With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and was vacated by the Supreme Court and remanded for dismissal as moot. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 444 U.S. 1028, 100 S.Ct. 700, 62 L.Ed.2d 666 (1980). Other CCPA cases cited by the parties and amici were not decided based on patent eligibility. In In re Bergstrom, the court held that pure prostaglandin compounds, PGE(2) and PGE(3), were improperly rejected as lacking novelty. 57 CCPA 1240, 427 F.2d 1394, 1394 (1970); see Bergy, 596 F.2d at 961 (recognizing Bergstrom as a case decided under § 102). Similarly in In re Kratz, the court held non-obviousness claims to synthetically produced, substantially pure 2-methyl-2-pentenoic acid ("2M2PA”), a chemical that gives strawberries their flavor. 592 F.2d 1169, 1170 (CCPA 1979); see also In re King, 27 CCPA 754, 107 F.2d 618, 619 (1939) (<HOLDING>); In re Merz, 25 CCPA 1314, 97 F.2d 599, 601

A: holding claims to vitamin c invalid for lack of novelty as ajppellants were not the first to discover or produce vitamin c in its pure form
B: holding that claims that contradicted the specification were invalid as indefinite
C: holding that claims which were not presented to the motion court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal
D: holding that claims that were internally contradictory were invalid as indefinite
A.