It appears that the case hinges on understanding the technological terms used

See my post from earlier today where teh technogical tutorial is an standard methodology pre-markman, imposable at the discretion of the court, used to define ambgiuities.

PTSC says x means A and J2(3,4) say x means B. The tutorial allows for an impartial party to determine for teh court pre-markman whether x means A or B. This makes sense here since teh two sides are aruging over the validity of the patents based on the interpretation of teh text used in the claims. Our experts interpret this to our favor and their do the same in their favor so it makes sense to have an impartial ( whether there exists such an animal is another story) to assisst the court. Since if teh experts can't agree on what x means how could a judge or jury.