The reason I made my post is that there was discussion that ensued after the original posting of the notice about what this "meant" regarding this request being listed in the Gazette. Some posters were speculating that it might indicate many different things.

In reality, it MEANS NOTHING, other than this is the USPTO's way of reporting the "News" of the goings on at the USPTO. This entry in the Gazette, simply means that in April, someone as listed requested an Ex-Parte Re-Exam on the '336. That it is in the Gazette means nothing more and nothing less. It doesn't mean that any action is or has been taken on it based on that entry. We do however know by looking on the USPTO site under the '336 patent, that indeed it's been assigned to an examiner to DETERMINE whether yet another re-exam should be ordered. But that is unrelated to the posting in the Gazette.

Based on milestone's posting history, I'd be shocked if he/she didn't KNOW that. Additionally, in light of the discussion that was ensuing, it seems incumbent on those who know about it, that we should elaborate and explain it, especially IF we are going to make a post on the subject to begin with. Simply posting the pertinent entry, and the link to the Gazette, with no explanation seems to serve no purpose. It rubbed me the wrong way. I certainly would have expected more from a respected poster like milestone. His post came off to me as suggestive of something MORE should be read into it, yet being unwilling to "share" what he/she knew.

To your point, we DO know what's going on right now. The USPTO has received our responses back on the '336 and is considering them how to rule, presumably to revlidate, reject, or request more info. A new re-exam request was submitted by a 3rd party. And an examiner was assigned to determine whether it should be granted. The only things we don't know with respect to these pending items in process is what the outcomes will be and how much longer it will take.