The original point made by vonmoltke was that the patent text does not define an implementation in any meaningful sense. My wikipedia link was merely corroborating my opinion that an implementation of a data structure involves the fundamental operations on that data structure. If a data structure implementation can be complete without such details, then an AVL tree is equivalent to a red-black tree.
Ironically, what you're asking for is not a more complete implementation, but more algorithms. If I patent a mechanical device, it's not expected that I describe how to build the device. That's not the invention, and it's not the implementation (it's an algorithm for producing an implementation). Likewise, if the patent is on the in-memory structure that allows for multiple list traversals, then describing how to build that structure is pure algorithm, not implementation, and outside the scope of the patent claims.
