With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". analogous to those of §§ 102 and 103.” Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015). And § 101 subject matter eligibility is a “threshold test” that typically precedes the novelty or obviousness inquiry. Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 602, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 177 L.Ed.2d 792 (2010); see also Manual of Patent Examining Procedures § 2103 “Patent Examination Process” (9th ed., Nov. 2015) (listing steps of the patent examination process, with “[d]e-termine whether the claimed invention complies with 35 U.S.C. 101” listed before “[d]etermine whether the claimed invention complies with 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103”). But § 101 subject-matter eligibility is a requirement separate from other patenta-bility inquiries. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90, 132 S.Ct. 1289 (<HOLDING>); Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 at 190, 101 S.Ct. 1048

A: recognizing that the  101 inquiry and other patentability inquiries might sometimes overlap but that shifting the patenteligibility inquiry entirely to these other sections risks creating significantly greater legal uncertainty while assuming that those sections can do work that they are not equipped to do
B: holding that neglect was not excusable where the defendants did not do all that they were required to do after they received the summons and complaint in that they did not contact a lawyer or make any other arrangements with respect to their defense
C: recognizing that rates awarded in other cases do not set the prevailing market rateonly the market can do that
D: recognizing that to shift the patenteligibility inquiry entirely to  102 103 and 112 risks creating significantly greater legal uncertainty while assuming that those sections can do work that they are not equipped to do
A.