USPTO's Choice of Framed Browsing Patent Prior Art

[theodp]

So what troubled the USPTO enough to trigger a rare Director-ordered
reexam of SBC's Framed Browsing patents? Was it the prior art pointed
out by columnists Robert X. Cringely [1] and Dan Gillmor [2]? Nope.
According to USPTO documents, the decision was based solely upon one
figure [3] from an obscure 1992 IEEE article [4] on Seesoft ("A Tool
for Visualizing Line Oriented Software Statistics"). Is it good enough
to overturn the patents? Would a page from a 1994 IBM BookManager
Manual [5] have been more on-point?

[1] http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030130.html
[2] http://weblog.siliconvalley.com/column/dangillmor/archives/000762.shtml
[3] 
http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~aspoerri/Teaching/InfoVisResources/images/visiontothink/datamapping/seesoft_eick/pages/fig5.htm
[4] http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=141348&dl=ACM&coll=portal
[5] 
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr/BOOKS/EJRL2M00/FIGEJ2F00H?SHELF=&DT=19940811215009&ScrollTOP=FIGEJ2F00H#FIGEJ2F00H