If the title could be used for such purposes then you need the title to be as broad as possible to avoid reducing the scope of the patent unnecessarily. Suppose you patent "an improvement to a automobile engine" and it's later seen that the same improvement is good for boat engines, rocket engines maybe, etc.. This would be equivalent to file wrapper estoppel¹.
However, the claims define the invention and the title (again at least in the UK) must only signify the field of the invention. If you improve "linked lists" in your invention then you don't make up a new field you call it that. Simply "Linked Lists" is broad, it could easily be shorthand for "Linked Lists used in non-traditional fields" or "An alternative to linked lists", etc., and so is highly unlikely to limit the patent but still meets the regulatory obligation to provide a relevant title.
There I said it. Titles don't matter. Granted claims matter, in this case the claims in the B2, http://www.google.com/patents?id=Szh4AAAAEBAJ&printsec=c... (which don't look modified but I didn't really check).
--
¹ Firefox spellcheck says it's "estoppal" but I think I'm right (for a change ;0)>)
Titles are completely unrelated to the actually claims a patent makes. You can title your patent whatever you want, and it carries zero legal force when it comes to evaluating whether or not an invention is or is not covered by the patent in question.
If we assume the intent here isn't deception, then basing your description of what a patent covers on the patent's title at the very least betrays a deep ignorance of how patents actually function.
None of which is to say that this patent isn't bloody obvious or ought not to be struck down.
And no, I don't feel like digging through a bunch of anti-patent articles looking for misleading claims. Even if this were the only example, the point would stand that using misleading claims makes it harder to trust the movement.
Can you provide other examples of the "anti-patent crowd" being deceptive with their examples?