With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". refer). The ambiguities are not persuasively resolved by the parol evidence on this record. It is also unclear whether Array breached his purchase agreement with SNA, because it is unclear whether the non-copy provision in the contract would apply to a situation where he had molds made from a plane other than his own. Additionally, as to both Horizon Unlimited’s contract and Karlsen’s contracts, if the parol evidence does establish they mean what plaintiff contends, there is a serious question whether the contracts are enforceable as a matter of public policy because of their attempt to create a private patent for a product not qualifying for federal patent law protection. See Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 109 S.Ct. 971, 108 L.Ed.2d 118 (1989) (<HOLDING>); compare Aronson v. Quick Point Pencil Co.,

A: holding action did not arise under the patent laws
B: holding that a state law prohibiting a pass through of a gasoline tax to customers was preempted by federal law
C: holding that florida statute prohibiting using direct molds to copy unpatented boat hulls was preempted by federal patent laws
D: holding florida exemption statute for employee benefit plans was not preempted by erisa due to savings clause
C.