That is correct.

At the time the requestor filed for latest reexamination

(4-24-2009 notice of concurrent proceedings) of the 336 (90009457) there was FOUR other reexaminations running. The four reexaminations were combined but not competed therefore; the newest reexamination could only be based on the un-amended version of the 336.

11-14-2009 List of references cited by applicant and considered by examiner

Last few pages (page 20) Paragraph in italics explains the situation how the law is applied and states the code. Then in bold:

Consequently, no substantial new question of patentability is raised in this reexamination proceeding with respect to claims 11-20, since these claims are not in effect in the patent at the time this determination is made.

So one can only expect another reexamination in the future with respect to the new 336 claims 11-20. Those new claims have not come under the scrutiny of a reexamination.

With the current reexamination, time will tell if TPL deems it necessary to amend claims 1-10. They have until the second week of January to do so unless they file for extension. If they amend 1-10 there could also be yet another reexamination for the new 1-10 amended claims.

That was the focus my intention to convey when I wrote that the 336 exists in two different time frames