Thanks for your try at "Answering" the question I posed in my post, which was,...

"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?"...

Your answer was the following,...

"My opinion, as a non-patent lawyer FWIW (perhaps zero), is that the Judge will consider the expert declarations that have been submitted   ---   I base that opinion on the questions that the Judge asked during the Markman, and the fact that neither side could provide a sufficient answer to some of them."(emphasis added)... 

I, as well as DDiligen, and I bet many more on this board, have read Phillips and the Markman cases, and understand the distinction between the role of the Judge during the Markman Hearing as that of a "gate-keeper", sifting through mountains of technical evidence, and "deciding" which evidence shall go to the "trier of the fact" on the question of whether "Infringement" has taken place, and what damages shall be awarded...

I was one of the first to question APL's motivations and asked him some direct questions. He did make a "Lawyer Like" effort to "Answer" my questions, and with a chuckle I accepted his answer for the time being...

However, as his late night postings increased it did appear he was "laying a different table", which has been covered in DDligen's posts...

IMO, If APL is welcome to post here as frequently as he can, then DDligen has a right to "call APL's hand"  as he sees it. This is NOT a sign of increased "INTOLERENCE" on this board. It is a sign of intelligent vigilance, something you, off all people, should encourage...Lol...Lol...

By the way did yoiu get any response to your letter to POHL yet?...

Gil...