With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (4) arguing that replacement of the epoxy seal of the prior art by an O-ring is not what is being claimed, unless the O-ring is provided between a front cap and a rear insert body. The doctrine of prosecution history estoppel bars a patentee from asserting as an equivalent subject matter surrendered during prosecution of the patent application. See generally Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., 299 F.3d 1336, 1349-50, 63 USPQ2d 1769, 1776-77 (Fed. Cir.2002). While at least one claim limitation at issue here was amended by the examiner during the prosecution of the patent, Arcom does not allege amendment-based estoppel here. Instead it argues that Eagle is estopped under argument-based estoppel. See Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973, 979, 52 USPQ2d 1109, 1113 (Fed.Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54

A: holding that evidence of the scope of a particular claim can be found on review of other claims
B: holding that in order for claim to be within scope of coverage of title insurance policy it must be specifically provided for
C: holding that the scope of coverage of the claims may change if a patentee has relinquished a potential claim construction in an amendment to the claim or in an argument to overcome or distinguish a reference
D: holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury
C.