References missing RE in their patent numbers

To continue the fun, the following references are incorrect. The patent numbers stated in the referencing patent are missing the RE making the reference appear to be a utility patent when it is actually to a reissued patent. Check the links for yourself, the left most ones will bring up a uspto page showing the issue date and link to see the image. Then you can check the referencing patents to find the patent number being referenced without the RE that has a matching issue date and inventor from the left most link. Pretty fun, huh?

I didn't check for similar references where the D of a design patent is missing but I did come across one accidentally. It's at the very bottom of this page. It might become a page of its own if I find more of them.

Bad referenceFound in patent(s)
[RE]9029 Acker4,479,289 4,056,645
[RE]9152 Adams4,565,702
[RE]9874 Ambler4,854,944
[RE]9622 Best8,119,012 7,922,008 7,850,859 7,749,394 7,740,765 7,615,152 D501,912
[RE]9005 CarpenterD287,156
[RE]9724 Cole4,857,175
[RE]9687 CoxD719,789 D609,060 D584,573
[RE]9041 Earle4,451,955
[RE]9706 Fender7,104,403
[RE]9711 Hanna4,964,227
[RE]9305 Heineman5,503,088 4,438,606 4,419,939
[RE]9902 Hoffman5,385,418
[RE]9534 HyattD329,915
[RE]9858 Imlay4,787,873
[RE]9762 Jaeger4,621,764
[RE]9169 Johnson4,099,576
[RE]9797 Marks7,971,710
[RE]9641 Mason5,337,889
[RE]9162 McKenzie4,652,226
[RE]9618 Nichols7,107,235
[RE]9196 Noyes4,415,001
[RE]9452 Palmer4,346,621
[RE]9605 Palmer5,277,314
[RE]9905 Palmer3,932,258
[RE]9434 Parr4,075,359
[RE]9738 Prindle5,211,517
[RE]9185 Pulaski5,337,889
[RE]9091 Read5,863,006
[RE]9805 Saint3,936,111
[RE]9787 Schade5,502,991 5,088,306
[RE]9772 SimonD353,488
[RE]9799 Tompkins4,087,887
[RE]9737 Whittemore5,362,112
[RE]9241 Willson5,342,390 5,192,298 5,171,256 5,156,633 5,152,778 5,133,735
[RE]9790 Winkless6,991,064 D288,376
[RE]9368 WoodD332,955


Bad referenceFound in patent
[D]41321 Anderson7,922,008