Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): involved enablement: [1] to require the patentee to describe his invention so that others may construct and use it after the expiration of the patent and [2] to inform the public during the life of the patent of the limits of the monopoly asserted, so that it may be known which features may be safely used or manufactured without a license and which may not. Id. at 57, 59 S.Ct. 8. The Court then concluded that even if the original specification enabled the use of a flexible web, the claim could derive no benefit from it because “that was not the invention which [the patentee] described by his references to an extremely rigid web.” Id. at 58-59, 59 S.Ct. 8 (emphasis added); see also MacKay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 98-102, 59 S.Ct. 427, 83 L.Ed. 506 (1939) (<HOLDING>). Although the Court did not expressly state 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that claims that were internally contradictory were invalid as indefinite (B) holding that contractual conditions printed on cruise ticket were valid even though they were in small type (C) holding that claims that contradicted the specification were invalid as indefinite (D) holding invalid claims amended to include structures not within the invention described in the application even though the variations were small (E) holding that the amended complaint could not relate back to the original complaint in which all claims were barred by the statute of limitations
Output (English): holding that the amended complaint could not relate back to the original complaint in which all claims were barred by the statute of limitations