I agree there is a risk of misinterpretation as in "all kind all linked lists have been patented, here is the patent" and for this reason, it maybe would have been better to get an even more precise title. By i'm technically still fine with the current one. The claims (both in the application and in the granted patent) barely talk about traversing the "primary" or the "auxiliary" list which provide another sequence (well, providing the same would be... useless), not any kind of tricky algorithm like efficient multiple simultaneous sorting or i don't know what, not even a plain and boring insertion is covered!
This is a special case of traversing multiple linked lists, which is a basic technique. I actually even hesitate to say it is a technique, or at least to distinguish this technique from the very same technique of using a single linked list, because I don't think I could ever come up with a plausible justification for why anybody previously knowing how to use one would not be able to use two.
The restriction making this a special case is that all lists contain the same set of elements. Given the claims, that restriction is unnecessarily narrow and have no technical effect. So the only thing that distinguish this patent from a patent on a particular (but still 100% basic) use of single linked lists, is the phrasing, and the empty (still given the context) emphasis on the fact there are not one, but two, or even three lists.
So despite the fact that basic singly-linked lists + limited to one list by element would not be covered by this patent even in the parallel universe where it would be considered valid (and while we can note that on the contrary, prev/next linked list would), given that it only claims (with many more sentences) that if you have two lists, you can traverse one, or you can traverse the other, i will continue to argue that it covers linked lists, maybe under certain conditions, all right, but those conditions are insufficient to mandate the precision that this is a modification of linked lists, because it is not a modification, it is just about the basic traversal of multiple plain classical linked lists.
(Also, one a side note, I found it cute how the claims are structured, like if the author thought there was a possibility that prior art could be found for two pointers but not three.)
Edit: About the inflammatory part, it might as well have been even more inflammatory by being even more descriptive. Somebody has patented traversal of linked lists.