Finally found the link I was thinking of yesterday:
"Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys"
"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."
I'm not a lawyer, yadda, yadda, yadda.
