With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is a matter of law, and should be decided by the court. See In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed.Cir.1993); In re Ziegler, 992 F.2d 1197, 1200 (Fed.Cir.1993). Defendants assert that this Court should therefore independently determine whether the patent specifications meet the enablement requirement of Section 112. Although the issue of enablement may be one of law, it is dependent on several factual questions which were appropriately submitted to the jury. See In re Wright, 999 F.2d at 1561 (stating that “[a]s a statutory requirement, enablement is a question of law that we review de novo; however we review for clear error any underlying facts found ... in rendering [the] enablement determination.”); Quaker City Gear Works, Inc. v. Skil Corp., 747 F.2d 1446, 1453-54 (Fed.Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Newell Companies, Inc. v. Kenney

A: recognizing that while the issue of enablement is a matter of law it may involve resolution of subsidiary questions of fact
B: holding that it may be decided as a matter of law
C: 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
D: holding that while subsidiary factual questions are subject to  2254ds presumption the ultimate legal question of confessions constitutional voluntariness is a matter for independent federal determination
A.