With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 609 establishes “permissive,” “non-burdensome,” “free of risk,” and “gently suggestive at best, and certainly not mandatory” standards for foreign language references. For example, SEL notes that MPEP § 609 does not require that the applicant discuss differences between the cited information and the claims. See MPEP § 609A(3); see also Duty of Disclosure, 57 Fed.Reg. 2021, 2026, cmts. 24 & 26 (1992) (stating that Rule 56 does not require that applicant combine references against its own claims or analyze references.). According to SEL, its technical compliance with the PTO Rules should weigh against an inference of intent to deceive the examiner. Cf. Northern Telecom, Inc. v. Datapoint Corp., 908 F.2d 931, 939, 15 USPQ2d 1321, 1327 (Fed.Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). As further proof of its good faith, SEL

A: holding that amendment made as of right under mpep weighs against an inference of intent to deceive
B: holding that even  gross negligence does not of itself justify an inference of intent to deceive
C: holding that a finding that particular conduct amounts to gross negligence does not of itself justify an inference of intent to deceive
D: holding that conduct amounting to gross negligence does not by itself justify an inference of intent to deceive
A.