With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". counterclaimed asserting that the Fox Patent was invalid, that Ethicon’s devices infringed U.S. Surgical’s United States Patent Number 5,031,814 (the “Tompkins Patent”), and that Ethicon’s devices infringed U.S. Surgical’s United States Patent No. 5,156,315 (the “Green ’315 Patent”). On March 21 and 22, 1994, the Court held a hearing on the Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Final arguments were heard on April 4, 1994. We denied the Plaintiffs motion. See Ethicon Endo-Surgery v. United States Surgical Corp., 855 F.Supp. 1500 (S.D.Ohio, 1994). The ease was set for Summary Jury Trial on April 10, 1994. On the eve of the summary jury trial, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed.Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). The Parties agreed that the Markman decision

A: holding that when agreement is reasonably susceptible to more than one construction issue is properly submitted to jury for resolution as a matter of fact
B: holding that if precise issue is not clear in statute reviewing court must not simply impose its own construction but must determine whether agencys construction is permissible
C: holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury
D: holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court to determine
D.