmation of patent validity.

The examiner and his peers can honestly then say that they exhausted every possible avenue for prior art and obviousness prior to confirmation.

A win-win situation for all but the infringers.

Be well