With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1040, 137 L.Ed.2d 146 (1997). Alternatively, under the function-way-result test, an element in the accused device is equivalent to a claim limitation if it “performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain substantially the same result.” Schoell v. Regal Marine Indus., Inc., 247 F.3d 1202, 1209-10 (Fed.Cir.2001). “Where the evidence is such that no reasonable jury could determine two elements to be equivalent,” summary judgment of non-infringement under the doctrine of equivalents is proper. Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 39 n. 8, 117 S.Ct. 1040. Summary judgment has been rejected because of conflicting expert testimony on the application of the function-way-result test. Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Rexam Bev. Can Co., 559 F.3d 1308, 1315 (Fed.Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). III. NETAPP’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF

A: holding that conflicting expert evidence regarding function establishes material issue of fact
B: holding that it is function of trial court to judge witnesses credibility and to weigh conflicting evidence
C: holding that it is trial courts function to evaluate witness credibility and weigh conflicting evidence
D: holding that the necessity of choosing between the appellants two conflicting versions of a material fact does not defeat summary judgment
A.