What has been difficult to understand thus far is what you conclude in the following paragraph in your post...

"In other words, extrnisic evidence does not control over intrinsic evidence, and is used more as a "gap filler" or in order to provide clarity for ambiguous or uncertain words and phrases. If the trial judge mis-applies those rules, his decision is subject to reversal. Pretty simpleI...

It is not that "simple" when the discussion is put in legal jargon...

People are confused in their attempt to apply "extrinsic evidence" and "intrinsic evidence" to the facts of this case...

Specifically, when we are talking about how the "Expert testimony" offered by the parties shall be utilized by the trier of "the facts", (in the Markman Hearing that being judge Ward)?...

DDiligen, considering he is not a lawyer, has done an excellent job to shed some light on this subject...

Unfortunately, the lawyers have chosen to only discuss case law on the merits of "intrinsic v. extrinsic" evidence...

Expert testimoney is used by the "fact finder" all the time, especially if the facts being considered are technical in nature and beyond the understanding of the trier of the fact, be it a judge or a jury. And, there is no question that the facts here are technical, and in need of testimoney by the experts...

Thus the question for the resident lawyers is since the "trier of the fact" is in need of enlightenment by the "Expert testimony", which opinion is judge ward apt to be swayed by, that of Despain or the defense expert?...

Thanks in advance for comments...

GLTA

Gil...