With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in use at a post office, but neither Judin nor his attorney attempted to obtain a device from the Postal Service or the manufacturer so that they could more closely observe the device, nor was any attempt made to dissect or “reverse-engineer” a sample device. Attorney Van Der Wall reviewed one of the asserted patent claims and stated that he “saw no problem with it.” “Determining infringement, however, requires that the patent claims be interpreted and that the claims be found to read on the accused devices.” S. Bravo Systems, Inc. v. Containment Technologies Corp., 96 F.3d 1372, 1375, 40 USPQ2d 1140, 1143 (Fed.Cir.1996). As in S. Bravo Systems, there is no evidence that Judin or his attorneys “compared the accused devices with the patent claims” prior to filing the complaint. See id. (<HOLDING>). By viewing the accused devices at a distance

A: holding that bia abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen
B: holding that district court abused its discretion in denying rule 60b1 motion without conducting equitable analysis
C: holding that trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion for rule 11 sanctions without adequate explanation
D: holding that a motion for rule 11 sanctions is dispositive
C.