With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Court sought when it enunciated its holding in Pfaff.") 27 . Id. at 1046 (in the wake of Supreme Court precedent, the totality of the circumstances is rejected in favor of a more rigid two-part test, but whether there is an offer for sale of the invention is analyzed with reference to general contract law). 28 . Ferag AG v. Quipp. Inc., 45 F.3d 1562, 1568 (Fed.Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 816, 116 S.Ct. 71, 133 L.Ed.2d 31 (1995); King Instrument Corp. v. Otari Corp., 767 F.2d 853, 860 (Fed.Cir.1985) ("the purchaser need not have actual knowledge of the invention for it to be on sale”), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1016, 106 S.Ct. 1197, 89 L.Ed.2d 312 (1986). 29 . King, 767 F.2d at 861. 30 . See KeyStone Retaining Wall Sys., Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444, 1451 (Fed.Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). 31 . The invention that is the subject matter

A: holding that the one challenging the patent must in part show that the subject matter of the sale or offer to sell fully anticipated the claimed invention or would have rendered it obvious by its addition to the prior art
B: holding that onsale bar triggered by prior commercial offer for sale and subsequent enabling disclosure that demonstrated invention was ready for patenting prior to critical date
C: holding a determination that an invention was onsale within the meaning of the statute requires that a sale be operable the complete invention claimed be embodied in or obvious from the device offered for sale and the sale or offer be primarily for profit rather than for experimental purposes
D: holding in the analogous context of choiceoflaw in relation to the sale of personal property that compensation for arranging the sale is assessed apart from underlying sale
C.