With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Morgan Stanley, it is sufficient to the task at hand — surviving a motion for summary judgment. The Defendants have offered enough evidence that a triable issue exists as to the applicability of Sections 102(a), 102(b), and 102(g). More specifically, the Defendants have offered the corroborating declaration of Igor Klener, an employee of Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”), and from 1992 until 1998 the Cisco sales representative responsible for Cisco’s Morgan Stanley account. Klener states: [I]n 1993 or 1994, I learned about the functionalities and capabilities of Morgan Stanley’s network management program Delphi from Morgan Stanley representatives. My general understanding about Delphi, which I obtained from discussions with Morgan Stanley representatives a .3d 1154, 1159-60 (Fed.Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Harrington, 815 F.2d at 1480-81 (finding that

A: holding that jury could have properly concluded that demonstration of invention at party constituted public use
B: holding that defendant had unqualified right to the jury list but not the jury qualification questionnaires without some demonstration of necessity
C: holding that public demonstration of electronic organ at show for national association of music manufacturers constituted public use under section 102b despite fact that instrument was not then available for sale to the public
D: holding that because public use of a beach was permissive the public was a licensee and as such could be excluded from the whole area at any time by the title owner
A.