amendment, the presumption is not rebutted.... Silence does not overcome the presumption.”) (internal citation omitted). This court requires a strong showing — not present on this record — to satisfy the “very narrow” exception to prosecution history estoppel for amendments only tangentially related to the equivalent in question. Cross Med. Prods. v. Medtronic, Inc., 480 F.3d 1335, 1342 (Fed.Cir.2007). ETG’s argument that it did not relinquish equivalents that involve “determining” — rather than “measuring” — phase and amplitude, also fails. Prosecution history estoppel bars application of the doctrine of equivalents even where the applicant surrendered more claim scope than was necessary to overcome a rejection. See Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp., 432 F.3d 1356, 1361-62 (Fed.Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the difference between the phrase
holding that prosecution history estoppel applied to bar the plaintiff patent owner from asserting that the claim construction should cover a system using shift registers be cause it had specifically defined its claims during prosecution as not covering such a system holding a court may consider a defendants criminal history even if that history is included in the defendants criminal history category holding that unlawful biases of an investigating agency are not imputed to those ultimately responsible for the prosecution holding that the prosecution history may modify a claim terms scope if the patentee expressly disclaimed the prior arts subject matter holding patentees are restricted by prosecution history estoppel to the scope of what they ultimately claim