With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". held that a claim to artificial alizarine covered an old and well-known substance, the alizarine of madder, which could not be patented although made artificially for the first time. 111 U.S. 293, 311, 4 S.Ct. 455, 28 L.Ed. 433 (1884); see also id. at 308-09, 4 S.Ct. 455 ("It is very plain that the specification of the original patent, No. 95,465, states the invention to be a process for preparing alizarine, not as a new substance prepared for the first time, but as the substance already known as alizarine, to be prepared, however, by the new process, which process is to be the subject of the patent, and is the process of preparing the known product alizarine from anthracine.” (emphases added)). 7 . We note that Bergy is no longer binding law. Bergy was the companion case to Chark 8) (<HOLDING>). MOORE, Circuit Judge, concurring-in-part. I

A: holding that plaintiffs negligence claims sounded in tort and thus could not be transferred to the united states court of federal claims
B: holding claims to artificial ultramarine that contains nonfloatable impurities invalid as not inventive and thus as obvious
C: holding that claims that were internally contradictory were invalid as indefinite
D: holding that claims that contradicted the specification were invalid as indefinite
B.