(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
holding that in order for claim to be within scope of coverage of title insurance policy it must be specifically provided for holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury holding that evidence of the scope of a particular claim can be found on review of other claims holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court to determine 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