With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". have covered the competitor’s product. Where a long period of delay is involved, other inventors may work under the assumption that the patentee is not going to prosecute broader claims; they may develop improvements only to find that they are in-fringers of a later-prosecuted patent. Kingsdown therefore does not preclude an alleged infringer from asserting these kind of circumstances as grounds for a prosecution laches defense. Moreover, a bright line rule that the prosecution laches defense never applies when a terminal disclaimer has been filed would run contrary to the principle that “with its origin in equity, a determination of laches is not made upon the application of mechanical rules.” A.C. Aukerman, 960 F.2d at 1032; see also Cruz v. Melecio, 204 F.3d 14, 23 (1st Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). While it certainly is appropriate to weigh

A: holding that federal courts sitting in diversity should apply state law that determines the outcome of the case
B: holding that in determining the voluntariness of a waiver of miranda rights a court must evaluate the totality of the circumstances
C: holding that a court in sitting in equity should assess the totality of the circumstances and customtailor appropriate relief
D: holding that the reasonableness inquiry is based upon the totality of the circumstances in determining whether or not a search was reasonable
C.