Pamela Jones on Google’s reexamination requests regarding two Lodsys patents:
Most reexamination requests rely on a finding of obviousness, which is a far more subject standard than demonstrating a lack of novelty. A lack of novelty can be established by any one piece of prior art that discloses each of the key elements of claimed invention. In each of these cases Google has identified not one, but five separate pieces of prior art that each alone demonstrates a lack of novelty in the critical Lodsys claims.
From what I can understand if a reexamination is granted, the two patents (#7,222,078 and #7,620,565) Lodsys is using to sue app developers have a good chance of being nullified.