With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Nor is this a situation where HTC proposes a new claim construction on appeal or where we must adopt a new construction of the method claims in order to rule in the appellant’s favor. There is no dispute here that HTC consistently argued below and on appeal that the method claims do not require a separate diverting entity. See, e.g., J.A. 571 (“The language of claim 1 does not preclude the same structure from performing the diverting step and the controlling step.”); Appellant Br. 23 (“The text of Claim 1 does not expressly or implicitly require separate structures to perform the ‘diverting’ and ‘controlling’ steps.”). Thus, this is not a situation where HTC simply waived its claim invalidity argument with respect to the method claims. Contrary to the m 1361, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (<HOLDING>); Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951,

A: holding that a priorart reference did not anticipate claims 1 4 and 712 but that it did anticipate claim 20
B: holding that a reasonable officer could not have been expected to anticipate that ten to fifteen minutes of unauthorized detention would amount to a greater than de minimis injury
C: holding that failure to predict future law or to anticipate arguments that blossomed after trial is not a basis for ineffective assistance of counsel claims
D: holding that it was reasonable that counsel would not anticipate that the prosecution would attempt to offer inadmissible polygraph evidence
A.