Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
was surrendered,” or those that “have only a peripheral relation to the reason the amendment was submitted.” Id. at 1841, 62 USPQ2d at 1712. Nor is recourse to the doctrine of equivalents foreclosed where there is “some other reason suggesting that the patentee could not reasonably be expected to have described the insubstantial substitute in question.” Id. at 1842, 62 USPQ2d at 1714. The patentee bears the burden of overcoming the presumption by “showing that the amendment does not surrender the particular equivalent in question.” Id. at 1842, 62 USPQ2d at 1713. An estoppel also may be found on the basis of arguments made during prosecution of the application to secure the allowance of claims. See Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973, 979, 52 USPQ2d 1109, 1113 (Fed.Cir.1999) ; Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that evidence of the scope of a particular claim can be found on review of other claims
B. 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
C. holding that in order for claim to be within scope of coverage of title insurance policy it must be specifically provided for
D. holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury
E. holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court to determine
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.