1. “Whether, in order to identify the scope of territory surrendered through a prosecution amendment, the Court must identify and address the predicate ‘rationale underlying the amendment’ before it can decide whether the rationale ‘bears no more than a tangential relation to the equivalent in question.’” 2. “Whether the mere fact that an equivalent appeared in the cited prior art—without more—automatically means that an amendment made during prosecution precludes the equivalent in question.”
