In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Ex Input:
not explicitly mentioning the prior art problem of having to store complete copies of the web site’s content on multiple servers, claim 6 contains provisions that refer to the solution to this problem: the preamble language indicating that the nodes (servers) contain different resources, and the steps relating to the delayed resource-binding aspect of the invention. The claim does not, however, make any reference to the bottleneck problem or to the bypass solution of that problem. Therefore, without explicit claim language relating to the bottleneck problem, we see no reason why the invention as recited in claim 6 must include the bypass feature described in the written description as a solution to that problem. See Honeywell, Inc. v. Victor Co. of Japan, 298 F.3d 1817 (Fed.Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Alteon also relies on the “Detailed 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the computer readable code claimed in claim 6 the product claim was a part or component of that invention (B) holding that claimed invention did not need to solve both problems in the prior art when claim included language addressing only one problem (C) recognizing that courts must be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references to reach the claimed invention without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention (D) holding that the moving party must show prior art references which alone or combined with other references would have rendered the invention obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (E) holding that the one challenging the patent must in part show that the subject matter of the sale or offer to sell fully anticipated the claimed invention or would have rendered it obvious by its addition to the prior art

Ex Output:
(B)


Ex Input:
may give such retroactive effect to these legal clarifications because “where ... a court is addressing transactions that occurred at a time when there was no clear agency guidance, it would be absurd to ignore the agency’s current authoritative pronouncement of what the statute means.” Id. Therefore, unless the new regulation “replaces a prior agency determination,” this Court may find that the amendment merely provides an explanation for what the law always has been. Id. In order to determine if the amendments to Regulation E marked a change in the rules or served as an interpretation of existing law, this Court will first look to the stated intent of the Board in proffering the amendments. See First Nat. Bank of Chicago v. Standard Bank & Trust, 172 F.3d 472, 478 (7th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). If an agency plainly states that it is merely 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the drastic sanction of preclusion of expert witnesses was not warranted based on failure to furnish discovery by the discovery deadline when the deadline could have been shifted (B) holding that a bankruptcy rule equivalent to rule 6a ala r civ p should be construed to give the benefit of extending the deadline for submission to the day after the holiday regardless of whether the deadline is expressed as the last day of a period of days or as a date certain (C) holding regulatory amendment extending a banks deadline for returning checks could be given retroactive effect (D) holding that where a legislative amendment changed the exemption provisions of a tax statute defining those eligible for certain exemptions and refunds the amendment could only be applied to tax years after its effective date even where the legislature expressly stated the amendment should have retroactive effect and looked to the law in place during the taxable events to determine if the taxpayer was eligible for a refund (E) holding random traffic stops for license and registration checks are contrary to fourth amendment

Ex Output:
(C)


Ex Input:
the motion court found: Movant’s counsel’s strategy was to resolve the Federal Charges before the State Court charges, so that any sentences on the State Court charges could be run concurrently with the sentences imposed on the Federal charges. Trial counsel believed that if Movant was first sentenced on the State Court charges, the subsequent federal sentences would almost certainly be run consecutive to the State Court sentences. Therefore, trial counsel’s trial strategy was to continue Movant’s State Court case [ ] to be resolved after the Federal Court case was resolved. It is not ineffective assistance of counsel to make a reasonable strategic decision designed to benefit a defendant in the sentencing proceedings. See, e.g., State v. Nunley, 923 S.W.2d 911, 923 (Mo. banc 1996) (<HOLDING>). Point denied. 2. Alleged Violation of the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that counsel was not ineffective for failing to present mitigating evidence at sentencing because the trial record clearly indicated that the sentencing judge was aware of many of the mitigators that counsel was presenting to this court on appeal (B) holding that because appellant had waived review of constitutional challenge to sentencing statute by failing to raise it at the first opportunity the trial court correctly proceeded to examine whether the appellants trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise constitutional challenges to the sentencing statutes (C) holding it was reasonable trial strategy for counsel to have determined that sentencing by the court was preferable to sentencing by a jury (D) holding that the constitutional level of punitive damages is not a finding of fact that must be determined by the jury it may be determined de novo by the court (E) holding that constitution protected right to counsel at sentencing even where it was waived at trial

Ex Output:

(C)