With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to make public or “available” those portions of the prior art that anticipated Smarts’ patents. In other words, Smarts would have this Court foreclose Delphi as prior art based on the inadequacy of a demonstration when it is not at all clear — by Smarts’ own design — what could or should have been demonstrated, or what aspect of the Delphi software was, in fact, anticipatory. Triable issues thus exist with respect to the application of Sections 102(a), 102(b), and 102(g). It may of course be the case that, given both the nature of the prior art and the extent of Morgan Stanley’s demonstration to third parties, Delphi may not ultimately qualify as prior art under those statutory provisions. However, such issues must be left for another day. C.f Articulate Sys., 53 F.Supp.2d at 63, 75-76 (<HOLDING>). At the present time, the Defendants have

A: holding that despite the lack of a statutory requirement that severe child abuse be shown by clear and convincing evidence due to the consequences of such a finding the clear and convincing standard must be applied
B: holding that issue of whether inventions prior demonstration constituted clear and convincing evidence of patent invalidity was close question properly put to jury
C: holding that in reviewing a defendants motion for judgment of acquittal based on insanity which the defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence the court must determine whether no reasonable jury could have failed to find that the defendants criminal insanity at the time of the offense was established by clear and convincing evidence
D: holding that whether adverse possession was proven by clear and convincing evidence is a factual determination made by the chancellor
B.