As I understand it, the only reason the new reex wasn't denied was because it was based on the claims of the original patent, not the recert

There was also some creative wording of prior art, the same prior art used in the previous examinations. They managed to include it by using the prior art in combination as apposed to separately.

http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/topics/385891-example-of-the-type-of-question-for-examiner/messages/1283319#message

The old art from the prior reexamination is allowed in the new reexamination only because of the way it is worded. The original request was a botched job. Only after the request was re-submitted would the examiner even consider a reexamination.

The only evidence that will be considered by the examiner is the six patents listed on the examiners form page. There is prior art listed in those patents.

How did they squeak by with this reexamination?

In Control # 90009457 on the date of 11-14-2009 “list of references cited by applicant and considered by examiner.” Cover page, then the examiners needs to put all of the evidence presented by the reexamination requestor for proof he has seen them and given them consideration. The last 20 pages (look at the scanned page numbers) will explain what and why the examiner is allowing in the reexamination. Page 17 nuber21, the examiner would not consider Richter and Ledzius separately, that was in the prior reexamination. However, he will consider Richter and Ledzius in combination, both together. Not as separate pieces of information.

The original composer of the new 336 reexamination request had some coaching or someone else wrote the revised request.