With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See Avia Group Int’l, Inc. v. L.A. Gear Calif., Inc., 853 F.2d 1557, 1564 (Fed.Cir.1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 301 (Fed.Cir.1985). Moreover, a challenger’s burden of proof is particularly high when the alleged invalidating material was reviewed by the patent examiner. See Rhenalu, 224 F.Supp.2d at 800. An obviousness analysis begins with an evaluation of the state of art at the time of the claimed invention. See Sensonics, Inc., v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed.Cir.1996). It is improper to use the patents-in-suit as a guide through the prior art. See Monarch Knitting Mach. Corp. v. Sulzer Morat GmbH, 139 F.3d 877, 882 (Fed.Cir.1998); see also, Croum Operations Int’l Ltd. v. Solutia, Inc., 289 F.3d 1367, 1376 (Fed.Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Universal and Sandel argue that the Chazelle

A: holding that causation cannot be proved based on speculation
B: holding that disqualification cannot be based on blumettis prior record of misconduct if the precipitating act was excusable
C: holding new trial cannot be based on claim of prejudice arising from jurys reliance on evidence admitted without objection
D: holding that obviousness cannot be based on the hindsight combinations selectively culled from the prior art
D.