Consider the following bounded compositions:
\mbox{\begin{picture}(166,22)
\put(0,0){$W^{l+1}(E)$}
\put(43,3){\vector(1,0){30}}
\put(46,6){$e^{-t{\Delta}}$}
\put(77,0){$W^{l+1}(E)\hookrightarrow W^l(E)\;,$}
\end{picture}}
\mbox{\begin{picture}(176,17)
\put(0,0){$W^{l+1}(E)$}
\put(43,3){\vector(1,0){30}}
\put(46,6){$e^{-t{\Delta}}$}
\put(77,0){$W^{l+1}(E)$}
\put(120,3){\vector(1,0){20}}
\put(125,6){$D$}
\put(144,0){$W^l(E)\;,$}
\end{picture}}
\mbox{\begin{picture}(192,17)
\put(0,0){$W^{l+1}(E)$}
\put(43,3){\vector(1,0){30}}
\put(46,6){$e^{-t{\Delta}}$}
\put(77,0){$W^{l+1}(E)$}
\put(120,3){\vector(1,0){36}}
\put(123,6){$A+B$}
\put(160,0){$W^l(E)\;.$}
\end{picture}}
By (?), it is enough to prove that the compositions (Proof), (Proof) and (Proof) are strongly convergent as t\rightarrow\infty, and to prove the continuous extension to [0,\infty]\times W^{l+1}(E) of the maps [0,\infty)\times W^{l+1}(E)\rightarrow W^l(E) defined by these time dependent operators. This holds for (Proof) and (Proof) by property (iv) for k=l since these operators are respectively equal to the compositions
The paper has a picture here, which this page does not show.
On the other hand, (Proof) is the sum of the bounded compositions
\mbox{\begin{picture}(196,17)
\put(0,0){$W^{l+1}(E)\hookrightarrow W^l(E)$}
\put(90,3){\vector(1,0){70}}
\put(93,9){$\left[A+B,e^{-t{\Delta}}\right]$}
\put(164,0){$W^l(E)\;,$}
\end{picture}}
\mbox{\begin{picture}(182,17)
\put(0,0){$W^{l+1}(E)$}
\put(43,3){\vector(1,0){36}}
\put(46,6){$A+B$}
\put(83,0){$W^l(E)$}
\put(116,3){\vector(1,0){30}}
\put(119,6){$e^{-t{\Delta}}$}
\put(150,0){$W^l(E)\;.$}
\end{picture}}
Now Lemma ?, ? and property (iv) for k=l respectively imply the strong convergence of (?) and (?) as t\rightarrow\infty, as well as the continuous extension to [0,\infty]\times W^{l+1}(E) of the maps [0,\infty)\times W^{l+1}(E)\rightarrow W^l(E) defined by both of these time dependent operators. \Box