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.

Q: 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

A: (B)
****
Q: Under section 22.011(c), a "child" is a person "younger than 17 years of age who is not the spouse of the actor." Id. 22.011(c)(1). A "spouse" means a person who is legally married to another. Id. 22.011(c)(2). Legal marriage in Texas requires a marriage license or proof of an informal marriage. See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. 2.001(b), 2.401 (Vernon 2006). A marriage license may not be issued for the marriage of persons of the same sex. See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. 2.001(b). An informal marriage is solely recognized between a man and a woman. Id. 2.401. Here, because the State clearly showed that J.B. is a male and that appellant is male, the evidence is legally sufficient to prove that appellant was not married to J.B. See Jacques v. State, 579 S.W.2d 247, 248-49 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) (<HOLDING>); Henson v. State, 638 S.W.2d 504, 505
Holding statements: (A) holding that money invested in voluntary investment plan during marriage was marital property because it was property acquired during marriage (B) holding that the law to be applied in determining the validity of an outofstate marriage is the law of the state in which the marriage occurred (C) recognizing that basis for deportation was aliens misrepresentation about his marriage not the validity of his marriage (D) holding husband could not have marriage annulled because wife was pregnant by him at time of marriage (E) holding that appellants substantive rights were not prejudiced by omission in indictment that complainant was not the spouse of the defendant because it had been clearly shown that both appellant and complainant were male and that they could not have obtained marriage license nor entered into commonlaw marriage

A: (E)
****
Q: OF THE COURT GREENBERG, Circuit Judge. I. JURISDICTION Thomas J. Capano appeals from an order entered in the district court on June 27,1997, holding that he waived the attorney work product privilege with respect to certain documents he created which the United States seized from a third party pursuant to a subpoena. The district court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 3231, and we have jurisdiction to review the order of the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. Cf. In re Grand Jury, 111 F.3d 1066, 1073-77 (3d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In July
Holding statements: (A) holding that a denial of an order to quash a subpoena not directed to a movant was a final order if the movant had no further opportunity to challenge the subpoena (B) holding that taxpayer who is the target but not the recipient of an administrative subpoena pursuant to 26 usc 7602 may challenge the subpoena (C) holding that denial of motion to vacate discovery order and to quash subpoena issued pursuant to 28 usc 1782 constitutes final appealable decision (D) holding that a denial of a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena is not final and therefore not appealable (E) holding that an order denying a motion to vacate a 1782 order and denying a motion to quash the subpoena was immediately appealable

A:
(A)
****